Your predictions under Labour

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Escapee

As he has concentrated on telling the voter what he's not going to do and not what he is going to do, It's difficult to predict. The question is, will he do very little or will he be Blair 2.0.

He can't do much different unless he hits the public with higher taxes, he's unlikely to grow the economy. So I guess he's either going to have a short honeymoon period until those that voted for him realise, or he's going to get radical. He doesn't seem like the radical type, he's Mr cautious but it depends on who he has advising him. (Maybe Blair!!!!)

* Give the Welsh Assembly more powers.

He can then distance himself from them and the shambles they have been responsible for over the past 25 years. (I refuse to call that town hall council a government)

* Some spite taxes on those in the middle earning a good wage to appease those that suffer from envy.

They know they can't tax the rich, so better off workers are an easy target as the are generally despised by those on benefits, low paid, part-time or pensioners.

* Further privatisation of the NHS by stealth with PFI type deals like the last Labour government.

What they have said about increasing the contracting of NHS patients to private hospitals would have resulted in screams of "Privatisation of the NHS" if the Conservatives had proposed the same.

* Building their 40 new hospitals will most likely be some sort of PFI deal with the private sector. The Conservatives couldn't afford it, but perhaps he's going to screw those in the middle enough to pay for it.

* GB Energy or whatever it's called is just another deal to throw money at the private sector. Even if does reduce energy bills it will have been funded by the extra tax collected from the worker.

* Abolish the 40 & 45% tax relief on pension contributions, and reduce the annual allowance from £60k back to £40k. (Envy tax)

* Abolish the 25% tax free amount that you can take from your pension pot after 55 year of age. (I could foresee an election and a Labour government later this year, so even though I didn't really need the money when I combined my private pensions in April this year I took my 25%)

All in all personally I find it depressing, I'm less than 2 years off 60 which is when I plan to retire or partially retire. So from a personal point of view I'm hoping he ignores his advisors and follows his gut instinct, which means he will probably procrastinates for at least a year and then do very little.

I just wonder how long it will take for the centre-left to realise, or should I say admit, that things are no better.

Your summary its so true.

Originally Posted by denphone

Personally l have a strong hunch we will be hearing a lot more of ID cards.

Yes it might do away with the confusion about what ID to use to vote..

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by denphone

Personally l have a strong hunch we will be hearing a lot more of ID cards.

Well it was one Blair’s policies, and we’re now in his 4th term.

Most people have ID of one sort or another, so a central (Simple) ID card doesnt seem that bad an idea. What I disagree with is the various proposals to store all sorts of personal information on them. Thats a fraudsters dream when people lose them (or the get stolen). Photo, name & DOB are pretty much all you really need.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Paul

What I disagree with is the various proposals to store all sorts of personal information on them.

The proposed information on the cards were your photo and your date of birth. That is less information that is on a Driving Licence. What was supposed to happen though, was a link to more information on a "protected" database, run by a private company. That's what made a lot of people object to them.

And having to pay for them of course. The Passport fee increased to cover the cost of issuing one at the same time. When the ID card scheme was scrapped, the fee didn't go down (of course).

Well it seems they have been ruled out anyway.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c87rgj4e0rzo

The government has ruled out the introduction of digital ID cards

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Escapee

As he has concentrated on telling the voter what he's not going to do and not what he is going to do, It's difficult to predict. The question is, will he do very little or will he be Blair 2.0.

He can't do much different unless he hits the public with higher taxes, he's unlikely to grow the economy. So I guess he's either going to have a short honeymoon period until those that voted for him realise, or he's going to get radical. He doesn't seem like the radical type, he's Mr cautious but it depends on who he has advising him. (Maybe Blair!!!!)

* Give the Welsh Assembly more powers.

He can then distance himself from them and the shambles they have been responsible for over the past 25 years. (I refuse to call that town hall council a government)

* Some spite taxes on those in the middle earning a good wage to appease those that suffer from envy.

They know they can't tax the rich, so better off workers are an easy target as the are generally despised by those on benefits, low paid, part-time or pensioners.

* Further privatisation of the NHS by stealth with PFI type deals like the last Labour government.

What they have said about increasing the contracting of NHS patients to private hospitals would have resulted in screams of "Privatisation of the NHS" if the Conservatives had proposed the same.

* Building their 40 new hospitals will most likely be some sort of PFI deal with the private sector. The Conservatives couldn't afford it, but perhaps he's going to screw those in the middle enough to pay for it.

