Sucks….

Salary below threshold, but value of Company car nudges taxable benefits over 🙁

So now sat in what BBC report as the UKs only 65% tax band WTF. More tax under the Tories than under Labour. Would be better off going 4 days a week, but how the **** will that help my, the company’s of the country’s productivity!?
Well and truly fubar

ETA – and for all those saying £50k is some sort of decadent nirvana – get a grip. Mrs rkk01 teaches and the going rate for pressies amongst those “supported” by our taxes appears to have been between £500 & £1000 per child 😯

but to claim that £50k doesn’t stretch very far and people with this level of income have to watch what they spend just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.

I would be willing to bet you don’t live in Surrey and commute to london then.

£50k =approx £2900 per month

£1200 on rent
£1000 on childcare

that leaves £700 per month for bills, food, travel (train fare to london ain’t cheap).

One of the reasons we moved away from London so we could actually afford to buy a house, despite earning what should be comfortable salary.

Is it time for us to blame fatcha yet?

Blame the bankers, its all their fault… End of!

Is it time for us to blame fatcha yet?

Will reference to certain shoes do?
I have no useful contribution to make?

fire her into space from a cannon

wish i could!!!!

Is £50k a joint take home income?

Assuming it is, then what is the lower earners share of that?

Not trolling, genuine question.

Winter fuel allowance for UK pensioners on the Algarve, anyone?

ourmaninthenorth – Member

Is it time for us to blame fatcha yet?

Can’t we just take that as a given?

As someone about to become a (step) grandfather, can I just say that I firmly believe that some financial recompense is surely due to hardworking (step) grandparents throughout the land?

Ta.

Dear lord are you lot 10 years old or something? No it’s not fair but then it’s hardly the only inequity in the tax and benefit system is it. No one ever said life was fair so get over it.

It’s not the unfairness that annoys me, it’s the clumsiness.

I have the lovely situation of earning £60k with my wife not working.

Child benefit paid for the kids food & some clothing.

Yes we made a conscious decision to be single income, but that was in the interess of the kids getting the best possible start in life rather than being left at childcare all the time.

So despite Scameron bleating on about ‘families’ he’s done a great job of shitting on those of us trying to create a good environment for the kids. Whilst my gross salary is decent, the disposable income is pretty much bugger all at the moment. This leaves a significant dent in our finances.

Yet my neighbour with 40% higher income still gets it.

And I haven’t had the letter.

Nor do I want to self asses.

Bet the tax take is negligible too.

I have the lovely situation of earning £60k with my wife not working

Whilst my gross salary is decent, the disposable income is pretty much bugger all at the moment

Would it be rude to suggest that you’re living beyond your means or one of you is spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave?
We managed great on a single wage of about 75% national average with 3 kids

Strange that “universal benefits” should be considered a “weird concept”, when the concept is one of the three foundations of the NHS which is considered a national treasure? Old Beverige must have been an odd bloke to pull such a weird stunt! Or perhaps, he was on to something? 😉

Indeed
I wonder how many consider personal tax allowances as a universal benefit?

It’s not the unfairness that annoys me, it’s the clumsiness.

That would be the clumsiness which saves more money than any less “clumsy” system would?

I’m amazed that nobody on here (notably including some people who I thought were trained economists) appears to understand the very real advantage of universal benefits in terms of increased take up by those who really need them. Or are you just ignoring that because of some perceived theoretical disadvantage? Of course this change to CB means it is no longer a universal benefit, but it is still close enough that it shouldn’t make any difference to take-up amongst the poorest.

…how come I’m suddenly feeling so left-wing on here?

aracer – Member
That would be the clumsiness which saves more money than any less “clumsy” system would?

shirley the effort should be made to reform the tax system then so that adding a second column to the spreadsheet doesnt cost the government a billion quid or whatever they hope to save from this

it does penalise families with either a homemaker or a lower/ underemployed partner

living in london 50k isnt that much and our childcare is over a grand a month for 4 days a week, weve just had our 2nd child and when they are both in nursery its no longer worth both of us working, how does that help the economy!?
ultimately the governments confused and 1/2 arsed policies on childcare will only further weaken the country

back on topic
I strongly suspect that the number of overpayments will cause problems for lots, cost loads to reclaim and end up saving the government a minimal amount

This is the biggest ad for a single benefits system and a reform of taxation there has been in a while.

The best idea would be if all benefits were universal. Give everyone a base line of income, then remove the tax allowance but otherwise tax income in the same way as before.

Tons of advantages …

It’s obviously fair, as everyone gets it.

There’s always an incentive to work, as you make a gain from any money you earn (minus tax) rather than getting stuck in the ‘benefits trap’.

Save a bunch on red tape as it’s loads simpler to administrate.

Could also lead to the removal of the minimum wage (as everyone gets a minimum anyway), so it would be easier to have full employment as jobs which would otherwise not be worth hiring someone for could now be priced accordingly.

Are those in favour of means testing for Child Benefit also in favour of a similar approach for the likes of the NHS and state education? I’mjust trying to assess where everyone stands on the matter.

No the NHS and Education, like having your bins emptied are a service provided through tax. Benefits should be for those that need them imo.

Benefits should be for those that need them imo.

Like state pensions?

Excellent question druidh and one that is (edit, well SHOULD be) at the heart of the current debate and was at the heart of the foundation of the NHS. GO is getting himself (and us) in a muddle by obscuring many of these core principles and most importantly of making the basic error of confusing households and individuals – I guess that’s the trouble with having a historian running fiscal matters!!!!

A_A, that “should ” read, the NHS, education, bin collection and child benefit are provided/funded through taxation (and as a result are all PROGRESSIVE even though they are not presented that way!) That is the crux.

So, numpty question… Is this for the current (2012/13) tax year, or opting out in advance of the forthcoming 2013/14 tax year????

Can’t decide what to do at the moment 🙁

This cack handed policy is crap for working families.
How can it be fair to give someone on 50-60k an effective tax rate of 65%?

The Government say that the top 15% should pay more into the pot.
I agree with this, however this policy only affects the 15% with kids!

Why not keep the benefit as universal and add a smidge to income tax for all over 50k or somthing to make sure that all high earners pay a bit more into the pot, and not just rob £2500 from those trying to raise a family.

Like state pensions?

yes, but means testing that would be much trickier as we want to encourage people to save for their own retirement so i would have no clue how that could be done. Child benefit is much more straightforward. Most here seem to be using it to save for their kids adulthood anyway so it isnt benefiting choldren in the case of us squeezedsingletrackmiddleworld people.

Why not keep the benefit as universal and add a smidge to income tax for all over 50k or somthing to make sure that all high earners pay a bit more into the pot, and not just rob £2500 from those trying to raise a family.

“Tax increase on hard working families” + “Keeping Benefits for Millionaires” = PR disaster

😉

It was quite brave of them to introduce this as is pi55ing off a number of their core voters.

Would be interesting to compare tax paid by the people losing this to benefits received, a small price to pay to keep these people comfortable with the huge cost to the country of the benefits system as a whole. Of course the cost of having a child is vastly more than these payments anyway – though the less well off get other child related benefits.

Allowing all child care to be paid for via salary sacrifice would be a great move.

CHB – that is the rational solution but as ATP notes above not the politically-expedient one! The trouble/interest with these debates is the problems/fun you have when you isolate individual aspects of tax and benefits rather than viewing them as a whole. That is why druidh’s question is so important.

But this week is going to be all about political subterfuge with benefits as the Tories attempt to get their own back in Dealings 50p tax trap but trapping labour with the cap on benefits proposal. As usual both sides will benefit from muddying the waters to their own benefit.

add to the pot self employed, ‘company directors’ etc who will be able to ‘account’ their way around it.

I was talking to my mate about this before Christmas. He is a MD of his own company and pays himself £70k per year in salary. His wife is on the payroll and gets £10k per year for admin, but she has never been near his office. They have 4 kids, so I guess the loss to them could be significant. To ensure they don’t lose, his wife will become the Company Secretary and get a salary increase and he will take a salary drop to £50k.

The double benefit here is, that they will also see an increase in their take home salary. He currently pays 40% tax on the £20k that he will transfer to his wife but she will only pay standard rate, when she starts earning it. So for arguments sake he will pay roughly (excl NI) £8k tax on the £20k he earns but once his wife takes that part of his salary, she will pay roughly £4k. So as a family they will be £4k better off and retain their family allowance. The cost to their business be be nil, but HMRC will lose out.

So win/win for him.

Until HMRC decide to investigate the company books and query the Company Secretary salary.

I agree the way the threshold is calculated is unfair, but to claim that £50k doesn’t stretch very far and people with this level of income have to watch what they spend just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.

I’d suggest that you might be a little out of touch yourself, or perhaps live up North in a house you bought more than 15 years ago.

1 – “the self employed cant be expected to pay tax PAYE. income over a year can be very volatile and even from year to year vary substantially. ”

don’t entirely disagree with that, but I do disagree with the ability of ‘non PAYE employees’ to pay dividends, pay wifes etc ‘token job’ salaries, do massive pension contributions, claim travel expenses, expense ‘wholly’, necessarily and exclusively’ things like 42″ plasmas etc etc, they have access to a wide range of ‘tax alteration’ schemes that ’employees’ do not. In a nutshell I think that ‘true employees’, like my dad who was PAYE in low skill jobs all his life are getting the smelly end of the brown stick.

2 – “the self employed cant be expected to pay tax PAYE. income over a year can be very volatile and even from year to year vary substantially. ”

Given I’ve been made redundant 3 times and ‘forced out’ once, I’ve also had “income over a year can be very volatile and even from year to year vary substantially” – I was expected to pay that PAYE and wasn’t allowed to move tax allowances from a good year to a bady year.

Fair – imho – is treating people identically. For me the differences are to much.

Personally i feel chid benefit should be scrapped as it is structured
and be re configured to a Benefit in which it is given only when
un employed and if you become pregnant but unemployed then
not given until your back to work and then made un employed should
then the Benefit be given.

tonyd – Member
I agree the way the threshold is calculated is unfair, but to claim that £50k doesn’t stretch very far and people with this level of income have to watch what they spend just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.
I’d suggest that you might be a little out of touch yourself, or perhaps live up North in a house you bought more than 15 years ago.
POSTED 43 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

Or is it that you are living in a house and area that is beyond your means and what want other tax payer to subsidise it for you. 😆

if someone cannot ‘survive’ on 50K — they need some reality living.

must have some expensive habits 😉

I’d suggest that you might be a little out of touch yourself, or perhaps live up North in a house you bought more than 15 years ago.

bought a house on less than half of that opp north 2 years ago. Its even in a nice [ relatively] area – just a terrace house mind but three bedrooms

You may be out of touch with the reality of the north as well as thinking 50 k is hard to live on

For sure “relative wealth” depends on outgoings etc but 50 k earners are not on my list of folk who need help and assistance to get by.

If you’re struggling on 50k it’s of your own doing..

Try living in Surrey. 50k won’t get you far for a slice of paradise 8)

Our combined income living in the south east might reach 50k this really and we are hardly struggling.