OTS targets 1,000+ tax reliefs

The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) has identified 1,042 tax reliefs as a first step towards streamlining the UK tax system.

Having published what it claims is the first comprehensive list of the reliefs and allowances available, the OTS asked if has missed any out, and invited comments on its website from those who take advantage of the allowances.

“I am sure some people will be surprised by the sheer number of reliefs in today’s tax system,” commented John Whiting, tax director for the Office of Tax Simplification. “Many have a clear and highly valued benefit so clearly we would not seek to change those.  Others, however, may simply no longer be used, or are too complex and burdensome to be properly effective, so it is these that I want my team to focus on.”

Perhaps in response to criticisms from the likes of TAXtv’s Giles Mooney that the OTS lacked input from small companies and their advisers, the body set up two consultative committees reflecting more varied communities.

The tax reliefs review consultative committee includes ACCA’s head of tax Chas Roy-Choudhury, former ICAEW Tax Faculty chairs Paul Aplin (AC Mole & Co) and Francesca Lagerberg (Grant Thornton) and Atlas Chambers barrister Keith Gordon. A parallel committee advising on the small business tax review includes AccountingWEB.co.uk contributor Simon Sweetman, ICAEW Tax Faculty technical manager Anita Monteith, Anne Redstone and Chris Bryce, chairman of the PCG.

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
Wild Billy's picture

My old mate Mike "rent-a-quote" Warburton chips in (again)...

Wild Billy | | Permalink

Mike Warburton of the accountants Grant Thornton said: "I'm fully in favour of simplifying the tax system. But the danger in this is that important reliefs are thrown out with the bath water. Some of these allowances are very important to encourage business and enterprise."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/georgeosborne/8118719/George-Osborne-set-to-close-tax-loopholes.html

Cheers Mike. Some of them are important to individuals too but don't worry about that. Good to know you are "fully in favour of simplifying the tax system"... but only if it means businesses don't lose out. I think you'll find that it is the special pleading of business that leads to may of these reliefs (and the complexity) in the first place. Something to think about before you next share your pearls of wisdom with us.

More broadly, I think this is a really intersting issue and one that I hope AccountingWeb will be responding to. It seems there is a bit of a problem with the general premis of this review:

  • If the relief is old and hardly used (or not at all) then removing it makes no difference to complexity whatsoever. Losing a page or 2 might mean the tax code has less pages but, frankly, so what if no-one uses them?
  • Presumably those using the reliefs will argue there is a good case for them and those not using them will take the contrary view (or not care either way). So where does that leave the debate? All releifs will have some sort of purpose so that seems to be an issue about fairness and not simplicity?
  • The real win here is not removing pages by reducing the number of reliefs in my opinion. The real win is making complex reliefs easier to understand and apply. That is no easy task as simplifying reliefs will likely to lead to targeted reliefs broadening in scope, costing more money and changing the policy rationale behind the relief.

What do others think?

 

 

Transition points

mikewhit | | Permalink

A related issue is whether a tax threshold incurs a tapering transition or a cliff-edge transition (like stamp duty).

Will we get any uniformity here ? Taper usually feels "fairer" !

Giles M's picture

TAXtv interview

Giles M | | Permalink

I'm interviewing Michael Jack and John Whiting this afternoon for TAXtv.

What would you like me to ask them?

Abolish R&D tax credits

plega | | Permalink

My business has benefited substantially from R&D tax credits over the years, but I can honestly say that it has made no difference to the amount of research and development we have undertaken. Many other R&D-based businesses will tell you the same.

So what's the purpose of them ? If it's to encourage R&D I would suggest it is an utter waste of money. If it's to reward R&D then I suppose it works, but the reward from R&D is meant to come from selling product, not from the tax man...

I say abolish it.

jon_griffey's picture

Tax simplification

jon_griffey | | Permalink

Perhaps a bit OT if we are talking about reliefs, but it is important that admin and complex rules are also simplified wherever possible.  Low hanging fruit includes:-

1. Abolish P9D - have the P11D rules for all.

2. Abolish P11D reporting for non taxable expenses.  It's pointless admin and for small companies it is really difficult to get dispensations.

3. Abolish most of the unfathomable employment related securities legislation.

 

Rob Fox's picture

Office of Tax simplification - tax reliefs - VAT

Rob Fox | | Permalink

As a starter, the following VAT reliefs look worthy of re-visiting (numbered as per the OTS list):

990:  VAT exemption for betting & gaming.  Changing this would require a change to the EC Principal VAT Directive, but VAT on this is simple and easy to administer.  Jersey does so and there is a simple margin scheme (see www.gov.je/gst)

991:  Zero rating for books, newspapers etc.  There is no credible argument that ending zero rating would be a 'tax on knowledge'.  So much knowledge these days come from non-printed sources, and we pay VAT on our PC, iPod and Kindle.  It is worth upsetting a few non-dom newspaper owners.

997:  Zero rate on children's clothing.  There are two criteria - size and 'held out for sale'.  It is arbitrary, difficult to administer by businesses, and hard for consumers to understand.

1002:  Exemption for cultural admission charges.  What is 'culture'?  An art gallery?  A museum?  A ballet performance?  A circus?  A rock concert?  A zoo?  The 'Comedy Store'?  Entry to Stamfrod Bridge?  End the artificial distinctions and put VAT on the lot.

1010:  Zero rating for food.  What a minefield this is.  Simplify by making all food and drink subject to the reduced rate, except for products with an alcohol content exceeding 0.3% and supplies in the course of catering (standard rate).

1032:  Exemption for commercial property, with an option to tax.  The UK moved part way to how every other EC member state that allows an option to tax by providing for a 'real estate election' (i.e. a blanket option on all its property by a property owner), but option is still largely on a property by property basis.  This is over-complex and unnecessarily costly - for property owners and HMRC.  Replace it with a blanket option only.

1042:  Exemption for disposal of certain works of art.  'What is art?' springs to mind.  Artificial; it should go.

Alastair Johnston's picture

Influencing taxpayers' behavour?

Alastair Johnston | | Permalink

Plega's point can be widened out right across the tax system.  Many other tax reliefs were introduced to try to persuade taxpayers to behave in a particular way; I'd say it is doubtful whether many have ever achieved their aim.  A recent prominent example was the Conservative's election promise to give married couples a £150 tax allowance.  How many people would be persuaded to get married, or stay married, just for £150 p.a.?

Sometimes they are very popular because they can be used for tax avoidance, so they get abolished: remember the BES and PRP?  In such cases the change is to the form rather than the substance of the taxpayer's activities. 

Mr Whiting et al should take their red pen to many of these. 

jon_griffey's picture

Tax simplification

jon_griffey | | Permalink

Plega has a very good point.

R&D and similar tax breaks are not going to change behaviour.  R&D will be done anyway for the wider business purpose, and will not be influenced by tax breaks as by the time the client gets the tax relief the R&D is done.  The people that need it, typically start ups often don't qualify for it and so grants may be more suitable.  The main use of R&D Credits seems to be to help prop up ailing companies.

In a similar way, EIS/VCT investors are interested in the underlying investment, not the tax relief and so these reliefs could go.

A specific tax relief on the way in (i.e. on the expenditure) needs to change behaviour.  If not then it is not needed.

Instead of tax breaks I would have thought that most small business would much rather the Govt curtails the health & safety, employment rights and compensation culture industries that literally strangle enterprise.  But that's a subject for another day.

sluglet's picture

Rant!

sluglet | | Permalink

I'm with Wild Bill on this one. Scraping allowances that no-one uses simply gets rid of unneeded pages in our tax laws but it doesn't simplify them - which is what we really need. For most of my career I've never properly understood why it is that we need one set of rules to fairly determine what the profit is for accounting purposes and another set of rules to fairly determine what the profit is for tax purposes - surely a proper fair set of rules is a proper fair set of rules! Or do HMRC think accountants don't know how to properly work out a businesses profit? Other areas I would look at would include:

PAYE/NI - Do we really need what are effectively 2 different taxes for employees with 2 different sets of rules?

Road Tax/Fuel Tax - Again do we really need both? Just put up the tax on petrol so gas guzzlers pay more and scrap road tax.

Airport taxes & stamp duty - Again unnecessary. Just put VAT on airfares and new luxury homes.

Whilst on VAT if this isn't an area that we could simplify then I don't know what is! Some of the rules are just plain ridiculous (anybody like to explain why newspapers such as "The Sun" & "The Sport" don't attract VAT).

