The unacceptable face of capitalism

[DodgyAgent]

Why aren't the British middle-classes staging a revolution? - Telegraph

A few notable points here:

(before you all kick off )Recruitment agents are not bright enough or bold enough to pull something like this off

Essentially we cannot be trusted with the freedoms that Thatcher gave us

The left will exploit this for their own benefits rather than try and create and manage a system of capitalism where this sort of thing does not happen

[Unix]

Why aren't the British middle-classes staging a revolution? - Telegraph

A few notable points here:

Recruitment agents are not bright enough or bold enough to pull something like this off

Essentially we cannot be trusted with the freedoms that Thatcher gave us

The left will exploit this for their own benefits rather than try and create and manage a system of capitalism where this sort of thing does not happen

It's clear now full on capitalism doesn't work. neither does full on socialism big government running everything. There is a balance that has to be found. Business should be encouraged but there has to be rules in place to stop this saddling of debt. The tax system should also be linked to the gap between rich and poor to stop it from growing.

[jemb]

It's clear now full on capitalism doesn't work. neither does full on socialism big government running everything. There is a balance that has to be found. Business should be encouraged but there has to be rules in place to stop this saddling of debt. The tax system should also be linked to the gap between rich and poor to stop it from growing.

Which is all very laudable. So who will go first? Will contractors stop using Limited Companies and, instead, use Umbrella companies that ensure that full tax and NICs are paid?

I know that some government departments would like an accredited umbrella scheme that would be used by all contractors in the government sector to ensure that correct tax is paid and removes the slight odour (some would say stink) that sees a PSC as a means of reducing the NIC and tax burden.

[OwlHoot]

Why aren't the British middle-classes staging a revolution? - Telegraph ...

What a load of waffling nonsense. The Telegraph really is the pits these days, a pathetic shadow of its former self.

It may sound harsh, but if phones4u were broken up, it must have been because they were no longer viable, presumably because the mobile phone companies want to flog phones online themselves and keep more of the profit.

And that in turn is because their customers and shareholders are all pennypinchers. So everyone is to blame, not just a few asset strippers smart enough to profit from the inevitable (and good luck to them I say).

[Unix]

Which is all very laudable. So who will go first? Will contractors stop using Limited Companies and, instead, use Umbrella companies that ensure that full tax and NICs are paid?

I know that some government departments would like an accredited umbrella scheme that would be used by all contractors in the government sector to ensure that correct tax is paid and removes the slight odour (some would say stink) that sees a PSC as a means of reducing the NIC and tax burden.

Contractors are nowhere near the richest. The tax system has to be clear no one when offered two legal tax regimes will choose the one paying the most, it's up to the government to make it simpler.

[DodgyAgent]

What a load of waffling nonsense. The Telegraph really is the pits these days, a pathetic shadow of its former self.

It may sound harsh, but if phones4u were broken up, it must have been because they were no longer viable, presumably because the mobile phone companies want to flog phones online themselves and keep more of the profit.

And that in turn is because their customers and shareholders are all pennypinchers. So everyone is to blame, not just a few asset strippers smart enough to profit from the inevitable (and good luck to them I say).

Did you actually read the article?

Phones4U was bought by the private equity house, BC Partners, in 2011 for £200m. BC then borrowed £205m and, having saddled the company with vast amounts of debt, paid themselves a dividend of £223m. Crippled by debt, the company has now collapsed into administration.

[tractor]

...

Which is all very laudable. So who will go first? Will contractors stop using Limited Companies and, instead, use Umbrella companies that ensure that full tax and NICs are paid?

I know that some government departments would like an accredited umbrella scheme that would be used by all contractors in the government sector to ensure that correct tax is paid and removes the slight odour (some would say stink) that sees a PSC as a means of reducing the NIC and tax burden.

I pay the correct amount of tax. If you want laws that work, get rid of the career politicians and put some statespeople in who actually understand what they are doing when they legislate. For decades they haven't been able to see further than the end of their nose.

[tractor]

...

Contractors are nowhere near the richest. The tax system has to be clear no one when offered two legal tax regimes will choose the one paying the most, it's up to the government to make it simpler.

Exactly this. When you spend decades using the taxation system to help your friends and for social engineering purposes, you cannot whine and blame that people arrange their affairs to benefit themselves.

Some of the biggest problems is that successive governments have all been too afraid to tackle issues like the child benefit problem. I am amazed this one has. Benefits for families on £60k? Absolute madness.

[OwlHoot]

... Benefits for families on £60k? Absolute madness.

Not necessarily, if loads of money is saved not having to pick and choose who is entitled to it, and taxes are set so that higher rate tax payers pretty much end up paying it back anyway.

Also, benefits for all is a natural progression, the way of the future if you like, because longer term, employment will become patchy at best for practically everyone.

[jemb]

Contractors are nowhere near the richest. The tax system has to be clear no one when offered two legal tax regimes will choose the one paying the most, it's up to the government to make it simpler.

Ah - so it's not a moral requirement? Don't bleat about inequality if you are prepared to play the system to your advantage.

Contractors are definitely in the top 2% of earners, so not the richest - but the money we take home would seem rather a lot to the other 98%.