Will Sir Gideon Osborne be a contractor at this investment fund? What a quality wheeze that is. Do you reckon they keep up the pretence of paying him for 'advice', like putting on pretend meetings where they let him hold court and pretend to take notes?
Once you're at that level you're basically just 'contacts' and 'influence'. You don't do any actual work other than lobbying.
It's my dream
[gifv]6tlHGlz[/gifv]
Sorry if it's been posted (couldn't see it), but
I can't see it.
Worked it out now (right?)
Ha, yeah. Thought it might be that.
Strong idea Tim, I've even got a good name for it. What do you think of 'Freedom of movement'? Catchy right?
Being pro Brexit doesn't mean you can't also be pro EU immigration.
Was absolutely never going to happen though was it? Your Harolds which was probably a good 20% (basing this off UKIP votes alone) of the leave vote would be in uproar.
Remain certainly tried to characterise the entire Leave vote as Farage disciples during the campaign. A sound strategy as those people are repellent, but I fear they've started believing their own myths.
And the Leave campaign tried to characterise Remainers as liberal whiners who hate Britain and themselves. Works both ways unfortunately.
Anyone who voted remain has been characterised as part of a metropolitan elite, chai latte drinking, enemy of the people that hates the working class and only voted for it out of deep-rooted self interest. What's your point?Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
UKIP win 15-20% of the vote pretty much across the country, the idea of their talking points not being of interest to voters on the subject of Europe just because you don't agree with their values is ignorant at best.
That there is no black and white in this, just a whole lot of grey.
Both campaigns were dreadful. Either side claiming a moral high ground is deluded.
Farage spotted walking out of the Ecuadorian Embassy today
God these people are so shit at lying. At least Blairs lot had some flair about lying to your face.
Hilarious.
People saying Ruth Davidson smashing John Swinney to pieces. Then I see people praising Swinney for his 'storming' performance destroying Davidson.
This NIC rise and the reaction to it is an interesting one. On one hand, it's an obvious breach of a manifesto pledge and there's no getting away from it. On the other, it's probably a sensible economic measure because the tax gap between self-employed and employed peoples is only going to get bigger and, at some point, you're going to have to take the hit. Granted they don't get the benefits that employed people receive, but there's a clear element of gaming the system to pretend that people are self-employed rather than actually employed, alongside the general 'unfairness' that employed people are having to carry a heavier element of tax contribution to the Treasury.
I think it's probably the right move, on balance, but pretending it's not a breach of the manifesto pledge is daft. It'll probably get voted down in the Commons anyway because nobody wants to accept sound economics when pointless political rabble-rousing can be rolled out instead.
How much were 'self-employed' folks saving themselves and how exactly? I presume you would know the precise details of it.
His entire posting history has been building towards this moment.
There are three big differences - the class of NIC that you pay, employer NIC and allowance expenses. For context, this is the line from the Guardian:
If you assume Joe Bloggs is earning Ł32K a year as an employee, he'll be paying the following:Announcing his changes, the chancellor said an employee earning Ł32,000 a year currently faces an NI bill of Ł6,170 along with their employer, while the bill for a self-employed person earning the same salary would be Ł2,300.
Income tax: Ł32,000 less Ł11,000 personal allowance = Ł21,000 taxable income at 20% = (Ł4,200)
Class 1 NIC: Ł32,000 less Ł8,060 threshold = Ł23,940 taxable income at 12% = (Ł2,873)
Total tax payable by employee: (Ł7,073)
The employer will pay:
Employer NIC: Ł32,000 less Ł8,112 threshold = Ł23,888 taxable income at 13.8% = (Ł3,297)
Total tax payable by employer: (Ł3,297)
Total NIC paid: Ł6,169
Total tax received by Treasury: Ł10,369
Where Joe Bloggs is self-employed:
Income tax: Ł32,000 less Ł11,000 personal allowance = Ł21,000 taxable income at 20% = (Ł4,200)
Class 2 NIC: Ł2.80 per week = (Ł146)
Class 4 NIC: Ł32,000 less Ł8,060 threshold = Ł23,940 taxable income at 9% = (Ł2,155)
Total tax payable by employee: (Ł6,500)
Total NIC paid: Ł2,300
Total tax received by Treasury: Ł6,500
In effect, every staff member who is categorised as self-employed by a company, rather than employed, means a loss in tax revenue of Ł3,869 through NIC. They're scrapping Class 2 NIC from April 2018, meaning the gap goes up to over Ł4,000 in this example. There's therefore a big incentive, particularly for companies, to treat staff as self-employed and it's legal tax avoidance.
In addition, self-employed people can reduce their income (and thus their taxable income or 'profit') by writing off allowable expenses against it. See: here. Basically people can buy personal things and pass it off as an expense incurred for the purposes of trade. So if you, as an example, set yourself up as self-employed and went and bought yourself a new Mac for Ł1,200 and a new suit for Ł300, you'd claim they were incurred as working expenses, it would reduce your taxable income by Ł1,500 and the effective tax loss to the Treasury is 29% of that (being 20% of tax and 9% of NIC) or Ł435.
There's clear gaming of the system, it's a significant benefit to companies, and if the current trend of growing self-employment over traditional employment continues then the gap is only going to get bigger and continue to erode the tax base.
