Autumn Budget

[Democorruptcy]

On 29/10/2018 at 16:14, null; said:

Shit sandwich - a turd concealed between two layers of bread.

We are on the first slice, all the giveaways.

Waiting for the turd - who is going to pay for it?

Wow, this actually is good news:

Government to axe PFI deals

All existing contracts will be honoured instead of trying to renegotiate the ridiculously high interest rate payments.

 

[Democorruptcy]

On 29/10/2018 at 17:00, TheBlueCat said:

Nah, there haven’t been any PFI deals in ages anyway. The accounting rules around them changed a while back and made them just about impossible to justify.

Depends how long your ages is, Osbanker was still at it in 2014

Quote

 

A new £353 million hospital will deliver a “medical and economic” boost to the West Midlands after a PFI deal was reached.

Under PFI 2 guidelines the taxpayer takes a share of up to 49 per cent in new projects with the rest coming from private investors.

https://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/health-news/new-353m-hospital-smethwick-mean-7454724

 

 

[Democorruptcy]

56 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

Maybe “ages” is hyperbole but the number of deals has been trending to zero since the move to IFRS some time in around 2015. Don’t get me wrong, I am entirely happy he abolished it properly - the numbers never made any sense to me - but claiming the announcement as some major change vs current reality is bollocks.

Who do you think is going to benefit the most from the £30bn he has chucked at the roads?
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/budget-2018-what-it-means-for-motorists

In 2016 it was reported the bill would be £12bn https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/what-would-cost-repair-britains-7609581

There is going to be some serious troughing out of that lot £30bn!!

[invalid]

2 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

All existing contracts will be honoured instead of trying to renegotiate the ridiculously high interest rate payments.

 

Yes, it's a shame but unfortunately it sets a bad precedent if the government start to renege contracts. If there are cluases in the contracts that allow for breaks or reviews then I would hope they would negotiate hard, but given the recent performance on Brexit, I doubt it.

Bloody things should never have been done in the first place.

[One percent]

2 minutes ago, null; said:

Yes, it's a shame but unfortunately it sets a bad precedent if the government start to renege contracts. If there are cluases in the contracts that allow for breaks or reviews then I would hope they would negotiate hard, but given the recent performance on Brexit, I doubt it.

Bloody things should never have been done in the first place.

Oh ffs, they have reneged on the social contract time and again. Why is business and the city so special?   

[Wight Flight]

10 hours ago, kibuc said:

Calling people on £50k p.a. "rich" is borderline offensive. It's roughly 3k net per month. 3-bed terrace in the middle of a council estate in North London - £1650/month. Council tax - £150. Utilities, including internet & mobiles - £250. That leaves you with around £1000k and you haven't even eaten anything yet, not to mention clothing, car or holiday. Rich as fuck.

The budget looks surprisingly positive at first glance, but let's wait and see what dirty details come up in the next few days.

You are joking?

[Dipsy]

13 hours ago, Harley said:

I thought the advantages of salary sacrifice had been negated by recent tax changes, at least for higher earners.  But it's still done? 

Not sure what recent changes you mean. Basically your pension contributions are taken off your salary before you pay any tax. There might be some impacts if you earn above the limit where the personal allowance gets clawed back and I think above 150k you are restricted in how much you contribute but salary sacrifice is how most employers set up DC pensions. 

HMRC did clamp down on some salary sacrifice schemes as the pee was being taken but they left pension contributions alone.

[Wight Flight]

10 hours ago, kibuc said:

Calling people on £50k p.a. "rich" is borderline offensive. It's roughly 3k net per month. 3-bed terrace in the middle of a council estate in North London - £1650/month. Council tax - £150. Utilities, including internet & mobiles - £250. That leaves you with around £1000k and you haven't even eaten anything yet, not to mention clothing, car or holiday. Rich as fuck.

The budget looks surprisingly positive at first glance, but let's wait and see what dirty details come up in the next few days.

You are joking?

10 hours ago, kibuc said:

Calling people on £50k p.a. "rich" is borderline offensive. It's roughly 3k net per month. 3-bed terrace in the middle of a council estate in North London - £1650/month. Council tax - £150. Utilities, including internet & mobiles - £250. That leaves you with around £1000k and you haven't even eaten anything yet, not to mention clothing, car or holiday. Rich as fuck.

The budget looks surprisingly positive at first glance, but let's wait and see what dirty details come up in the next few days.

You are joking?

[Democorruptcy]

2 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

You offering to do it for free then?!

No, I was trying to follow the money and wondering if any company shares might be worth buying into on the back of it.

[Lavalas]

The £25bn for Highways England will go in fairly predictable directions - essentially the same as those doing the work for Road Investment Strategy 1. So in design it will be Aecom, Jacobs, WSP, Mott Macdonald and Arup. In construction the likes of Balfour Beatty and in operation companies like Kier, Mouchel, AOne+.

How many of the operational companies have got a touch of the Carillion about them, I don’t know.

[Harley]

3 hours ago, Dipsy said:

Not sure what recent changes you mean. Basically your pension contributions are taken off your salary before you pay any tax. There might be some impacts if you earn above the limit where the personal allowance gets clawed back and I think above 150k you are restricted in how much you contribute but salary sacrifice is how most employers set up DC pensions. 

HMRC did clamp down on some salary sacrifice schemes as the pee was being taken but they left pension contributions alone.

Yes, the tapered annual allowance starting at £110k.

[kibuc]

11 hours ago, Cunning Plan said:

You are joking?

I wish I were. Roughly 1700 per annum for the privilege of having my rubbish collected every fortnight. An ex-council terrace in the middle of a huge estate. London, biatch!

[Dipsy]

3 hours ago, kibuc said:

I wish I were. Roughly 1700 per annum for the privilege of having my rubbish collected every fortnight. An ex-council terrace in the middle of a huge estate. London, biatch!

Try £3000 plus. And I have to chase the bloody council up when they forget to collect our rubbish once a fortnight.

Same as it ever was

 

[Long time lurking]

11 hours ago, kibuc said:

I wish I were. Roughly 1700 per annum for the privilege of having my rubbish collected every fortnight. An ex-council terrace in the middle of a huge estate. London, biatch!

My guess is Mr Cunning was thinking that`s cheap 

[Kurt Barlow]

On 29/10/2018 at 19:15, Napoleon Dynamite said:

That's quite decent for somebody earning in that region.

By my calcs (ignoring NI) a £50K earner in 18/19 pays £8360 PAYE.  In 19/20 it's £7600.  So £760 less to pay, that's a fair amount of money.

The marginal tax after that is horrendous if in receipt of Child Benefit (and Marriage Allowance) though.

 

 

Both my wife and I are in that boat. We both make AVC's to get our taxable down towards 46K and not loss any CB plus get the 40% tax relief on our pension contributions. 

[kibuc]

14 hours ago, Long time lurking said:

My guess is Mr Cunning was thinking that`s cheap 

It is? Blimey, I don't want to know what expensive is then! However, it only serves to strengthen my point that £50k p.a. makes nobody rich by any measure.

[ad_ceng]

On 30/10/2018 at 07:19, spygirl said:

Im undecided onthe IR35 stuff.

There's a lot of people/companies taking the absolute piss - basically employing people FT as contractors.

IR35 is easily worked around - have > 2 contracts each tax year. Or set up a small company with someone else.

If you cannot manage these then you probably are not a contractor.

 

 

That is true and at the moment I am running several contracts at once. 

I think IR35 just puts more worries on people and it is yet another sign the state wants big companies not little people doing the same 

There is also the fact that theft is wrong no matter who does it and all taxation is theft. infact it is the worst kind as people excuse it as it is for the "public good" which is bollocks 

[spygirl]

40 minutes ago, ad_ceng said:

That is true and at the moment I am running several contracts at once. 

I think IR35 just puts more worries on people and it is yet another sign the state wants big companies not little people doing the same 

There is also the fact that theft is wrong no matter who does it and all taxation is theft. infact it is the worst kind as people excuse it as it is for the "public good" which is bollocks 

Id disgree, having experience of both proper and scam contractors.

Both scam contracors and compnaies have bend themsvles backward to contract out what are basically FT jobs. I see this with FT roles on company sites.

I dont hink UKGOV - or any other - can deal wit hthe little person. Public setcor and large companies are poor at dealing with one man band contractors.

IR35 is a mess. Its down to that idiot Brown and his fiddling with taxes and employment. And its down to to the cornactors and their idiot advisors who ran wit hthe ball.

All I cn say is, as an indovudal, is to make sure that no single contrct lasts for more than 6 months. Or, if its does, look to proect yourself - have you own computers and whatnot.

 

 

[spunko]

2 hours ago, kibuc said:

It is? Blimey, I don't want to know what expensive is then! However, it only serves to strengthen my point that £50k p.a. makes nobody rich by any measure.

I can't remember what he pays but mine is extortionate at~ £200 every month for a 3 bedroom house + single occupancy discount  (  )and that was a pittance compared to his.

It's almost worth going to prison over.

[macca]

2 hours ago, spunko said:

I can't remember what he pays but mine is extortionate at~ £200 every month for a 3 bedroom house + single occupancy discount  (  )and that was a pittance compared to his.

It's almost worth going to prison over.

Time to start living in camper vans.. 

[Wight Flight]

13 hours ago, kibuc said:

It is? Blimey, I don't want to know what expensive is then! However, it only serves to strengthen my point that £50k p.a. makes nobody rich by any measure.

It doesn't.

£50k gross wouldn't cover my rent and council tax.

[white110]

10 hours ago, spygirl said:

IR35 is a mess. Its down to that idiot Brown and his fiddling with taxes and employment. And its down to to the cornactors and their idiot advisors who ran wit hthe ball.

All I cn say is, as an indovudal, is to make sure that no single contrct lasts for more than 6 months. Or, if its does, look to proect yourself - have you own computers and whatnot.

2006. I got the IR35 investigation notice. I rang the named officer, 30 minutes later I was sat in her office. We spent 4 hours going through what was at that moment the current version of the draft guidance test. The conclusion was 'I am sat in your chair, your side of the desk, the test is all about who controls who, the contract is with a German company, the work takes place in Germany, I invoice in Euros, 182 days maximum so I remain a UK resident, stating that I am their employee, is that not beyond your remit.  This is a fantasy'. The reply to this was 'It maybe fantasy, but if we say so, then it is so'.  

Shout99 and the PCG, the person who tried an appeal at Employment Tribunal, Tax Status and Employment status are two completely different things.

Be my guest, take on HMRC, see if you can argue against 'If we say, then it is so'. That Senior Inspector, Mary, after 4 hours of explaining the difference between a bum on a seat and a bona-fide consultant, 360k back tax and a 3.5k forward yearly loss would be the outcome if It was decided against me, was sympathetic and understood, but it would not influence the decision. I had rewritten that particular contract, the agency or Intermediate Party, relented and accepted it, all the clauses that would fail the IR35 test were gone or replaced. An imaginary contract is constructed by HMRC for their test, reality has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

My decision was to close the company, quit contracting, this was my third full inaction with the Tax Office, twice I had had 'because we say so', IR35, the Intermediatries Act was a blind vicious assault on IT Professionals, Dawn Primarolla has a lot to answer for. The worst offender is still UK Government for 'bums on seat' contractors, I even know a senior senior HMRC Investigator, who left on the Friday with his half million payoff and returned Monday as a contractor. Do as I say, not as I do.  

[spygirl]

7 hours ago, white110 said:

2006. I got the IR35 investigation notice. I rang the named officer, 30 minutes later I was sat in her office. We spent 4 hours going through what was at that moment the current version of the draft guidance test. The conclusion was 'I am sat in your chair, your side of the desk, the test is all about who controls who, the contract is with a German company, the work takes place in Germany, I invoice in Euros, 182 days maximum so I remain a UK resident, stating that I am their employee, is that not beyond your remit.  This is a fantasy'. The reply to this was 'It maybe fantasy, but if we say so, then it is so'.  

Shout99 and the PCG, the person who tried an appeal at Employment Tribunal, Tax Status and Employment status are two completely different things.

Be my guest, take on HMRC, see if you can argue against 'If we say, then it is so'. That Senior Inspector, Mary, after 4 hours of explaining the difference between a bum on a seat and a bona-fide consultant, 360k back tax and a 3.5k forward yearly loss would be the outcome if It was decided against me, was sympathetic and understood, but it would not influence the decision. I had rewritten that particular contract, the agency or Intermediate Party, relented and accepted it, all the clauses that would fail the IR35 test were gone or replaced. An imaginary contract is constructed by HMRC for their test, reality has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

My decision was to close the company, quit contracting, this was my third full inaction with the Tax Office, twice I had had 'because we say so', IR35, the Intermediatries Act was a blind vicious assault on IT Professionals, Dawn Primarolla has a lot to answer for. The worst offender is still UK Government for 'bums on seat' contractors, I even know a senior senior HMRC Investigator, who left on the Friday with his half million payoff and returned Monday as a contractor. Do as I say, not as I do.  

If the hMRC says you are an employee than you are. Its up to you to pay for the legal process to process otherwise..

Just because both parties bend over backwards to avoid having a contract, it does not mean that you are self employed i nthe eyes of HMRC.

Just because there is no contract, HMRC are not imagining it.

The rules, at their base, are simple:

- Did you have multiple contracts during that tax year?

- Were you based at the customers site for all that time?

- Did you supply your own tools/kit?

- Did you and one or more people take turns in providing the services?

Get 3 of those and you ought to be safe.

If doesnt matter what you think. It doesnt matter where the company is - if you are still classed as tax resident of the UK.

Your response on working in Germany, being invoiced in Euros changes none of the above.

 

 

 

[sarahbell]

11 hours ago, Cunning Plan said:

It doesn't.

£50k gross wouldn't cover my rent and council tax.

where the bleep do you live? Mars?

[kibuc]

2 hours ago, spygirl said:

Get 3 of those and you ought to be safe.

I'd say as long as you're getting the same statutory benefits that regular employees enjoy in regard to maximum working hours, overtime rates, annual leave, social insurance, pension, notice period etc. then you're an employee too. Otherwise, you're not. These are probably the biggest pros of having a permanent job, for which you pay with lower effective hourly rate and inflexible taxation. If you're not getting those benefits but are still taxed as if you were, that creates a big imbalance and is simply unfair.

That's obiously my personal opinion, I realize that tax offices see it way different.