Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 12 Dec 2009 08:40 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:RZqdnQOP9uBWBb7WnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > 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). The Class 4 rate is only 8% (of profit between the earnings limits), so even when added to Class 2 they still pay less anyway.
From: JNugent on 12 Dec 2009 08:52 mileburner wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > news:RZqdnQOP9uBWBb7WnZ2dnUVZ8gudnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> 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). > > The Class 4 rate is only 8% (of profit between the earnings limits), so even > when added to Class 2 they still pay less anyway. And rightly so. It would be more honest of government to set different rates of income tax for the self-employed than it is to call the extra income tax "National Insurance".
From: MasonS on 12 Dec 2009 09:15 On 11 Dec, 17:11, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote: > > I still find it laughable that a wannaecowarrior who cycles works for > the environmental equivalent ofDarthVader. Don't let the facts get in the way of good insult, eh? "As global political and environmental leaders meet in Copenhagen to find a new solution to tackle climate change, BP has been named the most environmentally sustainable large oil and gas company in the world. A study by Management and Excellence (M&E), a Madrid- and São Paulo- based sustainability auditing and rating firm, analysed the world´s ten largest oil and gas companies´ compliance with 198 environmental items in seven areas, ranging from energy savings and waste reduction to alternative energies. The study ranks BP first in alternative energies and environmental transparency, and second in safety, results that show the Groups efforts to maximise safety and minimise environmental impact are paying off. Overall, BP beat rivals including Shell, Exxon, Petrobras, Total, and Chevron. M&E noted that, since the 2005 Texas City accident, BP has externally certified all but two facilities according to ISO 14001, and has reduced its CO² emissions every year since at least 2004, from 76.8 million tons to 75 million tons in 2009. It also noted that BP, having established an alternative energy division, was the only analysed company to have a real business in alternative energy, and particularly highlighted BPs rising sales in solar panels." -- Simon Mason
From: mileburner on 12 Dec 2009 10:59 JNugent wrote: > mileburner wrote: >> >> The Class 4 rate is only 8% (of profit between the earnings limits), >> so even when added to Class 2 they still pay less anyway. > > And rightly so. > > It would be more honest of government to set different rates of > income tax for the self-employed than it is to call the extra income > tax "National Insurance". On the contrary, it would be better to standardise personal taxation and NI contributions for both the employed and the self-employed and give them exactly the same benefits. However, that still does not take into account traders who take cash and fail to declare it.
From: JNugent on 12 Dec 2009 11:13
mileburner wrote: > JNugent wrote: >> mileburner wrote: >>> The Class 4 rate is only 8% (of profit between the earnings limits), >>> so even when added to Class 2 they still pay less anyway. >> And rightly so. >> It would be more honest of government to set different rates of >> income tax for the self-employed than it is to call the extra income >> tax "National Insurance". > On the contrary, it would be better to standardise personal taxation and NI > contributions for both the employed and the self-employed and give them > exactly the same benefits. My suggestion was that the present system is not honestly described. Your suggestion is for a different system. There is no necessary conflict between them. > However, that still does not take into account traders who take cash and > fail to declare it. I'm in two minds about that. One of the reasons is that there are certain low-level, low-price, services which would never be provided (or only at higher prices) if the long arm of the HMRC could be so fully extended as to guarantee that every transaction was subject to tax and NI. OK, the country wouldn't collapse for lack of window cleaners or semi-pro musicians, but it'd be different. |