Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Travel And Subsistence Claims
Topic Started: Dec 1 2015, 11:12 AM (209 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I assume George Osborne snuck this in under the radar without realising the consequences. (No change there then.)

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/790

Early day motion 790


TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE CLAIMS
Session: 2015-16
Date tabled: 30.11.2015
Primary sponsor: Meale, Alan
Sponsors: Bottomley, Peter


That this House is aware that the Government has chosen to remove the tax relief mechanism Travel and Subsistence from contractors from April 2016, a decision which is likely to result in around 1.6 million workers experiencing up to a 20 per cent wage cut to their net salaries overnight; understands the importance of workers in this sector who currently fill the skills shortages around the country and in industries as hospitals, schools and colleges and local authorities as well as many major public civil engineering projects; and believes that if the Government persists in such a short-sighted fiscal strategy it will result in undoubted delays and huge failures to essential services provided to citizens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
That's grotesque, this govt are arguably even more callous than the stupid incompetent Tories of the 1930's.

An absolute outrage. If they keep this sort of stuff up I really wouldn't be surprised if there's mass, mass disorder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'll bet MPs get to keep their travel and subsistence perks.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 1 2015, 11:15 AM


An absolute outrage. If they keep this sort of stuff up I really wouldn't be surprised if there's mass, mass disorder.
Well where I live it will effect ALL those who travel using their own transport to get to disabled/elderly people's homes to give them care.
These are already poorly paid people who will not be able to continue to work when the change takes place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
That's grave news.I hope for their sakes there is a workaround of some sort. Perhaps a community shuttle service will need to be launched.

There you go, big society in action. When they outlaw foodbanks it will force people to start nice conmunity soup kitchens. Wow! Conpassionate conservatism with a Capital C.

A total, capital C.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 1 2015, 11:15 AM
That's grotesque, this govt are arguably even more callous than the stupid incompetent Tories of the 1930's.

An absolute outrage. If they keep this sort of stuff up I really wouldn't be surprised if there's mass, mass disorder.
You what?

At least read the background

Or maybe just read that Peter Bottomley is a backer of this early day motion. That will tell you much about its motivations

You and PS want Osborne to clamp down on tax avoidance and when he does you support those trying to perpetrate the evil. At best bizarre.

This has been a long standing tax fiddle to the relative disadvantage of your average man and woman in the street. It needed closing years ago and now it is being closed Posted Image

This clamp down should be taken further.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
One of the most ridiculous posts you've ever made.

We want him to clamp down on tax avoidance measures that the rich mostly use. It's like you're saying 'get rid of the PA; that too is tax avoidance in your world'.


:facepalm: :facepalm:
Edited by skwirked, Dec 1 2015, 12:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:02 PM


You and PS want Osborne to clamp down on tax avoidance and when he does you support those trying to perpetrate the evil. At best bizarre.

I very specifically want tax EVASION as in the offshoring of £billions by the filthy rich and not paying anything in tax stopped.
There is nothing bizarre in my thinking about Osborne is bringing in a measure that will effect some very low paid workers, many of who will not be able to work if travel and subsistence is taxed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 1 2015, 12:06 PM
One of the most ridiculous posts you've ever made.

We want him to clamp down on tax avoidance measures that the rich mostly use. It's like you're saying 'get rid of the PA; that too is tax avoidance in your world'.


:facepalm: :facepalm:
Oh you two want tax fiddling to continue then but only for people you like.  ::)

It's a fiddle, it means most people have to pay more because of false flagged self employment. In my last year of working I spent ~£5,000 on commuting, Mrs K about the same and we got stuff all tax relief on that just like millions and millions of others. Meantime thousands are exploiting this tax fiddle
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:17 PM
Meantime thousands are exploiting this tax fiddle
It is NOT a tax fiddle for care workers it is a genuine expense. Workers who do home care are treated like shit by their employers as it is, without Osborne kicking them as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31258205

Thousands of care workers 'miss out on minimum wage'


9 February 2015

From the section UK
More than a tenth of UK care workers are being paid less than the national minimum wage of £6.50 an hour, a study suggests.

The Resolution Foundation think tank says its research indicates that about 160,000 people are losing out on an average of £815 each a year.

It said some firms wrongly did not pay staff when they travelled between clients, on training or when "on call".

Ministers said they were taking action against employers who broke the law.

The national minimum wage is paid to adults aged 21 and over and there are lower rates for younger workers and apprentices.




The minimum wage regulations say working time includes travelling in connection with work, and training or travelling to training during normal working hours.

The Resolution Foundation, a not-for-profit research organisation, said the problem it had uncovered was "primarily down to the failure of employers to pay staff at a level that adequately covers all of their working time".

The care industry sector, which employs about 1.4 million people in the UK, has long been associated with low pay, while funding cuts and an ageing population is creating an additional strain on wages, it added.

The Resolution Foundation said the total amount that care staff were missing out on was estimated to be about £130m a year, but it could be higher. This is because the study did not take account of illegal deductions to pay which it said was "the most common reason for non-compliance" with the minimum wage regulations.

It is calling on national and local government as well as social care providers to address its concerns.


Case study: 'I cannot teleport myself'

"I have been a care worker for five months. I can make up to 15 visits a day, sometimes seeing the same client several times a day.

I am on a zero-hours contract but generally get seven shifts a week, from 6am to 2pm or 2pm to 11pm.

I work 56 hours but only get paid for 27 hours. I am only paid for the length of time I am with the client.

I don't get travel time. Mileage is covered at 20p per mile but not if there is more than an hour between appointments. I don't understand this as it's not like we cannot teleport ourselves to the next client.

I get paid between £7 and £8.40 an hour. If I were paid for the average 56 hours I am out for, I would earn £1,680 every four weeks, instead I am earning £810.

My friend and I worked out that we are basically earning about £3 an hour.

I enjoy my job and I like face time with my clients. It is not just this company, it's all companies. They don't have the funding to be able to pay us properly."

Anonymous, 23, from Wakefield

Edited by papasmurf, Dec 1 2015, 12:22 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
A shame for you then, don't take out your resentment on the poor.

Yes it's true that the rich get too much help in avoiding their tax, tax relief should ge available for everyone but it should be proportional and limited; the rich abuse it. You call this abuse?

What a joke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 12:19 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:17 PM
Meantime thousands are exploiting this tax fiddle
It is NOT a tax fiddle for care workers it is a genuine expense. . .
So you haven't even read up on this have you  ::)

From the link I posted:
Quote:
 
6. Effect on Individual Sectors

Community/District Nurses and other travelling professionals Workers employed through intermediaries and working under supervision, direction or control will still be entitled to travel and subsistence relief on the full cost of travel incurred for necessary attendance at a workplace in the performance of their duties, where this travel is not ordinary commuting from home-to-work. . . .


Do I need to make that bigger? "will still be entitled"

PS and skwirked hand in hand with veteran Thatcherite Peter Bottomley? Who'd have believed it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:31 PM

Do I need to make that bigger? "will still be entitled"



You linked to a CONSULTATION document.
Edited by papasmurf, Dec 1 2015, 12:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
"PS and skwirked hand in hand with veteran Thatcherite Peter Bottomley? Who'd have believed it?"

As a blatant a case of dishonesty as I've seen on here, go ahead just ignore my salient posts on this thread. !wav! Keywords: abuse, pisstake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 12:39 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:31 PM

Do I need to make that bigger? "will still be entitled"



You linked to a CONSULTATION document.
Yes and it is still in review

What evidence do you have that that entitlement will be removed following the consultation?


This fiddle has been all about the likes of consultants, software engineers, media professionals etc working at a regular site who one day decide to become contractors doing the same work in the same place with the same supervision but then able to claim tax relief on the cost of commuting from home to that place of work. It needs closing
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Dec 1 2015, 12:44 PM
"PS and skwirked hand in hand with veteran Thatcherite Peter Bottomley? Who'd have believed it?"

As a blatant a case of dishonesty as I've seen on here, go ahead just ignore my salient posts on this thread. !wav! Keywords: abuse, pisstake.
Are you supporting the motion Peter Bottomley has signed as co-sponsor, Yes or No?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:49 PM

What evidence do you have that that entitlement will be removed following the consultation?


What evidence do you have that it won't be. The current shower in power have track record of ignoring consultations.
Plus you neglected to mention the cosignatory of EDM a Labour MP:-

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/1859/alan-meale
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:51 PM
Are you supporting the motion Peter Bottomley has signed as co-sponsor, Yes or No?
As neither of us are MPs we can't add our signature to it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'd abstain and demand it be heavily reformed if I were an MP, how about that instead of your black & white semantics?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 12:53 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:49 PM

What evidence do you have that that entitlement will be removed following the consultation?


What evidence do you have that it won't be. The current shower in power have track record of ignoring consultations.
Plus you neglected to mention the cosignatory of EDM a Labour MP:-

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/1859/alan-meale

Yes, expense fiddler Alan Meale did sign it too. Almost poetic that

I have no evidence that they won't amend it to double taxation on residents of Cornwall or people called Steve either. Surely we should deal with the credible and it's just not credible that they would remove that section on community nurses etc is it?

papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 12:55 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:51 PM
Are you supporting the motion Peter Bottomley has signed as co-sponsor, Yes or No?
As neither of us are MPs we can't add our signature to it.

I think we all know that 'hand in hand' is a well established figure of speech. Are you really saying that when you penned that OP you would not have signed the early day motion if you could?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 01:21 PM

I think we all know that 'hand in hand' is a well established figure of speech. Are you really saying that when you penned that OP you would not have signed the early day motion if you could?

Given some really serious debate needs to take place about the issue, yes I would. I would also want mandatory checks in place to make sure that travel allowances for care workers actually covered their costs. (Local Authorities are as bad as private sector contractors when it comes to low mileage allowances.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 01:29 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 01:21 PM

I think we all know that 'hand in hand' is a well established figure of speech. Are you really saying that when you penned that OP you would not have signed the early day motion if you could?

Given some really serious debate needs to take place about the issue, yes I would. I would also want mandatory checks in place to make sure that travel allowances for care workers actually covered their costs. (Local Authorities are as bad as private sector contractors when it comes to low mileage allowances.)
But going for serious debate is exactly what they've done. A 3 month consultation and they'll have to publish that and lay a document before the House. That's when MPs should decided on a debate, not this shabby effort by Meale and Bottomley to forestall that in the interests of tax fiddlers and exploitative employers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 01:35 PM
A 3 month consultation
With based on their track record, it will be totally ignored.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 01:37 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 01:35 PM
A 3 month consultation
With based on their track record, it will be totally ignored.
But are you or anyone of any intellect going to bet that they would respond to the consultation by removing that crystal clear statement that community nurses etc will not be hit? :nono:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 08:47 PM
But are you or anyone of any intellect going to bet that they would respond to the consultation by removing that crystal clear statement that community nurses etc will not be hit? :nono:
They don't take ANY notice of consultations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 09:10 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 08:47 PM
But are you or anyone of any intellect going to bet that they would respond to the consultation by removing that crystal clear statement that community nurses etc will not be hit? :nono:
They don't take ANY notice of consultations.
Well that's not the point at hand is it (but they do). You said community nurses would get hit by this proposal and clearly they won't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 09:17 PM
You said community nurses would get hit by this proposal.
I didn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 09:20 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 09:17 PM
You said community nurses would get hit by this proposal.
I didn't.
Ahem
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 11:40 AM
Well where I live it will effect ALL those who travel using their own transport to get to disabled/elderly people's homes to give them care. . .



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 09:28 PM
Ahem


I was commenting about home carers both council employed and private sector contractors.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 09:33 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 09:28 PM
Ahem


I was commenting about home carers both council employed and private sector contractors.
Well perhaps you shouldn't have used the word 'All' then

And perhaps you can show how that narrower section you now name would still run foul of this government clarification

Quote:
 
6. Effect on Individual Sectors

Community/District Nurses and other travelling professionals

Workers employed through intermediaries and working under supervision, direction or control will still be entitled to travel and subsistence relief on the full cost of travel incurred for necessary attendance at a workplace in the performance of their duties, where this travel is not ordinary commuting from home-to-work.

Those working in a travelling role for one engager, where travelling from location to location each day is an intrinsic part of the duties of the role (such as district nurses or travelling sales persons) will still be entitled to tax relief on the travel and subsistence payments they receive for these journeys. This will remain the case, even where they are employed through an employment intermediary and working under the supervision direction or control.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:02 PM
skwirked
Dec 1 2015, 11:15 AM
That's grotesque, this govt are arguably even more callous than the stupid incompetent Tories of the 1930's.

An absolute outrage. If they keep this sort of stuff up I really wouldn't be surprised if there's mass, mass disorder.
You what?

At least read the background

Or maybe just read that Peter Bottomley is a backer of this early day motion. That will tell you much about its motivations

You and PS want Osborne to clamp down on tax avoidance and when he does you support those trying to perpetrate the evil. At best bizarre.

This has been a long standing tax fiddle to the relative disadvantage of your average man and woman in the street. It needed closing years ago and now it is being closed Posted Image

This clamp down should be taken further.
RIGHT

Now as you might expect, seeing as how I was on the board of directors of the professional body that took gordon brown to the high court over IR35 (not my idea, i wanted to blow a million on bribing blair to make the problem go away, a tactic later known as "doing an ecclestone"), i am rather au fait with this in all its nastiness.

But what I REALLY, REALLY do not understand is i have never in 20 years of freelancing been able to claim "home to work" travel. I never have, for my office is on the third floor of the address outside which my car is parked, an every day I walk from my home to my place of work, before setting off to deal with whatever client demands my attention that day.

The rest of the measures Brown finally realised he could not afford NOT to bring in as chancellor were required to allow for teleworkers for whom travel to client sites is a requirement of the job to claim for it.

Almost every time HMRC have tried this master and servant direction and control thing (all that crap about direction and control) they have ended up with egg on face and fingers burned ...

The first time was when some utter fuckwit by the name of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (remember him) tried to make out some bloke was an employee by virtue of wearing a uniform and driving a company lorry. The mess he made of that, and the fallout from it, has allowed petrol companies to "hire" "freelance" drivers to this day thanks to the case law he inadvertently established with the help of his equally inept pal derry irvine. Oh yes, these two made a right pair. They invented the phrase the law must be seen to be an ass.


Now the last time i tangled with the tories, fitting out the wiring for the jubilee line extension, the bastards set their rottweilers on me and declared i was not entitled to claim the cost of my bed and breakfast accomodation as a business expense because there was no way i could possibly be wholly, necessarily and exclusively engaged on business while alseep. They of course have no such issues with their second homes. Indeed there is in fact a whole book of tax deals available to MP's that are not remotely available to anyone else....

It is for that reason that when I had some tosser from Gordon's Rottweiler Squad come after me in 1999 saying my substitution clause was insufficient, I invited them to come and see for themselves and then had the tosser taken away by MOD Police for attempting unauthorised entry to a naval base ...

Singularly unimpressed with his claims to be a tax man I think several of his cavities were minutely inspected for microfilm before he was let go .... and shortly afterwards i received a verbal admonshment from the navy never to do that again and a two line letter from the tax man admitting my status was entirely in order and they could not understand why they ever saw fit to challenge it .....
Edited by johnofgwent, Dec 6 2015, 09:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ewill
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Dec 1 2015, 12:39 PM
Steve K
Dec 1 2015, 12:31 PM

Do I need to make that bigger? "will still be entitled"



You linked to a CONSULTATION document.
It IS a consultation document issued by HMRC-nothing to do with the Chancellor

It is NOT law, it appears to be similar in effect to ITEPA 2003, s 289A (which is law)so is argued to be unnecessary

You lefties are all jumping the gun

In July 2015, HMRC published a consultation document, Employment Intermediaries and Tax Relief for Travel and Subsistence (tinyurl.com/omfrcl8). In this paper, the government proposes to remove tax relief for ordinary commuting – in general, home-to-work travel and subsistence expenses – for workers who are:
supplying personal services;
engaged through an employment intermediary (including umbrella companies, some employment businesses and personal service companies); and
subject to (or to the right of) the supervision, direction or control of any person

The effect will be that individuals whose relationship with their engager is such that they look and act like employees cannot claim relief on the everyday cost of travelling to work if they are employed through an intermediary. This will ensure a level playing field for access to tax relief for travel and subsistence
.

.................................
In all, the consultation document proposals are thoroughly confusing, difficult to interpret, largely of temporary significance, oppressive to those on low wages, and will make hardly any difference in practice. They would be bad law and they should not be proceeded with.
http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2015/11/03/333914/travelling

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply