Benefits for high earners

welshone27

Nick_C wrote: »

Hi Byrneand,

I'm sorry that your question has produced nothing but sarcasm and insults, but I'm afraid that is what 21st Century Britain is like. We are now a society that believes the state owes us everything, the rich should pay for it, and everything that has gone wrong in our lives is someone else's fault.

As someone earning more than £150K pa, you will be entitled to pay a minimum of £60K in tax and national insurance to help to support bone idle layabouts who have never done a day's work in their lives.

You would think that your significant financial contribution to our failing economy would be welcomed, and that you would be congratulated for having achieved a sound financial situation that will allow your wife to stay at home and be a good mother to your children, instead of having to go out to work and farm them out to strangers, but you will not. You will be met with envy and jealousy.

Child Benefit is out of the question, but you can minimise you tax liability by opening a junior ISA for your newborn. Halifax currently pay 6% and you can save up to £3,720 pa, which is locked away until your child reaches 18. This should cover your child's costs once they go to university, so offer you a long term saving.

Despite your immense wealth, a benefit that the envious majority have not yet taken away from you is that you and your wife are still allowed is to invest up to £11,520 each in an ISA each year, avoiding higher rate tax on investment income.

Apart from that, expect to give a lot of money to the State and get very little in return.

Welcome back to the UK! (Are you sure you wouldn't rather stay where you are?)

What s/he said with bells on.

byrneand

Dimey wrote: »

OP if you've got the opportunity to live in Switzerland rather than the UK - go for Switzerland. US second.

The UK has become a shadow of its former self.

Staff in service industries don't care about the customer and try to get rid of you rather than help you. Many people are rude and aggressive.

Cities are dirty un-cared for places where the threat of violence and conflict hangs in the air.

The countryside is neglected and polluted by crowded road systems and building development.

The schools are intimidated by bullies. And according to a recent thread on MSE most of the population take drugs as a normal social way of life.

I'm going to get stick for having said the above but most people will have to admit some or all of these points to a greater or lesser degree.

OP -I liked the way you took the ribbing about your post. I wasn't going to bother posting. Then I realised you appreciate your fortunate position and just want to do what's best for your family.

Make the most of that salary while you can earn it. Save for a rainy day because at that level, redundancy and nervous breakdowns come with the territory.

Good luck to you.

Hi Dimey,


Thanks for the advice and taking the time to write. I assume your comment will draw a fairly binary reaction. Certainly a lot of truth their however.


We've been lucky enough to either work, travel or live in numerous locations around the world, and probably the biggest takeaway is that there's pros and cons to living everywhere. Especially if you and your partner are from different cities/countries.


Singapore for instance, is low tax and close to some great weekend break locations.. but can be quite dull and sanitised, Switzerland is somewhat similar (the amount of friends who moan about Geneva being boring once you've done a couple of weekends skiing and then having to remortgage to go for a pint is unbelievable), equally countries that you wouldn't think of can in someways provide such a different perspective; take South Africa for instance, rightly or wrongly due tot he BEE laws, if you are a white male then due to challenges getting a job at a corporation, lots are out there starting businesses on their own and being quite entrepreneurial.


The core of the debate for us however, is that most of our friends and family are in the UK or neighbouring countries, and ultimately that can be the differentiating factor in where you find yourself based in the longer term. For us, it is something that we really value; far more than material products. How high up on the priority list this is for everyone else is a personal decision and if you think about it, is going to be driven by your relationships over the last 30+ years.


As you say, very much greatful for the earnings position we're in and just trying to make the most of it over the next 3-4 years (actually the timeframe we'd be looking at for the next move before settling the kid(s) in one place for school). You never know when the wind will change and you find yourself out of a job and not quite as employable as your self-inflated ego would suggest.... for us the time we'd look to support from friends and family.


Thanks again for taking the time to post.

byrneand

Dunroamin wrote: »

Thanks, I missed that. (Though why he's enquiring about childcare vouchers beats me then.)

As I mentioned, my knowledge of childcare/benefits is fairly basic; just a quick scan on the internet. But, one of my uni friends is a stay-at-home mum and from what I understood she got 15 hours of childcare vouchers.


The wife will be stay-at-home when the child first arrives and post any move but who knows if she'll head back to nursing (even part time) and that will be driven by country, potentially by childcare costs and flexibility, and how blessed we are with future fertility.


Whilst its great to be able to look after your child 1-on-1, I would expect (and happy to defer to any actual parents) that getting your child socially active, even at a young age through creches/nurseries/preschools etc. (again excuse the terminology) will be beneficial to both child and Mum.

byrneand

Dunroamin wrote: »

Yet another person who thinks (or tries to make others think) that high rate tax payers pay this on all of their salary!

It doesn't take a genius does it to work out that it's just a sliding scale that trends towards the top rate of tax; so now 45%


£150k salary = £90,187 net = 40% tax
£300k salary = £169,687 net = 43.4% tax
£500k salary = £275,687 net = 44.9% tax


Very few people in the world have an ability to materially alter their tax rates if they work for corporates.

danielanthony

If I was earning that much, I'd be contracting = 10-15% tax.

£150,000 sounds like a lot, but a plumber/sparky in London working cash-in-hand will easily take home more than the OP. So really, even that sort of salary won't really go far in some parts of the UK. If he moves up north to Leeds or Newcastle then he'll live like a king, but in London on one salary (even that big) you're looking at a two bed flat in a nice area.

Some people need to calm down and realize that not everyone has the same life experiences as they do, the OP was asking a generic benefits question and everyone jumped on-board passing judgement on a situation they know nothing about.

~Chameleon~

And on the news today it was claiming couples earning up to £300,000pa were now entitled to a new child care benefit, one which neither single parents nor a family with a parent at home would be entitled to.

byrneand

danielanthony wrote: »

If I was earning that much, I'd be contracting = 10-15% tax.

£150,000 sounds like a lot, but a plumber/sparky in London working cash-in-hand will easily take home more than the OP. So really, even that sort of salary won't really go far in some parts of the UK. If he moves up north to Leeds or Newcastle then he'll live like a king, but in London on one salary (even that big) you're looking at a two bed flat in a nice area.

Some people need to calm down and realize that not everyone has the same life experiences as they do, the OP was asking a generic benefits question and everyone jumped on-board passing judgement on a situation they know nothing about.

Totally agree £150k doesn't go particularly far in central London. You certainly live well but not much scope for building substantial personal balance sheet.

osdset

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

And on the news today it was claiming couples earning up to £300,000pa were now entitled to a new child care benefit, one which neither single parents nor a family with a parent at home would be entitled to.

It beggars belief doesn't it. I know a young mum that works part time on nights as a receptionist at A&E in a local hospital, her mum takes over parental duties when she gets in from her full time job.

The new mother would desperately love to work full time but the cost of childcare is way out of her league. It's people like this that need help with childcare costs not those that could easily afford it.