• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Cameron for Cash

Jurgen the German said:
Like I said, my Dad did well for himself during the Thatcher years. He had various jobs after leaving school including working for an insurance company, he eventually got himself into the position where he could afford to set up his own sporting goods shop. He was his own boss and as a family, we were comfortable financially. But he never forgot his roots. Him and his family grew up without ever having much money. He fully understood that he would keep doing very well if he voted for Thatcher, but he didn't think it was best for the country as a whole. Labour are not perfect by any means and they've made some monumental fudge ups, but he believed that they have the best interests of the people in this country, not just the rich and that's still what I believe.
Click to expand...

No offence mate, but do you actually know the state the country was in prior to Conservatives coming into power? You do realise that blackouts, rotting rubbish in the streets, port blockades, wildcat strikes, uncontrollable inflation and the Winter of Discontent all happened on Labours watch yeah?

If you want to put things as crudely as you've done, then it is better to think that the average Tory would like to benefit the country by offering everyone a hand up, whereas Labour seek to bring equality by dragging everybody down. Making a state of dependant workers tied down to non-jobs is not in "the best interests of this country", it's a way of retaining power.
 
P.D. said:
That is one of the most stupid ideas I've seen on this forum. Put 25% of a companys turnover into an escero account is effectivley what you are saying until all tax returns have been completed, is this what you mean? You think that companies wouldn't go bankrupt and run into immense cash flow difficulties. The reason self assessments are used is because tax is a complicated area and businesses can and do use many different mechanisms to offset things against other things e.g. expenses, losses, transferring cash flow between different business units and offshore etc plus zillions of other things.

You correctly say they are merging tax and NIC or looking into it anyway, they are also bringing in real time information from April 2013 which will make PAYE by far and away the most effeicient system of taxation in this country (not that it wasn't already).
Click to expand...

Er no. That's not what I am saying. Now go back and read again.
 
Add to that by law you have to have a certain type of bank account to trade under, and 25% of all receipts into that bank account instantly get transferred over to a savings account for taxation purposes.
Click to expand...

So you aren't saying that 25% of your turnover shouldnt be placed into a seperate account for taxation purposes?
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
Er no. That's not what I am saying. Now go back and read again.
Click to expand...

i beleive you were suggesting individual "employees" essentially "trade" as a company.

the costs to HMRC aside (which would make your scheme unworkable IMHO), it would not be right to make people put away 25% of earning in readiness to pay the taxman - many people just about break even every month, some live on credit, so this is a solution that simply isnt viable

we also need to consider the skills sets of the mass populas - there are millions that either dont have the volition and/or the skills to manage their own taxes effectively

you suggestion would only work, in general, for mid level management/skilled workers - ie, the people that are currently likely to fill contractor roles should they so wish
 
monkeybarry said:
i beleive you were suggesting individual "employees" essentially "trade" as a company.

the costs to HMRC aside (which would make your scheme unworkable IMHO), it would not be right to make people put away 25% of earning in readiness to pay the taxman - many people just about break even every month, some live on credit, so this is a solution that simply isnt viable

we also need to consider the skills sets of the mass populas - there are millions that either dont have the volition and/or the skills to manage their own taxes effectively

you suggestion would only work, in general, for mid level management/skilled workers - ie, the people that are currently likely to fill contractor roles should they so wish
Click to expand...

More to the point, the majority of people living close to the breadline probably wouldn't have the financial discipline to hold the money back in the first place. That's the reason that Wonga and scummers like them have a market to operate in.
 
monkeybarry said:
i beleive you were suggesting individual "employees" essentially "trade" as a company.

the costs to HMRC aside (which would make your scheme unworkable IMHO), it would not be right to make people put away 25% of earning in readiness to pay the taxman - many people just about break even every month, some live on credit, so this is a solution that simply isnt viable

we also need to consider the skills sets of the mass populas - there are millions that either dont have the volition and/or the skills to manage their own taxes effectively

you suggestion would only work, in general, for mid level management/skilled workers - ie, the people that are currently likely to fill contractor roles should they so wish
Click to expand...

But, they do so already? So what changes?
 
WookieD said:
More to the point, the majority of people living close to the breadline probably wouldn't have the financial discipline to hold the money back in the first place. That's the reason that Wonga and scummers like them have a market to operate in.
Click to expand...

That's why the 25% would automatically be set aside (post personal tax allowance).
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
That's why the 25% would automatically be set aside (post personal tax allowance).
Click to expand...

OK, so assuming you can get these special bank accounts set up and financed (Presumably the banks are going to jump on this and start adding on management fees to make up for the extra "Administration" of these new accounts). What do you propose on actual renumeration? Just because we've done away with PAYE, it doesn't mean that businesses can then afford to reimburse it's contractors like, well, contractors. However, they will no longer be obliged to pay holiday or sick pay, so some sort of increase is needed to reflect this.

