The budget

[hammers4spanner]

So what's happened with this tax lark ?
Do us soke traders need more cash jobs now ?

 

[joni os]

Go with the flow:- Have a zero hour contract with the taxman.

 

[SimonG]

No extra cash jobs. We are business men. The choice now is do we absorb the projected 60 pence a week or pass it on in our hourly rate. Simple business decision.

 

[gassafe]

No extra cash jobs. We are business men. The choice now is do we absorb the projected 60 pence a week or pass it on in our hourly rate. Simple business decision.

Some are saying it's 60p a week others are saying it'll cost 240 quid extra per year!

 

[gassafe]

No extra cash jobs. We are business men. The choice now is do we absorb the projected 60 pence a week or pass it on in our hourly rate. Simple business decision.

Some are saying it's 60p a week others are saying it'll cost 240 quid extra per year!

 

[rpm]

Being a % it will vary from business to business depending on your turnover.

 

[Chalked]

If you made 35, 000 profit, the first 10,000 is free. But it will cost 2% of 25,000- so £250.
Don't know where they are getting the 60p a week from.

The main one that affects me as a ltd co is the reduction from £5000 to £2000 tax free dividends. There's £600 lost!
Looks like being ltd is getting very close to sole trader.

Will need to add 50p an hour to cover that cost. ( works out @ 42.5p)

 

[Chalked]

Duplicate post!

 

[SimonG]

60 pence or a fiver a week, still needs you to make a business decision.

 

[woodsy]

If you made 35, 000 profit, the first 10,000 is free. But it will cost 2% of 25,000- so £250.
Don't know where they are getting the 60p a week from.

The main one that affects me as a ltd co is the reduction from £5000 to £2000 tax free dividends. There's £600 lost!
Looks like being ltd is getting very close to sole trader.

Will need to add 50p an hour to cover that cost. ( works out @ 42.5p)

Totally agree, in same boat myself and reckon his little stunt has cost me £800 plus. So much for encouraging the small business man. Makes you feel like wrapping up the Ltd co, deregistering for vat and carrying out more cash jobs rather than trying to be above board.

 

[woodsy]

If you made 35, 000 profit, the first 10,000 is free. But it will cost 2% of 25,000- so £250.
Don't know where they are getting the 60p a week from.

The main one that affects me as a ltd co is the reduction from £5000 to £2000 tax free dividends. There's £600 lost!
Looks like being ltd is getting very close to sole trader.

Will need to add 50p an hour to cover that cost. ( works out @ 42.5p)

Totally agree, in same boat myself and reckon his little stunt has cost me £800 plus. So much for encouraging the small business man. Makes you feel like wrapping up the Ltd co, deregistering for vat and carrying out more cash jobs rather than trying to be above board.

 

[mfgs]

Its very frustrating that they seem to want to target the small businesses out there for extra revenue when its public knowledge that all big companies are avoiding tax. The big companies can afford very good lawyers who will tie up HMRC with mountains of paperwork so they go for the easy target like us.

They seem to want to bring self employed people in line with employed people for taxable contributions while not taking into account the downsides like no paid holiday, no sick pay, no pension etc

 

[mfgs]

Its very frustrating that they seem to want to target the small businesses out there for extra revenue when its public knowledge that all big companies are avoiding tax. The big companies can afford very good lawyers who will tie up HMRC with mountains of paperwork so they go for the easy target like us.

They seem to want to bring self employed people in line with employed people for taxable contributions while not taking into account the downsides like no paid holiday, no sick pay, no pension etc

 

[REDSAW]

big companies use tax avoidence, think we should up the price by a fiver an hour and cash in-hand avoidence a bit more! lol

someone told me you can claim sick pay as self employed from benefits office?
if so, a week free holiday should ballance the extra increase.

 

[oz-plumber]

They seem to want to bring self employed people in line with employed people for taxable contributions while not taking into account the downsides like no paid holiday, no sick pay, no pension etc

If you're self employed and not charging yourself out at a rate that would cover the cost of employing someone, you're doing something wrong.

In other words, if you employed someone, you would have to include in the hourly rate all that you mentioned above.

If you can't charge yourself out at a minimum of 30% over what an employee would cost you, up your rates or become an employee.

Why work for yourself if you can't make the same wages and benefits you would get as an employee + profit on top for your employer.

 

[WaterTight]

it's basiclly insignificant.

 

[woodsy]

it's basiclly insignificant.

£800 plus might be to you but it certainly ain't to me

 

[woodsy]

it's basiclly insignificant.

£800 plus might be to you but it certainly ain't to me

 

[WaterTight]

couple days work mate. put in a weekend.

onnnnnnly joking. tbh i wasn't paying attention and am not versed in the subject at hand.

nor do i plan to be. but i'm sure it's worth knowing about.

 

[WaterTight]

couple days work mate. put in a weekend.

onnnnnnly joking. tbh i wasn't paying attention and am not versed in the subject at hand.

nor do i plan to be. but i'm sure it's worth knowing about.

 

[rpm]

They have announced that they are now scrapping the idea.

 

[woodsy]

Yep scrapping the ni £240 bit but still gonna be £600 ish in dividend down

 

[Ray Stafford]

its public knowledge that all big companies are avoiding tax.

big companies use tax avoidence,

I really wish someone could tell me how big companies do this. I run one, I employ some really expensive accountants, and yet somehow, I don't seem to find these massive tax avoidance schemes.

The reality is that there are a tiny minority of large companies that manage to get away with murder. However, by HMRC's own figures, of the £36bn in uncollected tax, about £9.5bn is from large businesses and £18.3 bn is from small or medium sized businesses.

It really helps if we start from facts, not from misconceptions promoted by newspapers, many of which, particularly the "right on" guardian, are amongst the worst offenders.

 

[Masood]

I really wish someone could tell me how big companies do this. I run one, I employ some really expensive accountants, and yet somehow, I don't seem to find these massive tax avoidance schemes.

The reality is that there are a tiny minority of large companies that manage to get away with murder. However, by HMRC's own figures, of the £36bn in uncollected tax, about £9.5bn is from large businesses and £18.3 bn is from small or medium sized businesses.

It really helps if we start from facts, not from misconceptions promoted by newspapers, many of which, particularly the "right on" guardian, are amongst the worst offenders.

It could be argued, Ray, that HMRC's figures are presented in a way that suits what they want to portray. I'm aware that some huge companies have negotiated minuscule tax settlements to appease public outcry. HMRC claimed that as a victory and reduced the outstanding tax figures accordingly..

 

[Masood]

I really wish someone could tell me how big companies do this. I run one, I employ some really expensive accountants, and yet somehow, I don't seem to find these massive tax avoidance schemes.

The reality is that there are a tiny minority of large companies that manage to get away with murder. However, by HMRC's own figures, of the £36bn in uncollected tax, about £9.5bn is from large businesses and £18.3 bn is from small or medium sized businesses.

It really helps if we start from facts, not from misconceptions promoted by newspapers, many of which, particularly the "right on" guardian, are amongst the worst offenders.

It could be argued, Ray, that HMRC's figures are presented in a way that suits what they want to portray. I'm aware that some huge companies have negotiated minuscule tax settlements in the face of public outcry and to get the taxman off their backs at presumably a lower cost than their projected legal and accountancy fees. HMRC claimed that as a victory and reduced the outstanding tax figures accordingly..

 

[joni os]

If mine was the small business with a tax liability of £18.3bn , I'd be happy to pay it.
Making 9.5 plus 18.3 add up to 36 must be creative accountancy.

 

[Ray Stafford]

It could be argued, Ray, that HMRC's figures are presented in a way that suits what they want to portray. I'm aware that some huge companies have negotiated minuscule tax settlements in the face of public outcry and to get the taxman off their backs at presumably a lower cost than their projected legal and accountancy fees. HMRC claimed that as a victory and reduced the outstanding tax figures accordingly..

It could Mas, but why would they? HMRC is a spending department, and if they wanted to massage their figures, it would make sense to over-state the issue, in order to obtain more resources from the treasury. If the argument is that they are just trying to "polish their own apple", then why pick on large company issues? Why not cook all the books?

Even if one doesn't accept HMRC's figures, then surely we need at least as authoritative alternative statistics, rather than just "everyone knows"?

If mine was the small business with a tax liability of £18.3bn , I'd be happy to pay it.

No you wouldn't. According to the mantra of the anti-business lobby, you would have grown horns and a tail somewhere along the way.

On a more serious note, you probably are the part-owner of a large business. If you have a pension for example, the fund almost certainly invests in shares, whose dividends will one day pay your pension. When that time comes, I wonder if you would rather the management of the companies your pension fund invested in paid the least tax they legally could, thus maximising your pension, or paid more tax than necessary, at the expense of your nest egg?

Making 9.5 plus 18.3 add up to 36 must be creative accountancy.

There are other areas - for example individuals and some types of tax fraud/crime which make up the missing amount.

I appreciate that I am in a minority here, but I think that this highlights a wider problem with public debate in the UK. There are lots of people who think that the government should spend more money on their personal priorities. Thats fine, I guess there will never be a shortage of demand for public spending.

However, the challenge to any claim for public spending is "where is the money going to come from? Who are you going to tax to pay for it?"

When that question gets asked, the proponent of more spending, instead of honestly arguing that their spending priority is worth, say, 1p on the income tax, just reaches for the easy, populist answer: "just make those evil big companies pay their fair share of tax." Cue a round of applause on Newsnight and a guaranteed good write-up in the Guardian the following day.

In my youth, it was "cancel Trident". At one point in the 80s or 90s, some bright spark worked out that the money saved by the theoretical cancellation of Trident had been spent more than 10 times over by various opposition spokesmen.

Now its a knee jerk anti-business sentiment.

