Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2166 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

80% pay

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
This does raise a few points! I can see both sides having spent 13 years as an employee interspersed with being self-employed out of my total of 46 years working.

My understanding is:

I'd say most business use an accountant to minimise their tax bill by claiming for office items including the new phone monthly rental, new lap top etc yet alone other things as transport costs including the new van, all of which are not available to the employed.

I suspect also that quite a few jobs that are paid in cash, are not always declared in full.

Purchase of tools and equipment also tends to be a call made on reducing taxable income when there is a profit to be reduced.

The consequence I see is that the tax paid averaged over the last three years will be lower and subsequently, any "Government" pay given out in June will be considerably less than the living standards some have got used to............... One "perk" is that they can still continue earning whereas to qualify for the employee 80%, they must be furloughed. 

Secondly, those small or sole traders fronted with a Ltd company are employees, so does the Ltd company have to pay themselves as per the 80% scheme in place for employees? The directors of those companies are not self employed, they also take dividends to reduce tax, so have they excluded themselves from yesterday's announcement? Yet alone to be furloughed, they must not do any work at all for their employer, ie their own business?


Regards


BOD
  • 0
    My parents had a limited company, a company is a separate entity therefore my Dad was an employee of his own company and paid tax on PAYE, I know because I did the payroll and deducted his tax to be paid over to HMRC. 


    So he had all the benefits of being an employee including redundancy pay from the state when he closed the limited company down. 


    Anyone running a company like that won't have an issue, those who will have an issue are those who didn't draw a regular wage and pay tax on PAYE preferring to tax a dividend and pay Corporation Tax instead. 


    The birds will come home to roost for some people who have done what they could to minimise their tax bills, as it did for some people who applied for a mortgage not having declared a taxable income for some years.


    Andy B 


  • 0
    Owt for nowt ????
  • 0

    perspicacious:

    I suspect also that quite a few jobs that are paid in cash, are not always declared in full.



    BOD I do like your thoughtful and insightful postings.


    I am told that before the War, widows and other folk of limited means were not expected to pay the full price for a consultation with a GP. A shilling or six pence would do. The coin was handed over and went into Doctor's back pocket.


    When the NHS was set up, doctors' remuneration was based upon pre-war rates (there having been publicly funded arrangements for the duration) so by their own petard they were hoist! "Oh no, our income was higher, but we didn't put it in our tax returns." So there you are, reduced incomes in perpetuity! ?
  • 0
    Next thing you know they`ll be suggesting that PAYE employees occasionally do a job or two that the payment goes directly into the back sack with no HMRC declaration whatsoever! As if anyone would ever do a thing like that!
  • 0
    Personally, I think that any one man bands out there will get 5/8ths of eff-all out of this initiative, it seems to be principally aimed at SMEs and larger entities, with one man bands falling neatly between the cracks as usual.

    I reckon my best bet if it lingers on over the next 12 months is to just develop a bad back, get an invaliditiy benefit claim in, cash in my pensions, flog the tools and van and hope for the best. I'm not holding out any hope for anything else from the Govt until I'm 67 and can claim my state pension - if I am spared for that long.

    We are going to get taxed to death in the aftermath of this one, and I don't plan to be one of the unfortunate ones still having to earn to pay it when it hits.

    At the age of 60 I have now had enough.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    We are going to get taxed to death in the aftermath of this one


    Income tax won't be staying at 20% for sure. It has got to come from somewhere............ VAT will be up to 25%...........


    Regards


    BOD
  • 0

    perspicacious:
    We are going to get taxed to death in the aftermath of this one


    Income tax won't be staying at 20% for sure. It has got to come from somewhere............ VAT will be up to 25%...........




    I am no economist, but either the money has to be paid back or we get rampant inflation. It all depends upon the duration - a short hit would be manageable.


    So who would choose the Swedish approach?

  • 0
    Is that the approach to handling the virus? Or the fiscal one?

    As to the former, I thought we already were going down that route - measles party method - infect en mass, then build up herd immunity.

    Not much point to going any other way right now - self-isolate - coast is clear - go out with no built-up immunity and catch the virus anyhow, so self-defeating really.

    As for virus testing, what's the point other than to gather statistics for the future planning of corpse disposal?

    No vaccine available so no cure - so what is the point?

    I reckon that nature is undergoing one of it's self-correcting events - too many humans - time for a cull.
  • 0
    The point of self-isolation is to delay and flatten the curve - accept that most people will still get infected, but the numbers turning up at hospital per day won't be (too) overwhelmingly large. Also, delaying buys time to to manufacture more PPE, ventilators, construct temporary hospitals, train staff etc. Finally, the idea is that vulnerable people will be kept self-isolated for months. By the time they're "let out", most of the "healthy" population will have been been infected, recovered, and will now be providing herd immunity.
  • 0
    Further, the point of testing (at least if done on a large scale like South Korea, rather than the half-arsed UK approach so far) is that it allows you to relax self-isolation in a controlled fashion, and quickly jump on any hotspots that reemerge. You test people who haven't developed symptoms yet, rather than waiting for them to show symptoms, by which time they would have been shedding virii for a week.

Community Rules & Guidelines