I hadn't realised the Budget was today, as I thought they were always on Wednesday. Maybe he wanted it out of the way before Roland's interview tomorrow reveals we've been sold to Amazon as part of their next step to global domination.
At the end of the day we are all worse off every year as we have been over the last 10/15 years or so I don't need a budget calculator to tell me I am a tenner a month better off because 'in real terms' I never am.
I hadn't realised the Budget was today, as I thought they were always on Wednesday. Maybe he wanted it out of the way before Roland's interview tomorrow reveals we've been sold to Amazon as part of their next step to global domination.
They are, they didn't want to do it on Halloween because of the obvious headlines. True story.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Don't think there is much to complain about with this Budget - Hammond looking after the hard working family man/woman.
Brexit has been a car crash and I would find it pretty difficult to put an X in a box for Theresa May if there was an election tomorrow but when it comes to the day to day economy there really is only one party I would trust. Hammond has done a decent job in trying to end 'austerity' or as I prefer to call it 'not spending money we haven't got'.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
What a great budget, im likey to be a whole £130 a year better off and schools recieved less extra money than pot holes. All of which is complete bollox as that whole budget depending on a good brexit.
Its a bit like when the lib dems offerred free tuition.... knowing they had fuck all chance of it going ahead.
Surprisingly there was no changes to the Pensions Annual Allowance or the Lifetime Allowance (apart from the increase in line with CPI to £1.055m). It was mooted that the AA would be cut from its current £40k level and/or the tapered amount would drop from the current £150k level.
bloody annoying......would have given me a reason to ring all my clients.
Now Austerity has ended no need - probably next year then. Can't you ring them all and advise 'fill up quick'?
just the opposite. many of my clients have problem enough with what is already going in contractually (NHS scheme) & often unknowingly breach the AA.
This is to anyone out there that is in a defined benefit scheme......do yourself a favour & read up what constitutes your annual allowance......its not what you or your employer contributes !!
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
2019/20 cap will be £1.055 m, which is a pension of roughly £45k pa (if you include the lump sum). Yes, a massive pension but is the norm for virtually all NHS consultants & GP's. One of the reasons why there is such a shortage of GP's at the moment. Many are retiring early or not continuing to work past 60 if they take it then....or reducing their sessions. Unintended consequences. Also, if a GP is a partner in a practice they are self employed & so pay the employers pension contribution to the NHS pension scheme as well as their own. This means just over 26% in pension contributions as well as 40% tax.....plus NI.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
It doesn't, but as relative percentage of total IT reduction of this 'budget windfall' are .52% against .052%.
The 5.48% increase in the starting threshold is good news. IMO it narrows down the work v benefit debate and encourages part timers to earn up to limit should they wish to, without effecting their benefits.
Although not perfect, but it's the only way it can be done with a progressive tax system, unless you start to complicate by introducing more tax bands.
I also think you need to include the relative VAT spends for each household as a comparative measure.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
The cap is the limit above which any contributions would not attract tax relief.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
The cap is the limit above which any contributions would not attract tax relief.
we're talking about the lifetime allowance. Anything above the cap is taxed at 55% if taken as a lump sum. If taken as income its taxed at 25% & then at your marginal rate.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
Spot on, although I’d always have the tax free allowance based on minimum wage x7 hours x 5 days x 52 weeks.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
I like the Lib Dem idea of combining capital gains and dividends tax into income tax and raising the personal allowance a couple of grand or so more. Gets a bit more from those that are making a bit of money whilst the average worker gets more money in their pocket
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
So the quarter of a million tax free lump sum isn't enough?
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
So the quarter of a million tax free lump sum isn't enough?
Excuse my ignorance, but dont you pay into pension ... out of wages that have already been taxed ?
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
So the quarter of a million tax free lump sum isn't enough?
Excuse my ignorance, but dont you pay into pension ... out of wages that have already been taxed ?
If you get tax relief at your marginal rate then it is the equivalent of paying it from Gross not Net.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
So the quarter of a million tax free lump sum isn't enough?
Excuse my ignorance, but dont you pay into pension ... out of wages that have already been taxed ?
Mine goes in gross. Enables me to maximise my tax savings.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
So the quarter of a million tax free lump sum isn't enough?
You said the pension was tax free - it isn't. Yes the lump sum is and the whole private pension principle is to enable people to provide for themselves during retirement rather than relying purely on the state, so it needs to be incentivised.
I have an issue with tax relief on contributions, and always have. It should be at a flat rate and not the highest rate you pay - that has always seemed regressive to me.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
Spot on, although I’d always have the tax free allowance based on minimum wage x7 hours x 5 days x 52 weeks.
I suspect it’d model quite well.
When’s your manifesto out :wink:
It's in first draft but I'm struggling for a catchy slogan!
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
So the quarter of a million tax free lump sum isn't enough?
You said the pension was tax free - it isn't.
I probably didn't make myself clear - and not for the first time!
"Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that", relates to the pension savings post the £1m limit, which offers some taxable benefit.
Basically only the fist million of your pensions attracts this level of benefit - buy bonds if you like with anything over this limit, but the profits on those will be taxable.
Nice to be in a position where my total pension savings are grater than £1m.
According to the BBC calculator a person earning £30,000 a year with two kids is £12.92 a month better off. A person earning £500,000 a year with no kids is £21.67 a month better off.
That's just not right.
Does seem a bit odd, trying to work that calculator out.