So this new breed of working class contractor now needs to pay management fees to the bank, accountancy fees to ensure that they are above board if they receive any sort of bonus or expenses that need to be calculated outside of the 25%, and they will need to start considering insurance against loss of earnings as they won't even be entitled to sick pay. Essentially, I don't see how a scheme like that doesn't end up costing the employer AND the employee more money.
 
WookieD said:
More to the point, the majority of people living close to the breadline probably wouldn't have the financial discipline to hold the money back in the first place. That's the reason that Wonga and scummers like them have a market to operate in.
Click to expand...

Are all your political beliefs based on mindless generalisations and stereotypes. Personally, I find them quite amusing. Have you got anymore?
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Are all your political beliefs based on mindless generalisations and stereotypes. Personally, I find them quite amusing. Have you got anymore?
Click to expand...

I've got tons mate. I should probably qualify that though to mean mostly younger people. I remember to a man watching mates of mine blaze through their paychecks in the first week and be skint for the rest of the month. A lot of them still do. Maybe everyone I know is a bit of a plank, who knows. But it's a good indicator.

I'm not saying that people close to the breadline are less disciplined. What I actually mean is, most people, full stop are indisciplined with money. And it is people who are struggling that it would immediately affect. Look at how we got ourselves into a position of ?ú3trillion personal debt in the UK... You think the average man is good with their finances? More fool you.

And that isn't a political belief, it's just observtion.
 
WookieD said:
OK, so assuming you can get these special bank accounts set up and financed (Presumably the banks are going to jump on this and start adding on management fees to make up for the extra "Administration" of these new accounts). What do you propose on actual renumeration? Just because we've done away with PAYE, it doesn't mean that businesses can then afford to reimburse it's contractors like, well, contractors. However, they will no longer be obliged to pay holiday or sick pay, so some sort of increase is needed to reflect this.

So this new breed of working class contractor now needs to pay management fees to the bank, accountancy fees to ensure that they are above board if they receive any sort of bonus or expenses that need to be calculated outside of the 25%, and they will need to start considering insurance against loss of earnings as they won't even be entitled to sick pay. Essentially, I don't see how a scheme like that doesn't end up costing the employer AND the employee more money.
Click to expand...

Why? I have already stated this would have to go hand in hand with a slash of red tape. It's simple to design a workflow system that can be automated and accomodate these sort of issues. The net result is a more flexible outcome. I also disagree it would cost more. It wouldn't. For the employee? More take home. For the employer? Nothing changes as they no longer pay Employer N.I. and can cut costs on payroll etc.

Loss of sick pay isn't a bad thing. Never really seen why an employer should pay someone to be at home sick personally. The exception clearly being if something at work has made the person sick in which case the employer pays up in compensation.

The key to success here is to lower administration costs and red tape as much as possible. Systems can easily be automated.

Finally, not sure why the Banks would charge either considering it's a government directive and they'd be fined heavily for doing so? It costs them practically nothing and indeed banks are big employers and would save a fortune in cost cuts.
 
monkeybarry said:
im guessing your havnt looked at the progessive tax system for income tax we have in the UK recently?
Click to expand...

Of course I am aware. Never agreed with it (in fact it's an immoral disgrace). All of my "policies" (and I notice no else has the balls to come up with any, you lot should be politicians!) are dependant on something else I've preached relentlessly on here. Massive cuts in the Public sector and complete reform of the Welfare State. I believe in global market forces, and that means we have to be competitive. And that means low taxation and let market forces do the rest.

I often wonder what would've happened if we hadn't nationalised everything. We used to be an economic superpower and then Government got greedy. The irony is a lot of the Northern working class especially hold dear to socialism blissfully unaware that the north once thrived with industry and economic prowess. That died when we started nationalising everything. By the time we got back into the habit of privatisation it was all much too late to reverse the decline of this once great economic super power.
 
The Moonlit Knight said:
You said you voted for her, when?
Click to expand...

Just answered that question in the Cameron thread, i will do so here as well.

As it happened i never did get to vote for her, i was going to in 79 but had to go on contract to the States and missed out on doing so. My wife voted for her though and she thinks it was the biggest mistake she ever made.
 
Hootnow said:
The EU budget for 2011 was ?ú121 billion. The UK health budget for 2011 was ?ú125 billion.

Can/should it be more efficient? Certainly. Is it corrupt? I would be surprised if there is a single political entity on the planet that isn't. But the extent of the EU's budget, and the extent of its waste, os often overblown imo. And this is coming from someone who isn't a great fan of the EU and especially the Euro.
Click to expand...

Including bail-out funds?

Auditors have refused to sign off the EU's accounts for what now, 12 years? Highly unlikely that it's not corrupt don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back