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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
s333 Insovency Act - some clarification please?
Comments
-
Surely, any attempt to increase a surplus-based IPA, due to a pay rise, should be offset by a new SOA, where the net income to the household might show a drop?
With less in the way of tax credits, to maintain the level of allowances, more 'income' has to be ploughed in?
Surely, at the end, the surplus might be reduced even further?
I say this, because a IPA can be varied up, or down.....all that changes in this case, is where the money comes from, to meet the amount required by the SOA.No, I don't think all other drivers are idiots......but some are determined to change my mind.......0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards