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 - MemberIs 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 [b]and child benefit[/b] 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.
[quote=shotsaway said]
So win/win for him.
Until HMRC decide to investigate the company books and query the Company Secretary salary.
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.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.
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.
ask a simple question.. why does someone earning one thousand pounds a week.. a thousand pounds a week.. need 20 quid extra a week to raise thier kid?
i d much rather the 20 quid was spent on someone who would see a real difference for that 20 quid..
I have the lovely situation of earning £60k with my wife not workingWhilst 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
Not rude.
But also incorrect. Mortgage is about £12k a year, which is nearly half my net income after pension contributions. Then there's council tax, utilities, insurance. We end up with about £100 a month for frivolity.
Which is hardly rich, but according to the taxation system.....we're evidently loaded.
Mortgage is too big then, thats a choice. Benefits should be for those who cannot opt to pay 12k a year on their mortgage.
Tonyd.
Not accurate in the slightest.
I live in one of the lowest paid counties, Herefordshire, which has one of the highest housing costs when compared to salary. The housing costs are nowhere near southeast prices, I'm not claiming that, but the difference between salary and housing is high. I can't afford to buy a house, never have been in the financial position to. Low paid or average salary up until a couple of years ago.
I earn above the national average, but not by much. I recieve no benefits other than Child Benefit. The Wife and I made a decision when we had kids that she would stay at home to raise them. When they were old enough she returned to college, got qualified, and now works part time as a SEN Teaching Assistant. Works term time only, 15 hours per week for just above minimum wage, to ensure no child care problems.
I lived and worked in London, a long time ago admittedly, but decided that it was not the environment in which I wanted to live and eventually raise a family. Where to live, work, raise a family are choices I / We made.
You do not have to live in the southeast and work in London. You do not have to buy or rent a high priced house. These are choices you make.
To claim its hard to make ends meet on £50k is ludicrous. You really do need to have word with yourself.
well you are paying a 12 K mortgage - that is about 70-80% of the average earning net ish and you can afford a pension on top and its not even half your net earnings
You then have over £1k after your mortgage and pension.
You must be paying a lot for something if there is you only have £100 left over from that
Whilst you may not feel rich currently but in say 20 years time when you own the house and have the healthy pension pot you may feel differently
Someone poor will still be renting, may have had to move somewhere cheaper etc. You iwll retire to the coast with a nice pot from a house sale and a good size pension pot - and you will still think you are not well off - if my retired parents reaction is anything to go by.
Some of it is relative but really you cannot believe you are amongst the neediest in or society and at x 2 the average wage you are rich whether you accept it or not.
A few years ago this withdrawal would really have hurt us. At the time my income would have been c£61k and my wife's £25k. It sounds a lot doesn't it! Until you consider that...
- As part of my car allowance I had to fund a 4 door premium brand car less than 3 years old - £400 p/m
- My wide needed a newer reliable car also for her then job as a community nurse that could hold 3 child eats and two adults - £200 p/m
- We unexpectedly were the parents of twins rather than a single baby needed a lot of additional equipment
- The provider of our childcare, my mother-in-law passed away suddenly at the age of 59. (Totally OT, but one of the greatest people I ever met...)
- Decent child care started to cost us £1600 per month - only just under £500 provided by tax free vouchers - so I had to earn c£1500 p/m gross to pay the remainder
- The mortgage we were locked into without huge penalties, would not allow us to extend despite having only 12 years left and significant equity £1100 p/m
- Insurances for cars, home etc... c£220 p/m
- Utilities c£150 p/m
- Council tax c£115 p/m
Total earnings after tax and pensions - c£4200 p/m
Total fixed costs - c£3585
(And let's face it I have not included all of those...)
That would leave us with c£615p/m to provide food, clothing, commuting fuel (Significant amount for both of us...), for a family of five who preferred to eat freshly prepared non-convenience food - healthier but certainly not cheaper, did not go out a lot, did not smoke or drink and were not addicted to fashion/gambling/shopping/gadgets etc...
If one thing went wrong in a month e.g. washing machine broke or car broken into or child taken ill and had to pay huge car parking fees - all of which and many more happened, we were in a bad place.
The extra money that child benefit provided really kept us afloat...
jamj1974 - if your childcare was £1,600pm and your wifes car requirements were £200pm why was she still going to work?
Because...
- She loves her career and actually believes she is giving back to society by doing so (very important for her)
- Spending 5 days a week at home with 3 children under 3 may have driven her mad - and for clarity I mean clinically it may have made her mentally ill. Can you imagine spending at least 45 waking ours a week housebound. The difficulty involved in taking 3 children of that age out is huge with or without a car...
I've no doubt you had you reasons, but you can hardly claim poverty when you are making those choices. FWIW - lots of women (and not a few men) manage to look after 3 kids without going mental.
Spending 5 days a week at home with 3 children under 3 may have driven her mad
Perhaps that explains why my poor mother is the way she is as she looked after 3 of us - poor thing.
My wife works 1 day a week as she doesn't earn enough to pay for the childcare - actually she could do 2 but her employer won't let her.
