BN66 - your opinions wanted

[sasguru]

It's a way of giving someone bad news, or a b0llocking.


a bit of good news
a bit of sh1te
a bit of good news

=the sh1te butty.


e.g.
Telling someone in your platoon that their mum has died



'Platoon - SHUN. As its mothers day on sunday, everyone who has to get a mum pressie can take the day off to go Shopping, fall out now.'
'Jones - where the **** do you think you're going ??'


'By the way Jones, you are excused latrine duty next thursday'

Oh I see. With my diplomatic skills I usually just present a platter of sh1te, fook the bread.

[MarillionFan]

I think the problem, as Pondlife noted, is that a lot of people cannot repay that recalculated tax.
I can't say I have much sympathy.

WHS

If you've been paying reduced tax for a number of years you've had the benefit of it. If after that period you don't have the money saved, invested, in a house etc and you've bunced it up against the wall and can't repay it then you were an idiot for not investing it.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

But the level of avoidance for someone outside is nowehere as blatant as the BN66 thingy.

True. Most contractor tax avoidance schemes are structured this way.

10% to the promoter
5-10% to the Exchequer
80-85% to the user

Many other types of scheme result in 0% to the Exchequer eg. SDLT avoidance.

What seems bizarre to me, as someone affected by BN66, is that is hasn't had a deterrent effect. More people than ever are using these schemes.

[eek]

True. Most contractor tax avoidance schemes are structured this way.

10% to the promoter
5-10% to the Exchequer
80-85% to the user

Many other types of scheme result in 0% to the Exchequer eg. SDLT avoidance.

What seems bizarre to me, as someone affected by BN66, is that is hasn't had a deterrent effect. More people than ever are using these schemes.

Not bizarre as many people don't understand or have interest in things outside their area of expertise (especially contractors who often fit a very particular personality profile).

Success breeds success so if a scheme can point / introduce you to others happily using their scheme people will see it as trustworthy. The problem really relates to scheme member's total lack of knowledge with people not knowing the questions they needed to ask to get the answers they don't want to here.

[AtW]

1. Totally unrealistic to assume you could get away with it (i.e. paying a nominal amount of tax)
2. Totally immoral and selfish, you do owe something to the rest of society, whether you like it or not.
3. If you tried it and didn't hedge the money you got it coming.

For once completely agree with HMRC, retrospective or not.

HTH

I am late to the party, but I do agree with sasguru.

Retrospectively.

[d000hg]

1. Totally unrealistic to assume you could get away with it (i.e. paying a nominal amount of tax)
2. Totally immoral and selfish, you do owe something to the rest of society, whether you like it or not.
3. If you tried it and didn't hedge the money you got it coming.

For once completely agree with HMRC, retrospective or not.

HTH

I agree with you that it was unrealistic it would last, but not the retrospective part. Loopholes come along from time to time and get closed down as soon as the masses find them and it comes up on HMRC's radar... but finding the loopholes is part of business.

[AtW]

What about the thousands of people who are still doing it through loan schemes and the like? For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?

They probably will be, I'd certainly not get into such scheme or anything that is called "scheme" for that matter.

[AtW]

What seems bizarre to me, as someone affected by BN66, is that is hasn't had a deterrent effect. More people than ever are using these schemes.

And those people will get clobbered very heavily, I am almost tempted to start new placeholder thread called BN666.

[DimPrawn]

What about the thousands of people who are still doing it through loan schemes and the like?

For consistency, shouldn't they be clobbered too?

There's even an advert at the top of this page claiming 80% retention. Take off the promoters 10% fee, and you're looking at 10% tax. I will admit it's not quite as piss taking as 3% but still way below the "fair share".

Without a "fair" share, we can't support our essential public sector parasites

Quango bosses double their pay - Telegraph

[Old Greg]

What I love most about this is the whining from the tax dodgers about the unfairness of it all.

As far as retrospective legislation is concerned, it is clearly permissible because Parliament is sovereign in this regard. The next question is whether it is advisable, and in a democracy the test should be whether it is in the public interest. Which I rather think that it is.