child benefit..

GrahamS – Member
I may just need a coffee, but I have no idea how to read that table or what it shows. Can you explain it and where you get your £39,200 figure from?

Sorry different table: table 3.1 page 33

rkk01 – Member

“very few public servants will ever get into that £40 000+ bracket. So how do you think nurses, teachers, etc manage in the south east?”

This is disingenuous anyway

Why? Its perfectly valid. It just shows how out of touch with reality you are when you perceive a salary level available to very few in the public sector to be not enough to live on

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.

Hmm… doesn’t that mean you can be top 10% pre-tax but not post?
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.

Why? Its perfectly valid.

Apart from the points about scott_mcavennie2 raised about things like London weighting and access to hospital-provided or subsidised accommodation. Plus other benefits outside the salary/tax scheme that are not available to non-public sector workers.

It just shows how out of touch with reality you are when you perceive a salary level available to very few in the public sector to be not enough to live on

No, it shows how crappy some public sector salaries are (Which is why they got those good pensions in the first place).

And I never said it wasn’t enough to live on, I said that outgoings can be such that even a top 10% salary can still leave people with very little disposable income. Having £50 spare in a month (as per rkk01’s example) is not my idea of “well off”.

Why? Its perfectly valid.

No, I don’t believe that it is.
To quote:

very few public servants will ever get into that £40 000+ bracket

I am sure that there are very similar proportions of workers in both public and private sectors who aspire to, and proceed to, positions of higher responsibility and are therefore paid within those salary levels.

Teachers pay scales extend into mid to high 30s, even without additional allowances. Those that progress to management positions can expect to get paid well into the 40-50+ brackets.

It just shows how out of touch with reality you are when you perceive a salary level available to very few in the public sector* to be not enough to live on

I’ve not said that it is not enough to live on. A salary of 40+ should provide a very comfortable lifestyle.

The point that I am arguing is that it does not equate to being “wealthy”. To pitch the 40% threshold as a definition of being welathy is rather blinkered

* already demonstrated to be falacious

You really are so far out of touch its not funny.

the top 10% of earners not wealthy?

The vast majority of public servants will never get close to £40 000. Teachers are one of the few groups that can get close. Virtually no others can at all. Almost no nurses will – only a very few that get to higher managerial grades managing multiple units will. Local government workers – bin men, school dinner ladies, care workers in council run homes, council workers of all types. £40 000+ is riches to be dreamt of not acheivable saleries

You really do need a large reality check.

If you’ve got a wife, children and a mortgage on a house in the SE to pay for, you won’t feel wealthy on £40k.

You may not feel wealthy but you are as 90% of the workers of the country earn less

The vast majority of public servants will never get close to £40 000. Teachers are one of the few groups that can get close. Virtually no others can at all. Almost no nurses will

The amusing thing about your protests TJ is that I am not a Higher Rate Tax Payer, but my wife, a public servant, is.

As for nurses, hmm…
Band 7: £30,460 – 40,157
Band 8: £38,851 – 80,810
Band 9: £77,079 – 97,478

Plus inner London loading of up to 20 per cent of basic salary (subject to a minimum payment of £4,036 and a maximum payment of £6,217).

http://www.rcn.org.uk/support/pay_and_conditions/pay_rates_2010-2011

If you’ve got a wife, children and a mortgage on a house in the SE to pay for, you won’t feel wealthy on £40k. till you retire and see what the house is worth

FTFY
Someone who was not wealthy would not have the mortgage

You may not feel wealthy but you are as 90% of the workers of the country earn less

If you earn a million pounds, but I take away £999,999 can I still call you a millionaire?

Do you live in a palace with staff and a few cars and three holidays per year to exclusibve resorts but claim you are poor because there is nothing left at the end of the year due ot the “upkeep” of the stately home etc

It is interesting you could earn less than 40 k and be “better off “oop North with a cheaper house for example. That said I still dont see how we can call the top 10% of the uk population anything other than well off.

Looking at those Band figures Armed Forces Nurses earn significantly more than their NHS counterparts, and thus £40k is attainable at a lower Rank/Band.

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.

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…

Thats right graham s – only those on band 8 will get into 40% tax band and those are only those very few nurses managing multiple units get band 8.

A few at the very top of band 7 working in inner london might just scrape in. Again very rare – thats people who have had senior posts for many years – again a tiny minority.

a very few % of nurses will ever reach these levels

Thats right graham s – only those on band 8 will get into 40% tax band

But you said they “never get close to £40 000” and “Almost no nurses will”
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. How about Police? 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 “£40 000+ is riches to be dreamt of not acheivable saleries” and that “Almost no nurses will” earn that.

Band 7 gets you to £40,000 basic salary, without even considering supplements such as unsocial hours payment, overtime, or on-call payment. 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.

Hmm… doesn’t that mean you can be top 10% pre-tax but not post?
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 after tax.

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 must 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!