* GB Energy or whatever it's called is just another deal to throw money at the private sector. Even if does reduce energy bills it will have been funded by the extra tax collected from the worker.

* Abolish the 40 & 45% tax relief on pension contributions, and reduce the annual allowance from £60k back to £40k. (Envy tax)

* Abolish the 25% tax free amount that you can take from your pension pot after 55 year of age. (I could foresee an election and a Labour government later this year, so even though I didn't really need the money when I combined my private pensions in April this year I took my 25%)

All in all personally I find it depressing, I'm less than 2 years off 60 which is when I plan to retire or partially retire. So from a personal point of view I'm hoping he ignores his advisors and follows his gut instinct, which means he will probably procrastinates for at least a year and then do very little.

I just wonder how long it will take for the centre-left to realise, or should I say admit, that things are no better.

You seem to be constrained by the thinking that we have been conditioned by for decades namely, the only people you can tax (at the higher rates) are the PAYE masses. These poor smucks have been taxed to the hilt by the last Government and yet there is no debate about the other, more appropriate, sources of taxation that could be leveraged with a little creative thinking.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You seem to be constrained by the thinking that we have been conditioned by for decades namely, the only people you can tax (at the higher rates) are the PAYE masses. These poor smucks have been taxed to the hilt by the last Government and yet there is no debate about the other, more appropriate, sources of taxation that could be leveraged with a little creative thinking.

I'm not constrained, those who decide how people are taxed are the ones who are constrained. Taxing those on PAYE is easy, it's lazy, it's taken at source, the profit can't be hidden in overheads so there's no way for the person to avoid paying it as they never get their hands on it to start with.

I don't think taxing wealth is fair either, if person A earns a £100 and invests it, and person B earns a £100 and spends it on drink and drugs, I don't see why person A should be penalised with a wealth tax because they are saving for the future.

I have been forced into PAYE, because one of my contracts was placed inside IR35 as a result of a blanket assessment of all contractors by a jealous and lazy civil servant. This means to satisfy HMRC I'm now being employed via a fictitious umbrella company to which I am paying fees. I'm paying employee and employer NI, Apprenticeship levy and I'm not able to claim any expenses.

As a result of the IR35 blanket decision, the end client has lost a lot of very difficult to replace resources, some have reduced the days working for the client and the day rate costs for those that have renegotiated have increased with projects delayed or in some cases scrapped.

I said no thanks to the renewal, and then they wanted to negotiate so I screwed them for a large increase to cover the PAYE costs, so they are paying more money and they are getting a lot less for it.

The contract is soon up for renewal, and I have made them aware that I will only agree a contract with a reduced number of days as I have one customer with work outside IR35 who wants to increase the work that I am undertaking for them.

The government and HMRC have been screwing small businesses by forcing them into PAYE, yes there was abuse of the system in many cases, but I would have been quite happy to provide the evidence to HMRC that I was providing a service via my company.

The last Conservative government hit small businesses as they are also an easy target and I certainly don't see Labour doing any different.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I'm not constrained, those who decide how people are taxed are the ones who are constrained. Taxing those on PAYE is easy, it's lazy, it's taken at source, the profit can't be hidden in overheads so there's no way for the person to avoid paying it as they never get their hands on it to start with.

I don't think taxing wealth is fair either, if person A earns a £100 and invests it, and person B earns a £100 and spends it on drink and drugs, I don't see why person A should be penalised with a wealth tax because they are saving for the future.

I have been forced into PAYE, because one of my contracts was placed inside IR35 as a result of a blanket assessment of all contractors by a jealous and lazy civil servant. This means to satisfy HMRC I'm now being employed via a fictitious umbrella company to which I am paying fees. I'm paying employee and employer NI, Apprenticeship levy and I'm not able to claim any expenses.

As a result of the IR35 blanket decision, the end client has lost a lot of very difficult to replace resources, some have reduced the days working for the client and the day rate costs for those that have renegotiated have increased with projects delayed or in some cases scrapped.

I said no thanks to the renewal, and then they wanted to negotiate so I screwed them for a large increase to cover the PAYE costs, so they are paying more money and they are getting a lot less for it.

The contract is soon up for renewal, and I have made them aware that I will only agree a contract with a reduced number of days as I have one customer with work outside IR35 who wants to increase the work that I am undertaking for them.

The government and HMRC have been screwing small businesses by forcing them into PAYE, yes there was abuse of the system in many cases, but I would have been quite happy to provide the evidence to HMRC that I was providing a service via my company.

The last Conservative government hit small businesses as they are also an easy target and I certainly don't see Labour doing any different.

You said that "They know they can't tax the rich" and you are just wrong. They can tax the rich* but (currently) are choosing not to.

Your example of taxing wealth is flawed in so many ways. First, you need to define "earn". If you have £1 million invested in company shares and you get regular dividends, you are not "earning" this money as most people would define the term. In fact, your capital earned it, you did not.

As for your IR35 story, you are are just peeved that you are paying more tax, just like a PAYE employee would be which is what IR35 was all about:

Why was IR35 implemented?

Seeing how complex the rules can be, you may wonder why they were put in place. IR35 is part of an effort from HMRC to stop contractors and businesses working together as employers and employees. By doing so, they were avoiding certain taxes. Employers saved by avoiding a share of National Insurance Contribution. They also did not have legal obligations that apply to employment rights and associated benefits. On the other side, contractors could pay less tax on their income.

* just to be clear, this covers those whose net worth is > £5 million before people conflate "rich" with the middle income tax payers

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Escapee

I don't think taxing wealth is fair either, if person A earns a £100 and invests it, and person B earns a £100 and spends it on drink and drugs, I don't see why person A should be penalised with a wealth tax because they are saving for the future.

He's got a point.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

He's got a point.

To you maybe. Most people would not discuss the term Wealth tax in the same sentence as "if person A earns a £100 and invests it"

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by ianch99

As for your IR35 story, you are are just peeved that you are paying more tax, just like a PAYE employee would be which is what IR35 was all about:
[/SIZE]

To start with, HMRC state that IR35 should be an individual assessment and they make it clear that it should not be a blanket decision by an organisation. The client should not be completing an assessment without input from the individual involved. My assessment contains incorrect information, because the individual who completed the assessment made no contact with me to obtain the answers given. The answers to the questions in the CEST tool were chosen to influence the outcome by an individual who had no details of what work my company was actually undertaking.

I was not acting as an employee, I invoiced the client for the services on a day-rate basis that my limited company was undertaking for them. I set the business up specifically so I could offer engineering services which I intend to run part time into early retirement. I made the mistake of signing a contract with one client that contracted my business for a large number of days.

It's a bad situation all round, because I am constantly having to say no to the client when I am asked to do something that would involve a cost to myself or use of facilities owned or paid for by my business. The client as a result is getting less for their money.

Yes, HMRC is collecting a hell of a lot more money in tax off me, but as I have substantially increased the day rate to cover the increased costs I actually have more money in my pocket. Also I don't have any overhead costs involved with this client, and I now sit back and laugh when it takes months to obtain small items that required urgently when I was obtaining them next day and swallowing the cost in my business.

I had been working on the development of a piece of equipment which I intended to hand the design to the client (I'm an engineer not so much a money grabber). Instead I have a third party company that has seen it recently and have asked about purchasing my prototype and the rights to the design. I'm most likely going to sell it to them and let them sell the product to the client.

No one has won, in fact the taxpayer has lost as they are the ones paying for it. My beef is not so much the extra tax I'm paying as I have said it's been offset with the extra costs I'm charging, it's that I have been forced to be an employee of a fictitious company as a means of collecting it.

Without knowing the details you couldn't begin to understand how unworkable the situation is on a daily basis, especially when it's fairly urgent and important.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by ianch99

To you maybe. Most people would not discuss the term Wealth tax in the same sentence as "if person A earns a £100 and invests it"

Sorry, I agree with others , if I’ve worked to earn the money and already paid tax/NI then if I choose to invest it why exactly should I be taxed again ?

I’m getting very tired of HMRC spanking me at every opportunity not even interest on my savings is safe

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Sorry, I agree with others , if I’ve worked to earn the money and already paid tax/NI then if I choose to invest it why exactly should I be taxed again ?

I’m getting very tired of HMRC spanking me at every opportunity not even interest on my savings is safe

I never gave interest on savings a thought until I became self employed. (Not that I had much savings to consider). I have been taxed on mine since I have had to complete a self assessment each year, but I expect many who point the finger at the rich are on PAYE themselves and don't declare the interest they have earned.

Perhaps they should go after those on PAYE who don't complete a self assessment or fail to declare their savings interest to make it fair.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Sorry, I agree with others , if I’ve worked to earn the money and already paid tax/NI then if I choose to invest it why exactly should I be taxed again ?

Because you want things like the NHS, schools, roads defence etc...

If not from here it has to come room somewhere else. Where do you suggest? Income tax, vat, council tax? You'll pay one way or another.