Monthly Archives: March 2017

Self-employed people such as plumbers will face higher national insurance contributions thanks to measures in the budget. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

The tax advantages enjoyed by the UKs millions of self-employed people will be dramatically reduced following a series of major changes in the budget.

Appearing to reverse a Conservative party manifesto pledge from 2015, Philip Hammond risked irking his backbenchers and party supporters by announcing he is to close tax benefits that are no longer justified by increasing the national insurance contributions (NICs) for self-employed people earning more than 16,250 a year.

Announcing his changes, the chancellor said an employee earning 32,000 a year currently faces an NI bill of 6,170 along with their employer, while the bill for a self-employed person earning the same salary would be 2,300.

Historically, the differences in NICs between those in employment and the self-employed reflected differences in state pensions and contributory welfare benefits, he said.

But with the introduction of the new state pension, these differences have been very substantially reduced.

Hammond told MPs the changes would raise 145m a year after taking into account George Osbornes abolition of a separate class of self-employed national insurance contributions, class 2.

He said class 4 NICs for the self-employed would rise from 9% to 10% in April 2018 and then to 11% in April 2019 on income up to the higher rate threshold of 45,000. The new rates are still lower than for employees who pay NI at 12% on the same income levels, while both groups will continue to pay at 2% on income above the higher rate threshold.

However, some self-employed people appeared to have been insulated from another of the chancellors new initiatives.

The changes to the taxation of dividends was criticised for leaving the door open to massive tax avoidance by wealthy people working for their own companies. New data published by the Office for Budget Responsibility showed that a previous increase in dividend taxes resulted in much of the benefit falling to just 100 individuals who were able to withdraw dividends averaging 30m each from their companies before the higher tax rate took effect.

The new NI policy was welcomed by the Resolution Foundation, a living standards thinktank, which said: These tax differences are actually driving the big increase in self-employment weve seen in recent years, which in turn is undermining the taxmans ability to get revenues in.

To put that in context: 45% of the employment growth since 2008 has been driven by rising self-employment (and no, its got very little to do with headlines about the gig economy), with the lower tax take that implies.

However, the increase has triggered criticisms that the Conservatives are reneging on a 2015 manifesto pledge that committed the government to no increases in VAT, income tax or national insurance while the reception from the business community was less than positive.

Labour said it would oppose the policy, with the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, saying: Labour will oppose the 2bn Tory tax on self-employed lower-middle earners.

Chris Leslie, former Labour shadow chancellor, said during the Commons debate on the budget: On the point about the increase in national insurance contributions for the self-employed, dont you think that the chancellor needs to explain why hes breaking a manifesto promise made in the 2015 general election manifesto on that?

Hammond suggested the tax rise was justified because the self-employed could now access the state pension more easily. He planned to consult on extending parental rights to the self-employed, after a review by former Tony Blair adviser Matthew Taylor on the changing nature of the labour market reports later this year.

Rachel Reeves, a Labour MP on the treasury select committee, said: While it is right for the chancellor to say that we should look at access to maternity and paternity benefits for the self-employed, what about the other benefits that people take for granted if they are direct employees, such as sickness benefits, out-of-work benefits and access to universal credit?

John Overs, partner at international law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner, said: The chancellor equates the position of the employed and self-employed, including those working for their own companies, doing similar jobs and earning similar amounts, but fails to appreciate the self-employed normally have much more financial risk and much less security than the employed. Trying to equalise tax treatment fails to recognise these differences.

A rethink may be in order if we do not want to turn away entrepreneurs and wealth creators from this country.

Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, added: Before this tax is raised, the government needs to think carefully about ways to align the level of benefits.

In a time when we are trying to encourage innovation and create a Britain that is open for business, we should not be creating barriers to entrepreneurship and self-employment.

In his speech, the chancellor said: Since 2016 self-employed workers now build up the same entitlement to the state pension as employees, a big pension boost to the self-employed.

The most significant remaining area of difference is in relation to parental benefits, and I can announce today that we will consult in the summer on options to address the disparities in this area as the FSB [Federation of Small Businesses] and others have proposed.

Hammond also announced that he was addressing similar benefits enjoyed by people who are directors and shareholders, by cutting the tax-free allowance on the dividends they take out of their companies from 5,000 to 2,000 from April next year.

However, the moves may not prove to be as costly to people drawing dividends as assumed, as the announcement of the lower allowance presents taxpayers with the opportunity of lowering their bills by drawing dividends in advance.

In the July 2015 budget, the basic, higher and additional rates of taxation on individual dividend income rose by 7.5 percentage points, with the changes coming into effect in April 2016.

In the OBRs economic and fiscal outlook, which is published alongside the budget, the watchdog estimated that such action cost the exchequer 800m.

The report added: HMRC analysis suggests that around one pound in seven of that saving benefited just 100 individuals who were able to withdraw dividends averaging 30m each from their companies before the higher tax rate took effect.

Jolyon Maugham QC, a tax barrister at Devereux Chambers and a director of the Good Law Project, said: Every now and then the government does something so awful with the tax system as almost to be venal. Why would you deliberately because the government knew this would happen leave the door open to massive tax avoidance?

See original here:

Self-employed hit by national insurance hike in budget - The Guardian

news

The UK Chancellor Philip Hammond has presented the 2017 Spring Budget suggesting he hopes it to provide a strong, stable platform for Brexit,

The UK Chancellor Philip Hammond has presented the 2017 Spring Budget suggesting he hopes it to provide a strong, stable platform for Brexit, something for which many regard Heathrow as integral.

Their views were of slight disappointment regarding Air Passenger Duty:

Were disappointed the Government has not taken the opportunity to reduce air passenger duty. The increase today, and the signal of potential further increases in the coming years, hands a great advantage to our European competitors. If Britain is to be one of the best places in the world to do business then we must work towards abolition of this tax on British competitiveness, tourism, investment and trade.

And on increased investment and focus on technical education, Europe largest airport suggested that:

We welcome the creation of T Levels and extra funding for PHDs in STEM subjects which will help provide the workforce Britain needs for the future. Heathrow expansion, along with other strategic infrastructure projects, will create thousands of highly skilled jobs.

These Government reforms are crucial to ensuring we can deliver a modern, affordable Heathrow.

These Government reforms are crucial to ensuring we can deliver a modern, affordable Heathrow and make sure todays schoolchildren are able to make the most of the opportunities.

Meanwhile, when responding to the Chancellors Budget Statement, Chief Executive of the AOA, Karen Dee said:

Airports provide the necessary infrastructure for the UKs international connectivity, with aviation the transport mode of choice for most people travelling to and from the UK and for 40% of the UKs trade. Boosting that international connectivity through unlocking new destinations will be crucial to achieve the Chancellors aim of building the foundations of a stronger, fairer, more global Britain.

That is why it is a missed opportunity for the Chancellor not to have cut Air Passenger Duty today and instead announcing another rise in line with RPI in 2018/19, on top of the RPI rise from April 2017.

The UKs APD is already one of the highest air taxes in the world. With most of our nearest neighbours either charging nothing or less than half of what the UK levies, APD is a tax on the UKs global competitiveness and connectivity.

The UKs APD is already one of the highest air taxes in the world.

Halving APD, as the AOA had called for alongside A Fair Tax on Flying campaign partners, would have brought the UK into line with the next highest APD equivalent in the EU, in Germany. It would have encouraged airlines to schedule new routes between the UK and new destinations, including in emerging markets, by making those flights more economically viable. It would also have made boosting capacity on existing routes more attractive.

Cutting APD will boost the UKs international connectivity and we urge the Chancellor to take action at the first available opportunity. We also continue to urge the Chancellor to make clear that any cut in any part of the UK would immediately be matched across the rest of the UK.

More here:

Heathrow and AOA voice disappointment with UK Budget 2017 - International Airport Review

Women around the world took to the streets on Wednesday to protest for equal rights and against President Donald Trump for International Women's Day .

Many women skipped work, boycotted stores or wore red to demand economic fairness as part of the 'A Day Without a Woman' demonstration.

Americans seized on the momentum of the Women's March on Washington DC on January 21, the day after Trump's inauguration , to once again denounce his policies on abortion and healthcare.

The nationwide events were modelled in part after pro-immigrant demonstrations on February 16, the latest in a series of anti-Trump protests since his election.

