Tories seek views on abolition of IR35

Abolishing the IR35 regime and exempting husband and wife businesses from the settlements rules are among options being considered by the Conservative Party, whose leader pledged yesterday to reduce taxes "when we can".

A consultation paper 'Small Business Taxes - A New Direction' released this week also proposes that abolition of the non-corporate distribution rate of corporation tax be considered.

Yesterday, party leader Michael Howard pledged that his party would act for the "forgotten majority" whose only reward under Labour had been "to pay higher taxes".

Howard said: "A Conservativ

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

Here's more ammo Don

Paulsoper | | Permalink

Don's posting includes the following statement:

* IR35 actual tax take has not yet – to my knowledge – been specifically reported to Parliament in fine detail.

In fact it is impossible for the Reveneue to do this. Why?

Consider the employer's end of year return, it requires the employer to indicate that IR35 has been applied, and so implies that at least part of the tax and NIC accounted for is derived from IR35.

However where it applied to only part of the fees received, or where there are other employees, or where the taxpayer has taken an actual salary, whether to avoid IR35 or not, it is clear that there is NO WAY in which the revenue could determine the aditional tax collected as a result of IR35.

Of course they could assume that the sum total of the employer's returns where it is indicated that IR35 applied represented the sum in question, but that would clearly be a gross overstatement of the amount involved for the reasons outlined above.

The revenue have no way of knowing what effect IR35 had. Considering how destructive it can be to genuine businesses that strikes me as outrageous.

Almost there! Back to the subject of …

dstickl | | Permalink

‘Tories seek views on abolition of IR35’.

I have already posted [11 Jan @ 18.08] the essence of my basic Response to the Consultation on the above subject:

“IR35 is unfair because IMHO it is just not commercially realistic to have a simple 5% level of allowable expenses.
I have suggested that it be raised to 55%, in line with the "Nolan" Leadership example set by "New" Labour MPs.
However, a sensible policy for the Tories could be to "stealthily" increase the level of allowable expenses by 5 percentage points each year, in line with the pledge to reduce taxes "when we can":
So Year 1 = 10%,
& Year 2 = 15%,
& Year 3 = 20%, etc.”

I have since been asked [John 13 Jan]:

Question: “Do you wish the removal of IR35 without changes to National Insurance purely because it would then allow the withdrawal of all of the profits of a Company at a significantly reduced tax burden than the rest of society pays?”

Answer [Don 16 Jan]: The essence of my personal Response is as set out in my post of 11 Jan, copied above for easy reference.

The rationale for my Response is that:
* IR35 currently narrows national opportunity and national prosperity, because it has closed down otherwise viable businesses [e.g. Richard Marriott’s posting ‘Gone Abroad’].
* IR35 [with its current 5% ...] has resulted in the reduction of the national IT skill set, reducing IT competition and putting up IT costs to taxpayer!
* IR35 actual tax take has not yet – to my knowledge – been specifically reported to Parliament in fine detail.
* IR35 currently [with its current 5% ...] perversely results in OTHER taxes having to be raised, to make up for the damage done by the naïve introduction of IR35 by “New” Labour.

The position [the narrowing of national opportunity and national prosperity] has been made worse by “New” Labour’s very recent proposals that a “default” retirement age of 65 would be lawful, because the current proposals could induce employers to dismiss ALL staff at 65.

This is because staff would be likely to be protected by unfair dismissal and age discrimination laws if employed after their 65th birthday. Hence the perverse result!

And this is despite Adair Turner’s recent pensions report making it clear that working beyond current retirement age would be necessary to defuse the pensions time bomb.

As a State Pension is IMHO a deferred wage, then Employer NICs are a very proper contribution to this deferred wage, and these Employer NICs should “obviously” cease once the employee has reached SP Age.

This would result in a broadening of national opportunity and national prosperity, as IR35 would no longer apply to responsible people over SPA!

And this would also allow further tax cuts under the Tories.

Why employer NICs on pensioners, Simon Jeremy Lewis?

dstickl | | Permalink

Why should we have the obscenity of employer NICs on charged on employers of pensioners over State Pension Age (SPA), Simon Jeremy Lewis?

This results in one of the many paradoxes of IR35 being charged on ordinary people over SPA!

Worse still, those and other ordinary people over SPA who - through no fault of their own have [partially or wholly] lost their previous Company Pensions - due to failure of their Company Pension Schemes which they were encouraged to contribute to by previous GB Governments - have to have their potential employers being taxed on their potential jobs, in part to fund the lavish pensions of MPs, so that these ordinary people are less likely to get a job to fund their pension shortfall(s).

When my MP [Vernon Coaker] put this point to Dawn Primarola, he got a letter back, which IMHO failed to address this point at all!

Previous HoL Written Answers indicate that the Labour Government regard Employer NICs on employees over SPA as a part of "general taxation", rather than an insurance contribution towards old age; in truth, as I would argue that the State Pension should have already been "paid for" any other explanation would be disengenuous.

Honestly

NeilW | | Permalink

I can't believe there is somebody out there that actual belives that National Insurance has anything to do with insurance.

NICs are 'disguised income tax', and have been for some time.

NeilW

My original point

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

Don,

If there was no National Insurance, employees or employer's, then the payment of national insurance for those over retirement age would no longer be a problem.

As for IR35, it would no longer be required if tax rates were increased and national insurance abolished. This would probably have to be done with the reintroduction of "proper" tax credits on dividends, but I don't see anything wrong with that especially if pension funds can start to get refunds again.

To help compensate for the higher tax rates, pensioners could be given a decent age allowance which would not be reduced because of their income levels, thus promoting investment in pensions.

All I want is a tax system which is simple enough to be called "self assessment" (because at the moment, for all but the simplest cases, you need an accountant)and is transparent in the manner in which it goes about collecting tax.

The simpler the system the more difficult it is to find complicated and convoluted ways to get around it. It is because we have a system which is now too complicated that we have to put up with legislation like IR35.

We are getting to the stage where everyone has their hands tied behind their backs because of the threat or perceived threat of a few wrongdoers. Our politicians seem to be somewhat blind on this one!

No Political Colour

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

I don't have any particular political colour, but if there was a Common Sense Party I would vote for them.

The abolition of National Insurance Contributions does not imply any removal of the NHS or other safety nets for the needy, which are in place at present. An increase in Income Tax and Corporation Tax would make up the shortfall from abolishing NI and provide the same resources at less expense. IR 35 can be repealed (and should be) and those it affects can go back to claiming legitimate business expenses against their company's tax. If they are not wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade then let them be investigated!
I also fail to see how it will allow criminals to take advantage of the system any more than they do already. Thoses inclined towards this type of behaviour will always find ways of evading tax. Don't forget, we have the POCA to help catch them!!! The resources saved by not having to control, legislate, monitor and collect National Insurance can go towards increasing the number of investigations into those suspected of under-declaring their income.

Maggie did a lot of good

NeilW | | Permalink

But she wasn't perfect. Her legacy is the idea that income tax must never go up - which is just silly. The Tories are still hanging off this petard with no clear direction or idealogy on tax or much else.

What we need is a politician brave enough and clever enough to get across to people that tax has to be paid if the state is to do anything. And they can either have it up front, or they can have somebody like the Artful Dodger Brown who will remove it from your pocket while you are looking the other way.

It may take a while but I believe the public will come around to explicit taxation again once they are fed up of being mugged every April.

NeilW

Shame on you, Mr Wilson.

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

National Insurance is not a tax. We know this because Mrs Thatcher said it was not.

Are you suggesting that she was telling porkies?

Thanks for the insults

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

Thanks for the personal insults Don.

Since my current and past National Insurance contributions (as an employee and as an employer) have been used to fund the pensions of those paid in the past and at present, I have little confidence that National Insurance in any way protects my right to a State Pension.

