|
Post by timberwolf on Sept 10, 2024 9:55:13 GMT
The more money people have, the more tight they seem to get. A mate of mine (a good, decent person) once told me that he'd asked for his final qtr sales bonus to go into the next financial year as the bonus meant he'd creep over £100K for the year, meaning he'd have to pay nursery fees. The year after his kid started school so it didn't matter what bonus he got then. I remember at the time wondering whether I'd be the same and it was a sensible thing to do, or whether it was peevish. I'm still not sure in truth. Just a way people think i feel. Some get more excited seeing a big bank balence increase than anything else in life. The only millionaire i ever knew was tight as you could find. Ask him for a cheap cafe and accomodation he could tell you and he wasn,t a self made man born into poverty either but carried on from his father who carried on from his and never knew what poverty was. Thing was his recommendations were bloody good so was he tight or being sensible.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Sept 10, 2024 9:56:00 GMT
If you go over £100k you pay another higher rate of tax on it until it levels out again once you reach £125k. I know, but this was about the 30 (i think) hours free childcare you get when your kid is at a certain age. If you earn a penny over £100k, you don't get the hours. He’d have ended up with a double whammy then.
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Sept 10, 2024 9:57:55 GMT
The more money people have, the more tight they seem to get. A mate of mine (a good, decent person) once told me that he'd asked for his final qtr sales bonus to go into the next financial year as the bonus meant he'd creep over £100K for the year, meaning he'd have to pay nursery fees. The year after his kid started school so it didn't matter what bonus he got then. I remember at the time wondering whether I'd be the same and it was a sensible thing to do, or whether it was peevish. I'm still not sure in truth. that's quite a well known issue.
The highest rate of tax in the UK system is on earnings between £100 - £125k, so people at that level of job will usually use things like pension salary sacrifice to keep their official earnings just below £100k.
There was another similar barrier between £50 - £52k (ish) related to the way child benefit tapered that particularly affected single women, but I think that's now been sorted.
Whether you view those things as a product of perverse governmental incentives to do down wealth creators / sensible planning / legal, but still tax avoidance / using a loophole for tax evasion very much depends where you are on the political spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by Waldorf on Sept 10, 2024 9:58:12 GMT
I know, but this was about the 30 (i think) hours free childcare you get when your kid is at a certain age. If you earn a penny over £100k, you don't get the hours. He’d have ended up with a double whammy then. As with lots of these thresholds, if him and his mrs were earning £99,999 each they'd have still got the hours. If only one of them was working and had earned over £100k, they wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Sept 10, 2024 10:15:47 GMT
He’d have ended up with a double whammy then. As with lots of these thresholds, if him and his mrs were earning £99,999 each they'd have still got the hours. If only one of them was working and had earned over £100k, they wouldn't. Yep, thinks that like are a minefield. One option though would have been to use the bonus to set up a small private pension, that would have seen his earnings remain under the higher tax threshold and receive tax allowance against the pension payment. Not sure if it would have helped in terms of the nursery payment though, no idea how that works.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 10, 2024 10:44:18 GMT
He’d have ended up with a double whammy then. As with lots of these thresholds, if him and his mrs were earning £99,999 each they'd have still got the hours. If only one of them was working and had earned over £100k, they wouldn't. Which is another argument for these things being tapered off, rather than hard boundaries. This is an incidence where I can understand someone refusing a bonus or pay increase. With the tax rate thing between 100k and 120k you still take home more money with each extra pound you earn, just less per pound because your personal allowance is tapering off.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 10, 2024 10:52:29 GMT
As with lots of these thresholds, if him and his mrs were earning £99,999 each they'd have still got the hours. If only one of them was working and had earned over £100k, they wouldn't. Which is another argument for these things being tapered off, rather than hard boundaries. This is an incidence where I can understand someone refusing a bonus or pay increase. With the tax rate thing between 100k and 120k you still take home more money with each extra pound you earn, just less per pound because your personal allowance is tapering off. I've just done a very crude calculation using the salary calculator which suggests for every £1 you earn between £100,000 and £125,000 your take home per year increases by 38p. Maybe I'm naive but if I earned £100,000 a year and was offered a £10,000 bonus at the end of it I wouldn't turn it down simply because I'd only see £3,800 of it. Now in incidences like the one Waldorf highlighted, where you lose something outright by ticking over a hard edged line, I would have to think harder about it. www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Sept 10, 2024 11:12:11 GMT
Which is another argument for these things being tapered off, rather than hard boundaries. This is an incidence where I can understand someone refusing a bonus or pay increase. With the tax rate thing between 100k and 120k you still take home more money with each extra pound you earn, just less per pound because your personal allowance is tapering off. I've just done a very crude calculation using the salary calculator which suggests for every £1 you earn between £100,000 and £125,000 your take home per year increases by 38p. Maybe I'm naive but if I earned £100,000 a year and was offered a £10,000 bonus at the end of it I wouldn't turn it down simply because I'd only see £3,800 of it. Now in incidences like the one Waldorf highlighted, where you lose something outright by ticking over a hard edged line, I would have to think harder about it. www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpbut that's missing out the other two main options.
Take the extra £10k as salary sacrifice into your pension.
Drop your working hours to 4 days a week to improve work/life balance and earn much the same as previously
I can easily see why both are more appealing than paying 62% tax
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Sept 10, 2024 11:19:20 GMT
I've just read an article on Charlie Mullins and he did actually pay his tax here and didn't have an offshore account so I misjudged him, I still disagree with much of what he says but it appears he paid his dues, it was in the i so it's probably true.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 10, 2024 11:19:34 GMT
I've just done a very crude calculation using the salary calculator which suggests for every £1 you earn between £100,000 and £125,000 your take home per year increases by 38p. Maybe I'm naive but if I earned £100,000 a year and was offered a £10,000 bonus at the end of it I wouldn't turn it down simply because I'd only see £3,800 of it. Now in incidences like the one Waldorf highlighted, where you lose something outright by ticking over a hard edged line, I would have to think harder about it. www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpbut that's missing out the other two main options.
Take the extra £10k as salary sacrifice into your pension.
Drop your working hours to 4 days a week to improve work/life balance and earn much the same as previously
I can easily see why both are more appealing than paying 62% tax
One of those options would seriously boil Ted Verity’s p*ss. I know which one I’d choose if I ever found myself in that situation!
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 10, 2024 11:21:38 GMT
I've just read an article on Charlie Mullins and he did actually pay his tax here and didn't have an offshore account so I misjudged him, I still disagree with much of what he says but it appears he paid his dues, it was in the i so it's probably true. *apart from Employers’ NI, workplace pension contributions, sick pay, holiday pay etc. etc. through the use of disguised employees as per the Supreme Court ruling.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Sept 10, 2024 14:32:50 GMT
I see the usual line of “I don’t remember such a comment/meeting” is already being trotted out by the hospital management team in the Letby/Countess of Cheshire Hospital inquiry begins. Medical director doesn’t recall being advised by legal director to contact Police 1 year before they actually did. Was also copied in an e-mail chain by senior Dr’s on same theme and doesn’t recall. Obviously the main culprit in all of this is Letby herself (assuming the conviction is correct which for now we have to accept is the case) but once again we see those at the top trying to absolve themselves of any guilt/neglect. ‘Twas ever thus 😔
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Sept 10, 2024 14:36:20 GMT
Something interesting I've just found out.
The policy to bring in VAT on private school fees would have been illegal if we were still part of the EU.
first actual sign of the possibilities of Lexit?
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 10, 2024 14:55:15 GMT
Something interesting I've just found out. The policy to bring in VAT on private school fees would have been illegal if we were still part of the EU. first actual sign of the possibilities of Lexit?
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 10, 2024 15:19:05 GMT
I've just done a very crude calculation using the salary calculator which suggests for every £1 you earn between £100,000 and £125,000 your take home per year increases by 38p. Maybe I'm naive but if I earned £100,000 a year and was offered a £10,000 bonus at the end of it I wouldn't turn it down simply because I'd only see £3,800 of it. Now in incidences like the one Waldorf highlighted, where you lose something outright by ticking over a hard edged line, I would have to think harder about it. www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.phpbut that's missing out the other two main options.
Take the extra £10k as salary sacrifice into your pension.
Drop your working hours to 4 days a week to improve work/life balance and earn much the same as previously
I can easily see why both are more appealing than paying 62% tax
Yeah moving that into your pension would probably be the most sensible thing to do - but you're still not turning down the bonus/increase in salary are you? You're just moving it. Tbh I'd probably reduce my hours. I would be absolutely flying financially on 100k and be in zero need of a pay rise anyway. Reduce my work load, please and thank you. That's still not just refusing things.
|
|