Rishi Sunak hosts weekly cabinet in 10 Downing Street | AccountingWEB | Conservatives aim to abolish NIC for self-employed
Simon Walker_No 10 Downing Street

Conservatives aim to abolish NIC for self-employed

by

Rishi Sunak has unveiled the Conservative Party manifesto, pledging to cut national insurance by a further 2% and abolish the main rate for self-employed by the end of the next Parliament. Philip Fisher pulls out the proposals likely to be of interest to accountants.  

11th Jun 2024
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Since the media has been bombarding interested parties with daily policy updates and leaks from the Conservative Party, this 80-page manifesto was unlikely to contain many surprises. Even so, it does put flesh on the bones of the party's plans.

It may also be academic since, in order for this to be a blueprint for the future, Rishi Sunak and his team will need to buck every opinion poll since the election was called and obtain an overall majority in the next parliament.

The document is headed up “Clear Plan, Bold Action, Secure Future” and opens: “We are restoring our economic stability after Covid and Ukraine. Inflation is down, real wages are up, growth has returned – and we are cutting taxes to give working people financial security.”

As expected, there are promises to cut taxes at the same time as increasing spending in a number of areas, which should beg questions about whether the numbers will add up or borrowing must inevitably increase.

Once again, if readers wish to get into the detail, the manifesto and costings documents are available on the Conservative Party website.

Business pledges

Over and above changes to the tax regime, a number of other promises will potentially impact our own businesses and those of our clients.

If places can be found, by September 2025 parents of children between nine months and the start of school will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare every week. This will make life easier for colleagues, increasing availability and productivity.

Similarly, ending the unfairness in Child Benefits by allowing families to take full advantage until their combined income reaches £120,000 (and only taper off completely at £160,000) must be helpful, particularly for middle-class accountants.

Readers can decide for themselves whether or not we will benefit from the promise to “Seize the benefits of Brexit by signing further trade deals, speeding up infrastructure and unblocking 100,000 homes, cutting red tape for business, and creating new fishing opportunities.”

The mandatory national service for school leavers at 18 could hinder recruitment and may not be offset by the promised 100,000 high quality apprenticeships, paid for by curbing “poor-quality university degrees”.

10-point plan for SMEs

In addition, there is a 10-point plan to support SMEs, which will be welcome, even if most of the proposals are not greatly innovative:

  1. Continue to ease the burden of business rates for high street, leisure and hospitality businesses.
  2. Keep the VAT threshold under review and explore options to smooth the cliff edge at £90,000.
  3. Improve access to finance for SMEs.
  4. Take more companies out of the scope of burdensome reporting requirements. Making use of freedoms granted by Brexit, lifting the employee threshold allowing more companies to be considered medium-sized.
  5. Retain key tax incentives that encourage small businesses to grow, including the enterprise investment scheme, seed enterprise investment scheme, venture capital trusts, business asset disposal relief, agricultural property relief and business relief. There will not be an increase to capital gains tax.
  6. Promote digital invoicing and improve enforcement of the Prompt Payment Code.
  7. Ensure that Basel III capital requirements do not inhibit lending to SMEs.
  8. Continue programmes such as the Invest in Women Task Force and the Lilac Review to encourage more female and disabled entrepreneurs.
  9. Work with the British Business Bank and private sector fund managers to secure a £250m invest in women fund.
  10. Work with public sector organisations including local authorities and NHS trusts and companies benefitting from government contracts to ensure that procurement opportunities are focused on SMEs in their local economies where possible and practical.

Taxation

As one would expect, there are several commitments to maintain existing taxation policies, which do not need repeating here, although the pledges that a new Conservative government would not raise the rates of income tax or VAT are worth noting.

There is a further pledge that the party will not raise corporation tax. Some picky critics might point out that there is no need to raise the rate further, since the main rate has already shot up to 25%.

More promisingly, the Conservatives plan to abolish the main rate of national insurance contributions by the end of the next Parliament but only for the self-employed.

The proposals for employees do not go as far. Instead, an extra 2% will be lopped off contributions but not until April 2027, at which time the rate would be 6%.

The Conservatives didn’t provide a deadline, but they expressed again that their “long-term ambition” is to “keep cutting national insurance until it’s gone” in an effort to “end double taxation on work” and make the tax system “simpler”.   

While the manifesto notes that the average earner will be “paying the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975”, it fails to take account of the fiscal drag effect of freezing personal allowances on both the lower paid and those who are dragged into higher rates of tax.

As widely publicised, from April 2025 the personal allowance for pensioners will increase in line with the state pension, which may not be worth a vast amount of money but is a welcome simplification that will take millions out of the self assessment system.

There is yet another commitment to clamp down on tax avoidance. The party is so confident of achieving this that it is committing to “raise at least a further £6bn a year from tackling tax avoidance and evasion by the end of the Parliament.”

The italics are mine, given that every political party seems to have earmarked such recoveries for immediate use, even though at best they will take time to come on stream.

It may not strictly come under the heading of taxation but new teachers in priority areas or teaching designated subjects will receive up to £30,000 tax-free over five years.

Again, as widely leaked in advance of publication, the £425,000 stamp duty threshold for first-time buyers will become permanent.

Most other measures relating to property are merely commitments to maintain the status quo for example around council tax and CGT private residence relief, although there will be a two-year temporary CGT relief for landlords who sell to their existing tenants, which sounds bold but is only budgeted to cost £20m a year.

The big black hole, which will not please one strand of the Conservatives is inheritance tax, which doesn’t get a mention in the manifesto and therefore will not be abolished in the foreseeable future.

In its instant response, the Resolution Foundation notes that “the biggest gainers overall are the richest fifth of households, who are set to gain £1,300 on average, compared to the poorest fifth who would gain £150.”

Paying for it

Theoretically, the numbers add up since all of the tax cuts in the manifesto is due to be funded by changes to welfare reform that start at £4bn in 2025-26 and build to £12bn by 2029-30, together with tackling the tax gap, which runs from £2m next year up to £6bn by the end of the Parliament.

But as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has repeatedly pointed out, you need to be very optimistic to believe that these figures are achievable.

Read Philip Fisher’s summary of the Liberal Democrat tax and business manifesto pledges, plus stay tuned for a summary of Labour’s plans when they are published later this week.

Replies (50)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Jun 2024 16:58

RS is being very badly advised here. Had he come out early and promised to abolish IHT, I reckon the Tories would be no more than 5 points behind now in the polls. This NIC thing is unlikely to make much difference.

Even Gideon agrees with that: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/04/conservatives-scrap-inhe...

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By mbee1
12th Jun 2024 08:05

If you think abolishing IHT would make them only 5 points behind you are delusional. Ordinary working class folk would see that as lining the pockets yet again of the wealthy. I agree there are disparages in IHT, for example, where property in the South East has far higher values, but the "red wall" voters won't see that.
NIC has always been an additional tax. Whilst Classes 1 and 2 get you a state pension what about Class 4? A tax by another name because the benefits are zilch.
I can understand why he wants to abolish NIC but it needs abolishing in it's entirety, find another way to give credits towards the state pension but income tax would have to rise to compensate.

Thanks (17)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By DavidWinter
12th Jun 2024 08:21

I completely agree, and I don't understand why so many people think IHT is in any way a 'mainstream' issue. Only 4% of people ever pay anything and most of the public would view you as lucky if you had enough to give away that would trigger it.

Thanks (4)
Replying to DavidWinter:
Rob Swan
By Rob Swan
12th Jun 2024 09:11

IMHO Sunak's 'mainstream' is probably not the mainstream the rest of us relate to. He probably doesn't know anyone who DOESN'T pay (lots of) IHT.

Thanks (7)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By neiltonks
12th Jun 2024 09:26

I agree, the obsession with IHT is puzzling. It's not the vote-winner it's often portrayed as. The public at large don't care about it because they don't believe it will ever affect them (which is an entirely correct belief to hold). They think of it as a tax on the "landed gentry" and a proposal to abolish it would therefore be the Tories looking after the rich.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By cathygrimmer
12th Jun 2024 11:22

I disagree. I have loads of family and friends who pay NIC (or paid it before they retired) but none that have estates above the IHT threshold. It would be very sad if the right wing press have managed to convince the people who will never be affected by it that they will be better off if it is abolished. Personally I'd rather the state took tax out of my assets after I'm dead than pay more tax while I'm alive!

Thanks (2)
the sea otter
By memyself-eye
11th Jun 2024 17:21

I disagree - NI is a con - tax by another name. It needs abolishing so we have some truth (and real visibility) in tax rates.
The sooner it goes the better, mind you I don't pay it any more......

Thanks (2)
Replying to memyself-eye:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th Jun 2024 19:59

That may be true, but he would have been better advised to cut IHT is my simple point here. See: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/tory-manifesto-will-not-include-in...

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By justsotax
12th Jun 2024 16:44

better for who....you?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
11th Jun 2024 18:54

False promises that they know are not going to be delivered.
And worse, 4M votes would make no difference. They are sunk. Farage has a better chance of being a prime minister than for Sunak to come back.
Either way he has the flights booked already.

Thanks (8)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By jonharris999
12th Jun 2024 07:08

Quite frankly, he could pledge to abolish tax now, and he still wouldn't get in.

Thanks (11)
avatar
By johnthegood
12th Jun 2024 06:53

4. Take more companies out of the scope of burdensome reporting requirements. - scrap MTD, that would get a few thousand extra votes.....

Thanks (18)
VAT
By Jason Croke
12th Jun 2024 07:11

That list of 10 pledges is a masterclass in mgmt speak, they sound great but say nothing.

10. Work with public sector organisations including local authorities and NHS trusts

What the heck does that mean? It sort of suggests the government haven't been working with the NHS or LAs until now.

6. Promote digital invoicing and improve enforcement of the Prompt Payment Code.

This is the sort of pitch you hear from half the stalls at Accountex, how does a government promote e involving...how about making it a law? Which isn't quite the same as 'promote'...and 'improve enforcement' means active policing and penalties but why no enforcement as yet?

1. Continue to ease the burden of business rates for high street, leisure and hospitality businesses.

Again,what does 'continue to ease...' mean? Suggests they've already done something to ease business rates and will continue to do so, but all they've done is not increase them above inflation, so why not just say that?

Thanks (11)
Replying to Jason Croke:
avatar
By C Graham
12th Jun 2024 13:57

they already killed the high street. Leisure and hospitality taken down with it. Empty words. Promote, review, improve. As for the continuation - they haven't even started!!

They need to get rid of IR35 which is massively an unfair way to try to squeeze out NIC from contractors. Why are they just focussed on getting rid of NIC for the the self employed? Ah because they potentially would contract their services and then get caught by IR35 anyway but without the employment benefits that regular employees at least enjoy. SMP, holiday pay etc.

As for digital services - most of this is cloud located - no vat charged and outside the uk domain. How is there any benefit at all?

Fluff and more fluff.

Labour haven't even said what their policies are.

Thanks (1)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
12th Jun 2024 08:03

This is not really a set of pledges. It is a selection of weapons to bash whatever party takes control. "See all the things we said we'd do that they aren't doing. Don't you regret not voting us back into power?"

Thanks (8)
Replying to stepurhan:
avatar
By C Graham
12th Jun 2024 13:59

no one falls for it any more. People are so disillusioned with our mainstream parties that I don't think anyone cares who they vote for as long as it is someone they agree with. Voter turnout will probably be low. The polls I think will be misleading because of that alone.

Thanks (0)
Replying to C Graham:
avatar
By justsotax
13th Jun 2024 13:00

one party has been in charge for 14 years, the one that claims to be fiscally responsible, the bastion of law and order, the one who has taken control of our boarders, the party of low taxation....etc etc etc.....I suspect a significant amount of people have lost faith in that particular party......the many times they have lied doesn't help.....i suspect people care a lot more than you think.....the ones who don't care claim that they are all the same.....but I would hazard a guess those people have only ever voted one way.....

Thanks (0)
Replying to justsotax:
avatar
By johnjenkins
13th Jun 2024 13:40

Both Labour and Tories have their "core" voters". The rest fluctuate. I think you have to split the 14 years down a bit. The first 2010-2015 "the coalition". I don't think they did too bad and I would have liked to see it continue. 2015 - 2020. The only way Cameron could get in was by declaring a referendum, then of course, he does a bunk when he didn't like the result. Then it all went downhill. Brexit, covid, lockdown, power crisis and of course Gaza. I don't give a monkey's who was in power at this time they would be looking at being ousted now. It is very true that the Tories made a hash of it. As Rishi says "we didn't get it all right". It really is time for all parties to look deep and think about an all party coalition for the UK.

Thanks (2)
Replying to justsotax:
avatar
By FactChecker
13th Jun 2024 23:32

"one party has been in charge for 14 years" ... yeah, almost identical to the other party that was in charge for the preceding 13 years!
It's a laundromat - just one that never gets anything clean, whoever's in charge:

1951-1964 = 13 yrs of Tories
1964-1979 = 15 yrs of Labour*
1979-1997 = 18 yrs of Tories
1997-2010 = 13 yrs of Labour
2010-2024 = 14 yrs of Tories**

* = actually the Laughing Sailor was i-c for 3 and a bit of those years;
** = actually first 5 of those years was a Tory-led Coalition with LibDems.

The majority of major events during that time (Banking crash, Covid pandemic etc) were all worldwide events - not the result of our parochial politicians' policies.

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th Jun 2024 09:22

So perhaps it is time for an all party coalition. Maybe once party politics is out of the way, we can start to move forward in a constructive manner instead of this wishy washy mess. I actually include the EU in this as well, because with the right people at the helm the EU including us should be able to come to an agreement that suits all and doesn't have "grandeur ideals"

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By johnjenkins
14th Jun 2024 15:35

Going on from that it has to be possible that Labour might not get an overall majority if Reform do actually take some Tory seats. Could be interesting.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mkowl
12th Jun 2024 08:19

In the unlikely event the NI change ever came to fruition, I presume there would be a bit of a surge of dis-incorporations as self employment came back into vogue. Anyone else cynically thinking that would be more drawn in to the MTD net and lo and behold quarterly or indeed monthly self assessment tax payments.

I still like the pledges that announce tax cuts that simply reverse those they introduced, but then I am cynical.

The costing appendix is worth a perusal. At least the tax changes are costed, but the sweeping assumptions on how they are self funded by £12bn per year of welfare spending savings and throw in a few billion from the semi mythical tax gap. To be fair all the parties seem to be reliant on the later to fulfil their pledges.

Thanks (2)
Replying to mkowl:
avatar
By cereus77
12th Jun 2024 08:53

Many people using limited companies are forced to do so by the agencies/clients they work for. I recall trying to change to sole trader status around ten years ago when the Dividend Tax was first aired, and discovering that such a change would result in me losing my contract.

Thanks (3)
Rob Swan
By Rob Swan
12th Jun 2024 09:18

More than enough previous pledges still outstanding.
Does anyone seriously believe any party's pledges will ever be delivered?
Voter bait. Period!

Thanks (3)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jun 2024 09:23

our political class never learn how tax works do they?

By slashing NI on self employment you then create a huge dispartity between the tax paid by employees / self empoyed / working through limited company, massively favouring self employed.

This would spike a massive resergence in fake self empoyment at all levels. its going to be suddenly very popular to start all jobs on 6-12 months probation...........self employed.

At the bottom end this leads to an ever greater push by larger business to dump out low paid employees onto insrecure minium wage fake self employement, such as all the poor delivery drivers earning a pittance well below minium wage. This in turn drops not only the main line tax take in favour of large corporate profits (which will go offshore) but impoverishes those who spend 100%+ of their income........which deflates the overall economoy.

On a purely perosnal note, anyhow bye bye all small limited companies if this comes to pass. LLP's will be the main thing to look at or sole trader. My turnover is going to take a battering. Lucky they are so far behind in the polls (and even if my some stich up got in) are likely to have a new leader in 5 minutes anyhow.

Thanks (1)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
Rob Swan
By Rob Swan
12th Jun 2024 13:35

Maybe, just.... maybe....
Some (ex)MPs will shortly be realising that 'self' employment is their ONLY option...

Thanks (1)
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Jun 2024 09:43

I'm just wondering if the unemployment figures could have something to do with the snap election.
I'm also wondering if Labour actually want to win this election. Sir Kier seems very "lack luster".
It would appear that Nigel is the only one with any backbone and he's got no chance of getting an MP let alone winning the election. My view is that it doesn't matter who gets in and what their manifesto is, it'll all come tumbling down. We are in stagnation and it'll need bold policies to get us out. Maybe Rishi is realising that the SME's do really need saving.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
VAT
By Jason Croke
12th Jun 2024 09:54

Starner doesn't have to do any campaigning, and he isn't, because the Tories record of failure is doing all the heavy lifting, why risk putting your head up above the parapet and risk getting shot in the face when you can hunker down, do nothing and still win. Starmer's campaigning team have got this right.

As well as The Thick of It, I recommend watching VEEP, same writing team, same cynical view of politics.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Jason Croke:
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Jun 2024 10:09

Yet he said at the beginning of the campaign "don't be complacent".

Thanks (2)
Replying to Jason Croke:
avatar
By C Graham
12th Jun 2024 14:05

It's one tactic but hare and tortoise spring to mind. Giving nothing away can backfire and is risky particularly when Labour struggles with the split opinion on Gaza/Palestine issue. Also voter apathy may prove more influential than tactical voting could. Starmer is still run by the unions and gobster Angela Raynor is seen as more powerful. But is deeply unpopular and often it is the personality as much as the politics that wins public opinion. Hence one reason why Boris v Corbyn was predictable. And why Sunak is far more criticised for the D Day incident than for his manifesto.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jun 2024 10:14

"It would appear that Nigel is the only one with any backbone "

Sheesh. He just loves playing agent provocateur an spouting 'easy solutions' to complex problems that don’t work. See also Liz Truss disaster zone to see what happens when the “bold moves” are given a chance to unwind for real.

I think it very much does matter who is elected, as our current direction of travel is an utter disaster. I don’t hold out much hope for Labour but at least they are not totally corrupt.

One of the main reasons the economy is flat lining largely due to economic suicide over the thing no-one dares admit, not least those who voted for it. We have withdrawn from the biggest free trade area in the world and its going to take years for the full effects to work through.

You cant tax and spend, or untax and unspend yourway out of that.

Thanks (6)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Jun 2024 10:44

Normally I agree with much of what you say but I have to take issue with you on a few points. There are easy solutions to what you call "complex" problems. If Liz had had the backing of her party she would have been hailed as the "savior". Let's face it getting rid of IR35 would have been mind blowing. Instead, what happened? Oh yes the financial institutions made loads of money and still are.
Last but not least (always leave the best till last) Brexit. Look what is happening in EU land. Absolute catastrophe. France having a GE (perhaps Rishi and Emmanuel know something we don't). The EU wanted to teach us and any other country that wanted to leave a lesson and it has backfired on them.
The reason why the economy is flat lining or as I call it stagnation is because of the compliance and rigidity put on SME's. We need flexibility and common sense.
The EU need to realise that their vision of "one country called whatever" will not work, however an agreement (something a bit more adventurous than EFTA) will and would stop this us and them attitude. As I say a little flexibility and common sense and something you see as complex becomes easy peasy.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jun 2024 11:47

I am confused. if the problem is regulation (and in my view it is a big problem), how has leaving the EU helped?

All we have lost is the EU as a perpetual scapegoat, and then gained a whole load of new regulations that "we" to put in into Faragism have imposed on "ourselves" via our "sovereign parliament" As its always been, with or without the EU. I see no evidence of anything being taken away, just a whole heap of extra regulation now we are outside of the biggest free trade area in the world.

We are now just blaming other things "wokism", "civil servants" "working from home", "lefty universities" and of course "immigrants".

If Truss had the backing of her party I dread to think what a disaster she would have made of things with her children’s dot to dot of economic policy.

Thanks (4)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Jun 2024 13:45

Liz had the right idea to stimulate growth. The "powers that be" didn't like what she wanted to do. I think she could well be the next Tory leader cos the rank and file Tories like her.
As far as the EU is concerned, I agree in part, but that is because the Government didn't have the bottle to reverse EU rules e.g. AML, which has done absolutely nothing to stop money laundering. It's no good leaving an entity then keep it's rules and regulations. We can't even get rid of the ECHR even though Rishi has said he will ignore them when it comes to illegal immigration.
If we had stayed in the EU we would be a lot worse off.

Thanks (0)
Replying to johnjenkins:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jun 2024 14:20

it wasnt the "powers that be" Liz was 100% THE POWER that was (however briefly). She was PM.

What sunk Liz was fantasy economics runming slap bang into the middle of actual economic reality.

its a bit like Brexit, all the fantasy benefits we were told of these huge trade advantages, caused by (I dont think we ever got to the detail) and all the cuts to regulation (but of course not which EU rules, I am still to have a top 5 out of anyone on what should go and why) all turned to puff. Bit like the money on the bus, Farage was running backward from that the second it looked like the vote might slip his way.

Thanks (3)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Jun 2024 14:59

Of course it was "the powers that be", they created an opportunity to give themselves loads of money at the expense of mortgage payers and blamed it on Liz.
What she was doing was trying to bring stability and growth to our dying economy.
The "money on the bus". Did you actually read what it said on the bus or are you just going by what your other remoaners say.
Once the EU realise that their "idealistic push" won't work, we will then get an agreement with all European countries, that want to take part, that allows them to prosper without all the regulations, red tape and constrictions that a "one parliament EU" comes with.

Thanks (1)
Replying to johnjenkins:
avatar
By mbee1
12th Jun 2024 15:06

Ove 70% of the population want to rejoin the EU and it can't happen soon enough. Leaving the bloc was the very worst thing that has happened to this country in decades and I'm surprised you can't see that. I thought you had a modicum of intelligence. If we leave the ECHR that would be as bad and this country will linger of the bottom of the pile for years to come.

We need a Labour government who will introduce PR to stop these huge majorities and to ensure all votes count. We may then get back into Europe although, at my age, I may not see it sadly.

Thanks (0)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By johnjenkins
12th Jun 2024 15:16

Wow 70% of the population eh. I suppose you need a modicum of intelligence to believe that.
If the EU don't "grow up" then they are the ones who will be left behind. There is a lot to be said for a European Union but not in its present form. Macron is going to get a big shock.
As far as PR is concerned, I agree with you but the House of Lords should be scrapped and House of PR put in its place. That way the Government of the day would have to take notice. Better still, let's have an all party coalition.

Thanks (0)
Replying to mbee1:
avatar
By FactChecker
12th Jun 2024 15:51

"We need a Labour government who will introduce PR"
... since when has that been a Labour policy?
[They're terrified of it in general - and even more in the 'devolved regions'.]

Thanks (2)
Replying to mbee1:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
12th Jun 2024 16:37

mbee1 wrote:

Ove 70% of the population want to rejoin the EU .

I think its more like 30% would still vote to leave
55% would vote to remain
10% have no idea/wouldnt vote

So if you re-ran you would end up with 60%+ for remain, 40% leave.

It does depend what question you ask. There is a decent argument for not crawling back to the EU on what would be probably bad terms now given we chucked in the bin our veto on key issues and a lot of the rebates Mrs T negotiated and really, really REALLY annoyed the heck out of the EU for years by having zero plan on how we would leave, or what it would mean and genrally mucked them about. My EU clients tell me UK is roundly hated in much of Europe now and wildy mistrusted. We haved lost all crediblity. The free trade is about all we want, but we would need to be a rule taker.....albeit in reality we already are as we have to do everything to EU standard for most things that matter as you cant usually specify two products, one for the EU and a substandard one for the UK.

Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By C Graham
12th Jun 2024 14:11

you mean the EU or the gravy train that gives money to the PIGS. How many times was Greece bailed out? No such thing as free trade - it came at a price. And utterly failed to protect the UK from the last recessions and austerity. The UK has this time avoided recession.

You can tax and spend and look to QE.

Labour and corruption - ha - look at the union leaders and see how they spend the money on their new headquarters - building tenders given to their mates.

It all stinks.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Self-Employed and Happy
12th Jun 2024 09:57

Funded by

"together with tackling the tax gap"

So how has that gone....ah MTD has done absolutely rock all.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By petestar1969
12th Jun 2024 10:16

Abolish National Insurance altogether?

So, the eons old myth that NIC's fund the NHS and State Pensions and so on, is finally being exposed as a myth?

Thanks (2)
Replying to petestar1969:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
12th Jun 2024 10:22

Well, if the Conservatives did that, increased IT rates to cover the vast shortfall in collection from NI then their large legion of pensioner voters would likely desert them.

Thanks (1)
Replying to petestar1969:
avatar
By bendybod
12th Jun 2024 11:17

Ah yes, my mum in her late 70s yesterday said to me "but I thought NI paid for the NHS and my pension, so what is going to replace it". Up there with people who think that small businesses still get SSP relief and that vehicle tax pays for roads.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Marlinman
12th Jun 2024 12:11

I'd much rather see council tax abolished as it's completely unrelated to ability to pay and a lifetime burden on anyone owning their own home and just keeps on increasing relentlessly. It also affects a lot more people than IHT.

Thanks (4)
avatar
By Marlinman
12th Jun 2024 12:11

I'd much rather see council tax abolished as it's completely unrelated to ability to pay and a lifetime burden on anyone owning their own home and just keeps on increasing relentlessly. It also affects a lot more people than IHT.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Marlinman:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
12th Jun 2024 15:03

So, local income tax instead? (Very Lib Dem)

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Marlinman
12th Jun 2024 20:58

No, it could be funded by central government from income tax receipts. Even if it means a penny or two in the pound increase. At least it would then be related to ability to pay, would simplify the system and make councils more accountable and stop squandering our money.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Marlinman:
avatar
By C Graham
12th Jun 2024 18:19

The biggest problem with Council tax is that the pond life who are given the budget
responsibility are simply incompetent and often bankrupt the council with self interest vanity projects and foolish local investment.

Local services need to be funded somehow but it's the amateurs with power that are the problem. There should be a grand council to which all local councils should report and get sign off on annual fiscal plans before they are allowed to determine the amount of council tax.

Thanks (3)