it's a chart produced by the IFS
Budget 2015: Osborne vs. the Economy
- Thread starter Dr Jack
- Start date
it's a chart produced by the IFS
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 2,741
Thanks.
the risk of being without work for a period shouldn't be compensated for by the tax payer in terms of letting contractors dodge a whole bunch of income tax, it should be reflected in the daily rate being significantly higher than they'd get in a salaried role
It usually is, the tax advantage is often an additional bonus - plenty of the contractors I know are paid a daily rate that gives them well over 100k in a year yet if they were permanent staff members they'd be on more like 60-70k basic. They should be paying their fair share of tax on that, they're not that different to employees(other than being short term and easier to dismiss) in that they generally still have to work certain hours, adhere to a dress code, report to someone...they still turn up at staff Christmas parties.
IT contractors are often a world apart from say the plumbing contractor who might turn up at 10 but gets called on another job and turns up at 2pm... They're paid by the hour, they can't necessarily just rock up in shorts an t-shirt if working in an office, they do have to report to someone, they can't send someone else in their place one day because they've got busy on another job. They're basically hidden employees and should be paying tax like any other employees. Sure there might be some exceptions but for most IT contractors it is a case of they're simply another employee albeit a temporary one with less job security and no sick/holiday pay.
Yea, it was hardly taking the ****, it was using a legitimate mechanic and it was within the spirit of the law -not like one of those convoluted off shore loan arrangements.
It was taking the **** as much as using your ISA limit is
Paying yourself near minimum wage and then taking the rest as a large dividend was always[/] frowned upon. It's exactly what IR35 tried and failed to combat when it was first introduced nearly 10 years ago.
It was never in the spirit of the law and was never as legitimate as an ISA.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,505
What do the colours mean?
Specifically.
Is it families with kids, families without kids, and average?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,505
Thank you
So the richest 10% are down, a bit more than the 40% of groups who earn less than them, but overall little change.
I assume that doesn't include the buy-to-let landlord changes, would be hard to judge such a group as part of an overall average.
Why are the 90% group getting more? What change specifically benefitted that group?
there are also these:
similar to what has been posted above
though to understand why tax credits need to be slashed and a increasing the minimum wage instead is a good idea:
tax credits were getting out of control, we shouldn't be subsidizing cheap labour for employers, employers should be paying a better wage - thus raise the minimum wage
which is why you're seeing the poor taking a bit of a hit in the previous chart now tax credits are being reduced
overall, the current govt is doing a reasonable job considering our larger banking sector and the hit we took in 2008:
similar to what has been posted above
though to understand why tax credits need to be slashed and a increasing the minimum wage instead is a good idea:
tax credits were getting out of control, we shouldn't be subsidizing cheap labour for employers, employers should be paying a better wage - thus raise the minimum wage
which is why you're seeing the poor taking a bit of a hit in the previous chart now tax credits are being reduced
overall, the current govt is doing a reasonable job considering our larger banking sector and the hit we took in 2008:
Isn't it a case though that the tax credits are being cut immediately (ie: next financial year) but the full raise in Min Wage doesn't hit until 2020?
Thus the poorest members (esp the working but low paid section) are getting hit harder than they probably need to be.
Thus the poorest members (esp the working but low paid section) are getting hit harder than they probably need to be.
minimum wage is going to increase gradually, yeah
'need' is rather subjective...
we 'need' to slash spending
employers probably do 'need' to gradually phase in increases
but yeah the poor are taking a hit, I know it isn't necessarily popular to say that is OK, the populist thing to do is say we need to 'tax the rich' - but I think in reality we're going in the right direction, increasing wages and decreasing dependence on the state + growing the economy
'need' is rather subjective...
we 'need' to slash spending
employers probably do 'need' to gradually phase in increases
but yeah the poor are taking a hit, I know it isn't necessarily popular to say that is OK, the populist thing to do is say we need to 'tax the rich' - but I think in reality we're going in the right direction, increasing wages and decreasing dependence on the state + growing the economy
Not necessarily, growth would reduce our deficit as much as slashing spending, so we don't 'need' to 'slash', it's just the method this government has chosen.
Aye, it would be a shock of course to raise the NMW to £9 tomorrow
I have no problem with the reduction in tax credits, I have been saying for years that it just subsidises employers profits by using tax payers money.
It's a choice though to not phase in the reduction of tax credits in line with the raising of the NMW, thus letting the 'hard working families' you know, the ones Cameron said the Tories are all for, take quite a substantial hit in the short term.
And that's not OK imo.
like I was saying 'need' is rather subjective
though your point re: growth is hypothetical and unknown (not as a general point but whether we could have spent our way out of the mess we were in), we are growing with the current plan, austerity is working for ue
I've not got a huge issue with it, the one thing about the IFS figures is that they're based on current working patterns, which are quite likely to change. Some people in say part time work will work a certain number of hours - if you remove/taper off some subsidies and increase the rewards for working you could well see a change in working patterns - part time workers working more hours as a result. If that happens then you won't see 'the poor' taking the hit the IFS charts show based on the current situation.
Frankly incentivising work, making work pay and removing dependence on the state are all good things long term... they're certainly more sustainable than untested ideas that we can carry on with the same levels of government spending, with a large deficit and hope that some additional growth will result from somewhere to take care of everything.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,505
This taper on working tax credit, what income point does it end now?
Additionally how much extra is each child worth at the moment to the end point of this taper?
Additionally how much extra is each child worth at the moment to the end point of this taper?
The rich already shoulder most of the burden, how much more do you think they should give?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
The rich aren't at risk from the same elements though are they. Having to decide between heating costs or food, which in itself leads to other social problems. i.e mental health,crime. Nobody who works full time should need to make that decision. It's ridiculous.
If you want to enjoy the fruits of hired work force and profitability, you have to pay the price. But they worked for it, they deserve it most of the time.
My issue is with corporate tax breaks. Unless there is any real benefit to society on the table then they should not happen full stop.
rather exaggerated, the main issue with low incomes is lack of budgeting and poor spending choices
You always seem to forget the other side of that equation, in that they hold most of the wealth too..
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
- Location
- Nottingham
I would argue the point that "making work pay" isn't what they've done yet. The choice between nothing or very little isn't much of a choice. There should be more focus on opportunity and development.