Income Shifting...........another way to get the freelancers
Discussion
For all you people out there that work for themselves and share the burden and rewards with your partner.............the IR is after your money, so sign up here to help fight the barstewards
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IncomeShifting1/
The IR lost at the House of Lords (HMRC-v-Artic Systems), and then proudly announced that they were going to draw up a new paper...............and of course they have and it's far more reaching than S660a
Go on sign up you know you want to
Bob
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IncomeShifting1/
The IR lost at the House of Lords (HMRC-v-Artic Systems), and then proudly announced that they were going to draw up a new paper...............and of course they have and it's far more reaching than S660a
Go on sign up you know you want to
Bob
there was a long thread about this in P&P.. not sure if the petition was linked.
(on the face of it I disagree* with you but good luck).
(*although more from the point of view of freelance being more like employed rather than 'a business' not that people shouldn't try and not pay any more tax than they need to..!).
(on the face of it I disagree* with you but good luck).
(*although more from the point of view of freelance being more like employed rather than 'a business' not that people shouldn't try and not pay any more tax than they need to..!).
briSk said:
although more from the point of view of freelance being more like employed rather than 'a business' not that people shouldn't try and not pay any more tax than they need to
Totally disagree with you, I choose when and where to work, 99.9% of employees don’t!And try having a year off work due to a car accident, and then see where the risk sits.
If you are an employee, great, sick pay kicks in, but try getting cover for that as a freelancer and see what the cost is, and then you still got to PROVE you ain’t fit for work, employee’s don’t
of course, it's one of choice, and the one I chose
Noger said:
Employed as in - no holiday pay, no sick pay, no redundancy pay, a days notice to pack your bags and not legally employed anyway (thingy v southern water) ?
Riiiight, I get that.
yes but the reason companies pay less tax than 'individuals' (theorectically) is to enable them to grow with all the 'multiplier' effects that go along with that.Riiiight, I get that.
you can still claim your lunch, drive a navara, etc can't you..?!
i am entirely in agreement with the lack of notice on being made redundant. most of the other things seem to be factored into the higher rates when compared to salaried staff when comparing like for like.
as i have said, good luck.
briSk said:
Noger said:
Employed as in - no holiday pay, no sick pay, no redundancy pay, a days notice to pack your bags and not legally employed anyway (thingy v southern water) ?
Riiiight, I get that.
i am entirely in agreement with the lack of notice on being made redundant. most of the other things seem to be factored into the higher rates when compared to salaried staff when comparing like for like.Riiiight, I get that.
Apologies if it's a bit short of me, but I hear this argument all the time.........!!!
Edited by trescoman on Thursday 3rd January 14:22
trescoman said:
briSk said:
although more from the point of view of freelance being more like employed rather than 'a business' not that people shouldn't try and not pay any more tax than they need to
Totally disagree with you, I choose when and where to work, 99.9% of employees don’t!And try having a year off work due to a car accident, and then see where the risk sits.
If you are an employee, great, sick pay kicks in, but try getting cover for that as a freelancer and see what the cost is, and then you still got to PROVE you ain’t fit for work, employee’s don’t
of course, it's one of choice, and the one I chose
it's horses for courses.
(i am being slightly cantankerous because if i could do what i do 'self-employed' than i would! i still think you have to invest the premium you are getting (/i would get))
trescoman said:
briSk said:
Noger said:
Employed as in - no holiday pay, no sick pay, no redundancy pay, a days notice to pack your bags and not legally employed anyway (thingy v southern water) ?
Riiiight, I get that.
i am entirely in agreement with the lack of notice on being made redundant. most of the other things seem to be factored into the higher rates when compared to salaried staff when comparing like for like.Riiiight, I get that.
Apologies if it's a bit short of me, but I hear this argument all the time.........!!!
Edited by trescoman on Thursday 3rd January 14:22
but no i have not. you don't sound 'short' to me your tone sounds reasonable enough (i hope i don't sound to 'whiny'!).
i do know that a similar role to my wife's is being paid at c 200% of her 'wage'. this person (/these people) does not need any professional indemnity insurance or any of that stuff. they're missing out on is some job security and national inusrance contributions (with the benefit of flexibility and 'more money'). i know someone who works part time and works part time self employed, the same things apply.
Parrot of Doom said:
You should try being self employed with a diary completely empty. You'll soon understand what stress is all about. I've just lost about £4000 of work over 2008, it isn't all rosey.
look don't think i am not sympathetic.and don't think i don't wish people success in getting out of paying tax.
but 'you' are the ones who have chosen:
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
when you could have chosen:
_________________
it's a risk vs reward(inc flexibility) issue.
has anyone ever worked out the equivalency of salried vs 'self-employed' wages? my fag packet calculations seem to generally put a fairly low value on the alleged security of working for someone else. (plus i'll be honest i am assuming 'limited liability').
Edited by briSk on Thursday 3rd January 14:39
Parrot of Doom said:
You should try being self employed with a diary completely empty. You'll soon understand what stress is all about. I've just lost about £4000 of work over 2008, it isn't all rosey.
I'm sitting here, hopefully being paid (time will tell with this client), awaiting them to get off the pot and re-fire the project up again after the dreaded xmas break, so I can get going......................not much fun this !!briSk said:
has anyone ever worked out the equivalency of salried vs 'self-employed' wages? my fag packet calculations seem to generally put a fairly low value on the alleged security of working for someone else. (plus i'll be honest i am assuming 'limited liability').
Yes I did the calc's before I took the jump, and yes it's worth it, providing you do your ground work properly, but even then G Brown always has ways of making one feel uncomfortable. One has to work on the basis of 260 working days pa, less BH's (8) and leave (if afforded) and for god's sake don't get ill :-(
Noger said:
Employed as in - no holiday pay, no sick pay, no redundancy pay, a days notice to pack your bags and not legally employed anyway (thingy v southern water) ?
Speaking as an employer and an employee:Holiday pay is worth about 11% of salary.
Sick pay is discretionary apart from pitiful SSP after 3 days which is fully paid for by the employer.
Statutory redundancy pay is hardly anything unless you work somewhere for years and even then they can go bust and you get nothing. Ditto notice.
Employers have to pay approx 10% NICs on top of salaries.
On that basis, along with a factor for job insecurity, it would probably be fair to pay a "freelancer" approx 20-30% more than equivalent employees. However if they don't pay the same amount of tax, or worse, very much less tax, then the differential starts to look very wrong..
That is the reason GB wants to get his pound of flesh and why the rest of the country don't give a toss about it.
Ean218 said:
Noger said:
Employed as in - no holiday pay, no sick pay, no redundancy pay, a days notice to pack your bags and not legally employed anyway (thingy v southern water) ?
Speaking as an employer and an employee:Holiday pay is worth about 11% of salary.
Sick pay is discretionary apart from pitiful SSP after 3 days which is fully paid for by the employer.
Statutory redundancy pay is hardly anything unless you work somewhere for years and even then they can go bust and you get nothing. Ditto notice.
Employers have to pay approx 10% NICs on top of salaries.
On that basis, along with a factor for job insecurity, it would probably be fair to pay a "freelancer" approx 20-30% more than equivalent employees. However if they don't pay the same amount of tax, or worse, very much less tax, then the differential starts to look very wrong..
That is the reason GB wants to get his pound of flesh and why the rest of the country don't give a toss about it.
I think your 20-30% may be a bit off, I too have done the calc's, however it does have its benefits !!
Ean218 said:
Noger said:
Employed as in - no holiday pay, no sick pay, no redundancy pay, a days notice to pack your bags and not legally employed anyway (thingy v southern water) ?
Speaking as an employer and an employee:Holiday pay is worth about 11% of salary.
Sick pay is discretionary apart from pitiful SSP after 3 days which is fully paid for by the employer.
Statutory redundancy pay is hardly anything unless you work somewhere for years and even then they can go bust and you get nothing. Ditto notice.
Employers have to pay approx 10% NICs on top of salaries.
On that basis, along with a factor for job insecurity, it would probably be fair to pay a "freelancer" approx 20-30% more than equivalent employees. However if they don't pay the same amount of tax, or worse, very much less tax, then the differential starts to look very wrong..
That is the reason GB wants to get his pound of flesh and why the rest of the country don't give a toss about it.
it's not that i wish any 'ills' to anyone. but i don't see that it's 'fair' (good luck to you).
This proposed legislation will affect all self-employments, partnerships and owner-managed close limited companies. Although many sub-contract freelancers are more likely to be targeted by the Revenue, the legislation will give the Revenue the option to look at ANY payments by ANY business to family memebers, whether they be employees, co-directors, co-shareholders or partners.
In effect, the Revenue will require the proprietors of a business to be able to justify
a) why they have paid a family member
b) the income levels they have paid to that family member
The REVENUE will then decide whether the amounts paid are legitimate or not and, if not, decide what element of the payment was excessive and add it back on to the proprietor's own income to be taxed on him/her.
In effect, the Revenue will require the proprietors of a business to be able to justify
a) why they have paid a family member
b) the income levels they have paid to that family member
The REVENUE will then decide whether the amounts paid are legitimate or not and, if not, decide what element of the payment was excessive and add it back on to the proprietor's own income to be taxed on him/her.
trescoman said:
And try having a year off work due to a car accident, and then see where the risk sits.
..the risk sits with the insurance company. Thats what Income Protection is for. I bought it and think its quite reasonably priced. (but then I do create and price these products for the insurance co's, so i'm biased!
)Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff