Forum menu
Thats right graham s - only those on band 8 will get into 40% tax band
But you said they [i]"never get close to £40 000"[/i] and [i]"Almost no nurses will"[/i]
That clearly shows that nurses band 7 and above can earn 40k or more.
And that's nursing, not a profession that is associated with high pay scales.
And is before you consider external factors such as pension, NHS Discounts, subsidised accommodation.
Care to look at doctors? Surgeons?
Thats right - almost no nurses will reach the top of band 7 or band 8. a very small % do.
But TJ - those nurses and binmen are amazingly well off. The average wage in Kosovo is $6500.
almost no nurses will reach the top of band 7 or band 8. a very small % do.
Hmmm Band 7 comprises of:
Health visitor specialist
Health visitor team manager
Midwife higher level
Midwife higher level (research projects)
Midwife team manager
Nurse advanced
Nurse advanced (schools)
Nurse team manager
Nurse team manager (learning disabilities)
Nurse team manager (mental health) community
Nurse team manager (NHS Direct)
Nurse team manager (schools)
Nurse team manager (community)
Nursing health visitor specialist (community practice teacher)
Seems like there would be quite a few of those roles across the UK.
Okay. [url= http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm ]How about Police?[/url] Again, not a job known for very high pay.
Rank of Sergeant is £36,519 - £41,040 plus a "competence related threshold payment" (plus possibly a £2,277 London weighting)
Are you telling me there are hardly any sergeants?
But TJ - those nurses and binmen are amazingly well off. The average wage in Kosovo is $6500.
This is true. 50% of the world live on less than $2 a day. Even the very poorest in the UK are very "well off" (as we've already established that location and living costs should not be considered).
Across the UK band 7 does not get you into higher rate tax - only if you hit the top point and get inner london weighting - and again you show your ignorance - there are very few people in those positions.
the only nurse that will hit the 40% tax band are band 7s at the top of their scale in inner london and band 8 with a few years seniority.
Both rare.
Across the UK band 7 does not get you into higher rate tax
Stop moving your goalposts.
You said that [i]"£40 000+ is riches to be dreamt of not acheivable saleries"[/i] and that [i]"Almost no nurses will"[/i] earn that.
Band 7 gets you to £40,000 basic salary, without even considering supplements such as [url= http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/supplements_-_unsocial_hours__and__oncall/unsocial_hours ]unsocial hours payment[/url], [url= http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/working_hours,_overtime,_annual_leave ]overtime[/url], or [url= http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/supplements_-_unsocial_hours__and__oncall/on_call ]on-call payment[/url]. Or the external benefits and nice pension.
So explain to me again how 40k is not an achievable salary then?
That's really the issue isn't it? People have an expectation that if they earn £Xk salary, they can live a certain lifestyle, have a certain quality of house/area/car/holidays/etc. which then eats into that extra money and means that they don't have much more disposable cash than when they earned less.
There's certainly an element to that - but not in the BiL example I cited ^^, that really was down to moving with work to a very expensive area.
Personally speaking, we've spent too much on cars over the last decade. Not choices made to satisfy personal petrolhead fetishes, but made largely to satisfy work requirements and car allowance rules.
As I posted on the "Parent's House" thread - in this country there is a fairly compelling argument for backpedalling, taking the social's coin and not advancing yourself. Pursuing ambition, career enhancement and additional responsibilities attracts more salary, but also considerably more costs
And that's basically why TJ does have a point, though I'll reiterate that the way he presents it as ever makes it hard to win any one over...
TJ's point is quite right, in essence, but the black / white nature of it, and as you say, dogmatic presentation, ignores a few key considerations
I earn pretty much bang on that £42K line
Am I well off?
Well, I'm the only wage earner in our house
Up until the 2 girls left to make their own way in the world and we finished paying the mortgage, we struggled at times, now we're comfortable
so it depends 🙂
TJ's point about 'wealthy' is silly. Wealthy is a meaningless word without precise definition and there isn't one that everyone will agree on. From what I know of TJ's circumstances, I know people who would consider him loaded though I'm sure he'd disagree.
Well, I'm the only wage earner in our house
Which brings us back to the point that individual salary, rather than total household income, is a very poor measure of wealth.
having had a conversation with my kids primary school head about the schools poor performance he blamed the recent problems at the school on 'poor rewards' for the teaching staff.. i cited that the average full time equivilant at the school was 39500 which was above the regional average he said he was having to pay top scales as very few were prepared to work in our little community faith school and that he had been the only candidate for head so again had been offered a premium.
checking the other 4 primaries in our village ours has the second most expensive staff and the most teaching hours per pupil the lowest absenteeism and cannot achieve the academic levels reached by a school in near by rochdale where 1 school is 70% non english speakers in reception and yet come year 5/6 they are better at it than my kids school..
i dont care how much they get paid.. I just want them to do the job. if a nurse saves my life ( and they have) give them the earth if a teacher cant get a bright native speaker to the same level as non speaker what do they deserve..
