Reply to: Government crack down on tax evasion

[Papavar]

You mean like being restricted to 22 days holiday a year (which you have to take or lose) and ensuring that you can't take holiday when someone else is away. And having some smartarse numbskull try and dream up an exciting set of words to write on your performance evaluation to advise why you ain't nearly as good enough as you think you are. And having the toads in HR come up with generous ideas about creature comforts. And being trapped in an employee money laundering scheme which they call a pension scheme. And having to work at least one months notice before you can land your parachute elsewhere. And having to wait to get useful training.

And not forgetting being directed to carry out any task that your employer thinks falls within your remit.

I'll take the contracting please.

I'm with this guy. I'm working through an umbrella so basically paying a small fortune in tax but still much prefer being a contractor; I can take breaks between contracts, am not bound by ridiculous permi co. restrictions like capped payrises and doing three jobs for the price of one, and I don't have to complete endless performance management forms.

[Saddo]

excuse me for being a bit thick her

Is that optional?

Also, since "it was just following the rules" was an often heard bleat last year, how will tax avoidance (especially applied in arrears) be morally acceptable by this shower?

You want the other lot back in?

[neil987]

excuse me for being a bit thick her

I believe our glorious PM "earns" 150 - 200K.

I also believe he gets free use of a house in central London and a weekend place in the country which are not wholly for work use.

How much does he pay in tax as a benefit in kind?

Also, since "it was just following the rules" was an often heard bleat last year, how will tax avoidance (especially applied in arrears) be morally acceptable by this shower?

[Saddo]

Because if you're going to pay tax like an employee, you might just as well be an employee and have the benefits of being an employee. I'd have thought that much was obvious.

You mean like being restricted to 22 days holiday a year (which you have to take or lose) and ensuring that you can't take holiday when someone else is away. And having some smartarse numbskull try and dream up an exciting set of words to write on your performance evaluation to advise why you ain't nearly as good enough as you think you are. And having the toads in HR come up with generous ideas about creature comforts. And being trapped in an employee money laundering scheme which they call a pension scheme. And having to work at least one months notice before you can land your parachute elsewhere. And having to wait to get useful training.

And not forgetting being directed to carry out any task that your employer thinks falls within your remit.

I'll take the contracting please.

[Flashman]

Look on the bright side - if they take away (say) 20% of your income then the end result will be that rates will go up accordingly. Like everything, there is no free lunch.

Thus making employing 'Highly Skilled' Migrants even more attractive.

Vince Cable will be pleased.

[Fred Bloggs]

Why should it end contracting as we know it? Is the only reason you contract the ability to receive some of your earnings free of NICs?

Because if you're going to pay tax like an employee, you might just as well be an employee and have the benefits of being an employee. I'd have thought that much was obvious.

[Ignis Fatuus]

I agree, it is what I fear most. It will end contracting as we know it, as I understand as has happened in Oz under those rules.

Why should it end contracting as we know it? Is the only reason you contract the ability to receive some of your earnings free of NICs?

[RockTheBoat]

Top notch journalism

mwahahahahahaha

Tax avoiders face 'ruthless' clampdown :: Contractor UK

well done CUK

take the rhetoric of a LibDem speech and then get the opinion of someone who runs a contractor umbrella company (i.e. someone with no vested interest in promoting his own position..... NOT).

Really CUK, please try a little harder next time

[Saddo]

I agree, it is what I fear most. It will end contracting as we know it, as I understand as has happened in Oz under those rules.

Well, it will probably hurt whatever they do. But at least the certainty will be there (we hope!). So long as it applies fairly to everyone fine. But I'll bet these bar stewards figure out a form of weasel words to ensure them and their mates will have a get-out clause.

Look on the bright side - if they take away (say) 20% of your income then the end result will be that rates will go up accordingly. Like everything, there is no free lunch.

[Fred Bloggs]

I think we might end up with either

(i) something like the Australian 80/20 system
or
(ii) the calcs are reversed so that income tax is applied to divis first, then salary - currently the other way round (which is why we all pay ourselves low salaries).

I agree, it is what I fear most. It will end contracting as we know it, as I understand as has happened in Oz under those rules.

[moorfield]

I think we might end up with either

(i) something like the Australian 80/20 system
or
(ii) the calcs are reversed so that income tax is applied to divis first, then salary - currently the other way round (which is why we all pay ourselves low salaries).

[VectraMan]

I have a feeling that when they simplify it, that is exactly what is going to happen, everyone pays NI, I don't think it'll be 20 grand more like 40 or 50 though. If they were going to abolish it they would have proclaimed it from the roof tops, the Tories at any rate, but I don't hear that, I hear "simplify" newspeak for raising tax, I would say.

If they just put NI on dividends, the whole problem would go away. It's the attempt to single out one particular type of person paid by dividends (i.e. contractors) whilst being seen to encourage little old ladies to invest that's the issue. Typical New Labour approach of introducing rules, then introducing exceptions to the rules because they didn't like the way some people were able to take advantage of those rules, then introducing exceptions to those exceptions because they didn't like the way some people were able to take advantage of those exceptions to the rules, etc.

[Fred Bloggs]

"Simply followed tax rules." That to me sounds uncannily like the definition for tax avoidance. What a bunch of f***ing hypocrites. Well I've got bad new for Clegg and Cable, while there are tax laws, there will be ways to legally minimise the amount you have to pay.

What do you expect from Liberals? In fact, what do you expect from virtually any politician?

[Vallah]

Mr Cable also insisted the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury had done "nothing improper", with regards to CGT. He said Mr Alexander had never "flipped" designations and simply followed tax rules

"Simply followed tax rules." That to me sounds uncannily like the definition for tax avoidance. What a bunch of f***ing hypocrites. Well I've got bad new for Clegg and Cable, while there are tax laws, there will be ways to legally minimise the amount you have to pay.

[richy]

Yep, Danny Alexander compared tax avoidance to benefit cheats.

Also, maybe just semantics, but he referred to it as "avoidance and evasion" several times, with the word avoidance coming first - as if avoidance had the primary precedence.

I suggest you report Mr Alexander to the HMRC fraud tip off line. He evaded paying capital gains tax, and included expenses which were not "wholly and necessarily incurred" for his family to save paying tax.

Vince Cable and Nick Clegg defend Danny Alexander against tax claims | Politics | STV News