You might also be interested in
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
No. There has been no official announcement of MTD delay, although that may be a face-saving move by HMRC. I expect will have to wait until 9 June or later to learn the official position on the MTD project.
If MTD was going to be looked at "in a different light" it would have been done so by now.
HMRC won't let any Government mess with it. So it doesn't matter who gets in (my view a hung parliament) MTD will come off the shelf quicker than you can say "TM has resigned" cos she didn't get the majority she needed. The only stumbling block I see is the software being ready on time.
We all know it won't work though.
Personally, I have no political allegiances - I vote for whichever party seems to be addressing the issues that I believe to be the most important of the current time we are in. If no party seems to address the issues I am concerned with, I will vote for the local independent candidate.
In terms of tax simplification, I would vote for the party that truly believed in tax simplification - ie the starting point would be a flat rate of tax on ALL sources of income. (No more National Insurance cons) You can take lower earners out of tax by having a personal allowance, but any excess over this is taxed at a flat rate of (say) 32%. I would also consider whether or not to abolish corporation tax on the proviso that dividends are paid to shareholders net of the flat rate of tax. Basically, if a company wants to grow then taxing its profits with which it can grow seems somewhat backward.
A growing company (theoretically) will employ more people who will pay tax. If the company is profitable then the dividends paid to its shareholders will be bigger and therefore the shareholders will pay more tax (at source). In this instance a parent company shareholder is not exempt from the tax on its dividend.
All things considered, I would vote for a party which truly wanted to simplify the current tax regime and make it open and transparent.
Unfortunately there is the dominant rhetoric of "those with the broadest shoulders" etc. A flat rate of 32% looks like a hefty tax cut for the higher-paid paying 40% and 45% tax rates. How well do you think this would go with the voting masses?
What about Employer NICs? One of the reasons behind the growth of self-employment (voluntary or involuntary) is the reluctance of corporations large and small to pay payroll taxes and the accompanying administrative costs. How do you simplify business taxation to make it less onerous to take on employees, or less advantageous for people to work freelance?
Growing companies do not necessarily employ more people: tech companies, especially with business models based around the licensing of patents, can employ very small numbers of people and yet earn huge returns. Or manufacturing companies can deploy large numbers of robots, who pay no tax.
I would like to see a government that committed to a thorough reform of international taxation, to reduce the advantages exploited so effectively by multinationals, technology companies in particular, although as more and more elements of business move online, the taxation of internet-based transactions is going to become an ever-larger issue.
I am also very interested in integrating social care into the NHS, with a national insurance scheme to cover the population against the need to go into a care or nursing home. This improved welfare benefit - much cheaper per head of population if the whole population contributes - should perhaps best be paid for by extending NICs to pensioners - or your suggested 32% basic rate of tax on everyone.
I have just heard from a very reliable source that HMRC are actually looking at the policy wherby MTD was introduced with a view to a re-structure. Quite what that means in terms of bottom line? I can only assume that the larger concern will be registering first. Or it could mean that all business will be VAT registered
“Moving towards a more neutral underlying tax policy, which taxes similar activities more similarly, would be the biggest step towards simplification,” the IFS argued.
This principle is not new."
Nigel Lawson set CGT at the same rate as IT (40%?) and that made all the wheezes to make income into capital pointless.
We could do with a lot more of that sort of stuff.
Please can you devise a tax system that even unrepresented taxpayers can just about understand.
Something like:
A new business entity, the Corporate Partnership, through which smaller (size up to say £xxxx turnover/ £xxxx net assets/number of employees) business entities will operate; its profits are taxable at a corporate level irrespective of whether funds are withdrawn/not withdrawn from the business.
There is no need for the "owners" to pay themselves "Directors'" remuneration, it will not matter. Similarly as no employment income/self employment income
things like personal personal pension contributions pointless, instead contributions made on behalf of members by the Corporate Partnership.
In effect take tax burden from the individual to the entity.
(The tax rate chargeable will in effect accommodate tax and NI, the owners/operators will have no need (unless they have other income) to complete an individual tax return.)
The tax will not be income tax/corporation tax/capital gains tax, it will be its own Corporate Partnership rate, accordingly legislation can be applied specifically to the type of entity.
All legislation regarding Corporate Partnership tax will be contained within one short Act, SI used merely re changes in corporate partnership tax rate variation.
All legislation regarding Corporate Partnership legal framework be within one short Act.
One body will regulate submission of returns re income/payment of tax. Whilst Corporate Partnership will have third party limited liability, owners may be liable personally to repay drawings where Corporate Tax/Vat/PAYE remains unpaid by the Corporate Partnership.
Corporate Partnership insolvency, in all cases, will need reviewed. (as will be the case with lower number Ltd companies who fail) CP as the default entity unless use of a Ltd from outset advisable.
All traders not trading as Limited Companies will require to trade as a Corporate Partnership, there will be no sole traders etc, All CP and Ltd will have reg number, to be displayed on all sales transaction documents, so invoices/till receipts/e bay sales etc.
In effect create an embryo business entity that will act as the starting entity, keep companies as the next step upwards, have simple steps to convert from Corporate Partnership to Ltd and Ltd to Corporate Partnership, have ability to target entrepreneur tax rates as distinct from general tax rates (similar flexibility with differential interest rates re business/non business borrowing would not be a bad idea either)
Now-do you want my far simpler scrapping of IHT and introducing CGT on death proposals (with spousal relief) so that only pregnant gains get taxed on second death Yep, that family house now worth £600,0000 falls into tax, none of this £650k £1,000k exemption nonsense, where assets have been taxed (interest on deposits say added to deposit) no liability, when invested in houses/shares etc, value uplift on second death gets taxed.