The Politics Thread 2019

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

Please explain where the extra £130 a month tax is calculated on a gross of £22K, (genuine question)?

Here's the calculation in detail

HIs / her company makes £25,555 out of which director takes fees of £8,632. Leaves £16,923 subject to corporation tax. 2% increase on Corporation Tax means company pays £3,554 at 21% - that's £338 more than today.

After paying the Corporation Tax director now has £13,368 to take as dividends so total personal income is £22.000 (£8,632 + £13,368).

Take off personal allowance of £12,500 leaves £9,500 taxable on which he / she pays £12.5% extra - that's £1,187 more.

So total extra tax is £338 + £1,187 = £1,526 = £127 a month more.

Now maybe Labour think it's right they pay more, but don't say it's only those with incomes over £80,000 that are going to pay more when that is patently untrue.

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

On the assumption that one of them is me, the poster was spot on.

I'm used to having mud slung though, water off a ducks back.

The thing I find sad is that rather than debate the points the person has made, they find it easier just to label him a racist and sweep the issue under the carpet rather than risk offending people.

Thanks - so I wasn't mudslinging as i-ram suggested, it was a genuine (and correct) observation.

The problem is that if you want to have a genuine debate about this stuff then you have to approach it sensitively, politely  and intelligently. If he piles in with a load of cliched slurs and the style of a pub casual racist in inflammatory attention-seeking Facebook posts to a load of anonymous followers then he shouldn't be surprised to be suspended. 

 

 

[Gritstone Ram]

5 minutes ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

Here's the calculation in detail

HIs / her company makes £25,555 out of which director takes fees of £8,632. Leaves £16,923 subject to corporation tax. 2% increase on Corporation Tax means company pays £3,554 at 21% - that's £338 more than today.

After paying the Corporation Tax director now has £13,368 to take as dividends so total personal income is £22.000 (£8,632 + £13,368).

Take off personal allowance of £12,500 leaves £9,500 taxable on which he / she pays £12.5% extra - that's £1,187 more.

So total extra tax is £338 + £1,187 = £1,526 = £127 a month more.

Now maybe Labour think it's right they pay more, but don't say it's only those with incomes over £80,000 that are going to pay more when that is patently untrue.

Yeah but they would nationalise you so you’d be working for the government with a final salary pension and paid holidays and sick pay.

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Thanks - so I wasn't mudslinging as i-ram suggested, it was a genuine (and correct) observation.

The problem is that if you want to have a genuine debate about this stuff then you have to approach it sensitively, politely  and intelligently. If he piles in with a load of cliched slurs and the style of a pub casual racist in inflammatory attention-seeking Facebook posts to a load of anonymous followers then he shouldn't be surprised to be suspended. 

Why should the issue be debated any more sensitively, politely and intelligently than any other issue.

Deserves no special treatment. 

If there is an issue that people think needs debating, then debate it.

If you think the way they are approaching the issue is wrong then point that out. Dont just shut them down and close the debate, that only makes the problem worse.

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, uttoxram75 said:

A lot of us have had to pay extra for privatised public services, inflated rail and bus costs, often for a poorer service. Many have had their already poverty level disability money slashed to fund corporate tax cuts. Increased VAT which hits the poorest hardest, social care for the elderly slashed, hard up parents being asked to fund activities at over crowded schools due to the draconian budget cuts that have funded the tax cuts for the wealthy....

No matter how much I try to understand others point of view I keep coming back to the same conclusion, why is it ok to take money off the least well off and the "Jams" yet some are outraged if its suggested the ones who CAN afford a bit more  pay up?. Couple that with the financial trickery that allows the big corps to avoid paying tax in the countries where they operate I feel so sad that so many people are happy to rush headlong into the race to the bottom.

It doesn't have to be like that, it really doesn't. We could build a strong, fair country from the bottom up. Investing in local communities, raising peoples sense of belonging, empowering others to work together, move towards a cleaner, greener, modern economy, give people a bit more leisure time, family time, time to help care for their grandchildren, children and elderly parents.

People need hope that the people at the top do have a smidgeon of humanity and empathy for their fellow travellers on this very short time we exist, not the dread and despair of poverty if you fall ill or lose your job.

Just a few points (mostly on your first paragraph)... 

Welfare - currently higher than any previous government has set the budget to. Spend is at a record high. 
Health care - increased every year under a Conservative Government. Spend is at a record high. 
Education - currently slightly below the record high spend, but still higher than under a Labour Government. 
Corporation Tax - despite cuts to the rates, tax receipts have increased from c£40b to c£50b over the past 10 years. 

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Grumpy Git said:

It was during the war, the new landslide Labour government elected immediately after brought-in the welfare state and founded the NHS.

Does anyone seriously think we'd have either the minimum wage or the NHS if the Labour party had never been elected?

Some people on here need to give their heads a serious wobble.

We’re reminded all the time that this Labour Party isn’t the same Labour Party from 10 years ago, so it surely can’t be the same one from 70 years ago, can it?

[uttoxram75]

25 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Just a few points (mostly on your first paragraph)... 

Welfare - currently higher than any previous government has set the budget to. Spend is at a record high. 
Health care - increased every year under a Conservative Government. Spend is at a record high. 
Education - currently slightly below the record high spend, but still higher than under a Labour Government. 
Corporation Tax - despite cuts to the rates, tax receipts have increased from c£40b to c£50b over the past 10 years. 

If all that spend went to front line services it would be fine. Unfortunately, some goes straight out of the system as profit, often to corporations registered in tax havens. 
The overall spend is high but with worse service for the end users. 
Public services will always be cheaper if ran as a service rather than for profit on the long run.

[Grumpy Git]

1 hour ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

Here's the calculation in detail

HIs / her company makes £25,555 out of which director takes fees of £8,632. Leaves £16,923 subject to corporation tax. 2% increase on Corporation Tax means company pays £3,554 at 21% - that's £338 more than today.

After paying the Corporation Tax director now has £13,368 to take as dividends so total personal income is £22.000 (£8,632 + £13,368).

Take off personal allowance of £12,500 leaves £9,500 taxable on which he / she pays £12.5% extra - that's £1,187 more.

So total extra tax is £338 + £1,187 = £1,526 = £127 a month more.

Now maybe Labour think it's right they pay more, but don't say it's only those with incomes over £80,000 that are going to pay more when that is patently untrue.

Are you sure you pay tax at the full 20% rate on the dividend payout? I thought it was staged?

I would also argue that if a director is going to the trouble of running a limited company and he/she only 'makes' £25.5K PA, they need to get a normal job, = less tax, less headache + holiday pay. Their accountants fee would be almost 4% which is bonkers.

[1of4]

One day to go before the country votes. I've not heard Johnson talking about any of the policies tucked away on page 48 of the conservative party's manifesto. Could it be that if all the policies on that page are implemented the country could potentially become a single party state and it's leader a dictator.

[Gritstone Ram]

6 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

Are you sure you pay tax at the full 20% rate on the dividend payout? I thought it was staged?

I would also argue that if a director is going to the trouble of running a limited company and he/she only 'makes' £25.5K PA, they need to get a normal job, = less tax, less headache + holiday pay. Their accountants fee would be almost 4% which is bonkers.

Yeah you tell him what to do. It doesn’t matter that he is following his dream. He is taking risks and having to make provisions for his pension and any time off for sickness. Pack it in because Labour say you can get a low paid job and will pay less tax. Go work for the big bad company owner that the Labour Party are trying to crush too.

[TimRam]

In a nutshell, Labour want to return us to the Callaghan years Nationalisation, greater union power, higher income tax for all. Add on freedom of movement extension. It won't work.

[Angry Ram]

3 hours ago, 1of4 said:

One day to go before the country votes. I've not heard Johnson talking about any of the policies tucked away on page 48 of the conservative party's manifesto. Could it be that if all the policies on that page are implemented the country could potentially become a single party state and it's leader a dictator.

Go on, what’s on age 48? I’m interested what will turn us into a dictatorship..

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

7 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

Are you sure you pay tax at the full 20% rate on the dividend payout? I thought it was staged?

I would also argue that if a director is going to the trouble of running a limited company and he/she only 'makes' £25.5K PA, they need to get a normal job, = less tax, less headache + holiday pay. Their accountants fee would be almost 4% which is bonkers.

The grey book does say the 2% increase in corporation tax will be staged over a three years, but I haven't seen anything to say the move to 20% on dividends will be staged. I chose £22,000 to show that the changes can impact people with low incomes. 

 The greater the profit, the greater the tax effect. 

My point is that It's a bit disingenuous for Labour to insist they are simply asking for "a little more from those with the broadest shoulders".

 

[GboroRam]

8 hours ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

Here's the calculation in detail

HIs / her company makes £25,555 out of which director takes fees of £8,632. Leaves £16,923 subject to corporation tax. 2% increase on Corporation Tax means company pays £3,554 at 21% - that's £338 more than today.

After paying the Corporation Tax director now has £13,368 to take as dividends so total personal income is £22.000 (£8,632 + £13,368).

Take off personal allowance of £12,500 leaves £9,500 taxable on which he / she pays £12.5% extra - that's £1,187 more.

So total extra tax is £338 + £1,187 = £1,526 = £127 a month more.

Now maybe Labour think it's right they pay more, but don't say it's only those with incomes over £80,000 that are going to pay more when that is patently untrue.

I don't think Labour are arguing that company directors won't pay more corporation tax - they will.

I think you've made a mistake but maybe I'm not following your maths. It looks like you've worked out the extra £338 corporation tax, then forgot to factor in the income tax they would have paid at 19% anyway (which I make to be £1229.95). So they pay an extra £338 in corporation tax, but £42.31 less in income tax (because they'd have more dividend to take out, meaning a take-home of £22,339.63 vs £22,000 with the increased corp tax). Total comes to £42.31 per month extra tax, for a company director with a company making 25.55k per year.

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I don't think Labour are arguing that company directors won't pay more corporation tax - they will.

I think you've made a mistake but maybe I'm not following your maths. It looks like you've worked out the extra £338 corporation tax, then forgot to factor in the income tax they would have paid at 19% anyway (which I make to be £1229.95). So they pay an extra £338 in corporation tax, but £42.31 less in income tax (because they'd have more dividend to take out, meaning a take-home of £22,339.63 vs £22,000 with the increased corp tax). Total comes to £42.31 per month extra tax, for a company director with a company making 25.55k per year.

Surely paying more corporation tax leaves less available for dividends?

20% tax on dividends v 7.5% tax on dividends means 12.5% more on dividends. 

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

Surely paying more corporation tax leaves less available for dividends?

20% tax on dividends v 7.5% tax on dividends means 12.5% more on dividends. 

I need to go look at the maths again. But as I said, company directors will pay more corporation tax. The £80k per year is for the normal guy in the street. My wife's colleague is concerned about the extra cost, and she works 16 hours a week in Asda. The arguments about paying more tax are being deliberately blurred so people who really have nothing to fear are getting worked up about it.

[GboroRam]

7 minutes ago, Half Fan Half Biscuit said:

Surely paying more corporation tax leaves less available for dividends?

20% tax on dividends v 7.5% tax on dividends means 12.5% more on dividends. 

I guess what the question is, why isn't he paying himself a reasonable wage, rather than paying himself through dividends, if it isn't just to avoid tax?

[Half Fan Half Biscuit]

18 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I guess what the question is, why isn't he paying himself a reasonable wage, rather than paying himself through dividends, if it isn't just to avoid tax?

He's doing it because he can within the tax laws as they stand.  But don't forget as a one man band he's already effectively paid the 19% corporation tax himself on top of the tax on dividends. 

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, Grumpy Git said:

Are you sure you pay tax at the full 20% rate on the dividend payout? I thought it was staged?

I would also argue that if a director is going to the trouble of running a limited company and he/she only 'makes' £25.5K PA, they need to get a normal job, = less tax, less headache + holiday pay. Their accountants fee would be almost 4% which is bonkers.

 

19 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I need to go look at the maths again. But as I said, company directors will pay more corporation tax. The £80k per year is for the normal guy in the street. 

 

18 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I guess what the question is, why isn't he paying himself a reasonable wage, rather than paying himself through dividends, if it isn't just to avoid tax?

And here in a nutshell is Labours attitude towards small business and entrepreneurship.

If you want to run a business you're no longer than normal guy in the street and you shouldnt expect any incentives to help you kick start the business.

[GboroRam]

23 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

 

 

And here in a nutshell is Labours attitude towards small business and entrepreneurship.

If you want to run a business you're no longer than normal guy in the street and you shouldnt expect any incentives to help you kick start the business.

You shouldn't expect preferential tax laws. We all contribute. Otherwise we end up in a situation where we can't afford to fund a working NHS and don't have beds for children when they need them.