Freeports

Ref Tax avoidance - to me the scale is an important matter. The employers NI in FPs zones is small scale - £1600 on a £20k/year employee across 200k employees? Thats around £232m, which could well be more than ofset by additional income tax taken and reduced welfare payments.

Spending on infrastruture has been mentioned as alternative to generate jobs - Cross rail a major infrastructure project cost around £19,000m and took 14 years to complete i.e. around 90 times higher than NI cost if the Governement made the investment.

Ref ISA if 10m people have £20k in ISAs (cash, shares, life time) and getting a 5% return that's around £1,500m avoided in tax a year (assuming a mix of tax paxers averaging 30% tax payers)

I would guess over 50% FMTTM posters have ISAs.

All UK governments (both Labour and Tory) have considered ISAs a good thing for the country even though it has cut their tax revenue.
 
Redwurzel said:
Ref Tax avoidance - to me the scale is an important matter. The employers NI in FPs zones is small scale - £1600 on a £20k/year employee across 200k employees? Thats around £232m, which could well be more than ofset by additional income tax taken and reduced welfare payments.

Spending on infrastruture has been mentioned as alternative to generate jobs - Cross rail a major infrastructure project cost around £19,000m and took 14 years to complete i.e. around 90 times higher than NI cost if the Governement made the investment.

Ref ISA if 10m people have £20k in ISAs (cash, shares, life time) and getting a 5% return that's around £1,500m avoided in tax a year (assuming a mix of tax paxers averaging 30% tax payers)

I would guess over 50% FMTTM posters have ISAs.

All UK governments (both Labour and Tory) have considered ISAs a good thing for the country even though it has cut their tax revenue.
Click to expand...
That’s specious reasoning. I’m pretty sure employees (and employers) pay national insurance on the morning they earn to put into an isa. And income tax
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
That's true.

Not everyone has a choice to be a permanent staff member, and many employers don't employ people without a limited company. It's been that way for a long, long time.
Click to expand...
You can be a limited company and still pay the correct amount of tax and NI. It just became a loophole for tax avoidance (ask Smalltown). The only reason that way of working became embedded is because both the business and individual benefitted at the cost of the government (and by extension, people using services funded by tax).
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
That's true.

Not everyone has a choice to be a permanent staff member, and many employers don't employ people without a limited company. It's been that way for a long, long time.
Click to expand...
Yes but the at issue is with the company employing contractors so they don't have to pay the tax. It's less of an issue if the contractor then declares the full income as salary and pays the tax to go with it but they regularly declare the minimum value as salary and take the rest as dividends which reduces the total amount of tax.

Tax avoidance isn't always terrible or immoral but making arguments that all tax avoidance is bad when it suits an argument and the opposite when it doesn't is inconsistent and/or hypocritical.
 
My argument is that you used the term tax payers to distinguish between full time staff and contractors, when in reality they're all tax payers.

The term 'tax payers' has been adopted by the right to distinguish between different sectors of the working class, the deserving and undeserving.

I'm absolutely in favour of a fair way of taxing the population, one we haven't seen for over 50 years, but this time with all loopholes closed.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
My argument is that you used the term tax payers to distinguish between full time staff and contractors, when in reality they're all tax payers.

The term 'tax payers' has been adopted by the right to distinguish between different sectors of the working class, the deserving and undeserving.
Click to expand...
No, I was using tax payers to just mean everyone as in the public purse. We all pay tax some way or another whether that is income or VAT etc.
 
RoaryTheLion said:
You can be a limited company and still pay the correct amount of tax and NI. It just became a loophole for tax avoidance (ask Smalltown). The only reason that way of working became embedded is because both the business and individual benefitted at the cost of the government (and by extension, people using services funded by tax).
Click to expand...
Woah. Back up there sparky.

Why are you insinuating I avoid tax? That’s pretty scum behaviour. What’s wrong with you?
 
RoaryTheLion said:
Have you and any business you were responsible for always paid the correct amount of PAYE and NI? Have you ever sought out contractors to avoid paying NI?
Click to expand...
Yes to the first question. No to the second.

Even for the usual “gang up on small town” brigade that’s pretty low. To insinuate I’m avoiding tax. I’m rarely shocked by how nasty people get on here but it has to be said you’ve shocked me. That’s really low from you.
 
SmallTown said:
Yes to the first question. No to the second.

Even for the usual “gang up on small town” brigade that’s pretty low. To insinuate I’m avoiding tax. I’m rarely shocked by how nasty people get on here but it has to be said you’ve shocked me. That’s really low from you.
Click to expand...
In which case, why were you such a vociferous opponent to IR35?
“Really low” - seen a thicker skin on a bowl of soup.
 
