Skip to main content

What about the (self employed) workers?

I get a touch fed up when we hear people on the radio woffling on about how we need to help small businesses employ more people, or how the government should rescue big businesses that are floundering.

It's not that I have anything against these measures, but there is hardly ever any mention of self employed people, or those who run family companies with no other employees.

Unfortunately, the image the term 'independent trader' conjures up is probably that of the picture shown here. But we aren't all Del Boy Trotters. Vast numbers of people work for themselves, have no intention of employing others, but are still very valuable to the economy.

It's 15 years since I worked for a big company. But in those 15 years I have not been a drain on the state. Instead I have been contributing taxes, and even collecting VAT on behalf of HM Government. Yet all we hear about is aid for the big boys and concessions for small employers.

At the moment there are very few incentives to go it alone. It's about time there was more help for individuals to become and stay self-employed, or to run a family limited company. Every individual or family working this way is one or two less on the unemployment statistics. And at a time like the present, that's not a bad thing.

Comments

  1. I agree. In fact I'd go further and say that Gordon the Moron is an enemy of small businesses. Not only did he raid everyone's pensions and squander the proceeds, he closed the loophole that allowed company directors to pay a lower rate of tax on dividends. this means that it's simply not worth starting a business unless you can guarantee a biggish minimal turnover, and removes incentives for sole traders who want to build their business e.g. by employing people. Down with socialism, the biggest crime against humanity ever invented.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are absolutely right Brian! Friends of mine have been made redundant in recent months, but at least get unemployment benefit. However if you are self-employed, you can actually be living well below the poverty line if work is short, and get no help whatsoever!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Too true. It's the same here in Ireland. They talk of supporting entrepreneurship as the means out of the economic malaise, but it's pure lip service. The self-employed are so discriminated against in everything from getting loans, to welfare, to tax and the law, that it is no incentive at all. Unless, of course, you are a successful artist or writer - their income is not taxed.

    Come to live in Ireland Brian!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brendan - part of me would love to live in Ireland (particularly the quarter from my Grandma Mulligan from Cork), but I'd not like to make such a big move while our kids are in education... how successful a writer do you have to be before your income is untaxed?

    Your point is spot on - self-employed are definitely an underclass as far as most governments are concerned.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope