What salary are you happy with these days?
Discussion
PushedDover said:
Another wrong assumption.
Stop projecting to justify. I’m saying ‘It find it morally wrong to adjust ones salary to take from the state. (And identified as the sole reason from the chap in this instance)
Now, your assumption on me:
You do realise you can be a Director without doing the ‘divi’ vs Salary arrangement, don’t you?
Of note though, is that sort of shenanigans by others not far from this sub-topic if you recall?
So what you are saying is a Director hiving away in a sole Director Ltd Co, squirrelling away via dividends is wrong ?
And then someone on Paye but adjusting to get state aid is ok?
If it is the same dude culpable of both - How does that work ?
Taking from the state, as you've put it, is the same thing as "squirrelling away via dividends". You are not paying as much as you could have into the state.Stop projecting to justify. I’m saying ‘It find it morally wrong to adjust ones salary to take from the state. (And identified as the sole reason from the chap in this instance)
Now, your assumption on me:
You do realise you can be a Director without doing the ‘divi’ vs Salary arrangement, don’t you?
Of note though, is that sort of shenanigans by others not far from this sub-topic if you recall?
So what you are saying is a Director hiving away in a sole Director Ltd Co, squirrelling away via dividends is wrong ?
And then someone on Paye but adjusting to get state aid is ok?
If it is the same dude culpable of both - How does that work ?
Both paying via dividends and salary sacrifice are legitimate, tax efficient practices.
It's just you who seem to think that one is morally wrong and the other is not, as obviously pointed out in your latest post.
PushedDover said:
Another wrong assumption.
Stop projecting to justify. I’m saying ‘It find it morally wrong to adjust ones salary to take from the state. (And identified as the sole reason from the chap in this instance)
Now, your assumption on me:
You do realise you can be a Director without doing the ‘divi’ vs Salary arrangement, don’t you?
Of note though, is that sort of shenanigans by others not far from this sub-topic if you recall?
So what you are saying is a Director hiving away in a sole Director Ltd Co, squirrelling away via dividends is wrong ?
And then someone on Paye but adjusting to get state aid is ok?
If it is the same dude culpable of both - How does that work ?
It's not 'adjusting' ones salary. You get tax relief on pension contributions or charitable donations - do you agree with both of those things?Stop projecting to justify. I’m saying ‘It find it morally wrong to adjust ones salary to take from the state. (And identified as the sole reason from the chap in this instance)
Now, your assumption on me:
You do realise you can be a Director without doing the ‘divi’ vs Salary arrangement, don’t you?
Of note though, is that sort of shenanigans by others not far from this sub-topic if you recall?
So what you are saying is a Director hiving away in a sole Director Ltd Co, squirrelling away via dividends is wrong ?
And then someone on Paye but adjusting to get state aid is ok?
If it is the same dude culpable of both - How does that work ?
It's no more wrong to make a change to your pre tax income to claim child benefit than it is to do salary sacrifice to save income tax on your pension contributions. The net effect is that you give the government a bit less money than you otherwise would.
Just the same as an ISA or any other widely available tax minimisation method.
Salary sacrifice may become a thing of the past if they decide to get rid of higher rate tax relief for pension contributions.
Just the same as an ISA or any other widely available tax minimisation method.
Salary sacrifice may become a thing of the past if they decide to get rid of higher rate tax relief for pension contributions.
PeteinSQ said:
It's no more wrong to make a change to your pre tax income to claim child benefit than it is to do salary sacrifice to save income tax on your pension contributions. The net effect is that you give the government a bit less money than you otherwise would.
Just the same as an ISA or any other widely available tax minimisation method.
Salary sacrifice may become a thing of the past if they decide to get rid of higher rate tax relief for pension contributions.
It must be far more efficient to reduce your tax bill and save for your own retirement, than to pay tax and rely on state benefits later in life. Just the same as an ISA or any other widely available tax minimisation method.
Salary sacrifice may become a thing of the past if they decide to get rid of higher rate tax relief for pension contributions.
PushedDover said:
That’s not what I said (this is becoming a bit 
try to read again)
Tax efficiency is all well.
Claiming welfare is not on ethically, when paid £60k in my opinion.
It's "welfare" that anyone earning less than £50k with children can claim. Even if they're a couple both earning £49999. try to read again)Tax efficiency is all well.
Claiming welfare is not on ethically, when paid £60k in my opinion.
By doing this they're effectively reducing their contribution to the state, they'll still be net contributors and will be claiming less in child benefit than a lot of people are avoiding paying in via other tax strategies.
The only people doing this will be those relatively close to that £50k line.
I'm enjoying the discussion that we have here, and I guess it's answering the OP's question. The salary that I am happy with, today is one where I am able to pay the correct amount of tax, and still receive the same child benefit payments that others in my position might receive. I say others to include two working parents both earning £50k each.
You may have guessed but I vehemently disagree with the way that the HIBC has been implemented. On the face of it, means testing benefits seems like a fair approach, but the HIBC has not been implemented fairly.
I think it's interesting drawing the distinction between being tax efficient vs not claiming benefits. The money goes into, and comes from the same purse - so in practical terms it doesn't really matter. On philosophical or moral terms it clearly has an effect though.
You may have guessed but I vehemently disagree with the way that the HIBC has been implemented. On the face of it, means testing benefits seems like a fair approach, but the HIBC has not been implemented fairly.
I think it's interesting drawing the distinction between being tax efficient vs not claiming benefits. The money goes into, and comes from the same purse - so in practical terms it doesn't really matter. On philosophical or moral terms it clearly has an effect though.
theboss said:
It's not 'adjusting' ones salary. You get tax relief on pension contributions or charitable donations - do you agree with both of those things?
It is adjusting a salary if the sole purpose - and admitted - if to receive child care payments from mc the state.You may all be cool with that- I simply said originally I struggle with how this is ‘acceptable’
jakesmith said:
It must be far more efficient to reduce your tax bill and save for your own retirement, than to pay tax and rely on state benefits later in life.
Efficient for the government?I think that many believe it is unfair that I can pay £1 into my pension and it cost me 60p when it would cost a lower earner 80p (ignoring NI payments.
PeteinSQ said:
jakesmith said:
It must be far more efficient to reduce your tax bill and save for your own retirement, than to pay tax and rely on state benefits later in life.
Efficient for the government?I think that many believe it is unfair that I can pay £1 into my pension and it cost me 60p when it would cost a lower earner 80p (ignoring NI payments.
I pay the same amount of income tax as 80 people on minimum wage. Apparently that makes me greedy and selfish as ‘I could pay a little more’
PushedDover said:
It is adjusting a salary if the sole purpose - and admitted - if to receive child care payments from mc the state.
You may all be cool with that- I simply said originally I struggle with how this is ‘acceptable’
If you're morally ok with avoiding tax you really ought to be morally ok with any legal means of taking money from the state. Especially any means that is completely straightforward and doesn't involve the use of any complex legal framework.You may all be cool with that- I simply said originally I struggle with how this is ‘acceptable’
If you're not comfortable then really you should ensure you're paying the maximum amount of tax that you're theoretically due to pay.
PeteinSQ said:
PushedDover said:
It is adjusting a salary if the sole purpose - and admitted - if to receive child care payments from mc the state.
You may all be cool with that- I simply said originally I struggle with how this is ‘acceptable’
If you're morally ok with avoiding tax you really ought to be morally ok with any legal means of taking money from the state. Especially any means that is completely straightforward and doesn't involve the use of any complex legal framework.You may all be cool with that- I simply said originally I struggle with how this is ‘acceptable’
If you're not comfortable then really you should ensure you're paying the maximum amount of tax that you're theoretically due to pay.
jakesmith said:
It costs you 60p because you’re already paying a ton more tax than the average person.
I pay the same amount of income tax as 80 people on minimum wage. Apparently that makes me greedy and selfish as ‘I could pay a little more’
I know and understand that. Just with all this debt from the current situation they're going to come after those of us with more. Not much point in trying to get blood out of a stone. I pay the same amount of income tax as 80 people on minimum wage. Apparently that makes me greedy and selfish as ‘I could pay a little more’
PushedDover said:
theboss said:
It's not 'adjusting' ones salary. You get tax relief on pension contributions or charitable donations - do you agree with both of those things?