Scrapping allowances is just tinkering. If our government really wants to make it simpler they need to cast the net far, far wider and whilst they're at it make the system far more transparent. Under the last government much to much was raised in stealth taxes. I know it's a big ask wanting our politicians to be clear and up-front about how they are taking our money off us but I think right now is the best time that they've had in years and if they don't do it now it could be years before the timing is right again.     

Nick Graves's picture

Save the beancounter relief

Nick Graves | | Permalink

Wild Billy's spot on; I suspect lot of Rentaquote's pleadings are more to do with job creation exercises for accountants. Sorry, but superfluous accountancy is bad for efficiency too and the industry can get fat no longer.

Many of the reliefs and restrictions are dwon to Nanny State trying to control the lives of the vassals, so many could be scrapped.

A de minimis income limit (say aligned with a ten large personal allowance) could take many of the low paid out of the tax system altogether.

The pensions rules get ever more absurdly enigmatic as a result of the overlords not trusting those who foolishly voted them in. Frankly, if you're batty enough to blow the entire fund, who are they to stop you? Buying an annuity at all seems even more crazy.

Little things (car benefit being a % of list price /12 months, as the Germans used to prefer) mahoosive rationalisation of PAYE forms & reporting.

Oh, and no-one is fooled if you call a nasty, regressive tax "cat food", or" Freude am fahren" or even "National Insurance". Politicoes are that stupid; we're not. By merging it with IT, you raise more on investment income (rates can level it) and HMRC's obsession/fetish over "disguised employment" becomes less of an issue, cancelling swathes of unworkable, onerous legislation.

Simplification's really quite simple. Unless you're simply too cynical to want it.

  

 

 

 

 

naomi2000's picture

R and D tax credits -better than nothing ?

naomi2000 | | Permalink

I have start up clients who wouldn't have survived to limp into profitability, export sales, creating jobs, blah,blah,blah if it wasn't for R and D tax credits.

I'd rather have the old grants back but even nasty, clunky-change your mind every year-  R&D tax credits are better than nothing.

My personal candidate for abolition is s101 ITEPA 2003 (use of Chevening House by Messrs Clegg and Hague). 

Combine Income Tax and NIC - Say it again

fionamcke | | Permalink

It's all fiddling around the edges, the big one would be to have just one income tax - get rid of NIC. But I suspect that it would be politically unacceptable to let the hoi poloi understand how much (real) income tax they are really paying.

Don't forget that the sneaking up of NIC rates while decreasing 'income tax' rates started with Maggie. So all political flavours favour the deception which penalises the poorer.

As well as greatly simplifying the tax system getting rid of employers NIC would help businesses show the true 'cost' of salaries to their employers.

A very useful list and with references!

Briar | | Permalink

What a good job OTS have done for us! I can now go through the list to make sure that all my clients are claiming all their allowances and reliefs (just in case I have missed one!). Having the legal reference is also very useful for being able to quote HMRC with.

Tax Simplification

ianmckechnie | | Permalink

Great work on the Committee, guys.  Let's concentrate on removing rules to take things out of tax, while completely ignoring rules which bring things into tax in the first place.  This is really going to simplify tax - for HMRC.

 

If ever a cart preceded a horse............

 

Relief Indexing

mikewhit | | Permalink

Please let's have relief thresholds, allowances etc indexed annually by the appropriate .... index.

e.g. goods by RPI, wages by a wages index ... no more fiscal drag

OTS report

John Whiting | | Permalink

Can I just say thanks to all the A Web readers who have taken the trouble to add comments - we welcome all ideas and comments and rest assured that the OTS team is reading them and taking note. So please keep them coming - either via A Web or direct to ots@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk .

To correct one point in John S's original column - no, we didn't establish the consultative committees in response to criticism from Giles Mooney about the lack of small business experience in the team. That's because:

-  we HAVE small business experience/expertise in Kate Cottell, Partha Ray and Tom Byng

- we have a series of 'roadshows' around the country that we are undertaking to make sure we gather views of small practitioners and small businesses

- the consultative committees were always envisaged as part of the structure of the OTS's work.

And also Giles did assure me he was talking about something else, not the OTS!

John Whiting

Director, Office of Tax Simplification

jon_griffey's picture

OTS listening!

jon_griffey | | Permalink

Very impressed to see that John Whiting is lurking on this forum.

As one of the 'little guys' who works on the coal face I ofen rant on about various gripes but get the feeling that nobody is ever listening - so keep it up John!

Although more an issue for the Small Business Tax Simplification Review, if the OTS could grant me one wish it would be to end the pointless P11D reporting for non taxable expenses.  Seems to be no downside to this.

When/where are these roadshows?  Have they been announced yet?

johnjenkins's picture

IR35 and PAYE

johnjenkins | | Permalink

Sorry to harp on but after all the postings to abolish IR35 and merge Tax and NIC the OTS can only come up with a list of reliefs and allowances that need looking at. Oh yes OTS are certainly listening but not acting! 

OTS

petra31 | | Permalink

What a major waste of expensive professional time.

Most of the entries appear to be basic reliefs to avoid incorrect charging of tax in certain sensible circumstances.

How much has it cost the taxpayer tp produce this?

 

Tax credits shouldn't be taxing

mikewhit | | Permalink

Why can't the tax credits office just use income data from HMRC, and make +/- corrections via the tax code ?

Save all those "failing to report change in circumstances" penalties - or is that just a nice little earner ! And save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing for data that "the system" already has.

RebeccaBenneyworth's picture

Not a great deal, Petra

RebeccaBenneyworth | | Permalink

Many of the tax specialists working for OTS are doing so under secondment agreements from professional firms and other Government Departments, so the additional cost to the taxpayer is very small.

One of the things the OTS was charged with was looking at the very long list of tax relief to see where easy simplification could be found. This was set up in the terms of reference, so the Office has to look here first. So well done to the team for coming up with (and publishing) a comprehensive list of reliefs quite swiftly which they can now start to critically analyse.

Wild Billy's picture

Some interesting responses...

Wild Billy | | Permalink

Peta31 does make one good point:

Most of the entries appear to be basic reliefs to avoid incorrect charging of tax in certain sensible circumstances.

That's the point. Many reliefs are perfectly "sensible" and I have never believed there are a glut of pointless reliefs clogging up the tax system. It is terribly easy (and ever-so slightly lazy) to criticise the number of reliefs as leading to so-called complexity but far harder to identify actual reliefs that should be abolished. We could all choose a couple to try and bash MPs but beyond that? Anyone want to charge CGT on cars or think a Government would have any chance of receiving support for it? The responses to this thread rather proves that point; instead of identifying reliefs, it has largely been a criticism of the OTS and random ideas not related to reliefs at all. The points about R&D are good ones but shows rather neatly the point that for every person who says they make no difference, there will be another that says the opposite. How do you reconcile that?

Let me lay out where I'm at with this Review (as opposed to another Review):

  • Don't let this become a political vanity project or simply chase headlines. The Government want to say "we have scrapped 100s of reliefs and simplified the tax system". Scrapping 100s of reliefs, which I don't see is possible looking at the list, only simplifies the system if those reliefs are actively creating complexity. Scrapping reliefs that no-one is using does not simplify the system, it just reduces the number of pages in the tax code. Is that a worthy objective? Maybe, maybe not. The number of pages in Tolleys is an unbelievably pathetic measure of complexity, although I accept it is politically expedient to use.
  • Lets look at the way the best and simplest reliefs work and see if that can be applied more generally. Recommending a best practice approach to the design of reliefs will have a long last effect on drafting long after this review is a memory. Think Tax Law Rewrite Project, which has led to a long-lasting change in the way legislation (or at least many parts of it) are drafted. Reliefs will be scrapped but more will be introduced in time so we should see this as an opportunity. As I said earlier in this thread, meaningful simplifcation is about making reliefs simpler to understand and apply.
  • Lets get behind this. It is pathetic that we are knocking the OTS. Lets give it a chance. But, more than that, lets contribute. If we don't, who will? We are the professionals and, presumably, should be in pole position to bring our collective experiences to bear.

Opposite of relief ? Simple principles !

mikewhit | | Permalink

OK Wild Billy, point taken and well said.

But what about the opposite of reliefs - are there some exceptions in the tax system where tax is charged rather than being relieved (or not charged) ? We should be fair and look at those too, or am I being too literal-minded ?

I feel as if much of the grief from the Blair-Brown era tax, stems from their wish to try and extract the last drop of revenue from a so-called "unfairness" rather than going for a more straightforward broad-brush approach which, while imperfect and perhaps not 100% "effective" would be simpler to legislate and apply, and would give less cause for bad feeling, dare I mention IR35.

In a nutshell, my (humble!) advice to OTS would be:

  1. Pareto Principle
  2. Occam's Razor 
johnjenkins's picture

OTS

johnjenkins | | Permalink

No one is knocking the OTS it's simply the mandate they have been given doesn't make sense if you really want to simplify our tax system.

If the TV reporters come up with something sensible what then for the OTS????????? 

OTS

petra31 | | Permalink

Political poodles we have become...

Wild Billy's picture

Hmmm....

Wild Billy | | Permalink

I feel as if much of the grief from the Blair-Brown era tax, stems from their wish to try and extract the last drop of revenue from a so-called "unfairness" rather than going for a more straightforward broad-brush approach which, while imperfect and perhaps not 100% "effective" would be simpler to legislate and apply, and would give less cause for bad feeling, dare I mention IR35.

See, this is the problem. As an accountant or tax professional, the primary concern is that the legislation is straightforward and easy to apply. Fairness is a secondary consideration, if it is a consideration at all. We don't have constituents writing thousands of letters to us asking us to justify our approach or the media criticising us for lack of fairness. Politicians have to balance this in a way that we don't. Remember the 10p tax rate? A sensible simplification but seen to be extremely unfair and, frankly, the electorate cares far more about what it deems to be unfair than what it deems to be complex. And a Minister will be beaten over the head with it day after day after day... The recent child benefit debate shows that very nicely.

But what about the opposite of reliefs - are there some exceptions in the tax system where tax is charged rather than being relieved (or not charged) ? We should be fair and look at those too, or am I being too literal-minded ?

I don't know. Is that within the scope of the Review? John Whiting may be able to answer if he is lurking. It may be that there is a genuine case to look at these too but the task the OTS has been asked to look at seems, argubaly, to preclude it. Nothing to say this might not be the subject of a review in the future and it would be a shame not to engage with the question in front of us because we think there are other questions too.

No one is knocking the OTS it's simply the mandate they have been given doesn't make sense if you really want to simplify our tax system.

If the TV reporters come up with something sensible what then for the OTS????????? 

But John, with respect, nothing short of removing Employers NICs seems acceptable to you. If you do  that then you need to indicate where the tens of billions it raises will come from. Which taxes will you put up to raise that? Doubling corporation tax? Another 10% on VAT so it hits 30%? It would need to be something of that magnitude. And I'm not sure reducing your tax base so you are reliant on less taxes is a good way of ensuring sustainability. It's like the people who argue for a much higher VAT rate and much lower CT rate. Leaving aside the unfairness- there we go again- what happens if consumer spending falls off the cliff? If you have put all your eggs in one basket then your tax base will be decimated.

 

johnjenkins's picture

Raising Tax

johnjenkins | | Permalink

I don't think that raising less tax is such a bad thing.

The more tax that is raised the more money Government and EU will squander. How many times have accounts been ratified???????????????

No I won't be happy until employers nic is scrapped. Employers should not have to pay for employing people.

Quite honestly I am sick and tired of attempts at playing with our outdated and at times unworkable tax system. There is no reason for the different tax rates. You have an Income Tax and a Purchase Tax. All business expenses, capital or running, are claimed at 100% in the year they are purchased. No reliefs or allowances. Those that are employed will negotiate an income after tax (bottom line). Self-employed would charge their goods or services accordingly.

To protect the poorly paid you could have a minimum wage based on an amount above the benefit payments.

Wild Billy's picture

Like my cousin Jimmy The Saint would say...

Wild Billy | | Permalink

I don't think that raising less tax is such a bad thing.

The more tax that is raised the more money Government and EU will squander. How many times have accounts been ratified???????????????

That's lazy, very lazy. If you want to reduce the Government's tax revenues by around £50bn pa by removing Employers NICs then you MUST say what you would cut. It is the equivalent of:

  • cutting the entire Education budget; or
  • cutting half the Health budget; or
  • cutting the entire Defence, Transport and Home Office budgets

And that is on the spending assumptions for 2014-15, when significant cuts will alread have taken place. So, John, let me know whether you want the Government to stop squandering money on teachers, nurses, equipment for soldiers, roads, or police. The choice is yours.

No I won't be happy until employers nic is scrapped. Employers should not have to pay for employing people.

Hmmm. As my cousin Jimmy The Saint told me, if you are only prepared to wait around for the best looking girl then you are going to miss out on some incredible women.

