Originally posted by northernladuk
View Post
My point was more in the direction of what people would consider a reasonable amount of tax to pay for what they receive. In the end, the only reason HMRC is so fixated on establishing employment even where there isn't any is because of historical precedents (it is mostly a relic by economic controls imposed during the two great wars and after), income is taxed in most of the West, and taxed on a progressively increasing scale, and usually accompanies 'social security' taxes. Employment does come with certain rights and expectations attached to it but the market is evolving and requires greater flexibility, and the lines are blurring between traditional employment and freelancing. Meanwhile, HMRC is still stuck to some outmoded view of what employment is, and expects everyone to behave that way.
Of course their sole purpose is to maximise their collection of revenue, which even that they arguably do badly, luckily for us. But it is politicians and legislators who ultimately decide tax policy, and whether it is 'fair' or economically desirable from the govt's POV. A process usually hijacked by special interests. IMO, if they're taking more than they need to finance the few necessary functions of the govt, including a basic safety net, they're over-taxing. You can argue that entrepreneurial risk taking etc. should be rewarded, but it already is - by profits. Thus why I say permies are over-taxed. I also concur with ASB's and Malvolio's points.
Comment