[Closed] 27K a year? Well that's scuppered marrying my university sweetheart

Which country is your partner from ? Easy for you to move/work there ?

Just reinforces my opinion about May.
It's not the country, it's the con servatives.

(P.S. for the sake of accuracy 25.7K not 27K, not that it will make much difference to you)

Looks like they are doing something about the immigration problem as promised in their election campaign and voted for accordingly.

Isnt 25k about the figure below which you are a financial burden not contributor to society in which case why should you be welcome?

If earning below 25k means you are a burden to society, why are there so many low paid jobs?

Wot? If you earn under 25k your a financial burden? Dd I misunderstand?

I earn 13.5k a year and pay my taxes unlike certain labour MPS and puffball players.

IanW - have you a source for that information. I would be genuinely interested in reading all the apportioned costs that are taken into account in arriving at such a figure and conclusion?

I'd like some clarification on that claim as well.

Or is it just another piece of STW bollox?

Load of left wing guardianista bollocks more like. That paper is worse than the daily mirror.

Gorehound - Member
Load of left wing guardianista bollocks more like.

What is?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/26/theresa-may-migrants-immigration

^^^^that is^^^^

Load of left wing guardianista bollocks more like. That paper is worse than the daily mirror.

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9165090/Ministers-plan-major-immigration-crackdown.html ]All the lefty papers seem to have picked up the story- I think it originated here, actually.[/url]

I'd suggest that the right to live with your partner in the counter of their nationality is a fairly fundamental one.

It's not the country, it's the con servatives.

It was well on its way long before they got the job....

The last govt screwed the country right into the ground long before the present inherited the job of sorting their mess out.

😆

ARGUALYMPIANS! ASSEMBLE!

😉

and don't get me started on the freaking EU.

ARGUALYMPIANS! ASSEMBLE!

another Flashism bubbles to the surface of the ooze...

After all these years of reading your contribution to threads, I have no idea what you actually [i]think or believe.[/i] Well done!

Wot? If you earn under 25k your a financial burden? Dd I misunderstand?

Makes sense, assuming everyone takes form the NHS and schooling etc equally then anyone earning below the average (which is around £25k?) is a net drain on resources.

In fact seeing as taxes go up in proportion with earning (nowt below a threshold, 20% bracket, 40%, etc), the very bottom of the scale are entirely on benefits, and there are all sorts of tax credits for those working on lower incomes the point at which you become a net contributor is probably some way above the average salary?

Lots of assumptions there, mainly that everyone requires the same resources, and that all other taxes are proportional to your wages (i,e how much vat and corporation tax does your bos pay on the profit they make from whatever you produce, and your car tax, stamp duty etc are all in proportion). And it ignores smokers/drinkers.

Good, isn't it? 🙂

Tax credits and benefits? I get my wage after tax and sod all else.

So what about those like me, earn less than that, been working for 30yrs in engineering, no kids, paid all my taxes, only taken dole for 7 months in that time, healthy so very little drain on the NHS - i'm a bloody freeloader am i?

This place really is full of prats sometimes.

This place really is full of prats sometimes. So what about those like me, earn less than that, been working for 30yrs in engineering, no kids, paid all my taxes, only taken dole for 7 months in that time, healthy so very little drain on the NHS - i'm a bloody freeloader am i?

If I was in the mood to argue i would, but I'm not so I'll point you back at the last paragraph.

Lots of assumptions there, mainly that everyone requires the same resources, and that all other taxes are proportional to your wages (i,e how much vat and corporation tax does your bos pay on the profit they make from whatever you produce, and your car tax, stamp duty etc are all in proportion). And it ignores smokers/drinkers.

Besides, the term was net drain/net contributor tot he state funds, not freeloader it's not back & white, the point being made was that if you earn less than average then you'll pay less tax than average. And everyone (on average) probably takes an equal amount from the state.

Exactly how much do i drain the exchequer then?

Unless it can be shown i take more from the State than i contribute in direct and indirect taxation (which disproportionally affects the lower paid) then no, i don't take an equal amount from the State.

Plenty of people earning far more than me taking child benefit for example.

p.s. I'm pretty sure I'm still in the "net drain" category too, so not sure why you've taken umbridge to it, just a fact that I probably pay less in tax than I've cost the treasury over my lifetime so far.