Quite honestly I am sick and tired of attempts at playing with our outdated and at times unworkable tax system. There is no reason for the different tax rates. You have an Income Tax and a Purchase Tax. All business expenses, capital or running, are claimed at 100% in the year they are purchased. No reliefs or allowances. Those that are employed will negotiate an income after tax (bottom line). Self-employed would charge their goods or services accordingly.

To protect the poorly paid you could have a minimum wage based on an amount above the benefit payments.

Seriously? Have you thought about this at all? This would destroy the UK's finances by eradicating the tax base. How can you survive on two taxes if consumer spending declines in an economic downturn and people are made unemployed? Not to mention the cost of 100% FYAs.

It would be good to get this thread back on track. So what reliefs would people get rid of? Or, more interestingly, how could existing reliefs be made simpler? Any best practice examples?

Wild Billy's picture

Do people get paid to write this nonsense?

Wild Billy | | Permalink

http://www.contractoruk.com/005126.html

See, does it look like simplification is a top concern for this chap or the ability to reduce tax? It is astonishing that someone could say, at this stage:

On the other hand, there may be reasons to believe that the OTS review may not be the devastating blow to the profitability of contracting that might be suspected. For a start, the OTS is only empowered to make recommendations, and the university tuition fees saga has already shown that the Government is not bound to accept policies or proposals that it deems too severe (or too unpopular?).

So, don't worry chaps, the Government won't accept the OTS on simplification! "Devastating blow"!? It would REALLY help this debate if people, particularly contributing to opinion through articles, could remember that simplification is very difficult but, potentially, there is a big prize at the end of it if we don't squeal everytime we fear it means paying a bit more tax.

Doug Brett-Matthewson, you are an idiot.

PAYE/NIC simplify

fionamcke | | Permalink

Asking for solutions not problems - too much is collected in employers NIC to 'give up' that source of revenue.

How about (only the start of a solution) initially ers NIC shown as part of the employees salary but as plus and minus so nil effect on salary or tax take. (If this went no further at least employees would have a better idea of the real tax on salaries). Then gradually the simplified but much higher (unified) tax applied to the employees salary hopefully so as to leave the employee no worse off.

Yes I can hear you say - no politician will go for that....

johnjenkins's picture

Raising tax

johnjenkins | | Permalink

Perhaps I should have explained myself more clearly.

Income tax means a tax on Income, whether it be Employed, self-employed, Ltd Co, inheritance, etc. etc. Purchase tax means VAT. While we are about it lets have VAT on everything. No need for expensive court cases to determine what is what.

The Government of the day would set the rate according to it's spending. Everyone would then be able to see which Government gives value for money.

As for downturns. The last two have been artificially created by the financial institutions (with a little help from the government) as no doubt the next one will be.

If the EU had £50b less to spend, would that be a bad thing? Squandering money is what the EU do. How many MEP's are there? How much do we give them for expenses? etc.etc. As for Government waste, well the OTS (a brilliant idea if it had the right mandate) will prove just that.

Yes it will be dull dull dull but isn't that what simple means to us clever dicky accountants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PAYE/NIC Unification

allan119 | | Permalink

A good way of crucifying the Pensioners who will then be considerabley worse off.

jon_griffey's picture

PAYE/NIC merger

jon_griffey | | Permalink

I think that merging PAYE and NIC is certainly do-able politically, albeit for a brave Chancellor.

There is no reason why you cannot have a tax rate for employment income (say 33%) and a tax rate for savings/pension income (20%).  We already have this to some degree already.

Further, for political reasons they can always call it 'payroll tax' and notionally declare that the tax element is 22% but the NIC element 11% but in reality in the background you have just one set of rules.

Employers NIC could become a freestanding payroll levy, say a flat 13% of all payroll costs based on the labour cost in the P&L P&L and not split down between individual employees.

johnjenkins's picture

Pensioners worse off????????

johnjenkins | | Permalink

We already have pension credits. The government are creating a one off payment for welfare so pensioners would come into that bracket.

Once the government have decided on a "tax free" "livable" allowance, then everything else is taxed accordingly.

The only exception would be the disabled and mentally impaired.

Found one !

mikewhit | | Permalink

(An anti-relief, that is ...)

Age allowance clawback - now that HAS to be too complicated !

Over to you, OTS ...