UK Tories break election promise with self-employed tax increase
29 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The Government abandoned an election pledge not to increase National Insurance contributions in the Budget, as the Chancellor announced a clampdown on tax breaks for the self-employed.
Philip Hammond scrapped David Cameron’s 2015 manifesto commitment as he revealed plans to raise an extra £2bn from entrepreneurs by the end of the current Parliament.
The National Insurance levy on the profits of the self-employed, currently 9pc, will rise to 10pc next year and 11pc in 2019.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/08/budget-2017-live-chancellor-philip-hammond-announce-tax-rises/[/url]
Yes, because that's what we totally need after brexit, a tax on innovation! if anything it should be the opposite, drop or flat out REMOVE tax on the self-employed / startups.
Predictably, the scumfuck Tories just want to squeeze the uppity poor people some more to put them in their place, because to get the rich to pay, that sounds too much like communist bullshit because what's mine is mine, according to them.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;51931904]Predictably, the scumfuck Tories just want to squeeze the uppity poor people some more to put them in their place[/QUOTE]
Do you actually believe that? In what world would it make sense for any political party in a democracy to purposely keep people poor? Especially a Conservative party whose support is reliant on those who actually aspire to make money.
[QUOTE=The mouse;51931930]Do you actually believe that? In what world would it make sense for any political party in a democracy to purposely keep people poor? Especially a Conservative party whose support is reliant on those who actually aspire to make money.[/QUOTE]
If a political party is simply motivated by staying in power/gathering power, then it makes sense to keep people poor if poor people have a higher chance of voting them.
[QUOTE=Mmrnmhrm;51931990]If a political party is simply motivated by staying in power/gathering power, then it makes sense to keep people poor if poor people have a higher chance of voting them.[/QUOTE]
But they don't, that's the point. The Conservative party largely relies on the socially mobile and aspiring classes, therefore it doesn't make any sense to accuse them of purposely keeping people poor, if they did then Labour would have a larger base of potential voters.
wow my fucking barber for 20yrs was talking about this.
this will well and truly fuck over small businesses. this is absolute bollocks of the highest order.
"But a separate category of National Insurance payments, Class 2, are already due to be abolished from 2018, and Mr Hammond said that taken together the two changes meant NI payments for a self-employed person would be on average 60p a week higher."
Source: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39196579[/url]
It's not a massive tax hike like you're all making it out to be. Plus it's going to be used on welfare payments.
Yeah, someone do this country a favour and rid us of these morally corrupted bastards - I'd take Labour or the LibDems over this any day of the week. This pisses me off because my dad's self-employed (auto-trader, no pitch but he buys and sells cars second hand) and it'll no doubt make things harder for him.
[QUOTE=The mouse;51931930]Do you actually believe that? In what world would it make sense for any political party in a democracy to purposely keep people poor? Especially a Conservative party whose support is reliant on those who actually aspire to make money.[/QUOTE]
are you being intentionally ridiculous with that statement
[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;51931902]Yes, because that's what we totally need after brexit, a tax on innovation! if anything it should be the opposite, drop or flat out REMOVE tax on the self-employed / startups.[/QUOTE]
Self-employment taxes are a reality of self-employment everywhere. Considering it's 15% in the US right now, 9-11% is nothing. It's a complicated subject.
This is the government clawing tax back from the "gig economy"
The rising number of self-employed people results in less National Insurance contributions from employers (which normally contribute along with employee NI contributions)
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;51932155]Self-employment taxes are a reality of self-employment everywhere. Considering it's 15% in the US right now, 9-11% is nothing. It's a complicated subject.[/QUOTE]
This is 9-11% on-top of the minimum 20%
[QUOTE=The mouse;51932122]But they don't, that's the point. The Conservative party largely relies on the socially mobile and aspiring classes, therefore it doesn't make any sense to accuse them of purposely keeping people poor, if they did then Labour would have a larger base of potential voters.[/QUOTE]
in the real world many people (especially those who are struggling and dont have free time to do real research) don't actually pay attention to what the parties actually do, just what they say around election time. if there's a pre-existing expectation that "conservative party relies on X class of people" that class if people is likely to vote for them just because.
[QUOTE=Yellowamoeba;51932144]"But a separate category of National Insurance payments, Class 2, are already due to be abolished from 2018, and Mr Hammond said that taken together the two changes meant NI payments for a self-employed person would be on average 60p a week higher."
Source: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39196579[/url]
It's not a massive tax hike like you're all making it out to be. Plus it's going to be used on welfare payments.[/QUOTE]
Class 2 is fixed at £2.80 a week vs class 4 which is percentage based. Class 2 is nothing compared to class 4.
[QUOTE=The mouse;51931930]Do you actually believe that? In what world would it make sense for any political party in a democracy to purposely keep people poor? Especially a Conservative party whose support is reliant on those who actually aspire to make money.[/QUOTE]
If their actions didn't prove people right constantly there wouldn't be a need for you to act as an apologetic mouth piece.
