Basic tax questions

jennifernil

If you are below 25/30 years old, it is probably not worth making additional NI payments for incomplete years, as you now only need 30 years of NI contributions to qualify for a full State Pension.

Savvy_Sue

AirlieBird wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the number of weeks. HMRC/DWP receive no information as to how many weeks you've paid NI. A qualifying year will be a year in which you have received earnings of at least the annual level of the Lower Earnings Limit and on which you have paid, or being treated as paid, NI.

OK, so I'm misinformed about it being number of weeks, but my "I don't believe you would" is right, because on the OP's theoretical £4000 over 20 weeks, he's not going to hit the annual level of the LEL!

jennifernil wrote: »

If you are below 25/30 years old, if is probably not worth making additional NI payments for incomplete years, as you now only need 30 years of NI contributions to qualify for a full State Pension.

So whether it's less or fewer, it's 30. I couldn't remember how many.

agrinnall

jamesallen wrote: »

Thanks I didn't know you could "top-up" former contributions. It's nice to know anything I pay now won't be totally wasted.

Savings are all onshore, accrued by parents/grandparents and originally designed for putting down a deposit on a house, though now I'll end up spending it all on university.

I was getting a little confused because the introductory savings band was "£0 to £2500" or something similar, but I now realise this means on top of the personal allowance.

And "fewer" is correct I'm pretty sure - never succumb to the temptations of "less":p

I'm slightly concerned by the statment I've highlighted. I assume your current gap year is before starting University, and therefore when you do start you'll be paying the new, higher fees. If you are thinking that you should use the savings to either pay the fees in advance or to repay your loans after finishing I urge you to think again, you would be far better using the money for the house deposit. I suggest you have a look at the article Martin has written http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes

jamesallen

agrinnall wrote: »

I'm slightly concerned by the statment I've highlighted. I assume your current gap year is before starting University, and therefore when you do start you'll be paying the new, higher fees. If you are thinking that you should use the savings to either pay the fees in advance or to repay your loans after finishing I urge you to think again, you would be far better using the money for the house deposit. I suggest you have a look at the article Martin has written http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/students/student-loans-tuition-fees-changes

Hmm I have looked into this a bit, and I thought on balance I was probably better paying up front. I've applied to some top Law unis so, optimistic as it may be, I would hope to end up working for a large firm which I think would put me in the cash cow bracket of income with a starting salary of around £40k.

Like I say, this is being optimistic, but either way it's a gamble. I think my positive side would rather bet on success than not. Would you agree that paying up front would be the best thing to do if I were aiming for that starting salary?

Savvy_Sue

jamesallen wrote: »

Hmm I have looked into this a bit, and I thought on balance I was probably better paying up front. I've applied to some top Law unis so, optimistic as it may be, I would hope to end up working for a large firm which I think would put me in the cash cow bracket of income with a starting salary of around £40k.

Like I say, this is being optimistic, but either way it's a gamble. I think my positive side would rather bet on success than not. Would you agree that paying up front would be the best thing to do if I were aiming for that starting salary?

I haven't read Martin's article recently, but you need to look at student finance debt in a different way to other kinds of debt. It's true that repayments will be deducted from your income regardless of any other commitments, and it's true that on a large salary you'll notice them. But once you spend your inheritance on student fees you'll never get it back again.

Really you need to read Martin's article, and then make your own mind up.

John_Pierpoint

I expect law courses are set in posh expensive towns - London - Oxford - Cambridge - even Brighton?
But if you will be studying in a cheap(er) Northern town, I would advise buying a terrace house. Giving it an instant make over (see C4 at 11:00) to make it suitable for a student let. Then you will have a place to live plus an income stream.
Not for the faint hearted, gives you an activity for the vacations but it would be an additional education in land law, landlord and tenant law, human relationships, plus some practical skills.
[Bit of a pain North of the Border as they have different laws including "House in Multiple Occupation" laws; but I doubt you will be studying Scottish law].

jamesallen

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

I expect law courses are set in posh expensive towns - London - Oxford - Cambridge - even Brighton?
But if you will be studying in a cheap(er) Northern town, I would advise buying a terrace house. Giving it an instant make over (see C4 at 11:00) to make it suitable for a student let. Then you will have a place to live plus an income stream.
Not for the faint hearted, gives you an activity for the vacations but it would be an additional education in land law, landlord and tenant law, human relationships, plus some practical skills.
[Bit of a pain North of the Border as they have different laws including "House in Multiple Occupation" laws; but I doubt you will be studying Scottish law].

I've applied to Durham, which has a very good reputation, and Newcastle is my backup, as far as the north goes. I guess I could look into that.

Savvy_Sue

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

[Bit of a pain North of the Border as they have different laws including "House in Multiple Occupation" laws; but I doubt you will be studying Scottish law].

It may not be law, but an increasing number of local authorities with large student populations are requiring ALL HMOs to be licensed, at least in some parts of their jurisdiction. For example, where I live / work, in areas which are already overrun by student HMOs, the landlord has to register the property. Presumably registration can be refused, and extra conditions can be imposed.

jamesallen wrote: »

I've applied to Durham, which has a very good reputation, and Newcastle is my backup, as far as the north goes. I guess I could look into that.

Newcastle is likely to be cheaper than Durham, on the whole. Slightly less scenic, slightly more of it, for starters!

John_Pierpoint

The resident head of the household is the least likely to get hassle from the under financed over stressed local authority.

Obviously if the household is in an area where the locals are running a web site called "we-hate-students" or something similar, and the premisses seem to operate as a cross between a night club and a bordello - that is asking for trouble.
Not to mention that the distractions of such an arrangement would mitigate against getting a good degree.;)
Something a bit further away, perhaps in a different local authority, but within bike range of the university, would be better and a more balanced community.

There is definitely a trend towards the Scottish model of 2 + 1 = HMO, which in my opinion is ridiculous. It could be a couple, with a rent-a-room lodger, who enables them to keep up with the mortgage on their negative equity starter home.

The downside of being categorised as an HMO is that the regulations, probably "gold plated" by the local authority/university letting office, require the property to be turned into a cross between a Travel-lodge and a prison, not a home. (eg fire regulations that assume that the household includes at least one geriatric alcoholic "Mr Blobby", who would be unable to escape through an ordinary sash window in a building that has not burnt down for 150 years - true if the sash window has broken sash cords and is painted shut ! - most of us could smash the window and chuck the bed clothes over the jagged glass)

http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/HMOs1.htm
HMO - SummaryI did say this subject was complex?
HMO Defined - More than one household sharing amenities [and]
Buildings made up of self contained flats and being converted prior to 1991 [building regulations].

Mandatory - High Risk
3 Storey
5+ Occupants
Additional – Lower Risk
2 Storey
3+ Occupants
All
Public Register
Prescribed Amenity Standards - bathrooms, kitchen etc
Conditions apply – Gas, Electric, Furniture, Tenancy agreements, Fire precautions
Other conditions may apply – Antisocial behaviour, waste management, local manager, log book

jennifernil

I looked into this a few years back as we bought a flat for our student daughter, and she had a lodger to help with the mortgage.......

Up here in Scotland, if you are an owner/occupier couple and take in a lodger, then that is NOT an HMO.

1owner occupier (or a couple) + 2 lodgers is NOT an HMO as yet, but I believe that is set to change slightly. You will not require to be licensed, but will require to meet certain regulations.

Owner/occupier + 3 lodgers IS an HMO.

A renting married couple or e.g. 2 sisters + 1 other is NOT an HMO

A renting couple + 2 others IS an HMO.

3 unrelated people renting is an HMO

Basically, if you are live-in landlords, you are not counted at present.