Now, you will all know my views by now. So I was (I admit) expecting a particular result. But it still took me by surprise:
These are the actual figures. Cross my heart. They consist of:
Me - this is the net cash received by me, i.e. the cash I have drawn from the business to live on minus the cash I put in to start it off with.
Staff - a simple one, their net salaries over the year.
Government - is the total due in respect of the year, including my own personal tax due for the year in question (based on the income ascribed to me under HMRC rules), the total PAYE and NI that I have paid to HMRC in respect of my staff's salaries, the total VAT I have paid for the year, and the official fees I have paid to HMG or its proxies on behalf of clients.
Note, there is no Corporation tax in there. None. Zero. I avoided it entirely by incorporating as an LLP. So, go on - call me a tax dodger. Accuse me of not making my fair contribution.
Go on. I dare you.
That is thought provoking - and saddening.
ReplyDeleteTax dodger. There, that was easy! Now defend yourself and make yourself look defensive by doing so.
ReplyDeleteThat red slice doesn't look big enough to me ;-)
And this is why Britain is no longer an entrepreneurial country. I'm sure another season of 'The Apprentice' wi fix that, though... :/
ReplyDeleteI think that this graph should be suppressed. (Not by the state, you understand. I don't approve of state censorship.)
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because if this sort of thing becomes public knowledge, then nobody (except the very dedicated) will start up a business in this country - and I believe that the economic health of this country depends on having a thriving small-business sector, and thus people starting up small businesses.
So, by all means lobby your MP about the matter.
But please take this post down.
;-)
HMRC must realise the higher up the food chain it can get, the bigger the meal. Wait until Labour gets back in, and there will be a direct tax on turnover.
ReplyDeleteYou could argue that you and your clients in effective pay this already to register a patent.
Looks like my MP agrees with me:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stevebaker.info/2012/08/cui-bono/
http://twitter.com/SteveBakerMP/status/330227313402843136
Measured - a tax on turnover? We nearly have that, it's called VAT; 20% added to every bill I send. The only thing that stops it being a turnover tax is the ability to offset VAT that I pay, but there are already exceptions to that. Expect those exceptions to grow.
YMB - thank you, but I shall politely decline ;-)
Anna, Julia - quite. I expected the purple slice to be huge, after all I've been coughing up the cash all year so I should know. But 79% still surprised me.
BE - very true, it is impossible to defend against, good point.
It is immoral that you get paid. I do not understand why people wish to make any money at all. This country is for hard working people who pay all their tax to the Government. It is a fair country with fair tax rates if you are receiving those taxes, bugger of if you are paying them and how do you have time to write a blog you should be earning more tax, now get back to work you lazy scrounger.
ReplyDeleteAnon - very good! I am suitably chastised.
ReplyDeleteI had a feeling that your MP would agree with you.
ReplyDeleteI must confess that I have been very, very impressed with him. I am astonished that such an apparently good chap should be chosen by one of the major parties for a safe seat.
Indeed, if I lived in your constituency, I might find myself voting Tory - for the first time since 1987!
No rates bill in their? No government imposed admin costs? Payroll software, real time staffing tax records? No H+S training and signage and form filling?
ReplyDeleteNo business surcharges such as confidential waste disposal ?
What kind of tax dodging, minicab style business run from the garden shed, racket are you running down there?
Good point Bill, I did indeed forget to include the business rates. The rest we outsource, so yes, I suppose the accountant's fees should properly be in there too.
ReplyDeleteYoung Mr B, I have given some thought to that point. Sound as Mr Baker's views are, the problem is that he is "only" a backbencher. I fear also that the very soundness of his opinions will ensure he stays as such. Therefore, whilst a vote for him will assist in sending a deserving man to Parliament, it will also assist in keeping an undesirable PM and government in Downing Street.
Better, surely, to send someone who may be less sound in their views, but who will return a more sound PM and government?
I suspect - as of today - that one of two things will happen. Either Mr Baker will spearhead a backbench revolt that decapitates and revitalises the Tories, replacing their leadership with Mr Baker and others of his ilk, or come 2015 I will mutter a sotto voce apology to Mr Baker and vote UKIP.
I cannot fault your logic. It would be a shame to vote against such a good man, but in politics, one must be a realist. I would probably do likewise, but with real sorrow.
ReplyDeleteAs for backbenchers, I remember talking to a friend who had been elected to his national parliament. His party at that time was in opposition, and he told me that he had more political influence before his election to parliament than he did after it.