Karma and the New Millennium

Written by William A. Peyton


According to a new survey carried out by Alliance & where ID_NUM=9270; Leicester, one in five small business owners view tax as their greatest concern. The Chancellor has announced in his last budget that companies with profits below œ10,000 will not have to pay any corporation tax with effect from 1 April 2002. The question to be asked is: does that announcement make incorporation a more attractive option compared to being a sole trader?

The answer is that from a tax point of view, it is advantageous to trade through a limited company as long asrepparttar income is drawn fromrepparttar 127035 company byrepparttar 127036 owners as dividends from their shares andrepparttar 127037 amount of dividends drawn is restricted belowrepparttar 127038 40% band rate (i.e. œ31,063 for tax year 2002/03). That way,repparttar 127039 owners have no further personal tax ("income tax") to pay. Moreover, dividends are not subject to national insurance contributions. This is excellent news of course. But, if dividend income falls withinrepparttar 127040 higher rate bracket of income tax (i.e. above œ34,515), they will be taxed at 22.5% onrepparttar 127041 excess, which of course will increaserepparttar 127042 tax burden. The company profits are subject to corporation tax rates. Those are lower than income tax rates.

The most catastrophic scenario is whenrepparttar 127043 director takes his reward fromrepparttar 127044 company as salary. Then his/her salary is taxed at income tax rates (like a sole trader's income). That is because, unlike sole traders,repparttar 127045 tax system treats companies as separate from their owners because a company is a separate legal entity. The problem is thatrepparttar 127046 income taxes are higher than corporation tax rates. On top of that, they will be subject to employee and employer national insurance contributions, which of course increaserepparttar 127047 tax burden and render his position worse than even an unincorporated business ("sole trader"), because NIC Class 1 on payroll are higher than NIC Class 2 paid by self employed.

In contrast, a self employed person ("sole trader") is taxed at income tax rates onrepparttar 127048 profits from his business, which are added to his other sources of income. As it has already been mentioned, income tax rates are overall higher than corporation tax rates. On top of income tax, national insurance contributions class 4 are payable onrepparttar 127049 business profits within a specified band (7% on profits between œ4,615and œ30,420). National insurance contributions Class 2 are also paid by self-employed people, although those are lower than those payable by company directors on their salaries.

To illustraterepparttar 127050 above, let's take a simple example. We have a limited company and a sole trader. They both make œ60,000 profits each inrepparttar 127051 tax year 2002/03. We assume thatrepparttar 127052 company director takes a salary equal torepparttar 127053 amount of his personal allowances (untaxed income) of œ4,615 andrepparttar 127054 balance as dividends. The company will pay corporation tax at 19% equal to œ10,523 and nothing else. The sole trader will pay income tax œ16,542, National insurance Class 2 œ104 and National insurance Class 4 œ1,806. Total œ18,452. The bottom line is thatrepparttar 127055 person that has incorporated his business into a limited company will make a tax saving of œ7,929 compared to a sole trader! Isn't that fantastic?

Somebody might be wondering: why is this entire happening? The official explanation is that, this government, to helprepparttar 127056 economy grow, encourages people to leave as much profits within their businesses to be reinvested, instead of being taken out and spent.

The "unofficial line" is that, as a matter of fact, for yearsrepparttar 127057 Inland Revenue has tried to reclassifyrepparttar 127058 self-employed. The 1% in NIC hike on staff salaries aboverepparttar 127059 NIC threshold from next April adds to bothrepparttar 127060 employees' and employers' tax burden and may more than offsetrepparttar 127061 saving fromrepparttar 127062 corporation tax zero rate onrepparttar 127063 first œ10,000 of profits.

Why Does God Permit Wickedness and Suffering? (Part 4)

Written by ARTHUR ZULU


Title: WHY DOES GOD PERMIT WICKEDNESS & SUFFERING? (Part 4) Author: Arthur Zulu Contact Author: mailto: controversialwriter@yahoo.com Copyright: Copyright © Arthur Zulu 2002 Word Count:651 Web Address: http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/10975

Publishing Guidelines: Permission is granted to publish this article electronically or in print as long asrepparttar bylines are included. A courtesy copy of your publication would be appreciated.

WHY DOES GOD PERMIT WICKEDNESS AND SUFFERING? (Part 4) By Arthur Zulu

Our first parents, Adam and Eve arerepparttar 127034 source of wickedness and suffering in this world. The whole story is inrepparttar 127035 Bible book of Genesis Chapters 2 and 3.

God made them perfect and put them inrepparttar 127036 beautiful garden of Eden. They were to live happy, beget offsprings and take care ofrepparttar 127037 earth by expandingrepparttar 127038 borders ofrepparttar 127039 paradise, with a prospect of eternal life.

But take note. All these were not just offered on a platter of gold. There was a condition -- and this is very important -- they were to eat allrepparttar 127040 fruits ofrepparttar 127041 trees inrepparttar 127042 garden, excerpt one --repparttar 127043 fruit ofrepparttar 127044 tree of knowledge of good and bad. Disobedience would bring death! Simple instruction.

So man was not created like a robot. He was created withrepparttar 127045 right to make choices,repparttar 127046 freedom to make decisions.

Now this gift of free will --repparttar 127047 right to choose -- either good or bad, life or death, is not to be overlooked. So although we were created free, this freedom is not total, but relative. We are subject to Godís laws. And what are those laws?you may ask.

First, we are underrepparttar 127048 physical laws of gravity. Man may decide to climbrepparttar 127049 highest peak of Mt. Everest, ignore this law, and take a giant leap torepparttar 127050 foot ofrepparttar 127051 mountain. Or he may close his eyes to allrepparttar 127052 risks, and go swimming inrepparttar 127053 angry waters ofrepparttar 127054 Atlantic Ocean. He hasrepparttar 127055 free will.

Also God has moral laws. These involve our life style which includesrepparttar 127056 use of alcohol and illicit drugs, tobacco and sexual promiscuity. Man may choose to have sexual relations with an AIDS infected prostitute withrepparttar 127057 belief that he will never catchrepparttar 127058 dreaded disease. He hasrepparttar 127059 free will.

Then there are social laws. Man can choose his type of clothing, art, and music. He also hasrepparttar 127060 right to choose his type of friends and marriage mate. He may decide to live all alone inrepparttar 127061 jungle, away from civilization, or to walk naked inrepparttar 127062 streets of New York. That is his free will.

And lastly, there are health laws. A sick man hasrepparttar 127063 right to refuse medical treatment. He can also decide to go on hunger strike -- without food and water. After all, it is his free will.

Now, our being subject to Godís laws is similar to our subjection torepparttar 127064 laws ofrepparttar 127065 State -- manís laws. The laws ofrepparttar 127066 nations recognizerepparttar 127067 citizenís fundamental human rights.

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use