Your assertion that there is a direct link between National Insurance and the State Retirement Pension is meaningless because to receive a State Pension you are relying on the contributions and tax payments of those in work, whilst you receive your pension.

The link is nothing more than an illusion and a promise from some "long gone" politicians. As far as I am concerned, the promises of politicians only last for as long as they are of personal political benefit. Illusions are seen as such, as soon as they are viewed from a different angle or with an open mind.

As the population ages, I believe that the State will not be able to afford to give everyone a pension and it will have to become another means tested benefit.

Personally I would like to see some compulsion for those in work to provide for their own pensions with help from employers. I happen to believe in personal responsibilty in all walks of life.

Richard was correct when he said that I had suggested that the removal of National Insurance could be funded by increases in both Corporation Tax and Income Tax. I appreciate that some company's will pay Corporation Tax and others won't, but I happen to believe that you should pay tax on profits and not through Employer's NI, just because you employ someone. Now that Er's NI is at 12.8% all decisions on employment, salary increases and bonuses are tainted with thoughts of how much the NI is costing. It is no longer an incidental cost and the rationale behind it is no more sound than the window tax.

Do you wish the removal of IR35 without changes to National Insurance purely because it would then allow the withdrawal of all of the profits of a Company at a significantly reduced tax burden than the rest of society pays?

I have no agenda other than to wish to simplify a tax system that has become too complicated.

As far as me being wrong, Don, it's only a matter of opinion. Unless we try it we will never know.

In My View You Started It Mr T

Anonymous | | Permalink

Jealousy over the then DG at the BBC, John Birt, got the trading through a ltd co as an intermediary issue politicised. Nice to see your putting out your own fires.

IR35 is about Employer NICs, chaps!

dstickl | | Permalink

You can only "modify" IR35 into something less of a fiscal horror by (1) increasing the level of allowable expenses from 5%, or by (2) reducing the scope of Employer NICs on their employees.

If you don't wish to be sensible about the obscenity of charging Employer NICs on employees over SPA, then let's consider the current 5% level against that seemingly applicable to "New" Labour MPs, and their declared expenses.

Rough figures for last year indicate MPs salary around 60K, and expenses around 120K. This indicates a 66% figure, doesn't it?

So why not press the Tories to increase the current 5% level, to 55%?

Give it five, chaps?

Andrew Goodall's picture

TaxZone news

Andrew Goodall | | Permalink

Restoring the dividend tax credit for pension funds is one of several options for change being considered by the Conservative party in a consultation paper on the taxation of savings.

See Tories may restore pension funds' tax credit.

Pensioners

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

Once upon a time for the first five years of retirement working pensioner's lost their pensions as well

Yes but they could earn entitlement to extra pension at age 70 by choosing to defer pension rights; 37.5% as I recall.

Duck Biggles – flying pigs at 2 o’clock…......

Anonymous | | Permalink

Some websites today have been twisting this snippet to say the Tories are definitely abolishing ir35 “when elected”. As that prospect is as likely as a peaceful January in Iraq or George Bush dropping unfair steel tariffs we can get on with the real world with the screws getting ever tighter on self-employed businesspeople.

Thanks, Paul Soper, for apparently agreeing that ...

dstickl | | Permalink

it's a very sensible idea to abolish IR35, either by stealth, or immediately!

Happy New Year

Don, Don, Don, Don, Don!

