What is employment and why does it matter?

[d000hg]

FTFY

PAYE is like a silent pair of shears, less likely to alarm the sheep make them start bleating as their locks are shorn to the skin !

Most people would much rather be taxed at the time they are paid, than have to save up their tax and pay it in a lump sum. If you never have the money, you miss losing it less

[VectraMan]

Wouldn't that mean everyone has to do a personal tax return every year, and PAYE would break? I thought this was one issue with the US system, hence they have Tax Day?

For the typical worker, PAYE is a great boon IMO.

Same as now. Anyone with a reason has to do a tax return; the majority that are PAYE only just rely on their employer.

The whole system is ludicrously complicated. My tax code has been reduced to 900-and-something to adjust for the BIK for my employer's health insurance. Far better to just keep everyone's allowance the same and make any adjustments by sending a bill/cheque.

[OwlHoot]

For the Government & HMR&C, PAYE is a great boon IMO.

FTFY

PAYE is like a silent pair of shears, less likely to alarm the sheep make them start bleating as their locks are shorn to the skin !

[d000hg]

All this tulip would go away if they simplified it as you suggest, just total up your income (from whatever/wherever) and apply an income tax, preferably with a nice high threshold and progressive and simple banding.

Wouldn't that mean everyone has to do a personal tax return every year, and PAYE would break? I thought this was one issue with the US system, hence they have Tax Day?

For the typical worker, PAYE is a great boon IMO.

[MicrosoftBob]

It's only "fair", think of the "hard working families"!

And the polar bears that will die from global warming if we don't pay more taxes

[DimPrawn]

Why the fook people use word "progressive" in relation to HIGHER taxes? FFS stop it already!

It's only "fair", think of the "hard working families"!

[AtW]

All this tulip would go away if they simplified it as you suggest, just total up your income (from whatever/wherever) and apply an income tax, preferably with a nice high threshold and progressive and simple banding.

Why the fook people use word "progressive" in relation to HIGHER taxes? FFS stop it already!

[DimPrawn]

That's kind of my point. In France, for example, you pay the Social Contributions on income: employment, self-employment, dividend, pension, it doesn't matter, it's all income. For exactly that reason, the taxman doesn't care about your contract status or working practices. His job is to tax your income, not to interfere with your work and your life.

All this tulip would go away if they simplified it as you suggest, just total up your income (from whatever/wherever) and apply an income tax, preferably with a nice high threshold and progressive and simple banding.

But the little oik Osbourne is a devious and lying ****, so that's never going to happen.

[expat]

Because HMR&C remit is to tax everyone into the ground and they tell the govt what nannying laws to pass in order to effect this destruction of personal income.

Or to put it another way, one set of winkers tells the other set of winkers how to screw as much revenue out of everyone as possible. Hence why the obsession with this distinction of employee vs incorporation.

If the tax take was the same, they wouldn't give a toss.

That's kind of my point. In France, for example, you pay the Social Contributions on income: employment, self-employment, dividend, pension, it doesn't matter, it's all income. For exactly that reason, the taxman doesn't care about your contract status or working practices. His job is to tax your income, not to interfere with your work and your life.

[DimPrawn]

I know it matters in practice, and I know why. I whish to ask why that should be so.

Because HMR&C remit is to tax everyone into the ground and they tell the govt what nannying laws to pass in order to effect this destruction of personal income.

Or to put it another way, one set of winkers tells the other set of winkers how to screw as much revenue out of everyone as possible. Hence why the obsession with this distinction of employee vs incorporation.

If the tax take was the same, they wouldn't give a toss.

[expat]

Bit of a daft question. Of course it matters.

Corporate tax rates and bands do not match employee bands, the govt wants to classify as many businesses as employees of their customers as possible to maximise tax take.

I know it matters in practice, and I know why. I whish to ask why that should be so.

[DimPrawn]

Bit of a daft question. Of course it matters.

Corporate tax rates and bands do not match employee bands, the govt wants to classify as many businesses as employees of their customers as possible to maximise tax take.

[expat]

Is the government's continual attempt to categorise "employment" as different from anything else, the source of many problems? Their urge so to categorise is so strong that they will not write down the rules, but rather attempt to make them up as they go along; each attempt, whether successful or not, being a cost to a citizen.

As a source of income, as a contract, as a relationship, it matters whether what you do is categorised as "employment" or not. Isn't this the government continually micromanaging, and indeed exceeding the bounds of its legitimate duties? Why not just let it be irrelevant whether income is from employment or a "different" type of source? Why not leave it unanswered whether a contract is one of employment or one of sale? Why not let the relationship between a contractor and a client be a matter for the parties concerned?

Why is the government a concerned party in everything?