Most politicians used lots of words tricks to suit what they are saying...

The cost of living rises will hit "working" families like there are lots of other families who sit sofa 24-7 watching Netflix ordering takeways.

I agree there a bit of Tory thing of saying tax payers and they imply income tax payers it is a not acceptable.

I could wrote something like non tax paying electric car owners, but I have not with the exception of this post as an illustration.
 
SmallTown said:
Yes to the first question. No to the second.

Even for the usual “gang up on small town” brigade that’s pretty low. To insinuate I’m avoiding tax. I’m rarely shocked by how nasty people get on here but it has to be said you’ve shocked me. That’s really low from you.
Click to expand...
Avoiding tax isn't a crime. Most people do it. Why would you be so offended by that?

I can guess what the intention of the question was but the phrasing of it is wrong/accusatory. Something better might be:

1. Have you ever employed someone as a contractor?
2. Have you been a contractor yourself?
3. If yes to 2, did you declare that full fee as income or was some taken as dividends?

If 1. is yes then that has avoided paying employer's NI. If 3 is yes then so is that.

There is nothing illegal about it but it is exactly what these Freeport companies would be doing so it would be hypocritical to be so against it.

I avoid tax all the time. I have an ISA, I salary sacrifice etc. No need to be so high and mighty about it. They are standard practices.
 
SmallTown said:
That’s specious reasoning. I’m pretty sure employees (and employers) pay national insurance on the morning they earn to put into an isa. And income tax
Click to expand...
Its an example of lost tax revenue that could be eradicated to increase tax revenue.

I am not saying I would, but its an example of legal tax avoidance and add up to a lot of money much more than lost employers NI from FPs.
 
Redwurzel said:
Its an example of lost tax revenue that could be eradicated to increase tax revenue.

I am not saying I would, but its an example of legal tax avoidance and add up to a lot of money much more than lost employers NI from FPs.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I hadn’t thought about it that way
 
Last edited:
RoaryTheLion said:
In which case, why were you such a vociferous opponent to IR35?
“Really low” - seen a thicker skin on a bowl of soup.
Click to expand...
You often accuse people of being tax dodgers do you? That’s just really really low behaviour. Maybe that’s the type of person you are. Just rank nasty. I hope not, but the accusations you’ve made, and the snide way you’ve responded to my reaction doesn’t make you look good
 
SmallTown said:
You often accuse people of being tax dodgers do you? That’s just really really low behaviour. Maybe that’s the type of person you are. Just rank nasty. I hope not, but the accusations you’ve made, and the snide way you’ve responded to my reaction doesn’t make you look good
Click to expand...
So no answer to the question:
Why were you such a vociferous opponent to IR35?

This you? Why would IR35 destroy your consultancy firm?
6CE92AC1-D3AB-41B2-8674-08742D98E973.jpeg
 
RoaryTheLion said:
So no answer to the question:
Why were you such a vociferous opponent to IR35?

This you? Why would IR35 destroy your consultancy firm?
View attachment 43287
Click to expand...
You never asked that question. Do you think not liking IR35 means you’re a tax dodger? I suggest you back away now before you make yourself sound even worse.

Btw contemplate the comments about employee benefits before you reply.

Also, it shows the type of character you are that you so want to insult and attack that you go back to posts from years ago to try and prove your point. I think you need to reflect and what drives you to spread so much hatred
 
Last edited:
SmallTown said:
You never asked that question. Do you think not liking IR35 means you’re a tax dodger? I suggest you back away now before you make yourself sound even worse.

Btw contemplate the comments about employee benefits before you reply.
Click to expand...
Your stock deflecting reply. I think anyone who paid the correct tax and NI would be happy that loopholes, which allowed people to pay less than their fair share, were being closed. You seemed unhappy that the loopholes were being closed. Why is that? IR35 was not about punishing genuine contractors. It was to catch out employees masquerading as contractors. Is that how your firm operated?
 
RoaryTheLion said:
Your stock deflecting reply. I think anyone who paid the correct tax and NI would be happy that loopholes, which allowed people to pay less than their fair share, were being closed. You seemed unhappy that the loopholes were being closed. Why is that? IR35 was not about punishing genuine contractors. It was to catch out employees masquerading as contractors. Is that how your firm operated?
Click to expand...
It isn’t at all. It causes extra work and cost to all contractors.

And that isn’t my stock response. Because most people aren’t that pathetic that they will trawl back through years of posts to attack a random stranger on the internet.
You REALLY need to reflect what is lacking in your life that you feel this is in anyway acceptable behaviour
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top