From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:37:09 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM(a)spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

>but in
>reality mandarins were not as organised as is portrayed in that. Yes
>Minister was written a long time ago too, deskilling has proceeded
>apace since then.

do have experience of working with senior civil servants?
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: JNugent on
mileburner wrote:

> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:

>>> Perhaps it might be a good idea to have a tax specifically for
>>> self-employed tradesmen, to take into account (at least in part) the cash
>>> they fail to declare.

>> Such a tax exists.
>> It is known as Class 4 National "Insurance" "contributions".
>> It doesn't insure the the earner against anything and it isn't a
>> contribution (in the sense of being voluntarily given - it's compulsory).

> This is the self-employed's equivalent of employer/employee Class 1 NI
> contribitions.

No, it isn't. There is no employer and thus no employer's contributions.

Employers' contributions were instituted from the very start of the national
"insurance" scheme in the 1940s. Class 4 National "Insurance" "contributions"
were introduced only in 1974, simply as a way of raising more money for
general government purposes. It has nothing to do with the earner's social
security National Health status - nothing whatsoever.

> Employed people are far less able to dodge *their* tax as
> they would need to collude with their employer and take undeclared cash as
> wages.

Or operate a business in their spare time.

> Self-empolyed people dodge this tax every time they accept cash and
> fail to declare it. This is because it is a tax on their declared profit. It
> is (supposedly) their contribution toward the healthcare and benefits system
> (which includes the state pension).

Wrong again.

Class 4 National "Insurance" "contributions are levied *in addition* to the
self-employed earner's ordinary National "Insrance" liability (which is
levied at the same rate as for employed earners (currently 11% of income IIRC).

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Class 4 "contribution" stands
instead of NI - it is levied on top of tax and NI.

> While paying it may not alter their
> entitlement to it later, it is still their contribution to the provision of
> it currently.

It isn't. They make that contribution *as well*. See above.

But you were right about it making no difference to the payer's entitlements.
The government are absolutely shameless in admitting that - it isn't in dispute.

>> Every self-employed earner under state pension age is obliged to pay the
>> Class 4 tax irrespective of their intentions or record of "fiddling" tax.
>> It is paid to the Revenue as a surcharge on income tax.

> But it is a tax on profit (like income tax is). And if they are fiddling
> their income tax, by failing to declare income, they are also fiddling their
> Class 4 NI.

"If". What a word...

And there *was* a time when we bothered with old-fashioned ideas like
actually proving wrongdoing before exacting punishment for it.

> The only tax they are unable to fiddle (so long as they register as
> self-employed is Class 2 NI contributions) which *is* a tax purely for the
> self-employed and bears no relation to income *or* profit. Paying it does
> however build entitlement to state pension, but does not pay *for* the state
> pension. However at �2.40 per week, it would need to increase at least 100
> fold to make much impact on self-employed tax fiddlers.

> Class 2 NI in respect of state pension, is a bit like VED in respect of
> using motor vehicles using the roads, paying it does not fund the service,

Nobody's National "Insurance" payments fund their state pension. It simply
isn't funded. Why pick on the self-employed?

OK, some of them undoubtedly do fiddle, but that's not a reason to penalise
evvery one of them.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:59:17 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM(a)spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

>Given it is said
>that average cyclists tend to be from higher socio-economic groups
>than average motorists the cyclists probably pay more in tax than
>motorists.

round here its children, old gaffers and metrosexual inner city
trendies. I dont see city bankers on them much. so I suspect thats
just talking up cycling.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Ian Dalziel on
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:45:25 -0800 (PST), "MasonS(a)BP.com"
<MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote:

>On 11 Dec, 15:15, "Mr Benn" <nos...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:805cd537-b48f-4266-97db-ac34b9204adf(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 11 Dec, 13:39, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>> >> Huge <H...(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > Oh, indeed. I thought the attributions made that clear, but I'm
>> >> > happy to confirm that Mas...(a)BP.com is a drooling retard (as is
>> >> > anyone who thinks taxation is money well spent).
>>
>> >> I think it's most amusing that someone working for bp complains about
>> >> other people perpetrating rip-offs and environmental damage and rattles
>> >> on about how he's saving the planet by cycling.
>>
>> > We are actually constructing a world scale bioethanol plant at our
>> > site so that when you fill up your car, some of the fuel will come
>> > from wheat and not oil.
>>
>> That's strange. �I had though that ethanol released CO2 when burnt.
>
>That's right and the wheat takes it out of the atmosphere again.

Why does it matter whether wheat or trees took it out of the
atmosphere? It's still being put back there.
Biofuels might be an answer to sustainability, but they don't make a
blind bit of difference to emission levels.

--

Ian D
From: JNugent on
JNugent wrote:

> mileburner wrote:
>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>>> mileburner wrote:

>>>> Perhaps it might be a good idea to have a tax specifically for
>>>> self-employed tradesmen, to take into account (at least in part) the
>>>> cash they fail to declare.

>>> Such a tax exists.
>>> It is known as Class 4 National "Insurance" "contributions".
>>> It doesn't insure the the earner against anything and it isn't a
>>> contribution (in the sense of being voluntarily given - it's
>>> compulsory).

>> This is the self-employed's equivalent of employer/employee Class 1 NI
>> contribitions.

> No, it isn't. There is no employer and thus no employer's contributions.

> Employers' contributions were instituted from the very start of the
> national "insurance" scheme in the 1940s. Class 4 National "Insurance"
> "contributions" were introduced only in 1974, simply as a way of raising
> more money for general government purposes. It has nothing to do with
> the earner's social security National Health status - nothing whatsoever.

>> Employed people are far less able to dodge *their* tax as they would
>> need to collude with their employer and take undeclared cash as wages.

> Or operate a business in their spare time.

>> Self-empolyed people dodge this tax every time they accept cash and
>> fail to declare it. This is because it is a tax on their declared
>> profit. It is (supposedly) their contribution toward the healthcare
>> and benefits system (which includes the state pension).

> Wrong again.
>
> Class 4 National "Insurance" "contributions are levied *in addition* to
> the self-employed earner's ordinary National "Insrance" liability (which
> is levied at the same rate as for employed earners (currently 11% of
> income IIRC).

That was a mistake on my part.

The self-employed do not in fact pay a graduated amount of National
"Insurance" as well as their flat rate, income tax and Class 4 liabilities.

But, OTOH, they are not entitled to the full range of social security
contributory benefits (so should be paying less NI than an employed earner
earning the same gross income in any case).