Labour to raise dividend tax from 7.5% to 20% Labour to raise dividend tax from 7.5% to 20% - Page 5
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Posts 41 to 47 of 47
  1. #41

    Prof Cunning @ Oxford Uni

    WTFH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    18,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paralytic View Post
    It's bad when "spoiled ballot paper" is looking like the best option.

    Are the Monster Raving Loony Party still around?
    Lord Buckethead is still around.

    He was campaigning in Uxbridge and wanted a debate with BoJo under the title Buckethead v Mophead
    Moderation means Moderation
    Strong and Stable Moderation

    Get Moderation Done - Unleash Moderator Potential

  2. #42

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WTFH View Post
    So, no sane person can support the Tories/TBP Ltd, and no sane person can support the Labour leadership.

    Can any of you suggest who the sane should vote for?
    The Liberals might be a decent option if they weren't going to put Corbyn-McDonnell in power to stop Brexit. And everyone knows they are now really a one-issue party and that's what they'll do.

    So it's going to be PM Corbyn or PM Johnson. If given a choice between Chavez/Stalin and Trump, the former is devastating enough that I'll take Trump. No doubt he's damaged America but not like what Chavez did to Venezuela. The Tories don't deserve my vote, not even close, but the alternative is so much worse.

    Not that they'll win in my constituency anyway.

  3. #43

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WordIsBond View Post
    The Liberals might be a decent option if they weren't going to put Corbyn-McDonnell in power to stop Brexit. And everyone knows they are now really a one-issue party and that's what they'll do.

    So it's going to be PM Corbyn or PM Johnson. If given a choice between Chavez/Stalin and Trump, the former is devastating enough that I'll take Trump. No doubt he's damaged America but not like what Chavez did to Venezuela. The Tories don't deserve my vote, not even close, but the alternative is so much worse.

    Not that they'll win in my constituency anyway.
    nor mine

  4. #44

    My post count is Majestic

    d000hg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    My house
    Posts
    32,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
    If the IR35 reforms bite then you are looking at full PAYE on all income with Employers NI thrown in on top as well, so really not much difference.
    I actually wouldn't mind if all personal income was treated equally under a simpler system though as was pointed out, the low dividend tax rate is to avoid double taxation. This is quite a complicated issue to explain to the man in the street though why you're not "only paying 7.5% tax".

    Quote Originally Posted by WordIsBond View Post
    I'll breach that figure this year, because I was foolish enough to hire a couple more people whose time I could bill out. If this were to come in I might just let them go, and tell them I'll be glad to recommend them to clients but I can't afford to keep them on as employees.

    Yet another Labour stupidity -- if they based it on a profit threshold rather than a turnover threshold then it wouldn't be a disincentive to employ people. These people aren't even competent in implementing envy politics.
    It'd based on turnover as a rough metric for how big your company is, not how profitable. I would imagine the businesses in your position who might have the MD better off by reducing turnover are a tiny edge case. You're a contractor opportunistically subbing some mates not an entrepreneur trying to grow their company - and I don't mean that as an insult, kudos to you for doing so. If you were the latter you'd be thinking how to grow beyond 300k and hire more people, not how to just keep under 300k. I imagine 26% CT on a turnover of 500k you'd be better off than 21% CT on 299k?

    There are always weird corner cases affected weirdly by changes.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryPoppins View Post
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Quote Originally Posted by vetran View Post
    Urine is quite nourishing

  5. #45

    My post count is Majestic

    AtW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    51,793

    Default

    Corp tax paid should have been treated as dividend tax credit - pound for pound, now that would be fair and sensible.

  6. #46

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AtW View Post
    now that would be fair and sensible.
    Thus, Corbyn-led Labour would never do it. We'll see if they get anyone who is more fair and sensible, or just someone a little less obvious in their lunacy. I'd bet on the latter -- the lunatics have taken over.

  7. #47

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,512

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d000hg View Post
    I actually wouldn't mind if all personal income was treated equally under a simpler system though as was pointed out, the low dividend tax rate is to avoid double taxation. This is quite a complicated issue to explain to the man in the street though why you're not "only paying 7.5% tax".

    It'd based on turnover as a rough metric for how big your company is, not how profitable. I would imagine the businesses in your position who might have the MD better off by reducing turnover are a tiny edge case. You're a contractor opportunistically subbing some mates not an entrepreneur trying to grow their company - and I don't mean that as an insult, kudos to you for doing so. If you were the latter you'd be thinking how to grow beyond 300k and hire more people, not how to just keep under 300k. I imagine 26% CT on a turnover of 500k you'd be better off than 21% CT on 299k?

    There are always weird corner cases affected weirdly by changes.
    Actually, I've been building slowly and have employees, and I'm not subbing mates, I've built a team and am subcontracting out pieces. In other words, the consultancy model. But I'm not that far over £300K, could get under it, and I certainly would be better off under those stupid plans if I got under it. The jump from £325K to £400K, which is probably where I'd have to get to be better off, is not necessarily something I could do quickly.

    These kinds of hard thresholds are nuts. You have the same thing with the 50 employee threshold, breach that and it causes lots of headaches, enough that people have to think long and hard about hiring past 45 employees. It's an artificial barrier to growth that will cause some to simply decide not to grow.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •