Fuel shortage

Pak_Doo_Ik said:
My local filling station had a delivery today and guess what 2p a litre put on the price, I suppose that might have happened anyway but does seem a coincidence.

The queues outside it are ridiculous amd show the mentality of our country. I wouldn't mind so much but I live in a village where the average age must be about 90 so christ knows where they are all driving to.
Click to expand...
Yep & the very same people will be the 1st to moan after they have escalated the issue & by doing so played in to petrol companies hand who will happily benefit out of the fake crisis by putting the price up
 
Adi_Dem said:
In other words, if HGV drivers are effectively employees then they will be expected to pay the right level of tax. That is not an increase to tax rate, NI rate or anything else. It does not oblige anyone to pay NI twice. It is also definitely not true to say that IR35 only has an impact on those in the higher tax brackets.
Click to expand...
The whole problem with "disguised employee" is that it targets the worker and not the company. I would not have gone to the States had there been any chance of being on the payroll of one of the oil companies rather than a contractor. NB it was a so-called Labour government that introduced it. Yet another thing I will never forgive Blair for.
 
Adi_Dem said:
There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding around IR35. It does not cut or increase your tax or your NI burden. It is simply anti-avoidance tax legislation designed to tax 'disguised' employment appropriately. Equally, the regulations themselves i.e. the factors used to determine whether someone providing services through their PSC is a 'disguised employee' haven't changed in any way. What changed in April this year was the burden for determining employment status and, importantly, the liability associated with getting a determination wrong. It shifted from the service provider or 'employee' to the 'end client' or 'employer'. What that has meant is that employers now have to take it much more seriously and are obliged to carry out employment status determinations. If an individual providing services through a PSC is determined, following such assessment, to be an employee in all but name then they must be taxed as such and not have the tax advantages associated with providing services through a PSC (usually a limited company).

In other words, if HGV drivers are effectively employees then they will be expected to pay the right level of tax. That is not an increase to tax rate, NI rate or anything else. It does not oblige anyone to pay NI twice. It is also definitely not true to say that IR35 only has an impact on those in the higher tax brackets.
Click to expand...
You are right adi, in principle it is to stop hidden employees taking advantage of limited company status to reduce tax burden. However my issue with this is that it excessively damages the income of what was essentially a low paid job. If they then have to pay NI twice as an employee and an employer, they will leave the industry in their droves.

That demonstrates that the pay is not what it should be.
 
NYboro said:
The whole problem with "disguised employee" is that it targets the worker and not the company. I would not have gone to the States had there been any chance of being on the payroll of one of the oil companies rather than a contractor. NB it was a so-called Labour government that introduced it. Yet another thing I will never forgive Blair for.
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting on the merit of it, just explaining how it works. I fundamentally disagree with it.

Laughing said:
ou are right adi, in principle it is to stop hidden employees taking advantage of limited company status to reduce tax burden. However my issue with this is that it excessively damages the income of what was essentially a low paid job. If they then have to pay NI twice as an employee and an employer, they will leave the industry in their droves.

That demonstrates that the pay is not what it should be.
Click to expand...

It would be illegal for employers NI to be passed on to the 'employee', though I accept it might adversely impact the rates the 'employer' is prepared to pay. The tests for status determination itself though haven't changed at all. The only change has been to shift the burden and the liability and so whereas contractors might have been prepared to take that risk historically employers just aren't prepared to and take an extremely cautious, risk averse approach. I'm not sure I agree that it damages income though. It removes the opportunity for tax efficiencies that might have made an income more attractive to people admittedly.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I see the Gazette are reporting a driver putting £217.44 worth of petrol into 8 Jerry cans. This is what causes shortages.

www.gazettelive.co.uk

Driver fills up £217 worth of fuel in EIGHT jerry cans on Teesside

The woman was driving a Ford Fiesta and was said to have bought 160 litres of fuel
www.gazettelive.co.uk www.gazettelive.co.uk
Click to expand...
There is a girl who works at the go karting place that regularly fills up loads of jerries at oxbridge garage (I've seen her a few times ) . Not saying its definitely her but could well be .
 
To be fair filling up over £200 of Jerry cans is being an ultimate sh*thouse😕

Imagine being behind them and waiting all that time. It would test my level of flashing threshold.

I've just driven to Maidstone and back with work. Its absolute f*cking carnage. No fuel anywhere and the motorways have cars backed up the full length of the slip road with the end one sat with hazard lights on yards from cars doing 60-70 in the left hand lane.

Yes brexit and covid and everything else is to blame. Yet the only person at fault for this carnage is whoever did the 'whistle blowing' on Thursday from the meeting. Also the pond life papers running 'empty Britain' stories. What did they hope to achieve?? We had plenty of fuel (had being the operative word.... Now we've had a 600% up surge in folk wanting fuel)
 
Adi_Dem said:
I wasn't commenting on the merit of it, just explaining how it works. I fundamentally disagree with it.



It would be illegal for employers NI to be passed on to the 'employee', though I accept it might adversely impact the rates the 'employer' is prepared to pay. The tests for status determination itself though haven't changed at all. The only change has been to shift the burden and the liability and so whereas contractors might have been prepared to take that risk historically employers just aren't prepared to and take an extremely cautious, risk averse approach. I'm not sure I agree that it damages income though. It removes the opportunity for tax efficiencies that might have made an income more attractive to people admittedly.
Click to expand...
My point was made with an eye on the drivers who specifically called out the IR35 change in April as the main reason for them leaving the industry Adi. Not all would have been self employed, but there was a fair number of self-employed drivers and the change to inside ir35 would have resulted in them paying NI twice, assuming they maintained the same employment status, self employed via a limited company.
 
Laughing said:
You are right adi, in principle it is to stop hidden employees taking advantage of limited company status to reduce tax burden. However my issue with this is that it excessively damages the income of what was essentially a low paid job. If they then have to pay NI twice as an employee and an employer, they will leave the industry in their droves.

That demonstrates that the pay is not what it should be.
Click to expand...
IR35 has been a mess for 20 years. These latest changes might just be a step in the right direction.

Employment and tax rules shouldn't be complicated.

This also quite clearly demonstrates that IR35 itself isn't the problem.

It exacerbates the existing problem of low pay which we were clearly and consistently told was one of the reasons for Brexit. We're now being told that this 'crisis' is nothing to do with Brexit despite every contributing factor being directly linked to one promise or another.
 
Scrote said:
IR35 has been a mess for 20 years. These latest changes might just be a step in the right direction.

Employment and tax rules shouldn't be complicated.

This also quite clearly demonstrates that IR35 itself isn't the problem.

It exacerbates the existing problem of low pay which we were clearly and consistently told was one of the reasons for Brexit. We're now being told that this 'crisis' is nothing to do with Brexit despite every contributing factor being directly linked to one promise or another.
Click to expand...
IR 35 IS a problem and has been ever since it was introduced. A lot of people contract because that is their only option - companies do not want employees. Having to pay income tax on the whole of your contract rate means that you really cannot afford to pay what you need into your pension scheme. The few who paid themselves entirely in dividends screwed it for the rest of us who tried to save for the future. My pension is mainly from the 21 years I waas in teh US.
 
Laughing said:
My point was made with an eye on the drivers who specifically called out the IR35 change in April as the main reason for them leaving the industry Adi. Not all would have been self employed, but there was a fair number of self-employed drivers and the change to inside ir35 would have resulted in them paying NI twice, assuming they maintained the same employment status, self employed via a limited company.
Click to expand...

Im not sure I follow the logic here. They wouldn’t/couldn’t maintain the same employment status. By it’s nature if they are deemed employees then the notional employer is obliged to pay employer’s NI (which cannot come out of the employee’s rate), employee’s NI and income tax at the appropriate rate. Maintaining current employment status simply wouldn’t be an option.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Im not sure I follow the logic here. They wouldn’t/couldn’t maintain the same employment status. By it’s nature if they are deemed employees then the notional employer is obliged to pay employer’s NI (which cannot come out of the employee’s rate), employee’s NI and income tax at the appropriate rate. Maintaining current employment status simply wouldn’t be an option.
Click to expand...
Thats not the case Adi, you can be a hidden employee and still be self employed through a limited company, but you have to pay full NI as both an employee and employer as well as PAYE income tax. You just can't pay corporate tax and take your money as dividends
 
NYboro said:
IR 35 IS a problem and has been ever since it was introduced. A lot of people contract because that is their only option - companies do not want employees. Having to pay income tax on the whole of your contract rate means that you really cannot afford to pay what you need into your pension scheme. The few who paid themselves entirely in dividends screwed it for the rest of us who tried to save for the future. My pension is mainly from the 21 years I waas in teh US.
Click to expand...
IR35 is a problem and has been for 20 years.

IR35 isn't the cause of the HGV driver shortages in the UK.

I actually wrote a paragraph about the people that used contracting rules to maximise their income and minimise their taxation whilst ignoring the spirit of the laws, but it deviated too far from the point I was trying to make.

The laws are complicated to encourage loop-hole use which allows employers and employees to play around at the edges of legality.

The problem, as you've highlighted, is that it forces everyone to the same endpoint. You can't escape it because it's expected. I know more than a few off-shore contractors who hate having to set up as a self-employed company when they quite obviously only work for one company on one rig at any given time. The whole thing is a farce.
 
Ex pfc wintergreen said:
As always people on here pick out the bits to suit themselves,I was hoping you had went away yesterday to reflect on your posting style, seems you can't change,
Click to expand...
Why should I. People are defending brexit with phrases like "it's not as bad as building the Burma railway"

When you reach that level of desperation you can expect to be treat with the contempt such a comment deserves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top