Discussion
sugerbear said:
turbobloke said:
Eric Mc said:
sugerbear said:
Wouldn't it be a simpler world for everyone if the government just taxed everyone's income in the same way, no if's no but's no get out clauses no IR35. Everyone treated the same.
Not possible when you have all sorts of complex arrangements and differing business and remuneration vehicles.How would you tax limited companies?
Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
sugerbear said:
turbobloke said:
Eric Mc said:
sugerbear said:
Wouldn't it be a simpler world for everyone if the government just taxed everyone's income in the same way, no if's no but's no get out clauses no IR35. Everyone treated the same.
Not possible when you have all sorts of complex arrangements and differing business and remuneration vehicles.How would you tax limited companies?
Then there's the point that tax attorneys tend to be smarter than legislators, they wouldn't survive otherwise, so selection pressure will ensure it remains that way.
Abdul Abulbul Amir said:
sugerbear said:
turbobloke said:
Eric Mc said:
sugerbear said:
Wouldn't it be a simpler world for everyone if the government just taxed everyone's income in the same way, no if's no but's no get out clauses no IR35. Everyone treated the same.
Not possible when you have all sorts of complex arrangements and differing business and remuneration vehicles.How would you tax limited companies?
The big issue is not tax but National Insurance Contributions (NIC). NIC is charged on EARNED income. In other words, people pay NIC on the income they derive from the work they do i.e. salary or sole trading/partnership profits. Other types of income are based on investments e.g capital gains, interest received, rental income and, of course, dividends (retyurn on investments in the shares of a company).
HMRC would LOVE to be able to collect NIC on all those other forms of income but no government is ever going to countenance NIC on Capital Gains, dividends, interest or rental income.
As do sole traders and partnerships.
The real "saving" to be made is extracting money from whatever trading entity you have set up and avoiding the NIC charge ESPECIALLY the Employer's charge.
HMRC had a real go at "Income Splitting" over ten years ago in the famous "Arctic Systems" case and failed miserabley - despite taking the (relatively small) company all the way to the House of Lords.
The real "saving" to be made is extracting money from whatever trading entity you have set up and avoiding the NIC charge ESPECIALLY the Employer's charge.
HMRC had a real go at "Income Splitting" over ten years ago in the famous "Arctic Systems" case and failed miserabley - despite taking the (relatively small) company all the way to the House of Lords.
Just had a read up on the actual facts of Lineker's tax case.
Apparently, this is the first time EVER that HMRC tried to apply IR35 to a partnership (even though they stated categorically when IR35 was first introduced that partnerships were exposed to being challenged under IR35). It's only taken them 23 years to give it a go.
Apparently, this is the first time EVER that HMRC tried to apply IR35 to a partnership (even though they stated categorically when IR35 was first introduced that partnerships were exposed to being challenged under IR35). It's only taken them 23 years to give it a go.
turbobloke said:
Understood, but for PAYE a flat rate would simplify matters to a degree surely. I appreciate there would be ideological objections from those supporting max redistribution of wealth, but ultimately a flat rate is 'fair' in being applied to everyone equally and it is more straightforward to administer.
The snag is that most people would be worse off with a flat rate. A few people would be much better off.That's not going to do down well.
Eric Mc said:
The real "saving" to be made is extracting money from whatever trading entity you have set up and avoiding the NIC charge ESPECIALLY the Employer's charge.
Once a company is profitable enough to be paying Corp Tax - and celebrities are going to be way beyond that - then there's not much in it, is there? Even more so with the new corp tax rate.Sheepshanks said:
turbobloke said:
Understood, but for PAYE a flat rate would simplify matters to a degree surely. I appreciate there would be ideological objections from those supporting max redistribution of wealth, but ultimately a flat rate is 'fair' in being applied to everyone equally and it is more straightforward to administer.
The snag is that most people would be worse off with a flat rate. A few people would be much better off.That's not going to do down well.
Surely the better/worse off analysis depends on the actual flat rate introduced, and then a move to slightly greater complexity with an initial tax-free allowance retained for lower income situations. But - it was about simplicity mainly, given that fine tuning of simplicity need not make PAYE taxation as complex as now?
Sheepshanks said:
Eric Mc said:
The real "saving" to be made is extracting money from whatever trading entity you have set up and avoiding the NIC charge ESPECIALLY the Employer's charge.
Once a company is profitable enough to be paying Corp Tax - and celebrities are going to be way beyond that - then there's not much in it, is there? Even more so with the new corp tax rate.Although Lineker was not using a limited company - which makes HMRC's targetting of him strange to say the least.
Sheepshanks said:
Well, they're not getting either Corp tax or employers NI from Partnerships - so it makes sense from that POV.
They get Class 2 and Class 4 NI instead.And the individual gets far less in the way of social help too from the government e.g. there is no statutory sick pay/maternity pay (his ex-wife was one of the partners).
Why did they wait almost a quarter of a century to finally have a go at a partnership? Was it because Lineker was targeted for political reasons?
Sheepshanks said:
Eric Mc said:
The real "saving" to be made is extracting money from whatever trading entity you have set up and avoiding the NIC charge ESPECIALLY the Employer's charge.
Once a company is profitable enough to be paying Corp Tax - and celebrities are going to be way beyond that - then there's not much in it, is there? Even more so with the new corp tax rate.There used to be substantial benefits to using limited company structures. But from most of the angles people get agitated about, successive govts have eroded/removed them. They could go further - e.g. by finally admitting that NICs are nowt more than ANOther tax and consolidating them - but it'd be messing around the edges.
IMO, the latest IR35 changes created more harm than good in terms of tax take, but we're unlikely to ever be able to unpick that nugget.
There are also still other avenues that can be useful - splitting ownership of the ltd company, entrepreneur's relief etc...but risks and downsides to them and, again, there'd be downsides to the govt trying to combat them - they are in place for a reason.
What these sorts of thing really do, however, is allow govts to distract from the real elephant in the room, that of not enough people paying tax. Focus on relatively small groups and make everyone else feel hard done by. Works a treat
I wonder if the Mail will give Joan Salter a column.
Gary Lineker effectively called my wife a Nazi. I lost family in the Holocaust and I find that disgusting
Gary Lineker effectively called my wife a Nazi. I lost family in the Holocaust and I find that disgusting
Murph7355 said:
Sheepshanks said:
Eric Mc said:
The real "saving" to be made is extracting money from whatever trading entity you have set up and avoiding the NIC charge ESPECIALLY the Employer's charge.
Once a company is profitable enough to be paying Corp Tax - and celebrities are going to be way beyond that - then there's not much in it, is there? Even more so with the new corp tax rate.There used to be substantial benefits to using limited company structures. But from most of the angles people get agitated about, successive govts have eroded/removed them.
Interview with Lineker where he explains his comments.
Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Interview with Lineker where he explains his comments.
Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
So called interview with his mate Alastair Campbell. Joke Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
86 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Interview with Lineker where he explains his comments.
Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
So called interview with his mate Alastair Campbell. Joke Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
E63eeeeee... said:
86 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Interview with Lineker where he explains his comments.
Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
So called interview with his mate Alastair Campbell. Joke Gary Lineker: it was factually accurate to call refugee policy cruel
I don't think Men's Health has any legal requirements on impartiality.
GB News, on the other hand...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff