The Tory way of governance

Sorry dd - just seen your explanation. I am always several post behind sadly.

Can anyone give an 'Idiot's Guide' to the tax changes suggested? I really don't understand it. Are the agency workers currently paying as self-employed? If not why is the agency they work for not calculating their tax?

Sorry, lots of questions but I am floundering.

Ooops! Channel Islands (no 's')

PPS. The Channels Islands payroll companies aren't liable for UK tax.

There may be other ways of paying, but the one I outlined above is common for teacher supply agencies.

They're really a con, but it's the payroll companies and agencies who are raking it in, not the teachers.

Very occasionally, I earned over the tax threshold for a particular month, which was then rebated next month. I wasn't left to pay my own tax like the genuinely self-employed.

I actually worked for a number of agencies and could only nominate one as my main employer, so didn't have any tax free threshold for the agencies for which I worked infrequently. I had to wait until the end of the tax year to claim back overpaid tax.

Two other disadvantages for teachers working this way are that there is no holiday pay, which there should be for all agency workers, and no Teacher Pension contribution.

PS. Schools pay more for agency workers too.

Mazie I wasn't assuming they didn't pay their tax but I did assume from the article that the govt. thought that. However, DD has maybe now answered the question.

I'd be interested in who provided the copy for the PR release, because I believe the journalists have got this story wrong.

I worked as a supply teacher for a while, including for Capita, who use a payroll company based in the Channel Islands.

The way I remember it working is:

Capita pays considerably 'below scale' ie the amount a qualified teacher should receive on a daily basis if paid directly by the school.

Capita then persuades workers that they won't lose out by being paid through a payroll company.

Technically, the supply teachers are self-employed, which means they can claim expenses, such as travel costs, lunch allowances, office and telephone costs against tax. In my case, this nearly always brought my tax liability to zero. (It should be noted that I wouldn't have paid tax anyway, because I didn't earn enough, so it was a con.)

Next, the supply teacher has to pay the employee's and the employer's national insurance contributions.

On top of that, the supply teacher has to pay the payroll company an administration fee.

The end result is that the supply teacher earns less than if he/she were being paid directly, but the payroll company and agency (in this case Capita) benefits. Needless to say, I only worked this way on a few occasions, before telling them to * off.

I'm glad that the government has finally taken action on this. It wouldn't surprise me if Capita has issued the press release and journalists haven't checked it out properly.

I don't know why there is a discrepancy between state and private schools. Maybe HMRC has decided to stop the abuse by targeting the agencies through the schools. They could control who state schools employ, but not private schools. However, that's a guess.

Why should there be an assumption that agency workers don't pay their taxes, Fitzy? You, and the government, seem to be taking it for granted that they're all failing to declare income. Which is a bit insulting...

Mazie - I think it's the deliberate targeting of the public sector to make those who work for them pay their taxes. But being in a generous mood I'm happy to sprinkle some of my patronage on you as well, and so I repeat that I do agree it should apply to all or none at all.
GG - I agree with much of what you say including that Parliament should have a significant part to play. But I can understand why TM would be reluctant to give what appears to be a pro-remain Parliament an outright power of veto on a Brexit deal.

What sort of society do we want?

Such an interesting and potentially deep question, ww. I've often thought about this; how 'society' is organised, where does its 'values' come from, how it is shaped by history, can it change etc. I came back to wondering about this when we were having a discussion on another thread about CEO's pay and wealth in general. I have thought of starting a thread about it; when I've had time to sort my vague ideas out! (at present grandmotherly duties call...)

Polishing windows this morning and listening to woman's hour. It relaid exactly what living in Tory Britain now means for those people who desperately need social services help - in this case with a daughter with microcephala - I also have a friend who at nearly 70 has a son aged 45 with a similar condition.

Living with a child whose mental capacity never goes beyond 2 years old, but in an adult body becomes impossible because of the emotional demands but most importantly the physical demands placed largely on the mother.

In my friends case she spends all her life locked into the house - all the windows were screwed down because of this hadn't been the case her child would have jumped out - even from the first floor and run. Daily life was spent trying to avoid tantrums and perhaps the result physical abuse by the child on its mother. Many children never become continent. My friend has support from her husband and occasionally her daughter. Many do not because of the strain put on family life find themselves alone

What the Tory austerity means is that there have been severe cuts to social services and placements for these children.

My friend was hopeful that a home has been found for her child but it is by no means certain at this stage. It has to be clear that the child will "fit" that mum is happy with the level of care etc. My friend it at the end of her emotional and physical capacity to cope.

More cuts are to come.

This sort of life we are condemning people to is largely invisible but it is painfully and impossibly real.

What sort if society do we want?

I really have some sympathy with what you are saying Fitzy, re the fact that T Mays hands are at least a little tied. It was the stupidity of offering an ill formed referendum that has brought us to this place but that bird has flown and the best has to be made of it now.

However, I do not think there was any implication in the vote about how it should be carried out. I don't think we were offered any version of 'out'. Now is the time to find a way forward that feels inclusive to all. If the EU has any sense they will take this opportunity to look at themselves and see where the issues are but I am not holding my breath. I still believe in the idea of a common market but then I believed in the idea of the Commonwealth too and would like to see a better connection within those countries.

We are in a position were we can think new thoughts and neither the extreme leavers or extreme remainers will be forgiven if they are so partisan that they do not allow us to get the best result we can.

I have said it before and I still believe that although they shout the loudest the true extremists on this subject are probably 10% of the population (not voters in the referendum) at either extreme. That leaves 80% who vary from the just don't care/understand/prefer not to know in the middle, working out to stronger views. The May government should be working for all not just the extremes and that is what she doesn't appear to be doing when she tries to exclude Parliament.

Also, aren't agency workers paid through the agency? Which takes a percentage of their salary as an agency fee? I seem to recall agency supply teachers mentioning that.

That patronising message to dj might have had more of a bite if the tax changes were also going to apply to agency workers in the private sector as well, Fitzy. As it is, it looks like deliberate targetting of the public sector with a view to..what? Running it into the ground, perhaps?

DJ surely you of all people are in favour of everyone paying the tax they owe? But I would agree that if it's not to be brought in for the private sector it perhaps shouldn't be introduced at all.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/27/tax-changes-uk-public-sector-workers-salary-exodus-nhs

This government is going to implode. How can contract workers in local government be expected to lose 30% of takehome pay?
Carers, hospital ward assistants, schools, etc., hundreds of thousands of them, and it's coming in in April.

Her choice is, to my mind, limited by the fact that the referendum vote made the wishes of the majority pretty clear. On that basis her hands are tied. Her "choice" as you put it, is the choice of the majority - at least if the EU are not prepared to meet her halfway. Maybe they will!

Who are they tied by?
The government decided on the article 50 terms, and decided to do everything on the quiet, not allowing MPs a say. It was only because of the court case that MPs were given any say in it.

That is Tory party governance over Brexit, not parliament's voice. How Brexit is organised is all May's choice.

Yes I can. Unfortunately (in my view) the referendum vote was to leave. I don't see that the govt. has any choice other than to organise and negotiate our exit. In terms of hard/soft, again, I have to accept that whatever leavers did vote for, it wasn't adherence to all the main EU pillars plus continued contributions - which the EU keep telling us is the only soft Brexit on offer. The govts. Hands are largely tied.

It was me who brought it in the B word (very reluctantly) but it was more to do with who appears to voters - different groups of voters - to be the establishment and how that view can change.

Can you separate the Tory way of governance from Brexit?

As we've slipped back to Brexit, it's worth mentioning the Interesting speech by John Major (I admit to being a fan) asking that people be given an honest appraisal of the problems we really face with Brexit. Possibly the most pompous, blatantly rude and utterly unconvincing rebuttal I have ever heard by a politician (quite a high bar!) from William Reed-Mogg.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/27/rejections-eu-citizens-seeking-uk-residency

Very high.

DD, I was responding to Iam 's post, which I thought was pretty much saying that the this govt. was the cause of all our post crash woes. Apologies if I misinterpreted
Jess, I absolutely agree that being limited to 30hrs at minimum wage must be dreadful if that is what you are living on. I'm sure some people are, but of course there will be some (absolutely no idea of the split) for whom a part time job suits them very well. Nor do I accept that it's the govts. fault that some supermarkets are running their business in this way - though I reiterate something I said earlier, namely that employment protection laws do need to catch up with modern working practices.
Jen - I'm not entirely sure what your point you are making, other than that you have found an example of members of a govt. perhaps not being entirely in agreement on everything!

It is interesting to see that some are describing Gorton as a "rock solid safe Labour seat, in which people feel taken for granted".

I have a feeling that even more than voting against the 'establishment' people are voting against the status quo that affects them. I don't think Labour can take anything for granted in places like Gorton. There they are the status quo and therefore, by default, the establishment.

Equally, by preaching the "Brexit means Brexit" mantra the Tories appear to have moved away from being the status quo but once the negotiations start, with the strung out deals and broken promises, etc., and the cuts bite on people and their families will it swing them back to being the despised establishment yet again. If so I wonder how this will affect voting in the next GE.