[QUOTE=BAZ;51932158]This is 9-11% on-top of the minimum 20%[/QUOTE]
US taxes work the same way, the SET is on top of the regular income tax.
can we take all the US republicans and UK tories and ship them to the sun or something tbh
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51932173]If their actions didn't prove people right constantly there wouldn't be a need for you to act as an apologetic mouth piece.[/QUOTE]
Except their actions don't prove people right. People just ignore the facts because it suits their political ideology.
For example, [URL="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/george-osborne-has-squeezed-more-from-the-rich-than-any-uk-chancellor-ever/"]The current conservative government has raised more money from the rich than any other in history[/URL]
[URL="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/official-income-inequality-has-fallen-under-david-cameron/"]Income inequality has come down under this government.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/lefty-myths-about-inequality/"]Poverty is at it's lowest in 32 years[/URL]
"Lefty myths about inequality"
Sounds like an unbiased source.
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
Plus I wouldn't say Cameron's government is the same as May's. I think Cameron did much better than May.
The spectator is a crock of shit
[QUOTE=The mouse;51932408]People just ignore the facts because it suits their political ideology.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Morgen;51932451]"Lefty myths about inequality"
Sounds like an unbiased source.
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
Plus I wouldn't say Cameron's government is the same as May's. I think Cameron did much better than May.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doozle;51932485]The spectator is a crock of shit[/QUOTE]
Thank you for proving my point.
[QUOTE=The mouse;51932540]Thank you for proving my point.[/QUOTE]
I was just stating that your source is clearly biased.
I'll find a more reputable source on the issue of inequality:
[QUOTE]An ONS senior statistician, Claudia Wells, said a strong rise in pensioner incomes was behind much of the increase in incomes, especially of those in the bottom 40%.
“Household incomes are above their pre-downturn peak overall, but not everyone is better off. While retired households’ incomes have soared in recent years, non-retired households still have less money, on average, than before the crash,” she said.
The Resolution Foundation said weak income growth for working households had led to a growing “living standards divide” between them and pensioner households and among pensioners themselves, with inequality among the retired at its highest level since 2001-02.
[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/10/uk-inequality-working-people-pensions-ons[/url]
Oh
[QUOTE=The mouse;51932540]Thank you for proving my point.[/QUOTE]
Unless your point was that you're the one ignoring facts and posting clearly biased sources to fit your ideological bias idk what your point was that they proved.
[QUOTE=Morgen;51932602]I was just stating that your source is clearly biased.
I'll find a more reputable source on the issue of inequality:
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/10/uk-inequality-working-people-pensions-ons[/url]
Oh[/QUOTE]
Calling the Spectator biased and then posting a link to The Guardian is an egregious case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Besides, the point the article makes is moot. Why does it matter if pensioners are disproportionately better off? Surely when so much of the population is aging, it's good that pensioners are more able to pay for their own care than.
[QUOTE=The mouse;51932989]Calling the Spectator biased and then posting a link to The Guardian is an egregious case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Besides, the point the article makes is moot. Why does it matter if pensioners are disproportionately better off? Surely when so much of the population is aging, it's good that pensioners are more able to pay for their own care than.[/QUOTE]
Guardian is generally pretty good at keeping things factual.
Clearly pensioners being considerably better off isn't an issue when we are talking about equality. Why would inequality be an issue in a debate about equality??
[QUOTE=Morgen;51933016]Guardian is generally pretty good at keeping things factual.
Clearly pensioners being considerably better off isn't an issue when we are talking about equality. Why would inequality be an issue in a debate about equality??[/QUOTE]
So is The Spectator, except unlike The Guardian, The Spectator actually has contributors from all over the political spectrum.
Why does a decrease in income inequality have to be conditional? Why is it suddenly a bad thing that previously poor pensioners are now better off?
[QUOTE=The mouse;51932540]Thank you for proving my point.[/QUOTE]
So are you saying if I use Brietbart news, it's as valid as whatever source you want? Because that's what your saying
That sources don't matter. They do.
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=The mouse;51933087]So is The Spectator, except unlike The Guardian, The Spectator actually has contributors from all over the political spectrum.
Why does a decrease in income inequality have to be conditional? Why is it suddenly a bad thing that previously poor pensioners are now better off?[/QUOTE]
I don't really care if it has "Contributors from all over the political spectrum" if such "Contributors" lack the capacity for basic integrity to write a headline that isn't pure shit.
How bad is the budget deficit situation in the U.K.? All I am ever hearing from there is yet another service getting its budget tightened; whether it's disability support, health services, police etc, and now there are tax raises too. Our government here is also working on getting our budget back into surplus, which will eventually happen in ten or so years, and it's doing so without cuts that are as drastic.
this is even better when you consider that all these "independant contractors" who do jobs that are blaitantly abusing the law for tax purposes get doubly screwed because they pay more tax than if they were an employee and they dont make as much as an employee would.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