David Milliband £2,500,000 a year and evades paying the full amount of tax he should pay. How many puffball players etc are registered as offshore companies so they don't have to pay any tax at all? Don't blame those of us who work hard for low wages for all the ills of the country.

AND DON'T CALL US A BURDEN ON THE WELFARE STATE!

David Milliband £2,500,000 a year and evades paying the full amount of tax he should pay. How many puffball players etc are registered as offshore companies so they don't have to pay any tax at all? Don't blame those of us who work hard for low wages for all the ills of the country.

AND DON'T CALL US A BURDEN ON THE WELFARE STATE!

So you're saying that Mr XXX (ficticious footbal player) pays less tax than you or I do (not as a percentage, as an absolute figure)? Even once he's spent his £100k a week on coke and hookers and bentleys (and paying VAT on the hookers and bentleys). And in that I'm including all the VAT and corperation tax paid on the product he makes (tickets to watch him play every week.

50,000 seater stadium, £50/ticket, 20 people on the pitch (just counting the rich ones) for each team, 20% vat, = £12.5k per premiership player in VAT recitps just on match tickets every game.

So paying VAT on a ferrari exempts you from paying income tax does it?

If everyone in the country paid the right amount of income tax there would probably be no need for VAT.

seems to be a bad policy to solve a difficult problem and to reduce immigration - where nationalised UK residents bring spouses/ families from other countries and don't contribute to the UK economy/ society. unfortunately people like bwaarp get caught in the net. usual KPI driven politics.

So you're saying that Mr XXX (ficticious footbal player) pays less tax than you or I do (not as a percentage, as an absolute figure)? Even once he's spent his £100k a week on coke and hookers and bentleys (and paying VAT on the hookers and bentleys). And in that I'm including all the VAT and corperation tax paid on the product he makes (tickets to watch him play every week.

So, by extension this facility should be available to all shouldn't it?

Exactly how much do i drain the exchequer then?

I don't think TINAS was trying to suggest that you [i]take[/i] anything from the state, more that your contributions are lower than average (although, the average will be skewed by very high earners).

For example, if the gov needs an average of a £1 contribution from every person in order to provide for the state, many people will only be contributing £0.50, whereas some will be contributing £5. Even if the person contributing £0.50 never uses a single penny of state financed services, they are still shy of contributing what the state needs, therefore a burden.

Not saying I agree with it, just making the point that paying 20% tax and not claiming the dole doesn't automatically lift you into Platinum State Sponsor category.

You could make the argument that contributions should be looked at in conjunction with the benefit you receive from the state, but you'd really have to look at that after someone died, since I suspect the biggest benefits from the state and lowest contributions occur when you retire.

So paying VAT on a ferrari exempts you from paying income tax does it?

Who said that?

You said that you think Mr XXX pays less tax than you or I do. As a percentage he may well do, but as an absolute figure he still contributes significantly more.

So, by extension this facility should be available to all shouldn't it?

Exactly.

So, by extension this facility should be available to all shouldn't it?

That would be a very regressive step.

I've not said that it's right that the super rich pay less as a percentage, simply that as an absolute figure they pay more.

Unless it can be shown i take more from the State than i contribute in direct and indirect taxation (which disproportionally affects the lower paid) then no, i don't take an equal amount from the State.

Lifetime calculation as well though, isn't it - so there was that edumacation that you got for the first sixteen years, and there's that pension you get when you retire (assuming from your wage that your pension is less than the minimum income guarantee or whatever is in place in the future, fingers crossed) and the health care, and the doctors, and the rights of way, and the petty pen pushers doing things on your behalf, and the police protecting you, and the bombs and bullets bought to wreck other countries on your behalf, etc.

anyone care to get back on topic?

Gorehound,so you just dislike anyone who earns more or less than you?

For a start a puffball player does not pay income tax on ticket sales the mugs who pay to watch them pay VAT not the players. If you are registered as an offshore company you don't pay any income tax at all in this country. Why should the highest earners get away with paying no income tax when the lowest earners have to. For instance after tax my takehome is £225 a week some soccer players are on over £100,000 a week and they can legally get away with paying no income tax at all, even if they paid 50% their takehome pay would be £50,000 a week.