Paulsoper | | Permalink

Your posting looks like like an attack on me for pointing a simpole historic fact - which is then confirmed by the quote for Lord Macintosh (who was very much on the right hand side of old labour as he found out when London Labour ditched him in favour of Red Ken Livingston many years ago) that you reproduce. However the point of the posting is IR35 and s660A, however if you want to raise the issue of immmigration I think we all need to recognise that in a society where an ever-increasing proportion of the population are retired (because of falling birth rates) you need to expand the economy to pay for the pensions - older people continuing to work because they are cheaper than younger employees doesn't solve the problem. You either need to have an increase in the birth rate (with 4 kids I've done my bit!) or you need to welcome immigration. The French have been trying for decades to encourage population growth (the concept of extra tax breaks and incentives for La Grande Famille) but in Western Europe it doesn't work. Britain today is the product of countless waves of immigrants who all enrich in diverse ways our society, not least in generating enough wealth to keep us in our old age - be grateful.

Richard Marriott

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

i suggest you learn respect for your fellow professionals instead of dismissing their opinions as "silly" because they do not accord with your own.

It becomes clear- doesn't it?

Paulsoper | | Permalink

From a simple thread concerning a perfectly reasonable political stategy - IR35 and s660A - the debate on this thread has ranged "far" (far right - far left) and "wide" (certainly wide of the mark in many cases).

Is it any wonder that politicians of all persuasions and the revenue don't seem to take too much notice of consultation with accountants?

Earlier errors

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

It is not necessary to agree with either of them.

This all stems from the abolition of the investment income surcharge 20 years ago. Restore that and all of these problems will disappear.

Agreement

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

John, I'm with you all the way.
Lets also get rid of the EU in its present form. It is just a bottomless pit which will Bankrupt every country bfore long.
When will politicians realise there is only so much wealth a country can generate.

I quite agree, John...

Anonymous | | Permalink

...that we need to see integration of National Insurance into income tax. At the same time, I think we should also have the complete abolition of employers National Insurance. Corporation tax should be simplified (what was wrong with the 10% or even a 19% starting rate ?) and then all the complications of things like IR35, s660A, NCD become unnecessary because there aren't any loopholes (or gift-horses) to plug. What's more, everyone will know how much tax they should be paying, and collection will become easier and cheaper for both the taxpayer and the Inland Revenue. If these measures imply big losses of revenue, that can be recouped by adjusting tax rates - and that is then an honest opportunity for the Tories and Labour to campaign on how redistributive they want the tax system to be.

Problem is of course that Michael Howard and Gordon Brown are both professional politicians who don't have the courage to look beyond the current election campaign, and don't have any confidence in their own ability to sell a radical tax simplification to the electorate.

Or do they both, in their own ways, have some hidden agenda that requires a nice complex tax system to allow the introduction of stealth increases in tax ?

Greater public sector efficiency

John Savage | | Permalink

I completely concur with John's comments below. In addition to a simplification of the tax regime and a reduction or abolition of the more troublesome forms of taxation (such as IR35, S660 and so forth), what this country is also gasping for, in my opinion, is a complete slimming down of the expensive and monstrously inefficient public sector.

Try this exercise - when you are next amongst a group of, say, 10 or more people (in a social gathering, not at work as you will either all be public or private sector), just count the number who work in the public sector. Include all the public sector, i.e. central government employees, local government employees, those who work in hospitals, schools, colleges, quangos, police and emergecy services etc etc. I feel sure that on many an occasion you will come up with figures of 60-80% - staggering!!

The other matter which must be attended to is a complete overhaul of the myriad of regulations throttling businesses and enterprise!!

Albasas's picture

Fantasy Politics = Alice In Wonderland Fiscal Policies

Albasas | | Permalink

Its all very well Michael saying what he will do once his party gets into power. The problem is he is not the chap the electorate will take to their collective bosom. William Hague went too soon.....

Nearly there

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

Tax dodgers will hide income now. So no difference. However the IR would be able to spend time tracing illicit Income instead of spending hours, days even years on compliance and investigations that yield a few bob (relatively speaking). As far as NIC is concerned it all goes into the same pot. Employers Nic is scandalous in principle. To Tax a business because it employs somebody is too ridiculous for words.
What happens if a person does not pay tax or NIC all their working life. Yes thats right they do not get a pension but they get more money on Income support (or why) - what a good system.

Irony - what we need is a rod of irony!

Paulsoper | | Permalink

IR35 was introduced because the revnue were not willing to apply the law as it currently stood - when someone, in Dawn Primarola's words, resinged their job on a Friday but was at the same desk on the Monday but working through a company, they deserved to be caught. But simply saying pay my company is of no more significance than saying pay my bank.

However IR35 gives the revenue a weapon they can invoke against many people other than their declared target - and, as I am sure we are al aware, lets the big employers, the Hewlett Packards, the EDSs, etc avoid any danger of being treated as employers, because if IR35 applies they are specifically exempted from any responsibility as employers from a tax or NIC perspective.

s660A is not dis-similar - there are undoubtedly situations where a settlement is gratuitously created with no real inbvolvement of the spouse in the business - but thats certainly not the case with Artic's appeal nor I suspect with many of the potential cases where s660A could apply in the revenue's interpretation.

Too simply abolish both is a nice political expedient - but it would leave two real problem areas - however the revenue already have the necessary weapons at their disposal - if only they would select deserving targets, rather than attempting to catch the honest small business.

By the way NIC on employers of the over 65s is part of old labour's inheritance and was demanded by the unions in 1948 to ensure that employer's wouldn't save money by employing the elderly. Once upon a time for the first five years of retirement working pensioner's lost their pensions as well - again a union demand to protect jobs.

You must be joking

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

I am sorry Phil and Simon but I must live on a different planet from both of you.

IR35 and the application of S660A to husband and wife businesses are two of the worst thought out and poorly targeted pieces of tax legislation, in my opinion. They stifle entrepreunership and have only arisen because the National Insurance burden in this country has risen to levels at which the average taxpayer considers it too high.

I have no problem with paying as much tax as is required to run the country efficiently, providing it is spent effectively. However I would far prefer to pay basic rate tax of say 30% rather than have the unnecessary complication of National Insurance, which without hypothication, is nothing more than a second income tax.

As for Investment Income Surcharge, there is enough difficulty getting people to save in this country without destroying the will altogether. I also have an endless string of wealthy clients who are tired of the growing red tape and tax burden in the UK and are considering moving to warmer, less neurotic countries. These people all employ others here and contribute greatly to the country's tax take and the wealth of the retailers with whom they spend their money. Introduce IIS again and just watch that money go straight into someone else's pocket (Spanish, French, Canadian, Swiss?)

We should be campaigning for a simpler tax regime, not one which is so complicated even the tax software houses have difficulty in writing programmmes which can cope with all of the complexities.

Common sense

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

Why are so many Accountants against common sense??????????????????
Surely it is RIGHT to have one Tax on Earned Income and that is that.
Unearned income (apart from criminal activities) has already been taxed. Why should you have to pay tax on bank interest etc. etc.
With one Income Tax everybody can see which government is giving value for money. Isn't that what (partly) having a government is all about; giving us what we want for the price we can afford. How long do we have to put up with ever changing draconian taxes before a politician has the guts to say "hey lets look at this commonsencically (if there is such a word). GB and OL take note!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's get this right then, Paul Soper?

dstickl | | Permalink

So "New" Labour encourages immigration [to fill job vacancies] because of an "old" Labour policy, which discourages the employment of old people - who may have lost some or all of their company pensions?

Or is it this: "New" Labour "fox" about by wasting parliamentary time on the job destroying matter of fox hunting, when other wise "New" Labour could be (1) encouraging people over SPA into work and improving their health etc, and (2) avoiding the horror of the apparent "double taxation" aspect of Employer NICS on Empoloyees over SPA, as evidenced by:

A report of Lord McIntosh of Haringey from Lords Hansard of 22 October 2002 ref [HL5867] in answer to a question (Why employers are required to pay National Insurance contributions for employees over state pension age but employees are not required to make contributions?) which shows:

“Employers' National Insurance contributions have been a feature of the National Insurance scheme since it was introduced. It is only right that employers should pay the same level of National Insurance contributions regardless of the age of the employee. To introduce a system that provided a clear financial advantage in employing a particular group of employees based on their age would be unfair to other employees and contrary to the universal nature of the scheme. At the same time it is right that employees should cease to pay contributions once they reach pension age given the direct link between their contributions and their entitlement to state retirement pension.”

