After Osbourne's attack on IT contractors

[tractor]

...

THey do pay taxes. And I do wonder how much could be saved by not letting retired bankers in Surrey ride on the buses for free?

None I suspect but it would satisfy your spite. Maybe you could be chancellor when you grow up.

Regardless of how much tax anyone pays, ALL benefits should be means tested. The tests should satisfy the 'need' element and be proportionate.

It is ridiculous that such people are entitled to a winter fuel allowance and such.

[Zero Liability]

That's why we charge ~2X as much per day (or more?) in the first place.

Many contractors find working through an umbrella is still financially advantageous to being a permie in the same role, so all this crap about paying too much tax under the new setup is... well, crap.

You've just been spoiled by having it both ways for too long.

If you're not enjoying the legal protections of a permie and are not engaged on the same basis, on what basis should the tax be identical, given that the tax system is already predicated on differential rates for incentive purposes?

You start in all these discussions by assuming permie tax is some sacred standard to which all other tax rates should be compared, when arguably it is what is too high.

There is no 'privilege' in being allowed to keep more of one's own earned income.

[tractor]

I am a so-called baby boomer, I am not any richer than anyone else here, and I take great exception to the lingering whinge from younger people to the effect that people of my generation have somehow taken more than they have put in.

We would need a separate thread for this, but just by way of having a go at one example I have often heard: we do not have "gold-plated pensions". Some people did get DB pensions, because employers offered them. We boomers did not go and seize them. And of course I don't have one, because I am a contractor.

Nor do we have inflated state pensions that we did not pay for. All we did was pay in over our whole working lives for the state pensions of our parents' generation, who themselves had not paid in because the pensions were not there yet. We could have paid for our own pensions and let our parents rot, but we thought that was a social contract between the generations so we paid for them; now we find that the next generation wants to back out of that. Well fine, but don't accuse us of being selfish: we paid our dues and now you don't want to - it is you who are being selfish there.


I'll do house prices too if anyone's listening.....

This is the problem when people generalise. It is no different when ALL contractors are tarred with the same MGB brush. Especially when it is a supposed fellow contractor running around with the brush.

[expat]

I'm listening. I said boomers were wealthy, not selfish; and by implication should be paying more. If the country is so wonderful now the boomers have had their fill; why is it so economically in the tulip? Why should the young, who's outlook looks very much worse than their parents be responsible for mummy and daddies credit card bill?

Are you sure you're not saying that boomers are selfish? It reads pretty like it!

Anyway I also dispute the generalisation that boomers are wealthy. By all means target the wealthy to make them pay their share. Please do not target an entire group based on some other criterion such as birth date, on the specious grounds that "they are all wealthy".

It sounds to me as though you are not talking about making the wealthy pay their share, whether they are born in the "baby boom" years or not; you are talking about demonising an entire huge group of people regardless of their circumstances, based on something outside their control.

As I say, if you want to tax the wealthy, then tax the wealthy. Do not simply assert that all boomers are wealthy, then tax all the boomers.

[tractor]

...

TykeTwerp is a deluded, holier than thou, tulip don't stink, ivory tower dwelling, God complexed, tedious little man.

As such it's really not worth giving him the time of day, let alone getting into a debate with him.

Also don't think this is some crusade against contractors. That credits GO actually did this with some kind of joined up thinking. I doubt it. It was most likely just a cash grab to try and fund some of their vote winning policies.

And you are probably D000gh. Same old, same old. He starts a fight and you wait for Tykemerc to say something and you run in and pinch his ass from behind and run away again.

[expat]

Regardless of how much tax anyone pays, ALL benefits should be means tested. The tests should satisfy the 'need' element and be proportionate.

It is ridiculous that such people are entitled to a winter fuel allowance and such.

I agree with that completely. I just think that attributing financial problems to retired bankers in Surrey with free bus passes is a bit of a diversion from any sensible analysis of serious problems.

[expat]

If you're not enjoying the legal protections of a permie and are not engaged on the same basis, on what basis should the tax be identical, given that the tax system is already predicated on differential rates for incentive purposes?

....

Possibly on the basis that tax is not a purchase price, so what you pay is not related to what you get personally.

[suityou01]

And you are probably D000gh. Same old, same old. He starts a fight and you wait for Tykemerc to say something and you run in and pinch his ass from behind and run away again.

Another sockie.

[tractor]

...

I agree with that completely. I just think that attributing financial problems to retired bankers in Surrey with free bus passes is a bit of a diversion from any sensible analysis of serious problems.

If this were the case, they would never have had to change the rules and introduce income bands for Child Benefit. No wonder the tax code rivals Britannica in volume.

Still, gotta keep all the lawyers and hangers on in the Civil Service and the Lords in work now, don't we?

[TykeMerc]

TykeTwerp is a deluded, holier than thou, tulip don't stink, ivory tower dwelling, God complexed, tedious little man.

As such it's really not worth giving him the time of day, let alone getting into a debate with him.

Also don't think this is some crusade against contractors. That credits GO actually did this with some kind of joined up thinking. I doubt it. It was most likely just a cash grab to try and fund some of their vote winning policies.

You are a serial liar who was happy to post illegal, actionable vitriol and claimed to leave for good, yet here you are again, just how much credibility does that grant you?

As to the daily rate being 2x that of permies, that's comparing apples with raspberries, it completely ignores the costs associated with employing people.