Gorehound,so you just dislike anyone who earns more or less than you?

Not at all. I do dislike the fact that people who earn vast amounts of money get away with "avoiding" paying income tax when the rest of us have to.

anyone care to get back on topic?

p.s. if she's on a student visa, then gets a job can't her employer 'sponsor' her next visa, I know a lot of people at work have to go through the process every couple of years for a finite period of time until they can stay permanently. The rule changes would only affect people wanting to marry someone from outside the UK who has no current job here?

For a start a puffball player does not pay income tax on ticket sales the mugs who pay to watch them pay VAT not the players.

Yes but without the football player there would be no ticket.

If you are registered as an offshore company you don't pay any income tax at all in this country. Why should the highest earners get away with paying no income tax when the lowest earners have to.

Read this article, and ignore the lefty spin.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/15/treasury-reveals-super-rich-tax-rates

"Of those earning between £250,000 and £500,000, 27% were paying tax of less than 40%. "

Very few below those figures will be paying 40% (they'll be paying a combination of 0%, 20% and 40% and NI). And 73% of the 250-500k earners are paying over 40%.

For instance after tax my takehome is £225 a week some soccer players are on over £100,000 a week and they can legally get away with paying no income tax at all, even if they paid 50% their takehome pay would be £50,000 a week.

[quote=Gorehound said] some soccer players are on over £100,000 a week and they can legally get away with paying no income tax at all, even if they paid 50% their takehome pay would be £50,000 a week.

I very much doubt that footballers playing in UK can evade UK tax. If you have any examples then report them to HMRC 🙂

OK, i was not taking umbrage at TINAS, more the assumption at the beginning of the thread that i am basically a benefit sponger for not earning xxxxx

I have a pension pot currently worth £30'000 and probably shrinking as i type. As i don't have kids i am in effect paying towards other peoples kids education whilst they are claiming Child Benefit.

I don't begrudge paying this, its the price we pay for a stable society, i just object to being labelled a scrounger for working hard, owning my own home and not having any debts.

If you are registered as an offshore company E.G. registered as a company in the isle of man or Jersey you are exempt from paying UK income tax, also if you register your name as a limited company (like David milliband has) you only pay 20% corporation tax no matter how much you earn.

I have a pension pot currently worth £30'000 and probably shrinking as i type. As i don't have kids i am in effect paying towards other peoples kids education whilst they are claiming Child Benefit.

Yes, but those kids will earn money in the future, and pay taxes, and hopefully pay back more into the system.

Equally, other people pay the police to chase axe wielding vigilantes 😛

Gorehound - Member

If you are registered as an offshore company E.G. registered as a company in the isle of man or Jersey you are exempt from paying UK income tax, also if you register your name as a limited company (like David milliband has) you only pay 20% corporation tax no matter how much you earn.

If you register as a .ltd company then yes your companies income is taxed at 20% corporation tax.

It also attracts VAT at 20% before that.

Then the money is in your company account so you need to pay it to yourself. This means paying yourself minimum wage for the hours your worked (so that £12k or so is 'tax free' apart form the 40% or so already paid).

Then you take expenses, these are VAT refundable so you get some of that initial 20% back if you buy a new car and only use it for company business, difficult to prove, so you'll need to buy another with your (not the companies) income later on too.

The rest as a dividend, but there's rules here too, obviously you've already paid 20%, which is offset against the income tax so the only threshold you need to worry about is the 40% threshold, if you pay yourself a dividend that takes you above than then it's taxed at 20% again (making it 40% in total).

There are loopholes like paying family members as secretariats, but that's what IR35's for.

Makes my blood boil seeing the skilled and the youth leave
and to welcome this shite makes my blood boil
nothing worse than having dinner round my dining table and
advising my Daughter to leave this country whilst she can
than stay in this shit I absolutely hat this country

Where does it become to welcome crap and let the skilled and youth of the country
go so they can have work and a descent life. ?

You still get away with paying 20 to 25% less income tax on a hell of a lot of money which is what counts.

Grantway - off you go then - moaning types like you are no asset.

Where do you suggest is better?

Look at Peterfiles explanation Muddydwarf, I think that explains it clearly. No-one is calling you a scrounger, just that there are numbers defining at which point [b]the average person[/b] starts being a net contributor to the economy. I thought it was higher than 27k to be honest.

The policy itself seems a bit one eyed on my basic understanding of it. Would it be correct that a full time mother would be refused a visa? What about all those necessary jobs which pay less than the average wage?

Where does it become to welcome crap and let the skilled and youth of the country go so they can have work and a descent life. ?

I think the policy is designed to not let the "crap" in, but a proportion of the non-crap also take a hit too.

You still get away with paying 20 to 25% less income tax on a hell of a lot of money which is what counts.

Errrrr, actually you don't, the main benefit for most people is you get paid upfront by the company paying your company, so you get all the pension contributions, and the money they'd have to pay you if they made you redundant, HR costs, company car costs etc. So the Gross pay is a lot higher.

In our office those of us on PAYE are on about a third of the contractors rates for the same jobs, but they're not driving round in Ferrari's, I actualy reckon the staff have better cars as we're guaranteed to still be in the job next week rather than on 5 days notice.

Surely going through the somewhat laborious marriage procedure is the long term solution.

[quote=Gorehound said]You still get away with paying 20 to 25% less income tax on a hell of a lot of money which is what counts.

You're wrong here. Dividends taken out of the company are treated as personal income and if you hit the 40% rate due to salary + dividends then you'll pay the going rate of tax on dividends above the 40% tax threshold.

[quote> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/26/theresa-may-migrants-immigration

I think I will be moving abroad, won't hit 27k for at least 3 years and I don't know how we'd prove having more ties to the UK that the other way round considering only one half of us (me) have any ties! I don't want much to do with this country.

EEA Family Permits might be worth a look, not sure of your situation though.
[url= http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/eucitizens/eea-family-permit/# ]EEA Family Permits[/url]

Errrrr, actually you don't, the main benefit for most people is you get paid upfront by the company paying your company, so you get all the pension contributions, and the money they'd have to pay you if they made you redundant, HR costs, company car costs etc. So the Gross pay is a lot higher.

In our office those of us on PAYE are on about a third of the contractors rates for the same jobs, but they're not driving round in Ferrari's, I actualy reckon the staff have better cars as we're guaranteed to still be in the job next week rather than on 5 days notice.

So these contractors get paid in excess of 100k a week for kicking a ball around a field, or do they have subbies ect to pay?

 

do you manage to evade [some]NI contributions if you do this?
Why do people do it if not to reduce their tax burden?

At what level should the entry level be set at so as no-one is going to feel hard done by?

edit: there is a way around what all the pies said, you can not pay yourself over the 40% threshold and keep the money in the company.

Obviously you can't spend this money, but you can take it out once you've stopped working as a sort of pension as long as you keep your annual withdrawals under the thresholds. so this is only really possible if you expect to be unemployed next year (milliband?) or approaching retirement. But in reality it's no better or different to a PAYE employee transferring the money into a pension before tax (if anything it's worse as you've paid vat and corp taxes on it).

So these contractors get paid in excess of 100k a week for kicking a ball around a field, or do they have subbies ect to pay?

You have completely lost me there, I'm not a footballer.

Anyway I'm going to get drunk while I can still afford it. 😆

[quote=Junkyard said]do you manage to evade [some]NI contributions if you do this?
Why do people do it if not to reduce their tax burden?

Ken Livingstone to the forum please...

Why do people do it if not to reduce their tax burden?

It does, but not by the huge margins some people seem to think. NI is one thing you do avoid. As I said, it's particularly good if you don't think you'll be earning as much next year as you can pay yourself as and when you need to, rather than paying 40% tax one year and being unemployed on JSA the next, the other group of people benefiting are if you move around a lot, your rent and car mileage can (in certai circumstances) be paid out of the company before tax rather than after income tax.

 

Ta It was a genuine question

Thinking about this and the under £27K thing.

If, for example, 5000 people work in an NHS Trust earning under the £27K then they may well not be net contributors in purely monetary terms. However, their contribution to society as a whole is still extremely valuable and far in excess of their monetary cost.

The same is also true of unpaid carers of the young, aged or disabled, assembly workers in a multinational manufacturing firm or a myriad of others within our society both public and private sector.

True but unfortunately the tories measure everything in MONEY

So do most people nowadays and I believe this is what fosters so much dissatisfaction.

Not that I can change it for anyone else, just myself.

True but unfortunately the tories measure everything in MONEY

I suppose Ynot B liar and gordon the moron didn't. They're the ones who left us in this mess.

Thinking about this and the under £27K thing.

If, for example, 5000 people work in an NHS Trust earning under the £27K then they may well not be net contributors in purely monetary terms. However, their contribution to society as a whole is still extremely valuable and far in excess of their monetary cost.

The same is also true of unpaid carers of the young, aged or disabled, assembly workers in a multinational manufacturing firm or a myriad of others within our society both public and private sector.

True, but we're not talking (or I'm not anyway) about the whole of someone's contribution to society. Just tax receipts and what they take out of the system in healthcare, policing, schooling, pen pushing etc.

The people doing worthwhile but lower paid jobs would still be there in a completely tax free society (let's assume they've not died of treatable illness or been beaten up by the mad max styled hoards of bandits). But under the current system (and I think this is moraly right) they pay in according to their ability and take out according to need.

Where's that last sentence come from, its a quote about the NHS IIRC? The current system is progressive so takes from everyone according to their ability to pay (it could be more progressive, but then that would take umbridge at being lumped in with the scroungers 😛 ), and everyone's needs are going to be on average equal.

Given it is a worldwide global slow down [ and the tories had agreed to match labour spending] and it starte din the US to blame one govt for this is , being kind, shortsighted.

The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2007, caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[4][5] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of valuation and liquidity problems in the United States banking system in 2008.[6][7] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[8] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[9][10][11] In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the E.U., the U.K. responded with austerity measures of spending cuts and tax increases without export growth and it has since slid into a double-dip recession.[12][13]

Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[14] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[15] Two factors that have been frequently cited include the liberal use of the Gaussian copula function and the failure to track data provenance.[16]

Gorehound - Member

I suppose Ynot B liar and gordon the moron didn't. They're the ones who left us in this mess.

I'm confused, are you supporting the conservatives, labour, or someone else?

At the end of the day governments swing back and forth between slightly left and slightly right, nothing every really changes between them, it just takes a few years for public opinion to swing far enough the other way again to elect the other lot.

Hence why we have Gorehoud pineing for a socialist utopia, whilst telling us that Labours spending is what got us into the mess and the conservatives are going to get us out of it.

I also cannot tell what he wants. I think he just wants to say it is all shit tbh

At what level should the entry level be set at so as no-one is going to feel hard done by?

It should never be dictated by earnings, rather on what skills can be offered to benefit society by an independent immigrant. British people should be allowed to marry [b]anyone they wish[/b] and expect their country to welcome that decision.

grantway - Member
Makes my blood boil seeing the skilled and the youth leave
and to welcome this shite makes my blood boil
nothing worse than having dinner round my dining table and
advising my Daughter to leave this country whilst she can
than stay in this shit I absolutely hat this country

Where does it become to welcome crap and let the skilled and youth of the country
go so they can have work and a descent life. ?

Feel free to leave any time. Anyone who would refer to people earning less than £25k as crap is detrimental to our society and we would be better off without you and your hate. I genuinely look forward to people like you leaving.

To OP where is your sweetheart from?

If she is from developed country or developing country it might be better for you to join her there ... or ride out the recession and come back later after the recession. You will be more relax by then.

🙂

I don't want a socialist anything. 13 years of socialist govt has put this country right bac to where we were in the late 1970s.

13 years of socialist govt has put this country right bac to where we were in the late 1970s

late 1970's, can you not read 😉

i think they mean the hyperinflation and oil crisis, general strike and 3 day week. You cannot ignore the commonalities between then and now.

PS it may be easier and quicker if you tell us what you want rather than we guess and you use hyperbole as your method of answering.

The OP would be delighted if he could go back to the late 1970s, he could marry his sweetheart and live happily ever after without anyone asking more than a not very probing "you are marrying for love aren't you?"

This was from 1997 to 2010, were you asleep during the labour govt?

i think they mean the hyperinflation and oil crisis, general strike and 3 day week. You cannot ignore the commonalities between then and now

This was from 1997 to 2010, were you asleep during the labour govt?

Bloody nanny state is what I say ... bunch of nosey bastids. Especially that Mr and Mrs Balls.