Hammond plans tax crackdown on 'synthetic self-employed'

[jimmy2x3]

we are really reaching the end game. 

 

no cash, no way for a bit of extra, mass multi companies taking over everything. we are going to end up with 100 people owning and controlling everything. uber type things will seep into hairdressing, gardening, roofing, anything left the self employed do. cause lets face it there aint really that much left. allready most of the so called self employed are really just sub contractors and not on the books labour for the bigger boys.  the big companies will love these crack downs removing the last advantages the real small companies have. and infact is the only reason they survive. 

 

so im all for it, but then make the can of coke i buy the same for me as a small buyer as tesco pays. then we can have a real fair playing field. but if i have to pay 53p today for a can and tesco 21p then you take my advantage away and leave theirs then that aint fair is it. 

[Locke]

On 11/10/2018 at 13:27, Captain Kirk said:

The solution is to tax everyone the same.

Yes, 0%

[Locke]

On 11/10/2018 at 11:04, Quicken said:

A similar move in the public sector on "synthetic" self-employed has raised £410m extra in taxes since 2016, HMRC estimates suggest.

And then they blame Brexit for the economy being in the shitter.

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, Locke said:

Yes, 0%

Locke is rich. Locke will have no problem paying for his private security and electric fences to stop the "scroungers" from taking his stuff. Weirdly, it will cost him more to do so than just paying taxes and making sure his fellow humans can live decent lives, but at least he can sit back and bask in the smug libertarian glow of "scroungers" getting their comeuppance. 

Edited October 15, 2018 by dugsbody

[iamnumerate]

55 minutes ago, Locke said:

Yes, 0%

How would we pay for the army, police etc?  Or do you think we should not have them?

[No One]

On 12/10/2018 at 17:09, Ah-so said:

When you switch from a paying dividend tax to a 40% income tax, perhaps you can simply jack up your day rate. This is effectively what landlords claim they will do in response to  S24.

? re read the chat, I never claimed I would " jack up my rates innit". That's the other users.

Oh, and I have no intention of paying 40% income tax as long as there are legal options to do so.

[No One]

1 hour ago, Locke said:

Yes, 0%

Nah, that's retarded, some tax is needed and government does have a function in society.

A small government with direct democracy and low taxes is ideal. 0% is an anarcho state and absolutely stupid

 

 

I see your user name is Locke, you wouldn't happen to be a big brained centrist would you

[No One]

On 12/10/2018 at 23:38, BalancedBear said:

This entire issue has been caused by governments trying to squeeze more tax from people they think are doing well. The entire IR35 situation was caused by politicians portraying self-employed people as not paying their "fair share" of tax. However they never state that such people will be unlikely to claim many benefits. I don't see why the decision to be self employed or not should be decided by anyone other than the person carrying out the work and the client. Not everyone wants to be an employee, many employers don't want employees either. Even people working for the same employer all the time, should be able to be decide they want to be self employed. If they are self employed they will forgo all perks of being a permanent employee and the security which goes with it.

I was an IT contractor many years ago, but once IR35 was introduced I started another business which could never fall into that category. If IR35 is made even more draconian, more contractors will leave the industry and do something else, or work in another country. Likewise companies will not suddenly employ lots of permie staff, they will pay a consultancy company instead, many of which bring in huge numbers of people from India because there is a "skills shortage". It has nothing to do with skills though, just the government trying to force people to work in a way they don't want to.

 

You have hit the nail on the head. Spot on. 100%.

 

A perfect response to this idiot:

 

On 12/10/2018 at 17:09, Ah-so said:

When you switch from a paying dividend tax to a 40% income tax, perhaps you can simply jack up your day rate. This is effectively what landlords claim they will do in response to  S24.

[Cryptotrader]

When impoverished delivery drivers and agency staff are disguised employees, the Tories gush about how people love the flexibility.

When IT staff are disguised employees, the Tories accuse them of 'tax evasion'.

In the mean time, real, struggling self-employed people get the finger in the form of the UC deemed income scam and the Tories are only too happy to use them to produce their fake employment stats.

[hurlerontheditch]

1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

Locke is rich. Locke will have no problem paying for his private security and electric fences to stop the "scroungers" from taking his stuff. Weirdly, it will cost him more to do so than just paying taxes and making sure his fellow humans can live decent lives, but at least he can sit back and bask in the smug libertarian glow of "scroungers" getting their comeuppance. 

people on here zero sense of humour on some of the tongue in cheek posts on here!

[Cryptotrader]

2 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

people on here zero sense of humour on some of the tongue in cheek posts on here!

After 8 years of this totally incompetant and self-serving shower, even gallows humour is a struggle.

[dugsbody]

13 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

people on here zero sense of humour on some of the tongue in cheek posts on here!

I don't think Locke was being tongue in cheek. Read his other posts.

[Locke]

Here is what I know to be true: it is always evil to assault peaceful people. 

Everything I say has this fundamental truth at its core.

If you disagree with me in any way, you are saying (and you cannot deny this), "Sometimes, it is ok to use violence against people who have not done anything to any one."

4 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Locke is rich. Locke will have no problem paying for his private security and electric fences to stop the "scroungers" from taking his stuff. Weirdly, it will cost him more to do so than just paying taxes and making sure his fellow humans can live decent lives, but at least he can sit back and bask in the smug libertarian glow of "scroungers" getting their comeuppance. 

Pretty boring. Taxation is theft. If I try to not pay taxes, you want thugs to come and beat the shit out of me. That is evil.

I don't care about "scroungers", as long as they aren't trying to rob me at gunpoint (taxation).

If someone needs to rob me (or anyone else) in order to live a decent life, why should I care if they have a bad life?

4 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

How would we pay for the army, police etc?  Or do you think we should not have them?

I don't know, how do you pay for your internet access? It's evil to initiate violence against peaceful people, so if you're asking, should we violently extract wealth from peaceful people to give to a group of people who enforce diktats concerning victimless transgressions against peaceful people? Then I would have to say no.

Would I pay for someone to investigate common law crimes and keep the peace generally? Yes, depending on what their plan was and how much they were asking for.

4 hours ago, No One said:

Nah, that's retarded, some tax is needed and government does have a function in society.

A small government with direct democracy and low taxes is ideal. 0% is an anarcho state and absolutely stupid

I see your user name is Locke, you wouldn't happen to be a big brained centrist would you

"that's retarded" and "absolutely stupid" are not arguments.

Slavery had a function in society. Is that meant to be persuasive?

Simply stating that government is ideal appeals only to the runtime routines in NPC minds.

I don't know what a centrist is.

3 hours ago, hurlerontheditch said:

people on here zero sense of humour on some of the tongue in cheek posts on here!

What you responded to is fairly snoreworthy. A little insulting, but ultimately NPC mediocrity.

3 hours ago, dugsbody said:

I don't think Locke was being tongue in cheek. Read his other posts.

100% serious 90% of the time.

[dugsbody]

5 minutes ago, Locke said:

Here is what I know to be true: it is always evil to assault peaceful people. 

Everything I say has this fundamental truth at its core.

If you disagree with me in any way, you are saying (and you cannot deny this), "Sometimes, it is ok to use violence against people who have not done anything to any one."

5 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Locke is rich. Locke will have no problem paying for his private security and electric fences to stop the "scroungers" from taking his stuff. Weirdly, it will cost him more to do so than just paying taxes and making sure his fellow humans can live decent lives, but at least he can sit back and bask in the smug libertarian glow of "scroungers" getting their comeuppance. 

Pretty boring. Taxation is theft. If I try to not pay taxes, you want thugs to come and beat the shit out of me. That is evil.

I don't care about "scroungers", as long as they aren't trying to rob me at gunpoint (taxation).

If someone needs to rob me (or anyone else) in order to live a decent life, why should I care if they have a bad life?

The boring libertarian. 

This same libertarian will think he has the right to assault peaceful people if they come to live on the same land he thinks he has the right to live on exclusively.

Your libertarian views are internally inconsistent, I don't need to go to long lengths to show this, many others have done so already.

 

[iamnumerate]

8 minutes ago, Locke said:

Would I pay for someone to investigate common law crimes and keep the peace generally? Yes, depending on what their plan was and how much they were asking for.

 

So  how would that work without taxation?

[Locke]

41 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

So  how would that work without taxation?

I don't think I really understand the question? Are you asking how a private security firm would keep the peace without violating property rights or assaulting peaceful parties?

To be honest, that's a bit like asking the Wright brothers how transcontinental airlines could operate.

[Riedquat]

51 minutes ago, Locke said:

Would I pay for someone to investigate common law crimes and keep the peace generally? Yes, depending on what their plan was and how much they were asking for.

The last time this came up you completely ignored all the points about "how else is it going to work?" Maybe I'd agree with you that it's an evil, but at present it's a necessary evil because no-one's come up with a workable alternative. You say you don't care about "scroungers" yet haven't addressed what you'd do about them. Put up with reaping the benefits of what you've volunteered to pay towards? Say "OK, don't pay but leave" - which requires what you call thugs and violence if they're not interested in leaving? Or have a society where the wealthy can pay for private armies of thugs to protect themselves whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves?

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, Locke said:

I don't think I really understand the question? Are you asking how a private security firm would keep the peace without violating property rights or assaulting peaceful parties?

To be honest, that's a bit like asking the Wright brothers how transcontinental airlines could operate.

I was asking if you were in charge of writing the manifesto for a political party that would get rid of tax, if there would be any details other than just get rid of tax.

I think I know the answer now.

Edited October 15, 2018 by iamnumerate

[Ah-so]

8 hours ago, No One said:

You have hit the nail on the head. Spot on. 100%.

 

A perfect response to this idiot:

 

I know that I must be an idiot because I pay taxes at 40%.

[Locke]

16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

you completely ignored all the points

I probably got bored. It's pretty tiresome going round in circles with the same things stated slightly differently over and over.

16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

it's a necessary evil

That's lazy. What other moral crimes would you excuse this way?

16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

because no-one's come up with a workable alternative

No, it's because enough people think it's perfectly okay to assault and rob people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

You say you don't care about "scroungers" yet haven't addressed what you'd do about them

Why do I have to do anything about them? They'll either get a job, starve, or convince some sucker to give them money.

16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Put up with reaping the benefits of what you've volunteered to pay towards?

I'm quite happy for my private security's protection to extend to some people who haven't paid. Without the government, all the roads are privately owned. If they refuse to leave, they are initiating violence, and retaliation (physically removing them) is within the realm of moral acceptability.

16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Or have a society where the wealthy can pay for private armies of thugs to protect themselves

That's like a progressive tax then- the more wealth you have, the more you spend protecting it.

16 hours ago, Riedquat said:

whilst the poor are left to fend for themselves?

If most people are against initiation of force, what, exactly are they fending themselves against?

[Locke]

15 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

I was asking if you were in charge of writing the manifesto for a political party that would get rid of tax, if there would be any details other than just get rid of tax.

I think I know the answer now.

Ah, I see. Well firstly, I would't want to be in charge of dictating anyone else's life, but if I were in charge of the Mafia, government, I would abolish all welfare first, reform the tax code to a flat level, retaining the tax-free threshold and spend some of the saving reinforcing the police force to keep the peace during the transition.

But look, if I managed to get in on this platform (which is totally impossible in the current social climate), presumably, some majority of the population would also understand that the initiation of violence is always evil and so we wouldn't need anywhere near as much government intervention.

[Riedquat]

59 minutes ago, Locke said:

That's lazy. What other moral crimes would you excuse this way?

No, not lazy. Just the least bad choice that I'm aware of. A choice has to be made and no-one's come up with a better one. It's only lazy if you really hate it but have no interest in even trying to come up with a better one. If you think it's even theoretically possible to go through life without having to sometimes put up with least bad choices you're incredibly naive.

Quote

No, it's because enough people think it's perfectly okay to assault and rob people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Why do I have to do anything about them? They'll either get a job, starve, or convince some sucker to give them money..

I'm quite happy for my private security's protection to extend to some people who haven't paid. Without the government, all the roads are privately owned. If they refuse to leave, they are initiating violence, and retaliation (physically removing them) is within the realm of moral acceptability.

You don't see the connection? You exclude people and many will resort to taking anyway. Some choose to do that anyway. Then you've got to potentially resort to violence to stop them doing so. You've excluded them for not voluntarily contributing towards your little nirvana and have to set up a system of potential violence to keep it going. What you're describing is exactly the same as we've got now! The only difference is that you've dressed up the wording to say it's their fault for initiating violence. At present people have the choice of not paying taxes and leaving (there's the question of where do they go instead but that's also present in your system).

Quote

That's like a progressive tax then- the more wealth you have, the more you spend protecting it.

If most people are against initiation of force, what, exactly are they fending themselves against?

?

[No One]

16 hours ago, Ah-so said:

I know that I must be an idiot because I pay taxes at 40%.

On that we agree.

 

20 hours ago, Locke said:

Pretty boring. Taxation is theft. If I try to not pay taxes, you want thugs to come and beat the shit out of me. That is evil.

I don't care about "scroungers", as long as they aren't trying to rob me at gunpoint (taxation).

If someone needs to rob me (or anyone else) in order to live a decent life, why should I care if they have a bad life?

Right, taxation is theft is only half true. The BBC license fee is a good example on where this is true. I've seen examples on where thugs force their way into peoples homes for not paying the teevee loicence m8.

The lolbertarian arrangement would mean a nation without a military, which would be easy to overrun by another nation who does not have this structure and could operate as a functional collective. By the way, in a libertarian society, who would enforce and secure your rights? Taxation is theft would mean no public courts, prisons and police. What's to stop a mob overrunning your property and taking what you have, like say, in South Africa.

 

[No One]

2 hours ago, Locke said:

Ah, I see. Well firstly, I would't want to be in charge of dictating anyone else's life, but if I were in charge of the Mafia, government, I would abolish all welfare first, reform the tax code to a flat level, retaining the tax-free threshold and spend some of the saving reinforcing the police force to keep the peace during the transition.

But look, if I managed to get in on this platform (which is totally impossible in the current social climate), presumably, some majority of the population would also understand that the initiation of violence is always evil and so we wouldn't need anywhere near as much government intervention.

But in that scenario there is still taxation. So you have to grant that some taxation is necessary.

[No One]

20 hours ago, Locke said:

Simply stating that government is ideal appeals only to the runtime routines in NPC minds.

Even NPC's are smarter than Loki,