Discussion
Halb said:
I was asking, not stating. In the post I quoted, it said 45 over 100k.
Thank you for explaining it.
Yes I was including the 40% rate between 40k and 100k Thank you for explaining it.
Ans yes no personal allowance above 100k income
However rather than argue about a couple of grand here or there. 14% vs 40% is the headline
There is NO tax equality in the UK between low income and high income earners. A flat rate would be a far fairer system as high earners would still pay FAR more tax, but at least at a more equitable rate.
Gargamel said:
...Ans yes no personal allowance above 100k income
...
Not quite - your allowance tapers off over 100k. It's fully gone once you hit 122k....
Gargamel said:
...
There is NO tax equality in the UK between low income and high income earners. A flat rate would be a far fairer system as high earners would still pay FAR more tax, but at least at a more equitable rate.
...
Totally agree. It would also make the tax system just a smidgen simpler too, which is very badly needed.There is NO tax equality in the UK between low income and high income earners. A flat rate would be a far fairer system as high earners would still pay FAR more tax, but at least at a more equitable rate.
...
Imo it's completely ridiculous that someone is expected to give half of anything they earn to the government, and still get criticised for not paying their fair share, it's no wonder there are so many tax avoidance schemes in place. I pay myself far less than I could simply because I begrudge paying any more to HMRC, I'd rather let the money build up in the company bank account until such time I can access it in a tax efficient way.
Halb said:
gruffalo said:
I believe you are incorrect.
Because of the earning over £100 rule there is no tax allowance so I believe it would be as follows.
0-31k @ 25% so £7.75k
31-150k @ 40% so £47.6k
150-250k @ 45% so £45k
So £100.35 in tax or just over 40% averaged tax rate, and apparently anyone successful enough to earn this sort of cash should pay more!
Why bother?
I was asking, not stating. In the post I quoted, it said 45 over 100k.Because of the earning over £100 rule there is no tax allowance so I believe it would be as follows.
0-31k @ 25% so £7.75k
31-150k @ 40% so £47.6k
150-250k @ 45% so £45k
So £100.35 in tax or just over 40% averaged tax rate, and apparently anyone successful enough to earn this sort of cash should pay more!
Why bother?
Thank you for explaining it.
A single tax rate that every one pays with no exceptions would be fairer and make thousands of tax lawyer redundant, it seems the logical way to go.
gruffalo said:
Halb said:
Gargamel said:
A Labour voter earns say £25,000 a year down t'pit. They aren't taxed on the first £10,800 of income. They pay 25% on the rest. - keeping it simple they are going to pay around £3500 in income tax
A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
The Toff pays 25% of 100K? = 25k? And 45% of 150k? = 67.5k? So, 92.5k?A Tory Toff earns £250,000 a year, they get no tax free allowance and pay at 45% for everything over 100,000
Total tax - 101,500
Example 1. 14% of income in tax
Example 2. 40 of income tax
How is that fair ?
Because of the earning over £100 rule there is no tax allowance so I believe it would be as follows.
0-31k @ 25% so £7.75k
31-150k @ 40% so £47.6k
150-250k @ 45% so £45k
So £100.35 in tax or just over 40% averaged tax rate, and apparently anyone successful enough to earn this sort of cash should pay more!
Why bother?
Gah - you're all wrong, every one of you so far! I ignored it the first time but can no longer. Please stop guessing at tax rate bands and just use an online calculator, e.g. https://listentotaxman.com/
gruffalo said:
If it came across that I was having a pop at you then sorry I wasn't, I just thought I would with reasonable accuracy show how it works out.
A single tax rate that every one pays with no exceptions would be fairer and make thousands of tax lawyer redundant, it seems the logical way to go.
Thank you for elucidating that as well. I am not a mathematical type, my field is more the creative zone, but I do like logic. I am always genuinely thankful for people explaining the economics of a situation. A single tax rate that every one pays with no exceptions would be fairer and make thousands of tax lawyer redundant, it seems the logical way to go.
AJL308 said:
Surely though you arrange to earn it through a limited company of which you are a director and shareholder? The company pays you a minimal wage (£110 quid a week or whatever gets you the NI contribution stamp), pays 20% tax on it's profits and pays you the rest in share dividend which you don't pay tax on? So, you pay effectively 20%, not 45%.
I wish!AJL308 said:
Surely though you arrange to earn it through a limited company of which you are a director and shareholder? The company pays you a minimal wage (£110 quid a week or whatever gets you the NI contribution stamp), pays 20% tax on it's profits and pays you the rest in share dividend which you don't pay tax on? So, you pay effectively 20%, not 45%.
why would you not want to pay a fair share of tax just like those who pay it through PAYE.schmunk said:
Gah - you're all wrong, every one of you so far! I ignored it the first time but can no longer. Please stop guessing at tax rate bands and just use an online calculator, e.g. https://listentotaxman.com/
From that site:Salary: £25,000
=========
Net deductions: £4,832.80
Effective tax rate: 19%
Salary: £250,000
==========
Net deductions: £106,933.20
Effective tax rate 43%
Both include NI.
RYH64E said:
AJL308 said:
Surely though you arrange to earn it through a limited company of which you are a director and shareholder? The company pays you a minimal wage (£110 quid a week or whatever gets you the NI contribution stamp), pays 20% tax on it's profits and pays you the rest in share dividend which you don't pay tax on? So, you pay effectively 20%, not 45%.
I wish!And most people in the financial services industry are PAYE. So all those awful bankers are paying the tax that they owe. The b
ds."The best-paid 1pc already contribute 27pc of the income tax. (They earn about 12pc of salaries). The best-paid 3,000 contribute, on average, £2.6 million in tax per year. To listen to the hype, you’d be forgiven for thinking the richest pay not a penny in tax. The truth is that the UK income tax system is reliant upon a very small number of highly mobile rich people."
Talking about by-elections.
Liberal Democrat GAIN Totnes (South Hams) from Labour.
This just happened. Apparently Momentum hijacked the local constituency party and put up a hard left candidate who was declared ineligible because they'd been a member for less than a year. They stood as an independent and got thrashed. Momentum wouldn't allow another candidate to stand.
I wonder if Corbyn will whinge about the lack of coverage there
Liberal Democrat GAIN Totnes (South Hams) from Labour.
This just happened. Apparently Momentum hijacked the local constituency party and put up a hard left candidate who was declared ineligible because they'd been a member for less than a year. They stood as an independent and got thrashed. Momentum wouldn't allow another candidate to stand.
I wonder if Corbyn will whinge about the lack of coverage there
AstonZagato said:
Quite. Dividends are taxed.
And most people in the financial services industry are PAYE. So all those awful bankers are paying the tax that they owe. The bds.
Lucky their bonuses aren't performance related. If they were, many would be on benefits & not contributing to the tax take. Every cloud....And most people in the financial services industry are PAYE. So all those awful bankers are paying the tax that they owe. The b
ds.AstonZagato said:
"The best-paid 1pc already contribute 27pc of the income tax. (They earn about 12pc of salaries). The best-paid 3,000 contribute, on average, £2.6 million in tax per year. To listen to the hype, you’d be forgiven for thinking the richest pay not a penny in tax. The truth is that the UK income tax system is reliant upon a very small number of highly mobile rich people."
If you're on £1m per year gross, then I think we're all in agreement that a monthly net take home of £45k is a struggle.Maybe some of that money should be invested in a better accountant.
zygalski said:
AstonZagato said:
Quite. Dividends are taxed.
And most people in the financial services industry are PAYE. So all those awful bankers are paying the tax that they owe. The bds.
Lucky their bonuses aren't performance related. If they were, many would be on benefits & not contributing to the tax take. Every cloud....And most people in the financial services industry are PAYE. So all those awful bankers are paying the tax that they owe. The b
ds.zygalski said:
AstonZagato said:
"The best-paid 1pc already contribute 27pc of the income tax. (They earn about 12pc of salaries). The best-paid 3,000 contribute, on average, £2.6 million in tax per year. To listen to the hype, you’d be forgiven for thinking the richest pay not a penny in tax. The truth is that the UK income tax system is reliant upon a very small number of highly mobile rich people."
If you're on £1m per year gross, then I think we're all in agreement that a monthly net take home of £45k is a struggle.It almost sounds as though aiming to struggle financially and succeeding has something worthy about it.
Total deductions of over £450k pa - more than enough and not far off the take-home amount.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff