Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#1
I do not usually read the Mail on Sunday but did so this week.
In it was an interesting article by Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng.
One aspect particularly caught my eye.
He suggested that an option should be made available for employees to opt in to a higher nil rate for tax, at £12,000 per annum, in exchange for accepting reduced employment protection and rights. This would only be an option for employees, they need not opt for this andcould keep the old employment terms and tax rate.
This would, he suggested, encourage more employment.
A very interesting suggestion that should be considered and it following another suggestion of a parallel tax 'flat tax' system from another MP into which people can opt into as an alternative to a full adoption of such a system.
Our economic circumstance needs some new radical thinking like this and it is worth trying out as an experiment in a region before countrywide adoption if it works.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#2
barry,employment rights are bad enough as it is,let alone decreasing them.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
Brian - if you want more people employed then we must de-risk doing so and this is one way it could be done on an 'opt-in' basis. The best way to create more unemployment is by loading more and more employment rights and obligations onto companies.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#4
is that so barry,thankfully ive nearly retired.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
i think a trial run in one area is a good idea so long as it is not compulsory.
i would be one quite gladly, the reason being that the employer would only sack me if i was not up to the job.
if i was not up to the job i wouldn't want to stay in it.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#6
Flat rate Tax.....yes......Hybrids like this .........nah!!!!
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#7
What an idiot this Kwasi Kwarteng is, or what fools he thinks we are.
Our current sorry state was not caused by either employees or employers. (in the main) We cannot hope to get out of our present sorry state by seeking answers from those to whom no questions were ever put.
We are where we are because of the sublime disconnection between work and reward. To place all focus on the 'pennies' while the Pounds remain out of sight and out of mind is ludicrous.
Rather than fiddle with PAYE at the bottom, an obligation to PAYE should be imposed across the board.
High tax rates are not why tax is avoided. Tax is avoided therefore there are high tax rates.
Bi££ions are lost to our economy because tax-exaction is more of a game than an obligation. The buttering-up of the majority, those on low(ish) wages, with the 'threat' to take them out of the tax-loop is shameful.
"No taxation without representation/No representation without taxation." [Either way.]
Our problems and our solutions lie in the simple fact that those in the UK who MUST pay tax obtain scant representation while those who avoid as much tax as they are permitted/encouraged to do, (and are able to engineer through their overwhelming representation) have the ear of, and a grip upon the short-hairs of, Government.
This KK fellow is just another of the middle-management types that have plagued our political system for decades. A 'VP' in charge of BULL!! Looking after his own career prospects while assuming our general acceptance of blame and responsibility for a mess not of our making.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
courtesy of the telegraph
In a direct attack on a report on employment reform by by venture captialist Adiran Beecroft, which was leaked to The Daily Telegraph, the Liberal Democrat said he was opposed to the "ideological zealots who want to encourage British firms to fire at will".
It is the latest outburst from Mr Cable and is likely to increase tensions within the Coalition.
Writing in The Sun, Mr Cable said: "Some people think that if labour rights were stripped down to the most basic minimum, employers would start hiring and the economy would soar again.
"This is complete nonsense."
He added: "British workers are an asset, not just a cost for company bosses. That is why I am opposed to the ideological zealots who want to encourage British firms to fire at will."
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
#9
I do try to keep out of these threads as I know it will only give me grief but Tom is right, just how stupid do you think we are?
BarryW
We all know you want to drop the minimum wage and strip a lot of working rights from employees that have been built up over the years, some of which I can understand and believe there is a middle ground.
But, your formula is to strip it right down and build it up again, purely for the employer's benefit, which is what this is all about.
I completely agree that the current Tax system needs a complete overhaul but bringing in more loopholes is not the answer.
Posting what this idiot MP is trying on, just confirms that, although I am sure you will disagree.
When someone is struggling to make ends meet and has a family to consider, offering this carrot is not giving them an option.
To keep emphasising the word "option" or "opt in and out" is just a "red herring" to strip down "employment protection & rights"
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
#8 - Howard. That just shows what a twerp Cable is. The only ideological zealot, in this case, is Cable trying to keep the risks of employing people high and in so doing is a serious danger to anyone who wants to work. No wonder the government is struggling to get growth in coalition with people like him holding it back.
GaryC. You are correct about what I want. I want this because people who are on low incomes and unemployed will benefit most, but all of us will benefit from the economic impact. I really do believe and have reasons for doing so that have been explained before that the minimum wage (alongside immigration and tax credits) have been keeping wage for most people down. The simplistic policies designed to help low paid groups have been counter-productive and are part of the problems we have not the solutions.
This is not about us and them and to suggest it is all for employer's benefit is just not the case. This is about all of us and it is this 'them and us' characterisation that is economically damaging. It is only private employers who through their success generate wealth and create jobs. We need a successful economy for job security and improved incomes for everyone, not just employers. This is where we are in it together and not in the rather trite way people like Keith think of it.
