I kind of agree with this, generally we insist that politician tell us what we want to hear... oh and then get all stroppy because they cannot actually deliver.

Not sure I understand what you mean by 'lowest common denominator' though?

 

They need higher tax bands in my eyes. 50% when somebody earns 101k is harsh if they earn £500k not so much so. Footballers earn millions and only pay 10% more tax than me I fail to see how that is fair?
I pay tens of thousands of £s a year tax. We have a child and get what back? Sweet FA that's what really annoys me!

 

The problem isn't that footballers 'only' get taxed 10% more than you, it's that we've all got so used to the idea of handing over 40% and more of our hard-earned to the government that we think it's totally normal now.

 

Yes but avoiding tax through being a one man business is of questionable legality which is my point, not that it is somehow 'immoral'. Read the article.

 

Your child is presumably going to use the NHS and could use a state funded school?

Why should I pay for your crotch fruit as a single and childless man? We can go on like this all day.

 

Quite a valid point TBH, I'm childless as well but spend six months of the year offshore, maybe I should only pay 50% council tax as I only use 50% of the water, refuse and everything else that everyone else does?

 

I object to any maintenance of the roads north of Worksop

I rarely travel north of Worksop and when I do I have a large 4x4

After all it is not as if they produce much wealth for the country (jock land maybe an exception)

 

I have read the article, I wouldn't have posted it up if I didn't! If the agreed services provided through the limited company as stated in the contract with the client puts you outside the scope of IR35, what exactly are you saying is 'of questionable legalitiy' with this arrangement?

 

I don't understand your argument about the tax rate for the footballer being unfair? You say 'only 10%' more than you, but that is 10% extra on a huge amount of money, so he is actually paying huge multiples more than you (I take it you're a 40% tax payer, therefore under £150k/year). Let's say the footballer earns £2m/year, he is going to be paying nigh on £1m in tax (slightly less given the lower tax rate on his lower earnings). So it's all relative.

I actually think we should all have the same personal allowance, then everyone pays the same rate beyond that. No higher rate, no super tax etc. The people who earn more, pay more. Tiered rates are unfair.

 

You'd have to increase the rate by some margin if everyone started paying the same rate, don't forget the 1% who are the top rate payers account for a third of all the income tax revenue.

 

Yes, my argument is more one of principle rather than practicality. You're earning more, therefore you're paying more, so why does the rate have to go up at certain points? A bit like the stamp duty thresholds - more expensive house equals bigger tax bill, so why is the percentage increased too?

Perhaps an argument might be that if it wasn't paid in income tax it would be paid through other means - people with higher disposable income would spend more etc etc.

 

I'm too busy now to read the thing again but it mentions 'disguised employment' and that there is legislation which HRMC can arm itself with; if all your 'contracting' is with the same company and you wind up your 'business' only to resurrect it again (so you can realise your 'profit' via liquidation). In no way does the article say this avoidance scheme is cut and dried. It's murky and could get you in trouble was my impression.

 

It is possible you can get caught out by HMRC, but if you do your homework, get confirmation that your contract is IR35 'friendly' and you stay within the terms and condition of the contract, then there is no problem, hence why HMRC have had very limited success with this legislation despite the hundreds of thousands of contractors out there and the millions of contracts fulfilled over the years.