We absolutely need successful businesses in this country. Sure, we should slam down on actual criminal behaviour, but its as big a mistake to say that all businesses are tax crooks as it is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. If you voiced the latter view, you would be shouted down by the very people who take that prejudiced view of business.

 

[Stanios]

We absolutely need successful businesses in this country. Sure, we should slam down on actual criminal behaviour, but its as big a mistake to say that all businesses are tax crooks as it is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. If you voiced the latter view, you would be shouted down by the very people who take that prejudiced view of business.

Except tax avasion isn't the only sin of big businesses. What about severely underpaid staff who then need to rely on government handouts to make ends meet? And I wonder where the government gets money for those handouts, surely from the tax revenue provided by big business? Not.
It is absurd to put anti business and anti muslim sentiment in same league. Businesses exist to make money and will go above and beyond to minimise any unecessary obligations be it tax, social or environmental responsibility or welfare of their employees. I am talking about big corporations here.
It doesn't stop there o no, just look at our politicians plenty of whom are corrupted by interests in these businesses. Just in the news now George Osbourne, still an MP now works for a newspaper owned by a Russian billionaire. And no one cares because it is rife. Are their decisions really driven by the need of people or by their own selfish interests?
There is no defending this system you just have to admit it is not fair, nor does it benefit the long term development of the nation.

 

[Masood]

It could Mas, but why would they? HMRC is a spending department, and if they wanted to massage their figures, it would make sense to over-state the issue, in order to obtain more resources from the treasury. If the argument is that they are just trying to "polish their own apple", then why pick on large company issues? Why not cook all the books?

Even if one doesn't accept HMRC's figures, then surely we need at least as authoritative alternative statistics, rather than just "everyone knows"?

I'll dig out the actual facts Ray but in a nutshell - it was around the time that many huge multinationals were in the spotlight for paying very little or even no tax in the UK - Starbucks, Vodafone amongst others.

The public outcry as why this should be so led to a deal being struck between Vodafone and HMRC whereby Vodafone agreed to pay around 10% of what "ought" to have been paid on their UK profit if they hadn't taken advantage of loopholes, and HMRC agreed to not pursue them for more.

HMRC trumpeted this as a huge success - reassuring the public that they are indeed going after tax avoiders.

The general frustration amongst small businesses is simply that because the huge multinationals have the funds to employ high-powered lawyers to find and exploit loopholes, and then frustrate any investigation by obfuscation and delay, they can get away with paying next to no tax perfectly legally, yet if one of us tried to declare our company as domiciled in a tax haven we'd be hammered.

Tax breaks and sweetheart deals are given to those corporations and MPs end up with positions on the board. Of course, profit is not a dirty word, and the jobs created by the corporations benefit ordinary people but morally, ethically, it is hard to palate.

 

[turnpin]

Seems to me all everyone wants is a sense of fairness I.e those that make most profits pay most taxes and it just ain't happening.....after running costs any company should pay its fair share but many companies like the big boys seem to be able to used tax avoidance schemes instead of doing the right thing and paying what's due....and you only have to look at individuals in soccer and comedy for example who use the excuses like they they are only on borrowed time with their career choices so they need to stash away money for when they cannot earn the thousands of pounds per week they become used earning on every week......then go looking for a knighthood.....Turnpin

 

[rpm]

I'll dig out the actual facts Ray but in a nutshell - it was around the time that many huge multinationals were in the spotlight for paying very little or even no tax in the UK - Starbucks, Vodafone amongst others.

The public outcry as why this should be so led to a deal being struck between Vodafone and HMRC whereby Vodafone agreed to pay around 10% of what "ought" to have been paid on their UK profit if they hadn't taken advantage of loopholes, and HMRC agreed to not pursue them for more.

Picking up on the public outcry, they smashed the windows of local Starbucks many of which were a franchise and guess who footed the bill for new windows.

 

[rpm]

I'll dig out the actual facts Ray but in a nutshell - it was around the time that many huge multinationals were in the spotlight for paying very little or even no tax in the UK - Starbucks, Vodafone amongst others.

The public outcry as why this should be so led to a deal being struck between Vodafone and HMRC whereby Vodafone agreed to pay around 10% of what "ought" to have been paid on their UK profit if they hadn't taken advantage of loopholes, and HMRC agreed to not pursue them for more.

Picking up on the public outcry, they smashed the windows of local Starbucks many of which were a franchise and guess who footed the bill for new windows.

 

[rpm]

Seems to me all everyone wants is a sense of fairness I.e those that make most profits pay most taxes and it just ain't happening..........Turnpin

Couldn`t have put it better mate, fairness.

 

[Ray Stafford]

Couldn`t have put it better mate, fairness.

I agree. But I respectfully submit that fairness requires that each business is judged individually on its own behaviour, and that all businesses are not considered to be as culpable as the headline-grabbing few.

 

[turnpin]

I agree. But I respectfully submit that fairness requires that each business is judged individually on its own behaviour, and that all businesses are not considered to be as culpable as the headline-grabbing few.

I'd go along with that Ray fair point as we should not tar all companies with the same brush.....regards Turnpin