The majority of high street accountancy firms wouldn’t exist if they weren’t able to persuade the self-employed that they could substantially reduce their income tax bills. Unfortunately, the way this is typically done is by ensuring that the net profits of the self-employed are as low as possible. It therefore follows that the difference between the take home pay of the self-employed and their net profits is huge. Any government scheme that uses net profits to calculate what replacement income the self-employed might get will be so inadequate the self-employed will be obliged to keep working where possible (especially the ‘trades’). A better plan would be to introduce a minimum income for all. Am I wrong?
To be honest, I’m not a fan of the Universal Basic Income. That is a whole other conversation (which we really should have as it is interesting) but to get back to your point about self employed having minimal profits for tax purposes, yes, that is the case for most and I think that was why Rishi Sunak made those thinly-veiled threats about increasing the amount of tax that the self-employed will pay later on, not mentioning the various benefits they don’t get.
Freelancers will get money in June and in the meantime they are allowed to work if they can get it, and they can also sign on to Universal Credit if they qualify.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Join in these discussions today!
Log in or Register.