I generally favour lower taxation, which is hardly a surprise to anybody, but the issue here is that traditionally employed people are shouldering a greater taxation burden than they should be relative to the whole. It needs to be addressed in some capacity, although whether this even goes far enough is a matter for a different day.
GS
Also - from my hipster/London/tech point of view, is that there are loads of jobs which follow the above pattern, except the full time person would be paid Ł32k and the contractor would be on a Ł400 day rate. It artificially inflates salaries and makes it a massive ballache to recruit/retain people.
There are loads of self-employed trades people and the like but I'd wager the majority of potential tax income would come from the tech/finance contribution, who are more likely to be in the kinds of set-ups GS outlines.
Don't employed people get benefits that self-employed don't such as maternity leave, sick pay etc.
Isn't that why the brackets were made different in the first place?
Am I missing a trick here, why is the 11th March 'National Remember People Killed By Terrorists Day'
It's a European Union thing, for the Madrid train bombings.
Partly, but it was mostly provision of state pension. Previously they didn't get a full state pension, now they do, and that's a significant benefit where their collective NICs, through employer and employee contributions, are much lower. They also have full access to other public services such as the NHS, which are funded through taxation. In effect, contracted employees, through their own and their employer's NICs, are paying more to get the exact same benefit out of the Treasury on retirement.
They obviously don't have company contributions to personal pension plans, but tax relief is available for voluntary contributions which they can make. You're right that they don't get other work-based benefits such as SSP, but equally they're not bound by other restraints which a routine contract may require e.g. set working hours. They don't get holiday pay, but equally aren't restricted in the number of days they can take off. It works both ways.
Plus the burden for those benefits rests with the company in question, i.e. can be negotiated as part of contract law within the requirements of existing legal minimums outlined in legislation, and are thus a cash outflow for the company / employer, not the public purse however delayed the payment may be. On balance, the pension argument and access to the NHS mean the increase is economically justified and entirely fair.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ey-were-abused
There must have been a right dilemma in the Guardian newsroom over whether to publish that, given it paints our 'progressive, European partners' as the backward-looking types they actually are.
Where's the nanny?
Second jock referendum is on. May we take this opportunity to remember Sebo and Toby, killed in the first one.
Great. The very fucking last thing this shite country needed is another fucking refercuntingendum. More arguments. More vitriol. Hooray!
Whoever's running NO this time should be sending out the bat signals to Dominic Cummings about now. That said, they have a big time Ruth Davidson to front it up this time. I can't see YES winning.
I reckon we should let it happen on the basis that a second NO vote is final, they can't be holding referendums every two fucking years.
YES won't win this one because the economic arguments are weaker than previously and the oil price is not getting above $60 a barrel until mid-2018 at the earliest (there's a good chance it could crash again) so they're basically running on 'FREEDOM!' which they get a great deal of already anyway.
'It is clear that our voice and our interests can be ignored at any time and at any issue', says the woman ignoring the majority of people who voted in the last one.
Tbf, if there had been a Remain vote, you know it would be about a year until the next one. As GS says, 'The majority voted for a party that wants independence and so they're right to push for another referendum'.
The reasons she cites don't matter - she was looking for any grievance whatsoever to leverage. They might not have a majority in the next Scottish parliament given her popularity rankings are tanking.
Hopefully they're told to do one until the Brexit negotiations are complete.
No, it would have been finished.
I know Saturday was bad but this seems an over reaction.
So delivering on campaign promises now doesn't matter because you don't agree?
This however, is genuinely funny from Hard Brexit Central
As a few people are pointing out, if Brexit changes the terms of everything to such an extent that she can call a referendum whenever she wants, then doesn't it also change the terms of her current electoral mandate? To be consistent, she would have to get re-elected on the basis of holding another one.
That's what people said about the Conservatives (considering they literally campaigned for the opposite of what happened) and were told to do one.
I'm all for it personally, I think they'll lose by even more and that'll be that.
How are they the same? They won the election, held the referendum, and said they would implement its result. They are doing.
Oh and the 'lol message confusion' works equally for both sides, Sturgeon is campaigning to leave her largest export market on the basis of a vote to leave our largest export market. None of it makes sense on any level, it's about time both sides stopped using logical arguments.
This will be the last one in a generation though so there is that. There was a material change from the previous time they voted so i think fair play to go ahead with the referendum. I hope they win and leave and we can let them crack on being an independent country.
It was fucking pashing it doon when I last called it, different circumstances now. It's sunny.
They are even using 'Take Back Control' as their slogan, bless their regional hearts.
http://www.dailyedge.ie/irish-politi...74798-Mar2017/
Someone went round all the Irish polticians to see if they liked Beyonce.
Boyd, can you vote for this bloke for me?
Cheers.
Sums it up perfectly.
I can only assume this is a gamble on Sturgeon's part that either (a) WESTMINSTER won't allow it and so it might become more popular/viable in the medium term through increased bitterness (if this is possible) or (b) the EU use Scotland as some sort of stick to beat the exiting UK with (and so lavish it with attention and money etc).
Can we respond by opening trade negotiations with them? We could give them one of the Juncker-esque bills.
The 'Brexit done this!' fannies of Remain Twitter are going to be a bit stuck when they lose. If Brexit itself was as good as it gets, Brexit saving the Union just might top it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
