Originally Posted by idontlikestrikers (Post 10865536)

I have never deferred any tax from one year to the next and how would you know if I did. I think you refer to bank bonuses which is nothing to do with contractors. Deferring tax to the next year means it is still paid, only in rare years when tax drops is there any benefit.

You have no idea of my tax position or work history but have made criminal allegations in your posts. My accounts are made public at Companies House so have hidden absolutely nothing.

You might refer to the few contractors but not the majority.

Originally Posted by idontlikestrikers (Post 10865536)

Deferring tax to the next year means it is still paid, only in rare years when tax drops is there any benefit.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10865555)

If you are not achieving a tax advantage by contracting and you can obtain legitimate working papers for the places where you contract; why do you not take a proper job?

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10865552)

I too am a contractor and a pimp. I've been a contractor since 1986 this time around and have worked with other contractors in several countries and all but seven US States. I routinely talk people out of proper jobs and into contracts, what sells is the tax breaks; the ability to write off cars, houses, bar bills and so on. I sell the services of contractors, what sells is lower cost, primarily through not paying for healthcare and disposibility. Contracting, at least in the computer business, is disreputable as it's whole purpose is to subvert proper employees and because it only works through exploitation of tax avoidance (many contractors also get into tax evasion but this isn't central to the immorality of the trade).

I have 7 years worth of auditted nonsense (there's no need to keep more in this jurisdiction unless you want to have a storage facility for some other reason and are looking for an excuse to write it off).

I can, of course, see the contracting has been good for idontlikestrikers, but that's at the expense of society, it's not something of which one should be proud. It seems to me that if you advocate a controversial position, "gays shouldn't marry", "contractors are decent people", "smoking on passenger trains is acceptable" then you should expect to be criticised for that. Obviously there will be some blurring between attacking the man and the ball but idontlikestrikers has chosen a life he knows to be a bit dodgy. One would expect the same if one were a vendor of Video Lottery Terminals or Indian smokes.

Originally Posted by idontlikestrikers (Post 10865576)

I got a big premium for being a contractor and my contract was legitimate.

Originally Posted by idontlikestrikers (Post 10865581)

You were a contractor, a pimp, sold tax avoidance/evasion as the main benefit of contracting yet despise contractors so much. Don't believe a word you are saying after all that.

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 10865601)

While these contracts work for some Im guessing the vast majority are against these zero hour contracts unless they are self employed which is different.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10865426)

It's extremely misleading as the purpose of being a contractor and to have a corporate set up is to cheat the tax man. Contractors are obvious enemies of regular workers as they can provide services to employers at a lower cost than a worker, not because they're better or work harder, but due to not paying their fair share of income taxes.

There was once an argument that the contractor worked short-term for many employers and was therefore in a different position than a worker. I don't think that holds any more, contractors now stay in one position for years on end, they represent casualisation of the labour force and are, in general terms, a bad thing, as well as typically being personnally disreputable.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10865896)

Not sure what the cheating the taxman thing is about?

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10865927)

People who have regular employment pay tax by PAYE in the UK or on a T4 in Canada. They have little flexibility in their financial arrangements.

People who are contractors establish little companies and are paid via the company or companies, this allows them to deduct expenses from income and/or to pay themselves in different ways; as income in order to use up personal deductions, as dividends, as bonuses, according to the tax laws in place each year. I don't know what my tax bill would be as an employee, I suppose it might be a third of my income, as a contractor I don't usually pay any tax but last year had to shell out .0416% of my gross income, some to the Federal government, some to the Provincial one.

The tax difference, 33% vs less than half a percent, is what makes contracting attractive. In the face of such a difference it's fatuous to talk of job security and benefits. Just to make the point precisely, in 1984 I was an employee, I was paid around $85,000 for the year (+ benefits), I took home $40,000+. In 1986 I was a contractor paid $120,000 (no benefits), I took home $120,000. The cost to the employer was about the same, that's how we worked out the rate for the contract.

The contractor offers less to society, in the form of taxes, than the employee. The contractor's disposability threatens the security of the employee. The contractor's position, in short, me! me! me!, is reprehensible. Still, I had a nice house in 1986.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10866038)

The problem lies with the tax system, not the contractor. The contractor's fiscal contribution to society is made indirectly through the higher profitability of their employer.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 10866038)

If the corporate avoids tax, problem lies with tax system again. Blame the politicians. Interesting read nonetheless you rich custard.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10866084)

Obviously I don't blame contractors for taking advantage, that's how the game is set up, but they could be a bit shamefaced about it.

I'm not rich btw, not at all, one can go through any amount of money if one has a mind to.

Originally Posted by Auld Yin (Post 10866047)

The Government needs to close this loophole.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10865927)

People who have regular employment pay tax by PAYE in the UK or on a T4 in Canada. They have little flexibility in their financial arrangements.

People who are contractors establish little companies and are paid via the company or companies, this allows them to deduct expenses from income and/or to pay themselves in different ways; as income in order to use up personal deductions, as dividends, as bonuses, according to the tax laws in place each year. I don't know what my tax bill would be as an employee, I suppose it might be a third of my income, as a contractor I don't usually pay any tax but last year had to shell out .0416% of my gross income, some to the Federal government, some to the Provincial one.

The tax difference, 33% vs less than half a percent, is what makes contracting attractive. In the face of such a difference it's fatuous to talk of job security and benefits. Just to make the point precisely, in 1984 I was an employee, I was paid around $85,000 for the year (+ benefits), I took home $40,000+. In 1986 I was a contractor paid $120,000 (no benefits), I took home $120,000. The cost to the employer was about the same, that's how we worked out the rate for the contract.

The contractor offers less to society, in the form of taxes, than the employee. The contractor's disposability threatens the security of the employee. The contractor's position, in short, me! me! me!, is reprehensible. Still, I had a nice house in 1986.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10866158)

and CRA accepted this?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10866158)

Your expenses totalled 99.9584% of your gross income and CRA accepted this? Well done you. I take it you don't attend many lunches as, as you are aware, only 50% of those are deductible:p

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 10866175)

I don't really know what's deductible and what isn't, I have a man for that. I assume that the 35% of gross that goes in alimony is somehow deductible and that makes my numbers slightly better than most contractors can achieve.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 10866188)

Spousal support reduces your personal income for tax purposes but not that of the corporation. You may have to introduce me to your man.