Is Phillip Inman really this stupid?

But, more importantly, working for a PAYE employer will be considered a mug’s game compared with running a small company and paying 19% corporation tax. Even under Labour, someone earning £80,000 could swap a 45% tax rate for a 26% corporation tax rate.

There is tax to be paid again when the money is taken out of the company you fool.

The Tories meanwhile will make the situation worse by increasing the personal threshold further, taking even more people out of the tax system. Such a move will disempower future governments from helping the lower-paid through the tax system.

Yes, yes, he is this stupid. If we stop taxing poor people now then we can’t stop taxing them in the future.

28 comments on “Is Phillip Inman really this stupid?

  1. Oh. A writer for the Groan not knowing how the tax system fits together.

    Colour me surprised…

  2. I remember when I was a contractor you paid 20% corp tax on gross profits (which was nearly all of the revenue). If you then drew dividends for that year above the 40% tax threshold you were hit with 30% capital gains, making a 50% tax rate for each pound over the threshold.

    If you weren’t an idiot and kept the money in the account you could earn decent money. Still had to pay capital gains when you drew the lot out though.

  3. Oh. A writer for the Groan not knowing how the tax system fits together.

    Believe me, a lot of these bastards will know exactly how it fits together as regards them – not many of them are PAYE. They’ll have limited companies and suchlike.

    This is just red meat to throw at the State Salariat which makes up their readership.

  4. The stupidity doesn’t end with companies. Inman goes on to say….

    “Generating an income from wealth will also become more attractive. …. With higher income taxes weighing them down, many people already ask why they should work for a living when they can extract a generous rent as a landlord.”

    Remind me again what it is that landlords pay on their profits. Oh, I remember now, income tax.

    So to avoid income tax, you pay income tax.

  5. Hello Philip. You don’t mind me being familiar and calling you Philip do you? Because “hello you fucking cretin” seems a bit rude.
    Let’s have a look at this statement:
    “But using the tax system in this way to help the poorest and tax the rich has a cost. It narrows the tax base to a relatively small group of people and means that when a government needs a revenue boost, as a Labour government will should it take office, it must return to the same people and demand not just a small percentage rise, but a hefty whack of extra cash.”
    So, taking 300, 000 people out of the (Income) tax net is narrowing the tax base to a relatively small group of people is it? You fucking cretin.
    You say you object to retuning to the same people and demanding etc. ..
    Really? So you would rather your Labour government would turn to the poorly paid would you? You fucking cretin.
    And is that really what it’s about? Or have you just worked out that Corbyn and McDonnell’s sums don’t add up ( who’d have guessed?) and the lower middle classes are about to be royally taken up the wrong’un?

  6. “The Tories meanwhile will make the situation worse by increasing the personal threshold further, taking even more people out of the tax system. Such a move will disempower future governments from helping the lower-paid through the tax system.”

    So, we help the poor through tax breaks. If we don’t tax them in the first place we can’t give them those tax breaks they so desperately need.

    Oh well done. Well done indeed YOU FUCKING CRETIN.

  7. It gets worse. If a tax-payer moves money offshore, they are still taxed on their income from it.

  8. Personal Service Companies aren’t quite the joyride they used to be. Expenses rules have been tightened: the test is now whether the worker is under Supervision, Direction, OR Control; rather than the previous AND. There’s dividend tax on money you take out, with the tax-free threshold falling from £5,000 to £2,000 next year. The flat-rate VAT scheme has been rendered useless by raising the rates. Public-sector contracts were unilaterally declared to be all inside IR35, although they are rowing back on that now, and I’ve seen work advertised recently as explicitly outside IR35.

    Finally, there’s the hassle of HMRC’s Real Time Information and generally keeping your accounts up-to-date. It’s perfectly manageable for the kind of people who comment on Timmy’s website, but there are plenty of people in the world who can’t book a flight without help, let alone manage small company accounts.

  9. Andrew M,

    “there are plenty of people in the world who can’t book a flight without help, let alone manage small company accounts.”

    That’s HMRC’s recruitment pool.

  10. I’m not sure that I entirely support raising the tax free amount, not on economic grounds (which I claim not expertise in) but on political grounds. Sure, it seems a vote winner, but the issue is that folk who pay nowt see a tax cut for taxpayers as likely to affect them. The rational is that the Government has to get money from somewhere, and less of an income tax (which they don’t pay) means taxes elsewhere, such as VAT, which they do pay.

    Frankly, I’m in favour of a small tax rate, say 5%, with a clear policy that income taxes go up for all, or down for all. That makes everyone have a dog in the fight.

    Quite a number of policies and spends, such as the NHS, overseas aid, nationalising everything, appeal to people who pay fuck all income tax as they are excellent value when you pay nothing.

  11. “Phillip Inman”: but he was very good playing the jessie in Are You Being Served?

  12. Rob.

    No, they just know the name of their accountant. (It’s so much simpler now with mobiles, isn’t it. Even less numbers to think about.)

  13. For ages I have said that a better way would be to do something like:

    1) £20k tax free allowance for all
    2) 50% tax rate after this
    3) Scrap all other taxes (VAT, Fuel Duty, IPT, VED, NI (both bits), etc)

    There are 2 main benefits of this as i see it –

    1) people will finally see exactly how many stealth taxes there are and maybe decide that things aren’t quiet such value for money they thought and things may actually get better (!!)

    2) We don’t need loads of public sector roles any more – no need for a council tax department, it’s gone. no need for any VAT staff as that doesn’t exist any more, much smaller benefits department as we don’t have to give back money we’ve already taxed from them (hence the 20k allowance), no business rates department, etc so less tax needed in the first place.

    I am sure there are many holes in my logic and i’m sure the change would not be popular but would be much more efficient…

  14. @Bloke in Cornwall
    What about taxes on land? Your policy would be really good for the asset rich and money poor but not for the reverse.

  15. BiC,
    That’s a massive benefit to pensioners, foreign tourists, anyone who has earned money in a different time or place and now lives off it.

    The ideal is a progressive consumption tax; but that’s very hard to implement.

  16. Can someone explain to me how a Land Value Tax works and who would benefit/suffer from it and why?
    I think I understand the basics, but I fix machinery for a living and I’m not an economics expert.
    As I understand it, it is basically that you are charged a percentage of property value per year.
    Who then decides how much a property is worth? How often should the value be updated? If I add an extension on, would this affect it so I pay more? Or would it be beneficial to just pave over the back yard and let it fall into disrepair?
    Thinking probably just get screwed by government either way…

    Looking at the polls, giving serious thought to leaving if labour win…

  17. Hi Chernyy

    Note the bit about “unimproved”.

    Wikipedia: “A land/location value tax (LVT), also called a site valuation tax, split rate tax, or site-value rating, is a levy on the unimproved value of land. It is an Ad valorem tax that, unlike property taxes, disregards the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements.”

    https://capx.co/land-value-tax-is-a-great-idea-but-itll-never-happen/

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/why-everybody-is-wrong-about-the-land-value-tax-except-me

  18. Chernyy, I’m currently temporarily resident in Netherlands. If Corbyn and his Hamas/Hezbollah/IRA/ supporting party win on Thursday, I’m never going back.

  19. Fear not, Henry. There’s rather less chance of Jezza being PM next Friday than my winning the EuroMillions. How’s Minnie, BTW?

  20. @Excavator Man

    Yep, that thought has struck me about raising the limit so that a lot of folks pay nothing, or near as dammit.

    Similarly I think public sector pay ought to have a close link to genuine economic performance, so it only goes up if the country gets richer, goes down if the country gets poorer. Again, puts some skin in the game.

  21. Cheers. Not sure what happened to my last (longer) post. Connection issues I think.

    I think I’ve got it now.
    Just hoping that the people of the UK aren’t daft enough to vote Corbyn…

  22. I commented on the Guardian staff’s clearly demonstrated illiteracy, and on spec checked back a couple of minutes later and, yes, it had been deleted.

  23. Interesting to me that as the Personal Allowance has increased, so councils have moved in to extract some of that extra income from poor people. The counciltaxsupport.org web-site has more, but some councils are getting the lowest earners to pay 30% of the standard charge, whereas once they paid nil.
    So not only is Philip Inman wrong in theory, he is also wrong in fact, as the poorest are paying council tax that they didn’t pay before, or paying it a higher %. To be out of touch with the working class experience of being summonsed to court for things like council tax and the tv licence is classic leftyism. The right wingers generally don’t care if they are in touch with the poorest. But I think the lefty pretenders are more dangerous as they are more likely to make bad policy.

  24. @ Bloke in Cornwall
    Great idea BUT Brown increased government spending so much that a 50% tax rate on income over £20k would not cover government spending: to make it work we need to cut state pensions and benefits by more than one-third.

    No, I am not batshit crazy – check out the numbers

  25. BiC; got to disagree with 1).
    I think that in a democracy with universal suffrage, and given that no taxation without representation is fair, then no representation without taxation also seems fair. So, I would prefer the tax free allowance to be based on a basic cost of living plus linen shirts type of scenario. So something like lower third of average housing costs, plus X calories per day, then add on X bandwidth usage per day, whatever else takes your fancy. Not too fussed about what it adds up to, apart from the fact that if we must have a minimum wage, then it must not exceed some %’age of that. The tax base must be as broad as possible. It also strikes me that the bulk of revenue must come from the bulk of the population. None of this 10% of earners pay 33% of taxes malarkey. Which of course suggests that the rate should begin to taper off above the median wage….

    Oh, and scrap PAYE. That should suddenly concentrate minds.

  26. @Ducky…

    The £20k is what people recon you need as a min now for housing, food, clothing and getting to work (roughly, can’t find where I found that figure… If VAT and the like were gone could probably be lower).

    @anon
    Not really, once you’ve earned your money it’s yours – regardless of if you keep cash or buy gold or land. Any income from land gets taxed the same as any other income.

    @andrewm
    Based on the level of our politicians I would say chances of progressive tax working ever are 0! They just make too many rules and then it’s impossible to follow – I know cases where even HMRC can’t tell you the answer… Give them something simple that works for 80% and then keep it as simple as possible.

    @john77
    I’m sure in the current state of government matters you could go to 85% and still have issues… Hence keeping it simple and then removing most of the government that’s in the way… Benefits can go too in most cases as the encouragement is there to earn not sit on your ass all day watching TV!

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.