Reeve an unstoppable force or a puppet?

It isn't a different question at all. It's entirely relevant, but I see you cannot answer it. Why on earth would anyone branch out on their own with no incentive to do so?

Different question.

The point at issue was people frigging the system by taking what should be earnings as dividends to as to reduce tax. That's a loophole I'd like to see closed - if it isn't already.

How would you prefer to incentivise risk?

I'm not saying SE is an easy gig. I do welfare rights for a living so I know it's not.

I know how much of the £100 (say) one hour callout for an electrician is consumed in overheads.

The point though is whether what's left of that £100 after expenses is earnings or dividends.

I'm very happy for you that your stint in self employment allowed you to charge quadruple your salary to cover your overheads.
That isn't how it works for most small businesses.

None of that answers why it's right that they can avoid tax by dressing their earnings as dividends.

I make no judgement on plumbers but the caller was an ordinary joe not Jim Ratcliffe (Ineos).

Lack of holiday/sick pay and need to cover other overheads are an occupational thing in self employment and will be built into the hourly rate.

IANAL but I was once headhunted to do a particular type of casework. I needed to have chargeable hours worth 3-4 times my salary to cover overheads etc.

Would you prefer it if he stopped 'doing plumbing in a small town'?
And why assume that he isn't a high earner because he's a plumber? That's very derogatory.

He also doesn't get holiday pay, sick pay or a juicy pension when he retires. If he has 10 days off over Christmas, he earns nothing. Do you still get paid when you have time off?
We should be encouraging start ups, not making it harder. Many of them go on to employ people who do pay income tax.

His dividends were his earnings because that meant, at one point, paying a lower rate of tax, especially once you were a higher taxpayer. It was a wellknown dodge for people with limited companies. What’s the point of high earners and entrepreneurs if they avoid paying tax?

@GreekDogRescue said His dividends were his earnings.
Driving high earners and entrepreneurs out of the country is not the win you think it is.
Do you work in the public sector?

Dividends are a return on money invested in shares or similar.

If you dress up what are, in reality, earnings from your trade or profession as dividends so as to avoid tax then you are using a loophole and shouldn't be surprised when it's closed. The guy who messaged in on the radio was the proprietor of a business doing plumbing in a small town. Not a high earner or, in any real sense, an entrepreneur.

And as to the barb at the end No. I work for a well known charity.

@GreekDogRescue “Dividends were his earnings”. There is the problem. Dividends are taxed at the lower corporation tax. Earnings are taxed via income tax. If Labour close this loophole they would be doing the right thing. This is why the self employed bellyached when they got no help in Covid. They hadn’t paid the income tax!

Most barristers are self employed but there is the “employed bar” which is CPS and government barristers. So Starmer has been both. As far as I can see, David Lammy never got pupilage and never worked as a barrister. He worked in the USA after his degree from Harvard in 1997 until 2000 when he became a MP. You can be “called to the bar” but you are not qualified to practice ans a barrister unless you complete pupilage.

If you believe this you’ll believe anything.
An account manager at Cazenoves told me that many successful business owners whose accounts she manages have left or are planning on relocating to Italy, Dubai and Portugal.
Well done Labour! .

Wikipedia tells me 2:1. There seems to be an awful lot of false information about Reeves floating round. As an aside, I'd forgotten about the plagiarism scandal.

His dividends were his earnings.
Driving high earners and entrepreneurs out of the country is not the win you think it is.
Do you work in the public sector?

If this is truly the case it is even more extraordinary how hapless and hopeless they all are.
PS. I was a journo at the Independent. It really isn’t something to particularly admire and certainly no bastion of integrity.

Starmer was a barrister - private sector. Reeves worked for HBOS - private sector. David Lammy was a barrister - private sector. Yvette Cooper was a journalist on The Independent - private sector. That’s the four great offices of state covered, do we need to look at the rest of the cabinet?

He is more of a cat person anyway

I don’t blame them!
No one in the Liebour cabinet has ever run a small business; I doubt if any of them have even worked in the private sector.
They are all a bunch of gravy train grifters.

Not perplexing.
Most of us hate this bunch of grifters.

I don’t think she’s as clever as she thinks she is, but we’re stuck with her for a while.🤷‍♀️

An Oxbridge First is a bit different from most other Firsts (with some notable and glowing exceptions.) If she has a First in PPE she is intelligent. Not necessarily wise or politically insightful, though.

Most colonies didn’t want to stay as colonies! Being ruled over etc. They are now free to do as they wish.

Clearly this wasn't revved up from cold in the last 100 days and most of the legwork was done before the election.

Has any government of any stripe covered itself in glory when selling colonies down the river?