We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
George Osborne MUST now U-Turn 'Granny Tax'!
Comments
-
gadgetmind wrote: »The Age Related Allowance was another disincentive for people to save for themselves.
What utter tripe !!...grow up !!0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »The Age Related Allowance was another disincentive for people to save for themselves.
What utter tripe !!...grow up !!
A marginal tax rate of 30% isn't a disincentive to save for someone getting tax relief at 20%?0 -
The Age Related Allowance was another disincentive for people to save for themselves. Getting rid of it by boosting personal allowances for (nearly) everyone makes a lot of sense.[/QUOTE]
And Gadgetmind; you appear to have an almost authoritariniststic dominance over the posts on this thread; however, I feel that your true desire is to help. Perhaps it's your attitude to some that puts you firmly in the bracket of a 'have' rather than a 'have not'.
But putting that aside, I have a question for you regarding tax and national insurance; you're a well qualified chap and I am sure you can give me a well balanced, answer. Here is my question and I apologise for all the 'numbers';
I have no doubt that our present government would ultimately like to return the higher rate of income tax back down to 40%. That's all well and good, but let's take a look at National Insurance contributions which is Income Tax in all but name. All non contracted out employees pay 12% of their salary that falls between £7592 and £42475 pa. The rate for salaries above £42475 is just 2%. (It used to be 0%, so at least we're going in the right direction) Now let's take Mr Average with an annual salary of say £26000. He will be paying NICs of 12% on £18408 (£26000 - £7592) Now let's go up the scale somewhat to someone earning £100,000 pa. (Very nice but still well short of the Wayne Rooneys of this world.) Doing the sums, he or she will be paying 12% on £34883 (£42475 - £7592) and just 2% on £57525 (£100,000 - £42475). So in effect, he is paying just 5.77% NICs on his total applicable salary. And of course, the higher the salary, the lower this percentage becomes.
So I ask this question; can it be justified for Mr Average to be paying NICs at a considerably higher percentage of his salary than Mr Doing-rather-well-thankyou ?0 -
Thank you both for your kind words, and for your off-topic and incomplete explanation of the UK's National Insurance rates and bands. (You conveniently ignored the uncapped 13.8% Employer's Contributions.)
Let me answer your question with a question, and also assure you that once you've thought through the implications of the answer to my question then you will have the answer to yours.
A pensioner will currently pay 0% NICs on their income despite working far less arduously for this income on an ongoing basis than Mr. Average.
How can this be justified?I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »A pensioner will currently pay 0% NICs on their income despite working far less arduously for this income on an ongoing basis than Mr. Average.
How can this be justified?
I don't think that it can.
Hopefully we'll see this injustice put right with employee NICS being combined with income tax.0 -
I don't think that it can.
Hopefully we'll see this injustice put right with employee NICS being combined with income tax.
The private pension income already had NICs paid on it when the individual received it as earnings and then put it into a pension. What is the justification for taxing it twice? Why would a basic rate taxpayer in work and in retirement want to put money into a pension if they pay NICs on it when working, and NICS and income tax when it is drawn - they would be better putting it into an ISA.
Much of the pension may have come from employer contributions, but far from all of it, and I very much doubt you could ever identify which part was from what source.
The argument that pensioners should pay NICs on earnings is much stronger.0 -
hugheskevi wrote: »The argument that pensioners should pay NICs on earnings is much stronger.
I don't think it is, but that's perhaps getting ahead of ourselves.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Are you willing to pay NICs on all investment / savings income ?gadgetmind wrote: »Thank you both for your kind words, and for your off-topic and incomplete explanation of the UK's National Insurance rates and bands. (You conveniently ignored the uncapped 13.8% Employer's Contributions.)
Let me answer your question with a question, and also assure you that once you've thought through the implications of the answer to my question then you will have the answer to yours.
A pensioner will currently pay 0% NICs on their income despite working far less arduously for this income on an ongoing basis than Mr. Average.
How can this be justified?0 -
Are you willing to pay NICs on all investment / savings income ?
I fail to see the connection, but the answer is no, of course not. Neither am I proposing that pensioners pay NICs, and I have my own arguments as to why this wouldn't be appropriate, but I'd like to see answers from various others first.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Because a pension is generally a form of investment income ?gadgetmind wrote: »I fail to see the connection, but the answer is no, of course not. Neither am I proposing that pensioners pay NICs, and I have my own arguments as to why this wouldn't be appropriate, but I'd like to see answers from various others first.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards