2021 Budget Predictions
Discussion
wormus said:
...Plan was to draw down on it as salary for coming years. Good plan if the money lasts for long enough but a bit of gamble.
That's part of where the notionally higher rates come into play, but also partly why trying to compare 100% with PAYE and garner parity on one or maybe two specific forms of tax isn't appropriate too. The holistic picture is far more important. Though specific cases also need to be looked at closely too.
Murph7355 said:
My version is that I suspect another large part of the uptick in this method of working is that work is changing very rapidly. The cycles of work and change within the market are shortening and the need for flexibility and shifts in the precise skillsets required is increasing. For a proportion of an organisation's workforce that does not work if you solely utilise full employees.
.
Well there we come to the difference between the activity and the legal structure under which it takes place. Changes in the corporate world create demand for more workers on a short term basis. What would have happened before the legal and taxation changes?, most likely they would have been employed on short term contracts..
My Dad spent a number of years working as a temp in the early eighties. He preferred it which is why he did it for so long and he had a specialist skill that was often in short term demand. He would have done so as a temporary employee, or via an agency, as that was the legal structures of the time.
In all the years I have dealt with contractor companies the only other employee that has ever been on the books is the wife. They aren't genuine trading companies and so any curtailment of them isn't an attack on "entrepreneurship". I can quite understand those who have benefited from them for years being aggrieved, but as I have said before they were a victim of their own success. The more that the middle class switched to them as an easy method of tax avoidance the more the government were going to inevitably crack down.
JagLover said:
Well there we come to the difference between the activity and the legal structure under which it takes place. Changes in the corporate world create demand for more workers on a short term basis. What would have happened before the legal and taxation changes?, most likely they would have been employed on short term contracts.
My Dad spent a number of years working as a temp in the early eighties. He preferred it which is why he did it for so long and he had a specialist skill that was often in short term demand. He would have done so as a temporary employee, or via an agency, as that was the legal structures of the time.
In all the years I have dealt with contractor companies the only other employee that has ever been on the books is the wife. They aren't genuine trading companies and so any curtailment of them isn't an attack on "entrepreneurship". I can quite understand those who have benefited from them for years being aggrieved, but as I have said before they were a victim of their own success. The more that the middle class switched to them as an easy method of tax avoidance the more the government were going to inevitably crack down.
I actually agree with victims of success point, basically any thing that catches on Contracting, Crypto, BTL once the flood gates open the state snatches it away. The big players wealth insulates them and the smaller players then get the tax burden. No one in any of thoes is trying to cause harm or loss to another they are trying to better their life get a head abit. Its what being an entrepreneur is about. What we called in the 80s a bit of a wheeler dealer etc. The state burden is so bif today the government has to take cash from somewhere.My Dad spent a number of years working as a temp in the early eighties. He preferred it which is why he did it for so long and he had a specialist skill that was often in short term demand. He would have done so as a temporary employee, or via an agency, as that was the legal structures of the time.
In all the years I have dealt with contractor companies the only other employee that has ever been on the books is the wife. They aren't genuine trading companies and so any curtailment of them isn't an attack on "entrepreneurship". I can quite understand those who have benefited from them for years being aggrieved, but as I have said before they were a victim of their own success. The more that the middle class switched to them as an easy method of tax avoidance the more the government were going to inevitably crack down.
So if you have 200 BTL's or 1000, bitcoin or grew your ltd into a large consultancy (i know a few who did). Then the changes won't impact you. If like others you bought a secind home, maybe became a contractor to get away from politics at work, have a couple of alt coins. Then the government wants you to know your place.
The difference between you and paye 35 years at same firm person is you took a chance some pay off some don't. It seems a little perverse the government pull the rug out but that is a need of government. Where one thing fails, another will rise. My guess more offshore working.
Murph7355 said:
JagLover said:
The big issue, and why they brought in said "stupid" legislation, is that they want to incentivise entrepreneurship and not tax avoidance. I.E. they want a light tax burden on genuine small businesses that they hope will grow and flourish.
The issue became that as soon as it became more advantageous to contract via a limited company then hundreds of thousands did just that. One of the drivers for that was Brown's changes to the CT rates, though probably the biggest factor was the changing admin burden that made smaller companies easier to run. Until 1993 all companies required an audit and if that had remained the case I very much doubt we would have seen the "contracting via ltd company" boom.
I think that's a little of an over-simplification. Though am prone to it myself.The issue became that as soon as it became more advantageous to contract via a limited company then hundreds of thousands did just that. One of the drivers for that was Brown's changes to the CT rates, though probably the biggest factor was the changing admin burden that made smaller companies easier to run. Until 1993 all companies required an audit and if that had remained the case I very much doubt we would have seen the "contracting via ltd company" boom.
My version is that I suspect another large part of the uptick in this method of working is that work is changing very rapidly. The cycles of work and change within the market are shortening and the need for flexibility and shifts in the precise skillsets required is increasing. For a proportion of an organisation's workforce that does not work if you solely utilise full employees.
The big issue was that many companies (as much as employees) took advantage of that. Their work changed not one iota and we all know of people employed under a Ltd company doing the same jobs as they did as an employee and have been doing so for decades. The basis if IR35 legislation is fair enough, the "stupid" comes into it with the way it is implemented - pretty much underscored by the amount (ie not many) of cases the HMRC have actually won in the last 20yrs. Rather than address that, the govt then implements further sledgehammers to crack the nut.
There can never be any guarantees of what might happen when small companies start. I know of plenty who had zero intention of having no other employees and now do. And vice versa. I do wonder if the approaches being taken will actually hamper productivity, which is something else we really need to get a grip of in this country.
As the CEBR note on CT tax changes not likely to yield any extra revenue, I am pretty convinced things like IR35 won't either. I'd actually be surprised if they didn't have a negative impact. If people are OK with that in the interests of perceived "fairness" then OK. Personally I think it's stupid - the primary objective should be to yield more revenue (or, preferably, spend less). And if you cannot guarantee that a change will do that having thought through all the consequences, stop meddling.
wormus said:
98elise said:
Did you miss the 
?
I'm a long way from state retirement, and If I was entitled to benefits I wouldn't have waited 6 months after retirement!
Last fat cheque gets written to HMRC in April, then it's a life of non productivity
Sorry thought you were serious. I have a friend who was a contractor, retired at 55 having built up money in his ltd company. Plan was to draw down on it as salary for coming years. Good plan if the money lasts for long enough but a bit of gamble. ?I'm a long way from state retirement, and If I was entitled to benefits I wouldn't have waited 6 months after retirement!
Last fat cheque gets written to HMRC in April, then it's a life of non productivity
Long term plan is to liquidate and move somewhere warm before Labour get in
youngsyr said:
poordecisions said:
youngsyr said:
If a company has invested a significant amount in this fiscal year, but has a 31 May year end, do we know if it will benefit from the Superdeduction, will it be pro-rated, or not available at all?
It’s from 2023, so this year doesn’t really effect thingsI heard Sunak say super deduction was "for the next 2 years".
CT hike is from 2023.
Biggy Stardust said:
hyphen said:
FT took Rishi to task in his press conference just now. They advised that have analyzed and found the location based grants mostly favour Tory constituencies. Including Rishi's own
Naughty boy
Maybe there are more tory than labour constituencies due to the election result....................?Naughty boy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/t...
RichB said:
98elise said:
Long term plan is to liquidate and move somewhere warm before Labour get in
No, Labour good for retirees, sky high interest rates feeding my savings. Won't care about inflation because I've got most of what I need. 
youngsyr said:
youngsyr said:
poordecisions said:
youngsyr said:
If a company has invested a significant amount in this fiscal year, but has a 31 May year end, do we know if it will benefit from the Superdeduction, will it be pro-rated, or not available at all?
It’s from 2023, so this year doesn’t really effect thingsI heard Sunak say super deduction was "for the next 2 years".
CT hike is from 2023.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/budget
hyphen said:
Biggy Stardust said:
hyphen said:
FT took Rishi to task in his press conference just now. They advised that have analyzed and found the location based grants mostly favour Tory constituencies. Including Rishi's own
Naughty boy
Maybe there are more tory than labour constituencies due to the election result....................?Naughty boy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/t...
London424 said:
hyphen said:
Biggy Stardust said:
hyphen said:
FT took Rishi to task in his press conference just now. They advised that have analyzed and found the location based grants mostly favour Tory constituencies. Including Rishi's own
Naughty boy
Maybe there are more tory than labour constituencies due to the election result....................?Naughty boy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/t...
Something of a wet fart from the desperate red rags.
markh1973 said:
youngsyr said:
youngsyr said:
poordecisions said:
youngsyr said:
If a company has invested a significant amount in this fiscal year, but has a 31 May year end, do we know if it will benefit from the Superdeduction, will it be pro-rated, or not available at all?
It’s from 2023, so this year doesn’t really effect thingsI heard Sunak say super deduction was "for the next 2 years".
CT hike is from 2023.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/budget
Looks like "main rate" assets, i.e. those that would have attracted 100% relief up to £2m expenditure will qualify for 130% from 3 March 2021.
hyphen said:
turbobloke said:
Something of a wet fart from the desperate red rags.
Apart from reading the evidence for myself for years, a survey I read had 20% Left or Centre Left to 13% for the equivalents on the Right.
You and some others may disagree, that's fine. I didn't claim it was the BBC.
El stovey said:
hyphen said:
turbobloke said:
Something of a wet fart from the desperate red rags.
The Daily Mail is lefty propaganda says El stovey in another massive daily fail grrrrr post.
Having missed / ignored the stats showing net support.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff