How to Cut Tax on £90k pa Income ?

thequant

stephen25uk wrote: »

still amazed some one can earn £60,000 and yet their partner can claim £70 per week benefits...then the op has the cheek to ask if they can find a way to pay less tax on a £90,000 salary...TAX that pays for the partners DLA...i earn less than you and pay the tax your partner claims as benefits........you have a nerve in my opinion and its potential tax dodgers like yourself that want everything yet contribute nothing if you could get away with it...

I'm not sure what the point of this post was, apart from a display of jealously. I have a partner who is ill and can't support themselves, the goverment gives some money to help support them.

Likewise there are couples who earn more than me, who are able to claim benefits to help pay for their dependants who are unable to contribute to the family pot. These dependants are better known as children.

stephen25uk

thequant wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of this post was, apart from a display of jealously. I have a partner who is ill and can't support themselves, the goverment gives some money to help support them.

Likewise there are couples who earn more than me, who are able to claim benefits to help pay for their dependants who are unable to contribute to the family pot. These dependants are better known as children.

Not jealous at all,i earn less but between my self and my wife we earn a lot more and pay all the tax i am supposed to without trying to dodge it,i would never question a £30,000 pay rise just because i amy have to pay more tax....£30,000 is a great wage in its self to a lot of people.

the goverment does give money to support people who are ill i have no problem with that,but i do have a problem when people who benifit from it,try to avoid paying the tax that funds it

Nine_Lives

thequant wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of this post was, apart from a display of jealously.

Agreed.

I'm sick of seeing that nonsense in the tax & benefits forum.

If someone is eligible then they're eligible, if they're not then they're not, simple. Don't blame the person for asking, blame the system for making someone in a 90k situation eligible.

As ever, hate (or whatever word you'd prefer) is directed at the wrong person on MSE imo.

stephen25uk

K_P83 wrote: »

Agreed.

I'm sick of seeing that nonsense in the tax & benefits forum.

If someone is eligible then they're eligible, if they're not then they're not, simple. Don't blame the person for asking, blame the system for making someone in a 90k situation eligible.

As ever, hate (or whatever word you'd prefer) is directed at the wrong person on MSE imo.

totally missing the point,i have no problem with people getting benefits that are entitled to them.....i do have a problem however with people that gain from those benifits with one hand,then in the same breath ask how they can avoid paying tax...the tax that funds those benifits...the tax the people a lot worse off than the op pay

princessdon

I see where the poster is coming from TBH

Child Benefit is now means tested (although not really means tested is 2 x earners at double are still entitled and 1 x earner isn't) then why are other benefits?

I am to lose my CB and I realise the govt can't afford this, so why do dependants of VERY high earners like OP still get benefits?

That said - I'd feel uncomfortable living in society that doesn't help those that need it, but if we are struggling to provide for those that need then I can see an argument for means testing all benefits if honest - not just select ones.

Nine_Lives

stephen25uk wrote: »

totally missing the point,i have no problem with people getting benefits that are entitled to them.....i do have a problem however with people that gain from those benifits with one hand,then in the same breath ask how they can avoid paying tax...the tax that funds those benifits...the tax the people a lot worse off than the op pay

No, i'm afraid i'm not missing the point at all.

It's typical of someone who gets pulled up to say "you're missing the point". No, i'm not.

The point is this .... if the OP can do what they're wanting to do LEGALLY then there is NO problem. Yes they may be on a very tasty wage & their single wage is almost 3 times of the wage of my gf & I put together.

I may not agree that they may be able to do what they're asking to do, purely because they're on a nice earner ... but if they can do this LEGALLY then my issue isn't with the OP, it isn't with the OP even asking here on MSE, it's with the system allowing it to happen legally.

I don't know whether they can do it or not. If not then i would agree with that being the case. If they can, then as said, the issue isn't that they're asking, it's the system at fault.

Those who scam the system illegally are always at fault & a clear hatred is aimed at those people directly.
Those who earn such a high figure & still qualify for benefits ... it's not THEIR fault at all. They're just exploiting the system which allow it to happen, as should everyone. The system however SHOULDN'T allow it to happen.

But ATEOTD people always need someone to take their frustration out on someone. Often directed at the wrong someone, but meh.

Cook_County

There are two pretty standard planning methods:
1. Ensure that charitable contributions are paid 100% by the higher tax paying partner.

2. Ask if the employer will provide the pension through salary sacrifice and pay the employers NIC saved into the pension plan as well.

jem16

thequant wrote: »

This is as far as I have got, i.e. pensions and ISA's. in the ISA v Pension debate, the general consensus seems to be max out employers contributions first, then max out ISA's contributions.

The general concensus is also to use pensions if you are a higher rate taxpayer who will be a basic rate taxpayer in retirement. That way you get the benefit of 40% tax relief and only having to pay 20% in retirement.

With the pension provision you are making so far that seems to fit the bill.

somethingcorporate

Any share schemes at the new company? these are a good way of bringing down the tax burden and the first thing that sprung to mind.

DreamerV

Whilst I see the point that people are making about avoiding tax being a burden on the government especially when the OP's partner claims benefits, I do feel that the OP is just tax planning, which is sensible. Those on lesser salaries may think this is wrong, but when they put in what is often extra time or extra responsibility for what ends up around half their usual wage, I think it is fair. If I was in the OP's position I'd put a significant amount in a pension, a significant amount in a share scheme as above, and I'd give significant amounts to charities I believe in (through salary sacrifice). I would also offer my services free if I had time, to the local community, as I have done in the past when I've been too ill to be at university full time, but not unwell enough to be unable to do some charity work on days I felt well. (No, I didn't claim benefits - but in hindsight I realise if you are eligible, you should claim - even if you just use the money by giving it back to charity). I do think you can want to preserve money you earn, whilst still giving back.

Also whilst 90k seems a massive amount, after taxes and NIC, etc. I would think it would come to around 60k, between 2 people. It's a great income, but it's not massive. (Yes I realise the OH gets income too, but it's small in comparison, and he may need that income (which has probably been greatly reduced because of OP's income anyhow) to cover extra needs due to his disability).