skyhuck
-
Posts
30,582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by skyhuck
-
Why would going Ltd require another wage and a company car?
-
Yes, but then she could not have a salary, with the benefit that come from that. And she would not be "employed" by the Co.
-
Of cause they can, but many don't. Going Ltd is not always the best way to go, each business is different, some would benefit others wouldn't.
-
Not using all the tax avoidance methods at your disposal is pretty foolish, IMO. Tax avoidance is legal and good sense, tax evasion however is illegal and foolish, IMO.
-
My mrs owns half the Co, she is the Co secretary and does a good deal of admin etc. I would think the majority of the self-employed are not Ltd, so are not really in a position to involve their spouse in their business in a way that reduces tax.
-
OK sorry, you know 2 people who do, so thats defiantly "most" self-employed then
-
Thing is should they divorce she will get half, so I guess you should save tax were you can
-
Thats a pretty sweeping and generally untrue statement.
-
Puff I bet you smell like a tarts handbag
-
Not sure thats totally true. Most directors will take a minimum salary, below the income tax threshold but will require a small NI payment. This entities them to the state benefits that NI provides. The remained of their income will be in the form of dividends. I guess you could just take your income in dividends and pay no NI, but that would be pretty foolish, IMO. PS, I'm no tax expert, but I'm pretty sure this is correct:001_smile:
-
I'm just shocked people wash their saw pants, I never have mine washed.
-
I would argue not. Working for a living can be pretty expensive. The cost of getting to work. Clothing for work. Washing work clothing, etc.
-
A self-employed person pays tax on "profit", where as employed people pay tax on income, there is a BIG difference. And there is also NI, which is now just income tax by another name.
-
The reason self-employed people pay lower tax is because the are considered to be less secure, they don't generally have regular guaranteed work. They are taking risk and often need to do a good deal of unpaid work such as quoting and maintenance. I think HMRC also see self-employment as a stepping stone to building a business that will employ others and thus generate more tax, so the more favourable tax situation is to encourage this. Those who do not fulfil the above and simply try to take all the positives of SE but few of the negatives are not really playing the game fairly.
-
Thinking of selling up, any advice?
skyhuck replied to voj maintenance's topic in Business Management
This will be your biggest problem in realising much value from your business. Basically YOU are the business and you're not for sale. Sure someone may be willing to take a punt, in the hope YOUR customers like them as much as they liked you. To realise real value you need to scale it up and have staff doing the work, these staff can stay with the business when its sold, so from the customers point of view little will change. But then if you get staff, you may not need to sell -
Not sure, I don't run a transit, but some are very cheap. I would argue they should be charging £450+VAT. Most are not even VAT registered, so can't be charging that or only work part time.
-
Sterling.
-
Generally to cut trees, IME.
-
My Co employs 3. I can very much relate to the comments made by employers on here. I just wondered how much experience you had, as you appeared to be disagreeing.
-
How many do you employ?
-
Can't really argue with that, makes good sense
-
-
020 and 460.
-
Good vid, had me in stitches. It is an interesting subject. Is advertising just about getting more work or is some of it about ego? I've not had a sign written motor for over 15 years and I'm far more work coming in than I can actually do.
-
In your link the court did not find the tree surgeon "not competent" that was an assertion of the claimant. It was the 3 yearly inspections that were deemed by the court to be negligent, unless I'm missing something?