By having women flex their economic muscle, organisers hope to call attention to the gender pay gap, access to reproductive health services, and Trump's actions that have restricted abortion overseas.

Protesters calling for a repeal of Ireland's strict abortion laws brought traffic in Dublin's city centre to a standstill.

Rules on terminating a pregnancy in once stridently Catholic Ireland are among the world's most restrictive and thousands of Irish women travel abroad, mostly to England, for abortions each year.

A referendum on widening access could be held if a citizens' assembly set up by the government recommends it in a decision expected next month.

Some 2,000 activists seeking the abolition of the eighth amendment of the constitution, which enshrines an equal right to life of the mother and her unborn child, blocked Dublin's O'Connell bridge on the main thoroughfare of the capital.

Pictures on social media showed hundreds more marching in cities and university campuses around the country in protests timed to coincide with International Women's Day celebrations.

"I would like to have the right to autonomy over my own body," said Grainne O'Sullivan, a pregnant 38-year-old graphic designer who closed her studio to join the Strike 4 Repeal protest in Dublin.

"It's a disgrace in today's age that Ireland doesn't have that, that women still have to march, have to strike to let people know that they deserve to make choices. Women in pain shouldn't have to get on an airplane to go to a different country to solve the problems in Ireland."

Cat Little, a 38-year-old animator who also took the day off work, said she wanted to have a third child without the health risk she said the constitutional amendment places her under.

More protesters, some dressed in black like many in the main march in Dublin, also gathered outside the Irish Embassy in London, photographs on social media showed.

If a referendum is recommended by the citizens' assembly -- which consists of 99 randomly selected members of the public -- a vote would then be needed in parliament to set one up, potentially paving the way for a plebiscite in 2018.

Abortion has been a divisive issue for decades in Ireland.

At present, terminations are allowed only if a mother's life is in danger, after a complete ban was lifted in 2013 following large street protests by people on both sides of the debate.

Anti-abortion supporters demand no further changes to the law, to safeguard all life.

"The reality is that this is not a strike, this is a stunt," Niamh U Bhriain, a spokeswoman for the Life Institute, an anti-abortion group, said in a statement.

Debra Sands, 37, a middle school teacher, joined thousands of women at New York City's Central Park after her students convinced her to attend the rally.

"This past year's election made me realize that voting in November isn't enough," Sands said.

New York police reported 13 arrests at the protest in midtown Manhattan although details were not immediately available.

In San Francisco, where about 1,500 people gathered, Christine Bussenius, 37, said she and her female colleagues at Grey Advertising convinced their all-male managers to give them the day off and participate in the rally.

"We were nervous," she admitted. "But the men stepped up to fill in the void."

Rallies were held in numerous US cities, including Washington, where demonstrators gathered at the US Labor Department.

Female staffers at Fusion Media Group's Gizmodo declared they were striking for the day.

At least three US school districts, in Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina, closed because of staff shortages after teachers requested the day off.

Nearly 1,000 women converged outside Los Angeles City Hall, many of them critical of the Republican-backed healthcare bill that would strip women's health and abortion provider Planned Parenthood of funding.

"It's terrifying. It's anti-woman," said Kassia Krozsur, 53, a finance professional.

About 200 gathered in Atlanta, where signs read "We are sisters" and "Stop Trump."

"If we want to change what is going on, we need to turn anger into action. People need to run for local office," organiser Rebekah Joy said.

Events large and small were held in cities around the world.

Across the Texas border, women in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, painted crosses on lamp posts in solemn remembrance of the hundreds of women who have gone missing or were murdered there in recent years.

In Tbilisi, Georgia, women performed "Glass Ceiling," simulating being trapped by the barely visible barrier that stands between women and workplace equality.

They banged drums in Kiev, Ukraine, and played soccer in Nairobi, Kenya.

In Sanaa, capital of war-torn Yemen, women dressed in niqabs, the all-black garments that cover the entire body except for an opening over their eyes, held up a sign reading, "You keep silent while our children die!"

Not all American women, however, were on board with the call for a women's strike, with some critics citing the vagueness of the movement's aims and the disruption of work stoppages.

Trump, whose 11-year-old comments about grabbing and kissing women against their will surfaced during the campaign, took to his Twitter account early on Wednesday to cite International Women's Day and the "critical role" of women around the world.

"I have tremendous respect for women and the many roles they serve that are vital to the fabric of our society and our economy," the Republican president tweeted.

International Women's Day protests spread globally

Read the original:

Women worldwide skip work to protest pay gap, abortion laws and Donald Trump on International Women's Day - Mirror.co.uk

Im not with her. Photo: Pete Marovich/Getty Images

International Womens Day has come to Donald Trumps America and all across the country, women are abandoning their posts. Classes have been canceled; children, left to their fathers; boardrooms, left unmanaged; dinners, left uncooked; blog posts, left unwritten.

The strikers are giving their communities a taste of a day without a woman, so as to highlight the indispensable contributions that women make to our society even as our society suppresses their liberation.

There is broad agreement among American feminists that Trumps election is a testament to our nations unpaid debts to the female population. But there is decidedly less agreement about what, precisely, is owed and to whom.

Many of Wednesdays protesters believe that they are owed the pussy-grabber-in-chiefs prompt eviction from the Oval Office; equal pay for equal work; access to legal abortion; and stricter enforcement of laws against sexual assault.

Others believe that the ledger runs far longer. To them, if the government wants to settle its debts with womankind, it must provide them with universal health care; free higher education; free child care; an end to mass incarceration; expanded collective-bargaining rights; a $15 minimum wage; the cancelation of the Dakota Access Pipeline; and the decolonization of Palestine along with a bevy of other social democratic policies necessary for ending decades of neoliberalism.

The organizers of the womens strike fall into this latter category. And this fact has led some in the former group to question the wisdom of such a broad and divisive platform. In their view, the feminist movement should restrict its focus to a narrow set of specifically gender-related issues the ones that all feminists can agree on.

On first brush, this seems like a reasonable view. Social movements are as strong as their ranks are wide. And surely, there are more women in the United States who support abortion rights than there are women capable of locating the West Bank on a map let alone, of passionately arguing for its decolonization.

Still, there is a fatal problem with demanding that the feminist movement focus on the issues that are of deep concern to all feminists: No such issues exist.

This point is well-illustrated by one of the most widely read arguments against the International Womens Strikes sweeping platform. In a New York Times op-ed, Does Feminism Have Room For Zionists, Emily Shire laments that the feminist movements desire to be inclusive has actually made it anything but.

Specifically, she argues that by insisting that feminism is connected to a wide variety of political causes, the movement has alienated feminists who dont adhere to far-left orthodoxy:

Implying that mass incarceration is analogous to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is analogous to Donald Trumps desire to build a wall along the Mexican border is simplistic at best.

But my prime concern is not that people hold this view of Israel. Rather, I find it troubling that embracing such a view is considered an essential part of an event that is supposed to unite feminists. I am happy to debate Middle East politics or listen to critiques of Israeli policies. But why should criticism of Israel be key to feminism in 2017?

Instead of picking divisive fights over the minimum wage, oil pipelines, and Zionism, Shire suggests that the movement focus on the key womens issues of reproductive rights, equal pay, increased female representation in all levels of government and policies to combat violence against women.

The trouble with this proposal is that not all feminists share the same key issues.

For example, a woman at the bottom of Americas income ladder may find a $15 minimum wage far more relevant to her struggle than equal pay for equal work earning the same poverty wage as her male co-workers wont make her children less hungry. Nor, for that matter, would it make her less vulnerable to exploitation by male domestic partners.

And this points to another problem with Shires argument even if all feminists accepted her priorities, different feminists could arrive at diametrically opposed means of honoring them: One might believe that combating violence against women requires longer jail sentences for sexual assault; another might point to the epidemic levels of rape in American prisons and argue for the abolition of the carceral state.

Similarly, one could make a strong argument that universal health care and child care, stronger union rights, and a higher minimum wage are actually more relevant to combating violence against women than many policies that explicitly address that problem: Women at the bottom of the income ladder are six times more likely to be sexually abused than those at the top. Policies that reduce the number of low-income women who are economically dependent on their partners will likely do more to reduce the incidence of rape than, for example, reforming how campuses handle allegations of sexual assault.

This isnt to suggest that the latter isnt necessary nor that the specific forms of gender oppression encountered by women on college campuses and in corporate headquarters dont need dismantling. The point is simply that the stances Shire champions arent the core issues for all feminists theyre the core issues for feminists like her.

To a Palestinian woman in the West Bank, no issue may appear more central to her liberation than the end of the Israeli occupation. To a Zionist woman in Tel Aviv whose family tree lost branches to Hitler and then to Hamas no issue may seem less relevant to her interests. The feminist movement has no choice but to represent one woman, and not the other.

It is probably easier to argue for the irrelevance of the decolonization of Palestine to feminist goals than it is to say the same about the social democratic reforms on the strikers agenda. Far fewer women in the world suffer from Israeli occupation than are afflicted by poverty or exploitation in the workplace. Still, it is precisely for this reason that left-wing movements like the International Womens Strike and Black Lives Matter feel a responsibility to champion the Palestinian cause: Without the solidarity of larger left-wing movements, the prospects for Palestinian liberation are quite dim.

In my view, it is reasonable to argue that the preservation of a majority Jewish state and the liberation of women arent incompatible goals or else, that anti-Zionism is too divisive and peripheral a stance for the feminist movement to prioritize. But making this argument effectively requires engaging with the substance of the matter. Which is to say: It requires debating Middle East politics. To suggest that the Israel-Palestine conflict, the minimum wage, and opposition to fossil-fuel extraction are intuitively marginal to the feminist cause is to presume a universality of female experience that does not exist. For women who support the maintenance of a majority-Jewish Israel, it is obvious that anti-Zionism has nothing to do with womens rights. For those who see Israel as an apartheid state, that argument is profane.

Nearly two months before Shire wrote her plea for a feminist movement more tolerant of heterodox views, Erika Bachiochi made a similar case in an editorial for CNN but the source of Bachiochis alienation was the movements dogmatic insistence on reproductive choice.

Shire would not want the feminist movement to abandon its commitment to legal abortion to make room for women like Bachiochi. Others feel the same about Shires stance on Israel-Palestine.

The feminist movement cannot make room for all feminists or, at least, it cannot represent all feminists core concerns. Those who wish for the movement to disown parts of the strikers platform accomplish little by declaring, as Shire does, that the stances they oppose have nothing to do with feminism.

Such claims only reiterate the point of contention.

We Salute This Mans Tireless Quest to Roast the Hell Out of Idiots on Twitter During International Womens Day

The former Utah governor once called on Trump to drop out of the 2016 race, and the president has attacked him on Twitter.

During the campaign Miller call CNN dishonest while appearing on CNN.

A victory for International Womens Day.

The bill that would unravel Barack Obamas signature law and throw millions off of their insurance needs to berevised?

The revised order fixed a lot of legal problemsbut the White House cant fix the paper trail identifying it as an intended Muslim ban.

It seems crazy, but they may have reasons that arent completely insane.

Newly arrived Marines will assist the hundreds of special-ops forces already in Syria.

The feminist movement cant limit its focus to the issues that deeply concern all feminists, because no such issues exist.

The company is hiring as the system prepares to open new routes from Astoria, the Rockaways, and South Brooklyn.

A group of women, including organizers of the Womens March, were arrested for civil disobedience outside of Trump Tower.

At least 38 are dead with more than 50 injured.

Most people want more. Republicans want less. All Ryans buzzwords are designed to obscure that simple choice.

Coinciding with International Womens Day.

It may only cost them a vote or two in the Senate, but combined with other problems, Planned Parenthood defunding could be fatal to Trumpcare.

Beijing proposes a deal to ease hostilities between the U.S. and North Korea and prevent a head-on collision between the two nations.

Mukemmel Sarimsakci, 50, is hoping to play a big role in the Trump sons plans to launch a new mid-priced hotel chain.

The Chinese export every powerful person can get behind.

This is the sixth wave of threats, and 110 institutions have been targeted.

After promising to rein in GOP defectors, the White House signaled that theyre still open to suggestions on health-care reform.

Everythings different now that Obama isnt required to be civil to Trump.

Here is the original post:

The Women's Strike Can't Make Room for All Women - New York Magazine