As for 'loopholes' - this is not about more loopholes but new job creating solutions. If, as I want, we had a system of lower, flat and simple taxes then we will have a fairer system with few 'loopholes'. This MP has proposed a middle way that is worth exploring and having a trial may show us a way to help a lot of people back to work. Far frrom being an idiot, he is applying some intelligent out of the box thinking to the problem and we need more of that.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#11
Most working class low paid jobs are mostly controlled by employment agencies
These employers prefer this as it gives them the option to sack at will anybody they don't like, with one phone call to the agency.
So we end up with a workforce that has, affectively no employment rights
And they have to give a cut of there wages to these parasites.
So if the boss has the right to sack people they do not need we could get rid of employment agencies, the extra money saved could be directed to the people doing the work
We have a taxpayer funded job shop so employment agencies become redundant
It's not perfect, but what we have at the moment is worse.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Keith - a few points:
1/ My two sons when they left school used agencies to find work and started off as casual agency workers. In both cases their potential was spotted and they were taken on full time by the companies that used them as agency workers. Agencies are a great way into work but it is up to the individual to prove themselves.
2/ When it comes to employment and employment opportunities it might be worth listening to small employers because some of these will be the big employers of the future and are the driving force behind what economic growth we have. There are 7 million people in the UK employed by 4 million businesses with less than 10 employees (not including self-employed owners/partners). It is these employers who take the greatest personal risk when it comes to business expansion and employing people. It is these, more than any others, who are saying employment must be 'de-risked'. If you want a more successful economy this is essential.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#13
#12, spot on. But how to achieve the de-risking for small businesses like ours? I must say I tend to agree with Gary et al that this particular scheme isn't a goer. Much better to exempt unincorporated small businesses from all the employment laws and introduce an insurance based system for compensation. Those who knock the loosening of employment protection laws have clearly never been employers. There is no sense in having the same laws for HSBC as for little family businesses.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
I would agree to a exemption for small businesses regardless though small private unincorporated business should be included and, I know, so would Conservative ministers Peter but the LibDems are a road block to that and this is why a compromise is being proposed by Kwasi Kwarteng for having an option and a trial. When shown to be a success in a trial the ammunition would be there to force the LD's hands in making it a full exemption nationally. I would not necessarily exclude larger businesses though this measure would be far more important for smaller ones.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#15
Larger businesses can spread the risks and afford it. Small ones can't. That's why we reduced our employed head count to 2 from 7 four years ago.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#16
Barry just doesn't sit right middleman getting a cut of somebody's wages for doing nothing
Some of these cheeky gits make them pay around £20 to an accountancy firm weekly to process the wages. Pay to get paid
Theirs got to be a balance; it cannot all be loaded towards the employers all the time. The peasants will revolt and vote you out.
ps
I did say de regulate
So if the boss has the right to sack people they do not need we could get rid of employment agencies, the extra money saved could be directed to the people doing the work
Just image haw you would feel if every time you did a financial deal you had to shear the earning with a third party.
maybe the EU
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#17
Keith - I have to share my earnings with others all the time...
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme will be taking a few grand off me soon to cover compensation for mis-sold products by other advisers that I always avoided selling...
I pay a third party several grand more each year just to advise me how to keep within the rules. In fact 12% of any 'financial deal', as you put it, is taken that way.
and so on and so on...
The fact is there are many people taking a cut out of others hard work all the time and the worse being the tax man.
These agencies perform a useful function making it more efficient for employers to balance between periods of high and low demand, essential for them to stay in business. They also provide job opportunities that may otherwise not exist.
These are the facts of life.
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#18
These things are basic running costs of you business, things you will claim for on your tax returns
With a de regulated work force you have no need of agencies, you just pick up the phone to you job shop to contact you workforce, and then let them go in the slack times.
The more people get to keep the money they erne, the more money they spend going back in to the economy
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#19
barryw;
Your view on just going back to the cloth cap days and begging for a job, is where these proposals lead us.
the playing field is far from level, and employers being given the right to sack without considersation and getting employees to take the brunt of the bigger picture problem is unjust.
im with garyc on this one.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
# 18 That is why we need lower taxes.......
Life just is not that simple for a business. Agencies are a part of the basic costs of running many a business with seasonal or peak and off peak demand - to put it as you do.
Also, no Keith (Bibby) - paying compensation for the bad advice given by other advisers who have gone bust is not a 'basic running cost of my business'. Its about the incompetence of others. The system is quite monstrous and in desperate need for reform. That it is an expense does not cost my costs, I just do not pay tax on that, I still have to find the money. Being a sole trader it come direct from my pocket.
I bet you have never run a business Keith and not had to manage work-flows and demand or extra costs being piled on at short notice. This is not a dig at you but the complexities of doing this need to be experienced to truly understand them.