Just assuming no kids, no petrol, no alcohol etc etc for a minute;
Makes sense now I think about it (if not right) with the two bands they've moved (tax free and extending 20%/reducing 40%) that the biggest winners are 40% payers up to when you lose your personal allowance.
I'd have raised the tax free allowance higher and kept the 40% band where it was. With the changes since 2010 they've run out of options to not effect the higher earners (as in 125k+) and change anything bar personal allowance.
Yes, I understand how it works that way - it's just not morally right.
Not raising where the 45p band comes in helps to offset it I guess with inflation, haven’t seen anything on that so assume it’s staying where it is. But agree with your point that it just seems wrong. Hopefully they will continue to increase the tax free allowance.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
What does my head is the main things like personal allowance and child benefit start to disappear above certain thresholds, which to be is an incredibly complicated and distorting way of doing it. Have higher rates for higher earners above a certain threshold, fine, at least that way it's easy and logical to calculate.
Totally agree. For me something like:
0-£15,000 - No Tax £15,001 - £50,000 20% £50,000 - £100,000 40% £100,001 - £150,000 45% £150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
the lifetime allowance cap is one of the biggest tax grabs going......probably funding the NHS on its on.
I think it's an excellent idea. Capping the tax free element of your pension put at £1m.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
If only the pension was tax free!
So the quarter of a million tax free lump sum isn't enough?
Excuse my ignorance, but dont you pay into pension ... out of wages that have already been taxed ?
It depends!
Company salary sacrifice schemes are paid gross. Some company auto enrolment schemes (eg Nest) are paid net and later reclaim the basic tax relief on behalf of the employee. Those lucky enough to earn sufficient to pay tax at higher rates can reply the higher rate element themselves either via a self assessment tax return or contacting HMRC direct themselves.
The self employed (and any remaining employees with no company pension scheme) will now pay their premiums net (unless their scheme is a pre 1987 one via retirement annuity relief in which case the payments are gross and effectively count as 'extra' personal allowance) and reclaim any tax relief via their self assessment tax return.
This is a very general summary and there are and will be exceptions but the above describes most straightforward situations hopefully!
Comments
Brexit has been a car crash and I would find it pretty difficult to put an X in a box for Theresa May if there was an election tomorrow but when it comes to the day to day economy there really is only one party I would trust. Hammond has done a decent job in trying to end 'austerity' or as I prefer to call it 'not spending money we haven't got'.
We could really do with a much simplified tax system. It’s been tinkered with around the edges for ages making it far too complicated and results in issues like you’ve highlighted.
Just have a sizeable tax free allowance for all and then 2/3 bands at whatever they need to be.
Its a bit like when the lib dems offerred free tuition.... knowing they had fuck all chance of it going ahead.
This is to anyone out there that is in a defined benefit scheme......do yourself a favour & read up what constitutes your annual allowance......its not what you or your employer contributes !!
0-£15,000 - No Tax
£15,001 - £50,000 20%
£50,000 - £100,000 40%
£100,001 - £150,000 45%
£150,001 and above 50%
No messing around with losing personal allowance above £100k, and flat rate 20% tax relief on pension contributions without tapering as it is now. Annual pension cap of £50,000 and no lifetime allowance cap.
I have no idea how that would model, though, compared to the current tax take.
2019/20 cap will be £1.055 m, which is a pension of roughly £45k pa (if you include the lump sum). Yes, a massive pension but is the norm for virtually all NHS consultants & GP's. One of the reasons why there is such a shortage of GP's at the moment. Many are retiring early or not continuing to work past 60 if they take it then....or reducing their sessions. Unintended consequences. Also, if a GP is a partner in a practice they are self employed & so pay the employers pension contribution to the NHS pension scheme as well as their own. This means just over 26% in pension contributions as well as 40% tax.....plus NI.
The 5.48% increase in the starting threshold is good news. IMO it narrows down the work v benefit debate and encourages part timers to earn up to limit should they wish to, without effecting their benefits.
Although not perfect, but it's the only way it can be done with a progressive tax system, unless you start to complicate by introducing more tax bands.
I also think you need to include the relative VAT spends for each household as a comparative measure.
Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that.
Or buy a football Club.
The cap is the limit above which any contributions would not attract tax relief.
I suspect it’d model quite well.
When’s your manifesto out
I have an issue with tax relief on contributions, and always have. It should be at a flat rate and not the highest rate you pay - that has always seemed regressive to me.
"Just 'earn' your even bigger pension elsewhere, but pay tax on the income earned from that", relates to the pension savings post the £1m limit, which offers some taxable benefit.
Basically only the fist million of your pensions attracts this level of benefit - buy bonds if you like with anything over this limit, but the profits on those will be taxable.
Nice to be in a position where my total pension savings are grater than £1m.
Company salary sacrifice schemes are paid gross. Some company auto enrolment schemes (eg Nest) are paid net and later reclaim the basic tax relief on behalf of the employee. Those lucky enough to earn sufficient to pay tax at higher rates can reply the higher rate element themselves either via a self assessment tax return or contacting HMRC direct themselves.
The self employed (and any remaining employees with no company pension scheme) will now pay their premiums net (unless their scheme is a pre 1987 one via retirement annuity relief in which case the payments are gross and effectively count as 'extra' personal allowance) and reclaim any tax relief via their self assessment tax return.
This is a very general summary and there are and will be exceptions but the above describes most straightforward situations hopefully!