It is adjusting a salary if the sole purpose - and admitted - if to receive child care payments from mc the state.You may all be cool with that- I simply said originally I struggle with how this is ‘acceptable’
It's absolutely no different to somebody earning £110k putting the top-most £10k in a pension tax free instead of paying 60% tax on it.
If you want to attack an injustice focus on these ridiculous marginal tax bands, not people taking perfectly legal and rational means to avoid them.
klan8456 said:
There is a much easier answer to this. Find a Chinese / Japanese / Korean wife. All salary is paid directly into her account, she pays for expenses and gives you a small amount - say £50 - of play money each month.
Job jobbed and no % issues.
This is of course after you have paid bride money and bought a property in cash with no mortgage, as having to take a mortgage is a sign that you are impoverished and previous generations have not planned adequately for their son.
Western attitudes expressed towards finances in this thread are laughable. The pursuit of money is far more important than “life”
You are entertainment Klan I’ll give you that! By your logic you are still impoverished. Seems by your standards you have rather failed at both the pursuit of money & l”life”.Job jobbed and no % issues.
This is of course after you have paid bride money and bought a property in cash with no mortgage, as having to take a mortgage is a sign that you are impoverished and previous generations have not planned adequately for their son.
Western attitudes expressed towards finances in this thread are laughable. The pursuit of money is far more important than “life”
Please stay around though have you met Welshy yet?
PushedDover said:
That’s not what I said (this is becoming a bit try to read again)
Tax efficiency is all well.
Claiming welfare is not on ethically, when paid £60k in my opinion.
But the two situations are absolutely identical. In one you choose dividends, in the other you choose pension,and both have the effect of increasing the amount that you and up with, and decreasing the amount that the state ends up with. try to read again)Tax efficiency is all well.
Claiming welfare is not on ethically, when paid £60k in my opinion.
Your objection seems to be that the money has some different words attached to it, but the same is being achieved in either case.
TarpaTow said:
I drive a BM 2 Active Tourer (2AT) which was obviously brand new when I first had it and even though it's not brand new it's still new enough to impress.
Working in finance and attending high-powered meeting with people who have the authority to make on the spot decisions or who can influence outcomes, it's incredibly important to create the right image.
No power broker is going to pay much attention if you park something like a Ford or Vauxhall in the car-park, but being seen to drive a BM let's them know what sort of person they're dealing with, either if I'm there to offer advice or if I have to take a contrary view to their proposals. It's a subtle way of putting them on notice that they're dealing with an achiever.
Also, it's obvious when you drive that other road users, drivers, passengers or pedestrians recognize that you've been a success and are a driver who knows how to handle a performance-engineered car. As my career progresses up the corporate ladder the best outward sign of success will be how far up the BM model ladder I get.
It isn't only the car though, just carefully placing the BM key the right way up in a bar or restaurant when you're ordering something is never missed by the staff and I'm sure it's part of the reason I get the special attention that I do, or if I'm out with a group of mates its important to drop into conversations with girls that you drive and own a BM. That's really important early on otherwise they might assume that it must be my pa's car as normally people my age wouldn't be able to be in a BM.
I absolutely refuse to believe that isn't a tongue in cheek post and a complete piss take. Working in finance and attending high-powered meeting with people who have the authority to make on the spot decisions or who can influence outcomes, it's incredibly important to create the right image.
No power broker is going to pay much attention if you park something like a Ford or Vauxhall in the car-park, but being seen to drive a BM let's them know what sort of person they're dealing with, either if I'm there to offer advice or if I have to take a contrary view to their proposals. It's a subtle way of putting them on notice that they're dealing with an achiever.
Also, it's obvious when you drive that other road users, drivers, passengers or pedestrians recognize that you've been a success and are a driver who knows how to handle a performance-engineered car. As my career progresses up the corporate ladder the best outward sign of success will be how far up the BM model ladder I get.
It isn't only the car though, just carefully placing the BM key the right way up in a bar or restaurant when you're ordering something is never missed by the staff and I'm sure it's part of the reason I get the special attention that I do, or if I'm out with a group of mates its important to drop into conversations with girls that you drive and own a BM. That's really important early on otherwise they might assume that it must be my pa's car as normally people my age wouldn't be able to be in a BM.
t, Sherlock. Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff