|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 10, 2024 16:53:23 GMT
In scenario 1. where they just take the 10k, they are 3.8k better off and the tax take is 6.2k higher. There's one for you.
My whole point is that most won't take the £10k as salary though.
They put the £10k into a pension, on which the tax take is £2k in 20 years time.
Or they cut down hours slightly, in which case the tax take is 0.
And neither of those are relevant to the overall point I have made for the umpteenth time on here: outright refusing a pay rise or bonus because you'll only see some of it is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Me personally, if I was in charge of tax policy, I wouldn't taper off the personal allowance. I don't think its necessary and means that the personal allowance can be raised and still benefits everybody who pays income tax (I mean it does even with the taper, just less so). I think it's a convoluted method and I would probably just either add another 1% between 100k and 125k, drop the higher rate threshold to 120k or just do nothing between those points and leave it at 40%. I quite like option 3 though. We should all be cutting down our hours for the same pay. Productivity skyrocketed in the 20th century but the 8/5/40 paradigm remained the same. Trials on a 32 hour 40 hour work week have been promising in terms of productivity, economic benefit and work life balance. That Labour's proposals on labour reform appear to involve 4 days but still 40 hours is disappointing if not unsurprising. The progress of humanity should be about reducing the workload for everyone - and I don't just mean in this country.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 10, 2024 16:57:58 GMT
I know this. Am I not making it clear in the examples I'm giving? Probably not otherwise I’d have been wasting my time posting 😀. Why isn’t there more activity on the football threads. But the one you responded to was me saying what you then responded back with... You said "I’m pretty certain (but could be wrong) that a pension contribution reduces your salary for income tax purposes, in which case it could see his pay drop back below the £100k threshold for the incremental tax rate." I said "Person A earns 100k, is offered a 10k bonus, sacrifices all that 10k into his pension pot. His pension pot grows by 10k, his take home pay stays the same. Therefore he is better off." Which is an example of what you mentioned. You then responded with "my point was that in paying into a pension (even a new small private pension) he can at least avoid the incremental tax rate which would be due were he to receive it as take home pay" even though my example showed that. I think I need to step away because I think somehow you, me and HTC, are all in agreement on the facts and just coming at it from different angles.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Sept 10, 2024 17:16:15 GMT
Probably not otherwise I’d have been wasting my time posting 😀. Why isn’t there more activity on the football threads. But the one you responded to was me saying what you then responded back with... You said "I’m pretty certain (but could be wrong) that a pension contribution reduces your salary for income tax purposes, in which case it could see his pay drop back below the £100k threshold for the incremental tax rate." I said "Person A earns 100k, is offered a 10k bonus, sacrifices all that 10k into his pension pot. His pension pot grows by 10k, his take home pay stays the same. Therefore he is better off." Which is an example of what you mentioned. You then responded with "my point was that in paying into a pension (even a new small private pension) he can at least avoid the incremental tax rate which would be due were he to receive it as take home pay" even though my example showed that. I think I need to step away because I think somehow you, me and HTC, are all in agreement on the facts and just coming at it from different angles. I think you’re right. My point about it keeping him under the incremental rate was more aimed at the original post which was about someone wanting to find a way to potentially remain under the threshold so as to avoid losing a benefit and my scenario was a possible solution to that. So he could still receive the bonus in the year it was accrued and potentially still receive the benefit.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 10, 2024 17:53:54 GMT
I feel an allusion to being a snowflake followed by rage-quitting the discussion is somehow sadly absent from the last few pages of respectful disagreement.
|
|
Fez
Contributor
Posts: 567
|
Post by Fez on Sept 10, 2024 19:25:27 GMT
Harris v Trump Presidential debate this evening. I'd watch if the mere sound of his voice didn't make me want to jump out the window. And the bar is so much lower for Trump that he'll get plaudits if he simply manages to not punch the moderator or take a giant dump on the stage. Or maybe even if he does. Whatever he says or does will as usual be swallowed by the next news cycle anyway, given the meek and pliable media, whereas Harris's words will be subject to the minutest scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by Stranded Hatter on Sept 11, 2024 0:32:39 GMT
Harris v Trump Presidential debate this evening. I'd watch if the mere sound of his voice didn't make me want to jump out the window. And the bar is so much lower for Trump that he'll get plaudits if he simply manages to not punch the moderator or take a giant dump on the stage. Or maybe even if he does. Whatever he says or does will as usual be swallowed by the next news cycle anyway, given the meek and pliable media, whereas Harris's words will be subject to the minutest scrutiny. I’ve started watching the West Wing again just to delude myself into thinking political operatives behind the scenes, on both sides of the spectrum, are at the very least competent.
