Reply to: Income Shifting petition

[TheFaQQer]

First they came for the income shifters, but I said nothing, for I was not an income shifter.

I don't like the term "income shifter".

I agree with the sentiment, but couldn't come up with anything succinct to include in my adaptation.

First they came for those that legitimately shared income with a partner or other connected person to reduce their tax liability, but I said nothing, for I did not legitimately share income with a partner or other connected person to reduce my tax liability.

Doesn't seem to scan right for some reason.

[wattaj]

I don't like the term "income shifter".

Perhaps "Family Business Tax" would be more your cup of tea?

[DimPrawn]

First they came for the income shifters, but I said nothing, for I was not an income shifter.

I don't like the term "income shifter". Sounds too much like c-ockney rhyming slang for "shirt lifter".

[wattaj]

Given the PCG's rather unique ability to f8ck up even the most mundane issues (employment regs), Im picking that this bunch of incompetent boobs will also stuff this one up too!

You have to question why anyone would want to belong to a group that makes the government look relatively competent!

That's an interesting take on a single issue...
And it neatly ignores the bloody nose dished out during the Arctic Systems case.
Personally, I'm quite glad that there is someone out there who can represent contractors at the highest level.
Of course, and as I have said before, YMMV.

[TheFaQQer]

But that's my point. The representations of the unintended consequences may be listened to.

The complaining of the intended victim will not, IMHO.

And the point that I made previously is, if the latter are too loud the former will be drowned in the noise.

tim

First they came for the income shifters, but I said nothing, for I was not an income shifter.

[Pondlife]

Denny, is that you?

[Mailman]

Folks, the PCG's press campaign against the "Family Business Tax" kicks off this morning.
The additional burden of this legislation could potentially affect us all.
If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to ask you all to take a stand and sign the petition...
It may be quite a small thing in itself, but it is yet another stick with which we can beat the perpetrators of this mean spirited legislation.
Thanks in advance for any and all support.

Given the PCG's rather unique ability to f8ck up even the most mundane issues (employment regs), Im picking that this bunch of incompetent boobs will also stuff this one up too!

You have to question why anyone would want to belong to a group that makes the government look relatively competent!

Mailman

[wattaj]

But that's my point. The representations of the unintended consequences may be listened to.
The complaining of the intended victim will not, IMHO.
And the point that I made previously is, if the latter are too loud the former will be drowned in the noise.

So we, as the "intended", should just keep quiet?
That sounds like quite a defeatist argument...
I would argue that the "unintended" may only become aware of the full impact of this legislation through the noise generated by the "intended".
YMMV of course.

[tim123]

Because this legislation doesn't only affect contractors...
IS/FBT will hit on thousands of small family businesses as an unintended (?) consequence of ill-conceived and reactionary legislation.

But that's my point. The representations of the unintended consequences may be listened to.

The complaining of the intended victim will not, IMHO.

And the point that I made previously is, if the latter are too loud the former will be drowned in the noise.

tim

[Platypus]

worked for me

I did... The number of signatures had advanced by 0.

It worked for me. My name appeared at the end of the list and the number had gone up.

[wattaj]

IMHO the protestations of the intended target will be ignored. Why do you think otherwise?

Because this legislation doesn't only affect contractors...
IS/FBT will hit on thousands of small family businesses as an unintended (?) consequence of ill-conceived and reactionary legislation.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke (?)

Would you do nothing, when you could do something?

However small that something might be.

[DimPrawn]

It would be roughly the same on most fronts, possibly some tinkering but still the same morally corrupt bunch looking after themselves first and foremost.

Stick with Brown and co. in that case. Good luck.

[rootsnall]

How do you know they would be no better? Are you saying that as a hard working person earning good money, you would be worse off?

Are you saying they would do a worse job of the economy?
Are you saying crime would rise above the levels we see now?
Are you saying they would have less control of immigration?
Are you saying they would be less family friendly, be more agressive on IR35?

Are you saying the they would show lower improvements in public services than we are seeing now?

It would be roughly the same on most fronts, possibly some tinkering but still the same morally corrupt bunch looking after themselves first and foremost.

[DimPrawn]

The Tories are no better, how will they change anything ?

How do you know they would be no better? Are you saying that as a hard working person earning good money, you would be worse off?

Are you saying they would do a worse job of the economy?
Are you saying crime would rise above the levels we see now?
Are you saying they would have less control of immigration?
Are you saying they would be less family friendly, be more agressive on IR35?

Are you saying the they would show lower improvements in public services than we are seeing now?

[Churchill]

Vote anything you like, just not Nu Liebore.

That is not a reasonable strategy. Co-ordination is the answer!