Good time to bug your MP

[doodab]

My point was pretty clear from the start.

Only to you.

If you didn't understand you should have asked some constructive questions instead of looking for tiny and irrelevant flaws.

I understood perfectly well, however I was necessarily limited to understanding what you actually said, which was

I don't like IR35 but it is totally fair.

In spite of how you want to dress it we are all just fixed term employees with essentially zero employment rights. I don't see why we should be able to pay less tax.

In fact i don't see why dividends should command lower tax rates anyway, they should just classify dividend tax as part of your income.

which of course doesn't exactly resemble what you ended up saying. If I had been nitpicking I would have asked you what "dividend tax" was but I thought I'd let that slide.

Then you said that IR35

allows us to pay ourselves in dividends. I consider that one of the biggest advantages of being outside IR35.

Which also turned out to be not quite right.

Then you said that

The same should apply for BP shares.

To which I enquired what you meant as this seemed to be saying that dividends should be subject to NI, which of course would result in investment funds paying NI, which seems absurd.

Then you came out with

The fundamental point i am making is that your income is your income, and should be taxed in the same way.

To which I replied "the same way as what" as at this point it really isn't clear whether you mean one kind of income should be taxed in the the same way as another or that all individuals should be taxed the same way regardless of their situation or some combination of the above.

So you see, the reason I didn't instantly grasp your point is that it took you rather a long time to make it. In fact it took about 10 posts for you to get around to saying that you would merge income tax and NI, and that was with me repeatedly asking you what you actually meant.

Anyway, moving on, you'd like to see a flat rate income tax. Would you also do away with the employers side of NI and make up the shortfall with higher income or corporation tax?

I presume dividends would be taxed similarly to now to avoid making salary substantially more attractive than dividend income which would probably have a knock on effect on entrepreneurial and investment activity.

[Robinho]

I don't like IR35 but it is totally fair.

In spite of how you want to dress it we are all just fixed term employees with essentially zero employment rights. I don't see why we should be able to pay less tax.

In fact i don't see why dividends should command lower tax rates anyway, they should just classify dividend tax as part of your income.

Read: We are all inside IR35 because we are all just empolyees really. But there should be no need for IR35 because dividends should be taxed like your income.

I thought it was clear enough and as you only started arguing about the nuances of IR35, it doesn't feel like you had any interest in understanding the point anyway.

You also have this bizarre apples to oranges point going on where you are comparing dividend tax + corporate tax to income tax excluding NI which is confusing the matter further.

To which I replied "the same way as what" as at this point it really isn't clear whether you mean one kind of income should be taxed in the the same way as another or that all individuals should be taxed the same way regardless of their situation or some combination of the above.

This directly followed your comment...

How do you mean? That dividend income should be subject to NI? Is this for all investors or just private individuals? What about other forms of income like rental and capital gains?

You income is your income, be it dividend income, or other kinds of income, and thus should be taxed the same way.

[Sysman]

My message is very simple, even you should be able to understand it. Whatever money you earn from whatever source it should be subject to the same tax rate (which would include NI).

Then you are off your trolley.

[doodab]

Read: We are all inside IR35 because we are all just empolyees really. But there should be no need for IR35 because dividends should be taxed like your income.

I thought it was clear enough and as you only started arguing about the nuances of IR35, it doesn't feel like you had any interest in understanding the point anyway.

You thought it was clear enough, despite at no point suggesting that either IR35 or NI should be abolished, and yet you wonder why no one else took that away from it. I thought you were talking about the fairness of IR35 and your opinion seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of what it actually does.

You also have this bizarre apples to oranges point going on where you are comparing dividend tax + corporate tax to income tax excluding NI which is confusing the matter further.

It's not bizarre, it goes right to the heart of the matter when you are saying that

dividends do have lower rates than pure income tax before you consider NI.

because on the face of it they do, until you consider that dividend income is paid after corporation tax and there is a tax credit involved. Once you take that under consideration, the tax (excluding NI) paid on a dividend and on the same amount of salary is the same.

[Robinho]

I didn't think i'd have to go into detail because we all know that the total tax paid on divs is typically lower than on our income.

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of such a proposal?

[doodab]

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of such a proposal?

I think it would be a good idea to merge tax and NI for employees, the current system is over complex. A flat rate tax appeals if you also get rid of the various tax credits and have a larger personal allowance, probably around £12-15k, but then you pretty much end up with your tax rate being 50%. I'd like to see cohabiting / married couples given an option to combine their allowances and submit a joint tax return as well.

You still need to figure out what you would do with the employers part of NI.

[Robinho]

I consider both parts of NI income tax.

As far as i'm concerned the main reason we have 2 is so politicians can fiddle it to make it look like they're helping people, when they're probably not really because they've fiddled the other one to compensate.

I don't believe in income tax anyway. If i was king i'd get rid of every tax including VAT, income, corporate, divs, NI and have a land value tax. But i'd also cut spending to about 1/3rd of its current total anyway so revenue requirements would be far less.

[OwlHoot]

... If i was king i'd get rid of every tax including VAT, income, corporate, divs, NI and have a land value tax.

Oh God, he's off again, blathering on about this ridiculous land tax

[Robinho]

Oh God, he's off again, blathering on about this ridiculous land tax

More insults, no intelligent arguments

[tractor]

....

More insults, no intelligent arguments

"I don't like IR35 but it is totally fair."

To stick to your point, I'd like to ask you what you are asking of others. How do you come to the conclusion that IR35 is fair and to whom it is 'fair'?

How can if possibly be fair to impose employment taxes upon individuals and to make them do things they don't need to and buy things they don't want or need to in order to look like something they don't need to?

Implementing fairness within the taxation system has absolutely nothing to do with IR35. It is simply a concoction dreamed up to tackle individuals who as a result of the law of unintended consequences, gained a benefit if they arranged their circumstances in a particular way.

As far as land tax goes, I have trouble even comtemplating it as a measure that would keep this country, any country running to any level of civilisation, however much you cut spending.

I suspect if you are serious, you are a turkey voting for Xmas.