|
|
|
Post by mattyovrio on Sept 11, 2024 6:48:29 GMT
Sounds like the Democrats had a plan to rile Trump and keep him off balance. Obvious and not that hard. All down to the swing voters in a handful of States. Trump has lost the popular vote both times but what matters is the daft electoral college system.
I see he was claiming immigrants are eating people’s pets. Farage &co are bad but not that bad … yet.
|
|
|
Post by mattyovrio on Sept 11, 2024 8:25:48 GMT
Nail in Trump’s coffin. Taylor Swift has come out and endorsed Harris. Game over.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 11, 2024 8:28:44 GMT
Nail in Trump’s coffin. Taylor Swift has come out and endorsed Harris. Game over. On social media, though. She could stand on the steps of the Capitol waving an “I love Kamala Harris” flag, and Trump would still be saying it’s fake news.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Exile on Sept 11, 2024 8:36:50 GMT
Sounds like the Democrats had a plan to rile Trump and keep him off balance. Obvious and not that hard. All down to the swing voters in a handful of States. Trump has lost the popular vote both times but what matters is the daft electoral college system. I see he was claiming immigrants are eating people’s pets. Farage &co are bad but not that bad … yet. I have avoided most of this purposely but did he specify what kind of pets? I can see the headlines already, immigrants ate my beaver 🤣
|
|
|
Post by edjelley on Sept 11, 2024 8:46:45 GMT
Sounds like the Democrats had a plan to rile Trump and keep him off balance. Obvious and not that hard. All down to the swing voters in a handful of States. Trump has lost the popular vote both times but what matters is the daft electoral college system. I see he was claiming immigrants are eating people’s pets. Farage &co are bad but not that bad … yet. I have avoided most of this purposely but did he specify what kind of pets? I can see the headlines already, immigrants ate my beaver 🤣 'Freddie Starr ate my hamster' still one of the best headlines!
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 11, 2024 8:47:30 GMT
Sounds like the Democrats had a plan to rile Trump and keep him off balance. Obvious and not that hard. All down to the swing voters in a handful of States. Trump has lost the popular vote both times but what matters is the daft electoral college system. I see he was claiming immigrants are eating people’s pets. Farage &co are bad but not that bad … yet. I have avoided most of this purposely but did he specify what kind of pets? I can see the headlines already, immigrants ate my beaver 🤣 Pet birds. Males, specifically.
|
|
|
Post by edjelley on Sept 11, 2024 8:50:40 GMT
Nail in Trump’s coffin. Taylor Swift has come out and endorsed Harris. Game over. What is it with these luvvies thinking theìr views are so important? They have no more insight than the average public,though maybe it's a sad indictment of how daft some of the public are that they'd take serious notice or be influenced by what some singer says re.politics.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Sept 11, 2024 9:06:07 GMT
Nail in Trump’s coffin. Taylor Swift has come out and endorsed Harris. Game over. What is it with these luvvies thinking they're views are so important? They have no more insight than the average public,though maybe it's a sad indictment of how daft some of the public are that they'd take serious notice or be influenced by what some singer says re.politics. Those who fought for the masses to get a vote must be turning in their graves seeing how low politics have become when the views of a pop star becomes important to anyone. Really most would have known anyway by being a luvvie she would not be supporting trump.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Sept 11, 2024 9:13:28 GMT
Nail in Trump’s coffin. Taylor Swift has come out and endorsed Harris. Game over. What is it with these luvvies thinking their views are so important? They have no more insight than the average public,though maybe it's a sad indictment of how daft some of the public are that they'd take serious notice or be influenced by what some singer says re.politics. Flip that on its head, though: what makes a politician more qualified to say what’s right for their country? Plenty of people hang on every word of politicians of all persuasions, even though those words are often weasly at best and sometimes knowingly untrue.
|
|