General News Discussion

[zero000]

But we're run by those who are in the arms of the bankers - they're hardly going to do anything that affects their own wealth....

[eFestivals]

Like I said my reasoning has nothing to do with avoiding tax. Your point only goes to show Neil was even more wrong to jump at the first opportunity to call someone a c**t...

so you don't think it's a c**tish thing to do to make others carry the costs of your old age care even tho you have the resopurces to pay for it yourself?

So I'll call you a c**t again. I wonder what bollox argument you'll now present for why that's not c**tish?

[eFestivals]

Also if anyone wants a laugh:

That's brilliant. How can someone be so dreadfully out of time?

Oh, the answer is by being someone with victorian ideas living in the 21st century.

[eFestivals]

I have no issue exercising sensible and legal tax avoidance.

have you ever bothered to stop looking at things from a purely selfish view and considered what happens if everyone has your c**tish attitudes?

[5co77ie]

Why do people assume their kids should get their house? It rarely happens that way in reality at the moment, as by the time your parents die you have your own home and are unlikely to relocate. My Grandmother always banged on about my having my Dad's house when he died, it was only when he died I realised i didn't actually want it. (Not that I'd have got it anyway).

although having said that I guess these days the kids never move out (they can't afford it) so in the future they will end up inheriting the house.

[eFestivals]

Do you miss the part where I said I plan on using my assets to pay for my costs.

that's not what you said you said (wrongly, but it shows what you wish could happen)...

The other alternative is to not sell the house, keep hold of it, let the state pay for my care...

If thats being a c**t then fine. I am a c**t

Then please factor that truth in your posts from now on, rather than pretending otherwise.

Oh, sorry, you won't do that, will you? You're a c**t, so you'd rather give the false impression that you care about the fate of others.

Never met one person who wrote a cheque for more than is due to the tax man and I doubt you have either.

Not all of us are c**ts. I meet someone like that each time I look in the mirror.

[eFestivals]

Everybody does mate... Everybody does...

Like I said... Who has ever written a cheque for more tax than is due ?

*tumble weed blows...

tumble weed goes up your arse matey.

[TheGayTent]

Why do people assume their kids should get their house? It rarely happens that way in reality at the moment, as by the time your parents die you have your own home and are unlikely to relocate. My Grandmother always banged on about my having my Dad's house when he died, it was only when he died I realised i didn't actually want it. (Not that I'd have got it anyway).

although having said that I guess these days the kids never move out (they can't afford it) so in the future they will end up inheriting the house.

[5co77ie]

Of course they aren't going to do it but it should surely be a policy of the opposition. Labour are so fucking cowardly when it comes to this sort of thing. They won't even back the trade unions that fund them half the time, it makes you wonder if half of them know anything about the origins of their party at all.

Edited January 11, 2013 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

So you voluntary send money to the HMRC

You too have posted things which show that not to be true. Or do you not take dividends from your business ?

I overpay the taxes that are due from me.

I take dividends from my company, but nothing of that is done as a tax avoiding measure. It avoids me no tax anyway.

[TalkShow Bob]

So you voluntary send money to the HMRC

Edited January 11, 2013 by TalkShow Bob

[lharris92]

slightly related (but not really) did anyone see Bo Jo's draft budget for London?

comical really

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20891593

The document, released earlier, proposes that the Greater London Authority's share of the council tax bill be reduced by 1.2%.

Police and the fire brigade would get £262m and £14m less respectively, meaning some buildings would be sold.

The mayor said there would be no loss of public access to police counters and no hit on response times to fires.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) said the council tax cut would mean the bill for a Band D property would fall from £306.72 to £303.

Edited January 11, 2013 by lharris92

[eFestivals]

If you take dividends I fail to see how it does not avoid tax compared to the available solution of paying yourself a higher salary.

I don't think you are wrong to pay yourself a dividend. Its fine, legal and right to do. But it DOES avoid tax. I can't think of any numbers which results in no tax loss ?

Could you show how it doesn't avoid tax ? Clearly I am missing something here?

It would avoid income tax and employers national insurance ? and if you don't (some how which is beyond me not being a tax expert) then what would be the point in not just paying yourself a higher salary and reduce the paper work ?

Confused....

it ultimately avoids nothing of income taxes (because of the corp-tax that is paid on the divis, which would otherwise be paid as income taxes). It avoids a little in NI (both personal and employer contributions). I make up that difference.

The only reason I don't do it up-front by paying myself a higher salary is because of how I work the company finances (by 'loaning' myself the dividends before the end of the tax year), which means I simply cannot finish a tax year with the company in debt (which would mean that it's wrong in tax law to make those 'loans'). Because I can't be sure of what company turnover will be, I keep the salary lowish and give myself the wriggle-room to ensure the company accounts show a profit.

With salary and dividend added together I'm earning less than my full time employee, less than 75% of the average wage, and less than minimum wage on a per-hour basis - so there's no room in the finances for corp taxes on top of salary taxes.

There's no saving in any paperwork. I'd have to submit all the same paperwork no matter how the payments are made to me.

On top of paying every penny that I'd pay via getting everything thru PAYE, 1% of the company turnover (turnover, not profit) is given to charities each year.

I don't work to enrich myself. I work to pay the costs of living.

Edited January 11, 2013 by eFestivals

[TalkShow Bob]

So you also volunteer the employers national insurance they miss out on by working in such a manner ? or do you pay that as well ?

Presuming you are officially registered as self employed with HMRC dont you pay much reduced NI payments anyway... Having to pay Class 2 and 4... instead of class 1 which people operating PAYE have to pay?

[eFestivals]

Unfortunately you can't "avoid" the point that tax is being avoided in your employment. If you are working for someone and they are paying you in this manner employers national insurance is being avoided. That company could employee someone on PAYE, and pay everything that goes with that. Instead they employee you as a freelancer, avoid the employers national insurance. Which could result in you either being paid more due to that saving (a win win situation) or them keeping their tax profile low.

I think you're confusing two different things.

Some people present what is really their everyday employment as freelance, and via that avoid taxes and NI.

That's something entirely different to someone doing genuine temporary freelance work on an occasional basis as Bob is doing, and where the temporary nature of the work (typically just a week or so) makes it unrealistic and impractical for the festival to have those people working as PAYE employees.

[eFestivals]

Im not judging you but you clearly said above some NI is avoided, which is what I presumed....

what part of "I make up the difference" passed you by?

The interesting part is where you say you make this up but don't explain how.

by sending HMRC a bigger cheque than I need to.

I don't see how you can paint yourself as someone who doesn't avoid tax.

Because I don't avoid tax or NI or anything else. I clearly understand the tax laws much much MUCH better than you do yourself.

[eFestivals]

None of its lost on me...

But both are tax avoidance... and the both make the person a tax avoider....

There's contriving to avoid tax, and then there's what is the sensible way to work things in regard to tax because of the circumstances of that particular business.

It is not sensible to have an 'occasional business' such as a festival to have to take on every person who does work for them on a PAYE basis. The costs of administrating that PAYE would be astronomical, almost as much as the value of that work to the freelancer.

The 'loophole' that you're seeing here is not a loophole for these genuine cases. That 'loophole' exists for these genuine cases, because it's the sensible way to work things for these particular business circumstances.

It only becomes a real loophole when someone contrives their situation to be a 'freelancer' when that's not what they really are, they're really a full-time employee - and which is why the IR35 rule was brought in to stop that abuse.

You're confusing the genuine use of a rule in the circumstances it was designed for with those people who are the tax avoiding c**ts.

[eFestivals]

But the HMRC would technically be in the wrong to keep it.

They keep what they're paid, but it's available t5o be claimed back as an over-payment. You know, when someone applies for a tax rebate.

It's not 'wrong' for HMRC to keep it. It's wrong for HMRC to keep it when someone has demanded their overpayment back.

[eFestivals]

As for the rest... It really just comes to you picking and choosing who is a c**t and nothing hard and steady here.

Nope, I'm simply accepting the tax rules as they've been designed to do (a different thing to how those rules can be abused).

The rules for freelancers exist. They exist in that way because they make practical sense for freelancers.

Those rules can also be abused by people who aren't really freelancers.

Is Bob a genuine freelancer, or is he pretending to be one to avoid tax?

Spot the difference??

If your logic is followed thru on, then you should be expecting everyone you work for with your own business to be paying employers NI to the value of the contract they have with you. Presumably you have enough of a brain to realise that's just ridiculous?

Edited January 11, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

So at the end of the tax year... You take all your incomings and outgoings and work out what is the worse possible tax situation could of applied to you personally and you business and pay it all back ?

One I would suggest that would be a massive undertaking, and extremely complex...

Two, extremely unlikely....

But hey, I don't know you, so.... Good on you Tories must love you Do you get a certificate at the end of each year thanking you for your contribution to rich boys tax cuts LMAO

I can tell you've never once seen an HMRC income tax/NI table, and how bleeding simple they are to use.

It definitely takes less than 5 minutes. It probably takes me less than one minute.

Stop talking out your arse about things you clearl7y don't have the remotest idea about.

[eFestivals]

If you are claiming to be freelance and you are not. Then that is tax evasion and not avoidance. Which is illegal.

I think you don't understand that.

I understand it perfectly thanks, because I do nearly everything in regard to my taxes myself (all but the corp tax and yearly company returns).

I'm talking about bob's situation when I've talked about freelancers, where he is a genuine freelancer and so not avoiding tax or doing anything remotely illegal or even immoral towards the tax rules.

Yes, it means that some NI is not paid that might be paid if employed via another means, but it is not a situation he's contrived to avoid that NI, and neither is it a situation his freelance employer has contrived in regard to NI either.

It's when a situation is contrived that the tax avoidance is immoral. The rules are what they are: it's how a person uses those rules which matter towards the morality of it.

[eFestivals]

Maybe you should look up IR35... Which is what that is....

No it's fucking not.

IR35 is when a company takes someone on as freelancer but really they're a full-time employee, and they're using the freelancer thing ONLY to avoid taxes.

If you get a contract from a new company that takes you (say) three weeks to complete before you move onto the next contract at another business, that's a genuine freelancer.

If you get a 'contract' with the same company continually as a way to avoid taxes by pretending to be a freelancer then that's taking the piss and what IR35 is designed to crack down on (and so it should!!).

The difference between the two is one is genuine and the other is faked, contrived.

Edited January 11, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Im not saying he is doing it to avoid tax... but tax will be avoided by doing it...

It's true that not the same amount of tax/NI is paid compared to him being PAYE.

But that is all there is to it. It's not done just for the purposes of avoiding tax.

The morality of it is up to each person to tackle themselves.

Nope. If a situation is contrived to avoid taxes then that is illegal in law.

Look it up for yourself; that's existed since IR35 was first announce (before it was implemented, which is why HMRC tax claims can be legally backdated to prior when IR35 actually came into force).

We've been thru this before, when you had a rant about 5 years back about how outrageous it was that a court enforced the tax laws.

The only thing which matters outside of that is the law.

which any contrived arrangement is.

But for one tax avoider to call another a c**t on the basis they are a tax avoider makes me chuckle

1. I avoid NO taxes, either via contrivance or genuine use of the tax laws.

2. I pay every penny of tax and NI on what I receive as my income (both via salary and divi, including the employers part), to the same level as I would if I worked via PAYE for a 3rd party employer.

What part of that are you too stupid to understand, you tax avoiding c**t?

Your apology is accepted.

Edited January 11, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You clearly do not understand IR35....

Your first example (in red) could still lead to being caught by IR35 rules.

You second example (in blue) could see you legally being kept outside of the IR35 rules.

bullshit and bullshit.

If your accountant has been telling you that, he's been telling you that to rip you off.

[eFestivals]

If you ask an accountant for IR35 advice you are probably going to get bad or wrong advice. They are not IR35 excerpts usually.

I say again, you don't understand IR35 fully. Try reading a bit. The concept is to stop disguised employment... A one day engagement can fail an IR35 test.

http://www.freelanceadvisor.co.uk/guide-to-ir35/

from that link:-

the measure is designed as a measure to put a stop to the practise of a freelancer or contractor providing services to a client under their own Limited Company, when they are existing as a de facto employee

Care to tell me how a three week contract to provide a specific service and then leave can ever be a de-facto employee?

Edited January 11, 2013 by eFestivals