I think that Mr Swallow has it

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

Things are gonna get worse before they get better; or probably before they get yet worse. The rate of employee NICs in 1979 under the last socialist government was 6%. Most of the subsequent increases were by the Tories in order to say that they were reducing the basic rate of income tax. [It was also the Tories who increased CGT from 30% to 40%.] New Labour are no better. The IR35 business is indeed badly thought out in principle and impossible to work with in practice. For the s660A debacle however I blame the Inland Revenue. This is not new legislation, but new interpretation (a bit like the previously owned assets nonsense).

It doesn't matter if there is an election this year or not. Neither does it matter who wins. We will still get a government that contains nobody capable of sorting out the tax system.

Where is Guy Fawkes when you need soembody to go to the houses of parliament with the intention of doing some good for the country?

And I can't see anybody reversing the galloping trend inside the Inland Revenue towards an increasingly unsympathetic and confrontational style; alienating accountants along the way without any appreciation of what we actually do for them and how much they will miss our co-operation when we start to withdraw it.

The cricket is going very badly too.

Otherwise, January is going quite well in my practice.

and now there are none

Anonymous | | Permalink

When IR 35 was introduced I had five clients who fell into this regime. They have all fled the country - so now there on none.

As far as I am aware, the IR have been after this tax for years - even when the Tories were in power, who resolutely resisted. But this shower - no way - lets screw anybody who is not of are way of thinking

Climate Change - You asked for Irony, didn't you, Paul Soper?

dstickl | | Permalink

Sorry, but in no way was my "Ironic" first Question intended as an attack on you personally. You had asked for "Irony" in the title to your post, hadn't you, and naturally I picked up the aside in your last paragraph.

Turning now to the issue of global warming and concomitant Climate Change, do you think that we are going to get more global warming with an increased population, or less?

If, as I do, you do, then IMHO planet Earth is going to get into a lot of trouble with extreme weather, with people "doing their bit". [I understand that the current 6 billion world population is forecasted to increase to 9 billion "soon"].

Consequently, it seems to me that the only sane policy options which Government should follow are those that encourage the self-sufficiency of the ageing population in this country.

The example of China - whilst doubtless somewhat cruel in some cases - may well turn out to be kinder to planet Earth, given the evident restrictions on Natural Resources as forcasted by UN Secretary General U Thant to Alistair Cooke, in the last century.

Taxation challenges of net immigration

dstickl | | Permalink

Some commentators on this IR35 thread appear to me to have attempted to assert that the “problem of IR35” would just go away if the taxation system were revolutionarily simplified, in a naïve way.

As I’ve explained earlier, those attempted assertions are wrong, because they would unduly favour some criminals, etc.

IMHO, the current tax structure partly reflects that we live in a complex developed society, where many existing stakeholders have expectations based on previously discussed, accepted and implemented policies. IR35 was not one of those, partly because it was unrealistic to only have a 5% expenses allowance, has caused many businesses to shut down, and – according to reports – has also caused Britain’s IT skill set to be diminished with prejudicial implications for national long term viability.

The effect of net immigration [as praised by Paul Soper] places undue demand on public expenditure, which has to be subsequently recovered from extra taxation. This will make the taxation system less “simple”.

For example, in London – where apparently immigrants cluster - we have road congestion, recently with a concomitant road congestion tax charge!

There are wider economic issues too, that will have an impact on taxation, perhaps unrelated to IR35:

* According to “Migrationwatch” - an independent monitoring organisation – GDP per head is now decreasing in this country, apparently due to net immigration.

* And according to some retail organisations, retail prices are higher in this country, due to distribution costs being higher, due to the higher population density compared with other countries!

Initial reply to John Jenkins

dstickl | | Permalink

Because just taxing income could be undue discrimination in favour of those who do not report earning income, such as holders of wealth - some of which may have been previously obtained "outside the tax system".

A simple system may lead to the starvation of the old, John.

dstickl | | Permalink

John,

Before there was National Insurance, employees or employer's, then [not only was the payment of national insurance for those over retirement age no problem, but also] some old people died prematurely due to starvation, etc.

Your "original point" seems to me to overlook the key point that whatever system(s) we have, they must be seen to be equitable [or fair] enough to have the acceptability of the democratic voters.

In 1945, Churchill was voted out after World War 2 because people wanted Beveridge's National Insurance concept.

Equally, IR35 is unfair because IMHO it is just not commercially realistic to have a simple 5% level of allowable expenses.

I have suggested that it be raised to 55%, in line with the "Nolan" Leadership example set by "New" Labour MPs.

However, a sensible policy for the Tories could be to "stealthily" increase the level of allowable expenses by 5 percentage points each year, in line with the pledge to reduce taxes "when we can":

So Year 1 = 10%,
& Year 2 = 15%,
& Year 3 = 20%, etc.

Agreement

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

So, at last we are all agreed.
Get rid of every Tax, Nic, Vat etc. etc.
We all know that we have to contribute to the kitty so we all pay a percentage of what we earn (lets call it Income Tax). Job done.
Will someone please explain to me why this cannot be done (no not why the Government of the day won't do it - I know the reasons for that)?????????????????

Bandwagons

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

A few recent examples:

1. Abolition of IHT
2. Promised reduction in taxes.
3. Gift aid for Tsunami collection tins
4. Tax credits amnesty
5. Consultation on IR35
6. Consultation on S.660A
7. Review of stamp duty

Risk Management shows you're in the wrong John!

dstickl | | Permalink

The problem with your assertion that "The abolition of National Insurance Contributions does not imply any removal of the NHS or other safety nets for the needy, which are in place at present" is that Risk Management analysis shows that your assertion is an unrealistic one:

* Before National Insurance Contributions were introduced, there was no State Pension Scheme.

* With National Insurance Contributions were introduced, there is a State Pension Scheme, with "the direct link between [employees] contributions and their entitlement to state retirement pension”.

* Common sense voters will see that if National Insurance Contributions were scrapped, there may not be a State Pension Scheme, because "the direct link between [employees] contributions and their entitlement to state retirement pension” would be removed.

* As most common sense voters wish to make firm provision for their old age, they would not vote for any "simple scheme" that would risk taking away that highly moral "direct link", would they?

Also, for a qualified accountant, you seem to me to be deluded into thinking that all companies that employ people would be paying corporation tax; because you seem to me to believe that a shortfall due to the removal NICs could be made up by an increase in CT!

It is with regret, therefore, that I've been advised by "the committee" that your application to be a supporter of "The Common Sense Party" has to be rejected at this time.

Of course, if you should demonstrate clearly and convincingly thought out arguments in the future, the position may be reviewed.

"New" Labour's words! Remind me, what words did Gordon ...

dstickl | | Permalink

Say about Tony's word(s)?

Remind me too, please, of any precise quote(s) "New" Labour have said that NICs would be scrapped as part of 'replacing the current state pension with a so called "citizen's pension" paid at a flat rate regardless of contributions'.

If they haven't, they will say that there is a "hypothecated" link, won't they?

Your thoughts about John's "suggesting using income tax as well as CT" indicates some of the inevitable assymetric effects of the naive approach.

Please keep focussed!

Scrap IR35, either by stealth or immediately!

On NICs, scrap only those for Employers of Employees over SPA!

Bandwagon jumping

AnonymousUser | | Permalink

...is there is bandwagon the desperate Tories will not jump on in an attempt to eke out a few votes?