GrahamS - Member
Ah gotcha thanks.So you're saying that to have been in the Pre-tax Top 10% (for 2009-10) you had to earning £46,600 or more before tax.
And to be in the Post Tax Top 10% you had to be left with £39,200 after tax.
[b]Hmm... doesn't that mean you can be top 10% pre-tax but not post?[/b]
According to Stanley a salary of £46,600pa in 2009-10 should leave you with £33,805 after paying £8,570 income tax and £4,224 NI.
Yes. Because not all income is taxed at the same rate (pensions, property income, investment income), and the figures are averages.
To re-iterate the top 10% of earners in the UK earn over £39,200 [b]after tax[/b].
Given this discussion is about child benefit, there is some interesting difference between income levels between age groups. But that is still focusing on individuals, not households (where the majority of kids live).
To re-iterate the top 10% of earners in the UK earn over £39,200 after tax.
Thanks.
Should I interpret this as further evidence against TJ's point that a higher rate taxpayer is automatically in the top 10% wealthiest people in the country?
I think the point about individual versus household income is the most important one.
TJ would have it that someone earning 50k [u]must[/u] be "well off" and can therefore afford higher tax and less benefits, regardless of circumstance.
However a household with a single 50k income has £36,656 after tax.
That's a decent amount. No argument.
However a household with both parents on £25k (i.e. below the national average) will have £38,976 after tax, but is apparently not "well off" by the same measure and still entitled to child benefit and any other benefits based on individual income.
We're also leaving off over time in these calculations. As a private sector employee I do not get paid overtime for evenings, weekends etc etc.
Friends of mine in the public sector have a lower basic but make significant amounts in Overtime.
I also find the pre tax / post tax comparison a little disingenuous. I am in the top 10% pre tax, I am significantly below that post tax for one reason and another. I could earn a million pre tax but if my post Tax is 24K I don't benefit from it. Interestingly our top 10% pre tax income leaves me below the 26K maximum benefits threshold mentioned previously.
graham s
Well put
Some people on here can't see the wood for the trees.
Agreed household income is key to this debate and actually the key to fair taxation but we won't go there.
Graham, just remember, TJ don't ski. 🙂
Of course someone on £50k can afford to lose benefits. Surely the question is can someone on £40k do so. If the answer is yes, then the rest is irrelevant unless you haven't learnt that life isn't always fair.
What bothers me more is the inequity between households with the same income depending on how the income is split. If you have two households on 60k one with a single earner and the other with two below the 40% threshold then the two income household pays lower taxes so has a higher take home pay. In addition they get the extra help. The person who pays more gets hit twice, once in the tax and again in the lack of child benefit. So in effect single income higher rate payers may well be less well off.
Higher rate payers are not necessarily well off but we are better off than some. its all about your hpusehold's mix AND what other free help you get (grandparents doing free childcare etc).
Edit: I am absolutely not complaining about what we have or even losing the benefit but I am fed up of being a soft target for political capital.
It's very easy to manage if they simply stop it for anyone in the 40% bracket - the tax system simply does it
figuring out dual incomes will be a nightmare for them
Looking at these income statistics makes me wonder even more how bike companies get away with their 2012 pricing? Who is buying all these £3-5k bikes?
Have you seen how much tandems cost? 🙂
I think that the conclusion is that after 150+ post there is no simple solution.
Living in a low rent area as isn't going to provide high paying jobs, therefore high tax band have to live in area of high demand therefore high costs.
The families might have one or two parents and one, two or three children and their associated living and childcare costs.
Why should a two parent family where only one parent works, but doesn't earn enough to qualify for the higher tax band, but has a parent at home to look after the child receive benefits?
The children in that environment will be receiving a lot more than the high earners who provide nannies, kindergartens and prep schools for Tarquin and Jemima?
CFH - you made me spill my beer!!! 😉
If you have two households on 60k one with a single earner and the other with two below the 40% threshold then the two income household pays lower taxes so has a higher take home pay.
The single earner could get a poorer paying job and get their freeloading partner into McDonalds flipping burgers. Problem solved!
Who is buying all these £3-5k bikes?
not me that's for sure
mine started out as a £500 Trigger's broom 6 or 7 years ago and has morphed over the years into a road sweeper 🙂
never had the funds for more than a few hundred at a time
tj "Its still irrelevant - £42000 earnings put you in the richest 10% of the population therefore very well off"
no it doesn't put you in the richest 10% - i earn close to that but am nowhere near the richest 10% in the country.
I live in a 3 bed semi in cannock, married, Mrs Gixer due a nipper in June, mortgage, credit card, loans to pay off. I am not poor, but i have worked damned hard to get where i am today - used to work on concrete gangs, construction labouring, kitchen porter, farm labourer etc.
I pay a lot in tax and national insurance every month, with very little benefits coming back to us. Pay for dental, prescriptions etc, Occassional long weekend away with Mrs.
Neighbours across the road and to our left went on 4 overseas holidays last year, drink every night, taxis to the pub and back every Friday and Saturday, smoke like effin chimneys - do they work - do the bollocks - makes me wonder why i don't get a wee tax break every now and again - maybe like when Gixer Jnr is born....... but oh no i'm effin rich according to some eejits.
I like the idea of a univeral benefit regardless of income - a state recognition if you will for bringing up the next generation who will look after TJ in his old age. 😉
When you look to claim statutory redundancy you have to declare savings, friend end
ed up getting nowt as he had money stashed. They means test some benfits and not others. Needs standardisation to make it fair for all. If that costs money to implement, hey we have plenty of unemployed who need jobs, I,d rather they did that than claim the dole.
And i,ll say it again good income does not mean you are wealthy. I have a colleague who's house was paid for outright by inheritance, they have £1k per month less outgoings than me, live in a bigger house and have nice cars. I earn slightly more, they qualify for benefits, we don't. Yes it is tough sh!t but it sucks.
Off to polish my Rolex in my merc and get jeeves to bring me some cavier
It would seem £42000 is a good wage as long as you make "lifestyle" choices commensurate with your location.
Some on the forum bemoan the jobless having extra children and expecting the state to pick up the tab, this argument is just at the other end of the earning scale.
Gixer.John illustrates this perfectly (I make no judgement on his choices they are his and do not affect my lifestyle).
i earn close to that but am nowhere near the richest 10% in the country.
You don't really understand how this works, do you? 😛
TJ your argument falls down though because you're only considering a single income position. Of course its hard raising a family on 25k but a lot easier on 2 x25k especially if you work opposing shifts so save on childcare. Even if you don't 2 x 25k means two sets of childcare vouchers and a more tax efficient overall income. So who's better off financially the sole earner 40% payer or the split income. Of course if you have a higher rate earner and a second earner the balance can change again. In short its not black and white.
My point simply stands.
If you pay higher rate tax you are amongst the highest earning 10% in the country and thus are well off in comparison to the 90% who earn less than you.
simple facts.
Some of you need a reality check so badly
😆
Aarrgh!
If you pay higher rate tax you are amongst the highest earning 10% in the country and thus are well off in comparison to the 90% who earn less than you.simple facts.
Except several people have pointed out that this "simple fact" IS NOT TRUE!
And you're completely ignoring my (and several others) point that a household with two incomes of £25k (below the national average) is [u]several grand better off[/u] than a household with one 50k earner - yet somehow they are not in your theoretical top 10% and are still entitled to child benefit.
That is [i]reality[/i].
Aren't those figures TJ is listing for employees? Do they include sole traders, businessmen, investments etc?
I bet there is a big difference between being in the top 10% wage earners and the top 10% for annual income.
🙄
How can you be in the top 10% of earners and not be well off - its ridiculous to suggest otherwise
If a household has a single earner, earning [i]just[/i] enough to sneak into the 40% tax bracket, what % does that put them at if we look at household income?
It must be the reverse of the Chinese Water Torture!!! But at least TJ is now moving the argument [b]to relatively better off[/b] ("in comparison with") rather than the[b] absolute protestations[/b] of earlier.
{damn, x-post, I take it back! Its absolute again - aaarrrggh!]
You mean all these protestations that you are living in poverty with an income over £42000 a year yes they are absurd aren't they
some of you guys just live in a parallel universe It really is laughable how out of touch with reality you are.
completely ridiculous
Give up. Either dumb or trolling now. I,m out.
How can you be in the top 10% of earners and not be well off
A Higher Rate taxpayer IS NOT IN THE TOP 10% of earners. We established that some time ago. With tables and everything. You need to be clearing ~£40k [u]AFTER TAX[/u] to be in the top 10%.
Furthermore, as repeated many times, what matters is Household Income (and outgoings), NOT individual earnings.
Just laughing at all the folk who think £42000 a year is not well off.
Hello - this is reality calling
If a household has a single earner, earning just enough to sneak into the 40% tax bracket, what % does that put them at if we look at household income?
Yeah I'd like to know this too.
I wouldn't be surprised if something like the top 40% or so of Household Incomes are houses with two or more incomes coming in, since that is considerably more tax efficient.