Today's Budget

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Fair enough as long as we all undestand that the very poorly paid will not gain out of this measure.

That's not correct.

The very poorly paid without kids (or not entitled to benefits) will benefit.

I'm also intrigued. Can you tell me how much others are actually losing? You may find they are still better off.

spadoosh

Can anyone answer this?!

spadoosh wrote: »

My question is where is the government going to find the £300+ million to subsidise this every month over £3bn a year (in american terms think this is standard now though). Lets not sing and dance just yet.

Preferably in layman terms.

FTBFun

Conrad wrote: »

Honestly this is so laughable. Nearly all my 1 man band traders make about £1000 per week, but thier Tax bill reflects an income under £25k.

Interesting.

Normally a self employed person with £52k of profit would be taxed as follows:

£52k - £7475 = £44,525 taxable income
£35k @ 20% = £7k
£9,525 @ 40% = £3,810

Class 4 NIC: first £7,225 exempt
£35,250 @ 9% = £3,172.50
£9,525 @ 2% = £190.50

So total tax of £10,810, NIC of £3,363. Net profit after tax of £37,827.

If you had £25k of profit:

£17,525@ 20% = £3,505
£17,775 @ 9% = £1,599.75

So tax and NIC of £5,104.75

Running it through a company, paid in dividends with a small nominal "salary":

Corp tax on £52k
- £7,070 salary = £44,930 @: 20% = £8,986

Net profit available to be distributed as a dividend:
£44,525 - £8,986 = £35,539

Tax on individual:

Salary £7,070 (no tax or NIC)
Dividends £35,539 (10% tax credit so no tax).

Total tax £8,986. Which is nearly double what someone on £25k would pay.

EDIT: you added a bit on cabbies whilst I was typing. HMRC are going after cabbies at the moment as they think there is systemic tax evasion there, which is what you've been hinting at.

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

The greatest urban myth is the one that anyone earning £150k is in the top 1%.

For example my GP clients earn way more than this in most cases but they put the income through thier Ltd co, pay a big proportion of it to thier spouse and thus even thought they do earn more than £150k, the official income stats do not show this of course.

Now I know you are making this up. Or you are including other income these GP's have outside of GP income.

DervProf

ILW wrote: »

That sort of system seems to have done [STRIKE]well[/STRIKE] for the Greeks.

Corrected for you.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's not correct.

The very poorly paid without kids (or not entitled to benefits) will benefit.

I'm also intrigued. Can you tell me how much others are actually losing? You may find they are still better off.

Poorly paid workers (over 25) receive benefits, kids or no kids providing they earn less than £13k and work over 30 hours. I don't know how much they are losing as I assume the benefit is calculated on net income so higher net income = lower benefiit (don't know for sure though). It is obviously good for the working youngster though (to be applauded) oh and that much maligned group the early retired Baby Boomers

StevieJ

spadoosh wrote: »

Can anyone answer this?!



Preferably in layman terms.

I think it mentioned £5 billion on the BBC, let us start with 3 pence on petrol, also a reduction in higher tax allowance, reduction on WTC benefits I am sure Georgy Porgy will think of something else.

meiso

My eyes keeping sticking to the increase in personal allowance - pay freezes across the board means we might not actually be worse off this year... still, then I look at the whole mess and get a bit grouchy.

CRASH_BANG_WALLOP

george will proclaim he is on the side of the low and middle earners. and extra £300 or so a year for the dudes! so f**king what.im going to cringe when the muppets start praisng him. same way as the dudes praised his 1 f**king pence reduction in fuel in the last budget only for the reduction to last about a week!

he giveth then the dude taketh

Graham_Devon

This seems to have got up the nose of the labour apologists