Prince John posted:

There is a distinction between Amazon's tax avoidance and the hypothetical plucky contractor though. The latter, as you say, is taking advantage of the system and benefits as set out by a government and taxed by a single authority. The government have the ability to close the loopholes if they see fit, and there's a reasonable argument that they're happy with the state of affairs if they don't do this after many years of grumbling about it.

Amazon will quite happily take advantages of loopholes that fall between jurisdictions e.g. where interest is tax deductible in one state yet not taxable in another. It gives them a huge competitive advantage compared to businesses that don't operate at sufficient scale internationally, so there's a huge public interest argument for cracking down on that poo poo hard. The idea of the taxman's prerogative doesn't really fit with this kind of model.

zhar posted:

it's the taxmans prerogative to make sure he's collecting the tax he should not the person paying it. tax evasion is different ofc.

learnincurve posted:

Dude, go down the council and get a “zero income” form, will cover your rent via housing benefit without having to apply for UC.

learnincurve posted:

learnincurve posted:

Niric posted:

I really don't like this line of reasoning, since it completely ignores the massive lobbying and commercial influence that goes on to ensure the taxman doesn't collect the tax and that the rules are written in such a way as to benefit certain parties. It also ignores the huge amount of money and expertise that is invested in avoiding taxation: this isn't a passive failure of collection, it's an entire industry of influencing policy, obfuscation rules, and advising about possible loopholes

Guavanaut posted:

Plus the revolvingwide-open door between the HMRC and exclusive tax accountancy firms.

The people interpreting the rules to collect taxes and the people interpreting them to avoid them are the same people, they go to the same clubs.

Azza Bamboo posted:

A lot of councils are closed to the public. You wouldn't be able to get a zero income form off my local council right now.

Prince John posted:

There is a distinction between Amazon's tax avoidance and the hypothetical plucky contractor though. The latter, as you say, is taking advantage of the system and benefits as set out by a government and taxed by a single authority. The government have the ability to close the loopholes if they see fit, and there's a reasonable argument that they're happy with the state of affairs if they don't do this after many years of grumbling about it. It's not that objectionable and is easily remedied if the government has a mind to do so.

Amazon will quite happily take advantages of loopholes that fall between jurisdictions e.g. where interest paid is tax deductible in one state yet interest received is not taxable in another. It gives them a huge competitive advantage compared to businesses that don't operate at sufficient scale internationally, so there's a huge public interest argument for cracking down on that poo poo hard. The idea of the taxman's prerogative doesn't really fit with this kind of model because they're essentially powerless without international cooperation.

Goldskull posted:

You really didn't read a word I said did you? Quote from my accountant: "If you do that (going underneath the tax threshold of what, £12k?) you can pay yourself a directors bonus". I've never done that in 5 years of being a limited company, because I needed that money to either live, or pay the Tax I know is coming at end of year. Stop acting like I'm the enemy here and I'm 'exploiting the system', I'm getting shafted here because Sunak and his army of Tory oval office accountants know this so they can linit the payout. I go homeless in 2 months without a rent holiday/help that was promised off this 'government' because with IR35 (that's now postponed for a year whoopie loving doo) my trade has been dead since Feb. Or are you one of those twitter clowns that think self-employed translates as 'builders who do cash in hand and pay people from Poland and it's not fair on me the taxpayer'?

Or tell me if you think you can live on ~£94 a week given I've been paying tax for 27 years now? gently caress you.

zhar posted:

you're right i am conflating two very different situations and that is probably a bit thick of me. they are both structural legal problems though, what can the amazon board member who wakes up with a conscience do without getting kicked out and replaced with someone with less scruples? As long as they are legally bound to provide shareholders with profits tax avoidance (and evasion) of this kind is inevitable, so I don't think blaming the individual or individual corporation is productive unless the bad PR they'd get from doing so outweighs the tax loss which seems unlikely at the scale of amazon. so while i think it's unethical, sure, it seems like a systemic impossibility for amazon to start acting ethically by recalling it's lobbyists and paying lots of tax even if you behead bezos.

what would they do if the uk just decided to unilaterally tax all goods sold here by a tech company in the same way they would a high street business? or a percentage of sales? im not that educated in finance and there are probably loads of problems doing it like that but given their profits here there must be a way for our lawmakers to get a bigger cut even without cooperation from luxembourg or whatever.

zhar posted:

what would they do if the uk just decided to unilaterally tax all goods sold here by a tech company in the same way they would a high street business? or a percentage of sales? im not that educated in finance and there are probably loads of problems doing it like that but given their profits here there must be a way for our lawmakers to get a bigger cut even without cooperation from luxembourg or whatever.

quote:

Creative practitioners whose main work is focused on these artforms and disciplines:

Music
Theatre
Dance
Visual Arts
Literature
Combined Arts
Museums practice
This work includes: choreographers, writers, translators, producers, editors, freelance educators in the disciplines and artforms we support, composers, directors, designers, artists, craft makers and curators.

Magicians and comedians can apply to this fund, as long as they have a track record of receiving public funding for their work.

Barry Foster posted:

What a cringey dickhead

Julio Cruz posted:

turns out that a whole load of people are getting hosed by the Tories and most of them haven't spent the preceding half-decade engaged in a scheme designed to prevent them paying their fair share of tax

I think I'll be saving my sympathy for them instead

CancerCakes posted:

If you are posting in this thread you are by definition not the enemy - true wealth pays 1000s for their forums and they are at ski resorts

Goldskull posted:

loving Hell, Which bit of 'I go under the threshold so I can afford the big tax bill at the end of the year' did you not get now I've told you twice? Is it the bit where I said 'I pay my taxes' or is it the bit where I said 'no sick pay/heath care or benefits'? Perhaps the part where I said 'homeless in 2 months because I rent' and this scheme the Tories think is acceptable doesn't screw me into the ground?
Stop acting like I'm some horrendous offshore tax monster, you come across like a right prick.

jaete posted:

So uh, y'all were talking about children's TV programmes, how excellent or otherwise is Once Upon a Time: Life? I remember watching that one as a kid and back then it was awesome. Dunno from a more current perspective though

Julio Cruz posted:

no it's the bit where you said, and I quote, "I pay myself as an employee £8k a year so I'm under the allowable tax bracket, rest of my money is dividends."

drat that self-employed status that forced you into manipulating your income in order to avoid paying tax on it, after all you can't be expected just to have a regular salary like normal people, it's just not an option

quote:

Everyone in these debates could use a bit of humility and a dose of open-mindedness. That’s true on both sides. It’s true for all of us. The right has been forced to relearn the prime importance of the state as guarantor in a period of emergency. It is having to accept the state’s irreducible responsibility to the most vulnerable. It has also, perhaps, learned that what a health service can achieve reflects the investment that has been made in it, although no health service anywhere has been or could have been fully prepared.

But the left has lessons to learn too. Many of the takeaways from the Covid-19 crisis may seem obvious. But what is true during a crisis is not necessarily true or desirable when the crisis is over. The NHS needs whatever it takes in a crisis, but at other times health service spending is as long as a piece of string and there has to be a cut-off point, if only to allow spending elsewhere. The borrowing that may or may not save the economy from recession in a crisis will also have to be paid for when the crisis is over. People may trust Johnson with powers they would not want Jeremy Corbyn to possess.

blunt posted:

Don't get me wrong, we should bail everybody out right now - self employed included - but this situation demonstrates that way too many self employed people aren't setting up their own safety nets and so it seems fair that once this is over we equalise the tax systems and extend the gov protections to everyone going forward.

Vitamin P posted:

Yeah how stupid of them that after over a decade of austerity and soaring living costs and literal daily propoganda hiding the systemic cracks every self-employed worker hasn't independently created their own safety net. What does 'setting up their own safety net' even mean btw?

RockyB posted:

Both sides centerism.txt

Of course it's a loving graun article, why do I keep doing this to myself

quote:

People may trust Johnson with powers they would not want Jeremy Corbyn to possess.

blunt posted:

See the paragraph directly above the one you quoted - income protection insurance.

quote:

I guess the core of my question is this - what is special about being self employed that justifies a lower effective tax rate than a PAYE employee?

blunt posted:

See the paragraph directly above the one you quoted - income protection insurance.

Goldskull posted:

The absolute loving state of you and Communist Thoughts. Did you not read the part where I said 'I don't pay that so I can afford to pay the bigger Tax bill from Corporation/Dividend Tax?' How much do you think I'm pulling a year?

We are the people who Freelance, we have no sick pay, no holiday pay, Health benefits: I have no work (like the last month) I have to sit at home applying everywhere, and all the rest. I still put my NI in & I probably paid more tax than you did last year so don't ever come at me with this 'think about the NHS' bullshit. I'm not your enemy here, it's all those offshore corporations that pay dick all tax that are. gently caress you.

blunt posted:

See the paragraph above the one you quoted - income protection insurance.

RockyB posted:

The actual answer of course is unionisation and class consciousness, but like gently caress are you getting the 'self-employed' uber and deliveroo drivers to do that let alone IT contractors.

Jaeluni Asjil posted:

I assume you have never had or tried to claim on one of those policies.
I've not had one but friends and relatives have.
They wriggle out of them every which way they can and critical illness cover is the worst for not paying out.

jaete posted:

That poo poo might be expensive though. I don't actually know but I can imagine it's not something you necessarily want to always have. Insurance companies will make sure you gotta pay for it, and can't just claim it willy nilly etc

(Obviously the government could do this much more efficiently, just like ordinary unemployment insurance)