Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
earned £25k and had two kids I'd be £1351 worse off
EDIT: Except, no! Factoring in the missus leaves me £160 a year better off! Hooray for boobies!
| Be Excellent To Each Other https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/ |
|
| Budget 2015 (was 2013) https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9370 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | Jem [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 18:04 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Well yes, it's better than nothing at all. But "better than nothing" is not really a great standard. |
|
| Author: | Dr Zoidberg [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 20:18 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Jem wrote: The living wage that isn't actually anywhere close to a living wage, you mean? Yep, that's the one, but it will be a good bit closer than the current minimum wage. |
|
| Author: | Dr Zoidberg [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 20:19 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Cavey wrote: Jem wrote: The living wage that isn't actually anywhere close to a living wage, you mean? Like I say, don't know the details as yet, but from what little I have heard, surely a step in the right direction? It is, but this is also very close to the point at which new cuts to working tax credits kick in, so the low paid may find that their total income drops. |
|
| Author: | Curiosity [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 20:37 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
I don't fully understand how working tax credits are apportioned to people, but surely if the mantra is that we are trying to make work pay, then we want to give as many tax beenfits to the lowest paid people as possible, right? To make it an obvious step up from not having a job. They should do some clever thing whereby companies that comply with a FULL living wage as dictated by what people need (rather than what they believe business can take) get a tax break. I imagine this would be hard to administer though, given the labyrinthine corporate governance schemes around the City. I've been too busy with work to fully check stuff out, but it doesn't seem quite as evil as I expected. I think the cut to child benefit is awful though, if it applies to children already born or conceived. That's simply unfair to take away a benefit that people will already be relying on, and could well have been the difference between a family considering themselves able to cope with the cost. EDIT - seems like it is only for babies as yet still in sperm and egg form. Not sure how I feel about this decision at the moment; I can see both sides. |
|
| Author: | Dr Zoidberg [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 20:47 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Trying to calculate what you'll get from all the tax credits is pretty complicated - it depends on how much you earn, number of children and how much you spend on childcare. It can't be easy at all to know how much you'll have each month. |
|
| Author: | JohnCoffey [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 20:49 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Jem wrote: You know... benefit abuse is a tiny, tiny part of the overall benefit spend despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe. I don't read newspapers. They're for neuro typicals.. I just go from what I know and what I saw when I lived in a dumpy part of London. One dude pretends he has a bad back, gets an extra £60 a week then "passes" it onto his mates. Before you know it half of the dole queue from Brixton are on the sick. Honestly, it's the easiest benefits fiddle you could imagine, if that's what you're into. There was a docu on C4 or C5 where they were encouraging each other to get sick notes and get ESA. And yeah, I know, sensationalism is bad mmkay but it really must be a problem or the govt would not have looked into it and would not have done what they've done. IMO the WRAG is pointless. You're either well enough to work (dole) or you're not (support group). WRAG was basically govt saying "Well we accept you have an illness but sorry, it's not enough for us not to hassle you and drive you crazy, byeee !". |
|
| Author: | Curiosity [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 20:57 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
JohnCoffey wrote: Jem wrote: You know... benefit abuse is a tiny, tiny part of the overall benefit spend despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe. I don't read newspapers. They're for neuro typicals.. ... There was a docu on C4 or C5 where they were encouraging each other to get sick notes and get ESA. And yeah, I know, sensationalism is bad mmkay but it really must be a problem or the govt would not have looked into it and would not have done what they've done. ... Heh. Not sure that the government taking an interest in something means it's a real thing, or anything other than a sticking plaster on a tiny section of society. |
|
| Author: | Satsuma [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 21:29 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Programmes like that help further its agenda. I'm sure they love that tripe. |
|
| Author: | Jem [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 21:31 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Dr Zoidberg wrote: Trying to calculate what you'll get from all the tax credits is pretty complicated - it depends on how much you earn, number of children and how much you spend on childcare. It can't be easy at all to know how much you'll have each month. It's utter fucking chaos, especially when you're self employed and your income is all over the place. I was on the phone to tax credits on a monthly basis at one point. JohnCoffey wrote: Jem wrote: You know... benefit abuse is a tiny, tiny part of the overall benefit spend despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe. I don't read newspapers. They're for neuro typicals.. I just go from what I know and what I saw when I lived in a dumpy part of London. One dude pretends he has a bad back, gets an extra £60 a week then "passes" it onto his mates. Before you know it half of the dole queue from Brixton are on the sick. Honestly, it's the easiest benefits fiddle you could imagine, if that's what you're into. There was a docu on C4 or C5 where they were encouraging each other to get sick notes and get ESA. And yeah, I know, sensationalism is bad mmkay but it really must be a problem or the govt would not have looked into it and would not have done what they've done. IMO the WRAG is pointless. You're either well enough to work (dole) or you're not (support group). WRAG was basically govt saying "Well we accept you have an illness but sorry, it's not enough for us not to hassle you and drive you crazy, byeee !". Yeah yeah yeah, everyone knows a dole dossing skiver. The reality is that for the vast majority of claimants, especially the disabled, it's a constant battle to prove you're entitled to what you're claiming. |
|
| Author: | ApplePieOfDestiny [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 22:16 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2013 |
Trousers wrote: ApplePieOfDestiny wrote: Dividends taxed sensibly for the first time since 1998. Me to spend nine months talking about little else to clients. Screws most of my PSC clients over though. DAMN. I've spent my entire career railing against it. Amazed it took the first tory budget of my career to resolve it. |
|
| Author: | ApplePieOfDestiny [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 22:20 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Curiosity wrote: They should do some clever thing whereby companies that comply with a FULL living wage as dictated by what people need (rather than what they believe business can take) get a tax break. I imagine this would be hard to administer though, given the labyrinthine corporate governance schemes around the City. Thats the problem with 'tax breaks' (which rarely really exist) - they get abused. With Living wage you can affect two taxes to reward employers, Corporation Tax or Employers NIC. Corp Tax doesn't work as it benefits the company with 2 employees and £50m profits unduly if you do it on a basic level, and it really gets fucked up if you try and make it more advanced. That leaves Employers NIC, which is a dogs breakfast at the best of times (and still means you give excess benefits to employers who only employ high earners who would always be paid above living wage - see Lloyd's Insurers, for example) |
|
| Author: | Doctor Glyndwr [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:22 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
According to the BBC budget calculator, I will be £141 better off, which means I can eat out a couple of extra times a year. If I earned £25k and had two kids I'd be £1351 worse off, though, which seems legit because those people should be working harder and it doesn't matter if they can't afford to feed their kids. Fairness! |
|
| Author: | MaliA [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:27 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Doctor Glyndwr wrote: According to the BBC budget calculator, I will be £141 better off, which means I can eat out a couple of extra times a year. If I earned £25k and had two kids I'd be £1351 worse off, though, which seems legit because those people should be working harder and it doesn't matter if they can't afford to feed their kids. Fairness! £160 better off for my family and I, apparently. |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:27 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Doctor Glyndwr wrote: According to the BBC budget calculator, I will be £141 better off, which means I can eat out a couple of extra times a year. If I earned £25k and had two kids I'd be £1351 worse off, though, which seems legit because those people should be working harder and it doesn't matter if they can't afford to feed their kids. Fairness! It's all right, if they work fewer hours they end up losing less money, so they should just do that. |
|
| Author: | DavPaz [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:28 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Doctor Glyndwr wrote: earned £25k and had two kids I'd be £1351 worse off EDIT: Except, no! Factoring in the missus leaves me £160 a year better off! Hooray for boobies! |
|
| Author: | Kern [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:38 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
About £80 better off, so enough per month to not bother cancelling 'Netflix'. |
|
| Author: | ElephantBanjoGnome [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:43 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Same as you Kern, just the basic allowance bump. Dividends might be more interesting for me though, I'll have to check with the accountant. |
|
| Author: | MaliA [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:21 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
How do I know I am paying the right amount of tax (apart from paying Riles)? |
|
| Author: | DavPaz [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:25 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
MaliA wrote: How do I know I am paying the right amount of tax (apart from paying Riles)? If your in full time employment with no other sources of income, your employer will make sure. |
|
| Author: | Grim... [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:27 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
"Other sources of income" include child benefit, don't forget. |
|
| Author: | Trousers [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:30 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
MaliA wrote: How do I know I am paying the right amount of tax (apart from paying Riles)? Listen to Taxman is handy for verifying your PAYE income http://www.listentotaxman.com/ |
|
| Author: | Jem [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 13:01 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
If it were just me & the kids, I would be between £1300-£1600 worse off. Thanks to Gaz moving in, I'm going to be about £180 better off, yay. Makes TONS of sense. |
|
| Author: | Curiosity [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 13:28 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Jem wrote: If it were just me & the kids, I would be between £1300-£1600 worse off. Thanks to Gaz moving in, I'm going to be about £180 better off, yay. Makes TONS of sense. Women! Know your place! |
|
| Author: | DavPaz [ Thu Jul 09, 2015 14:51 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Budget 2015 (was 2013) |
Grim... wrote: "Other sources of income" include child benefit, don't forget. Point |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|