J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

No, sorry I was trying to point out (badly) that "rich" cannot just be defined by x pounds salary.

As for choosing to have kids, some daft bugger has to otherwise the species would die out, probably not a bad thing per se but the little darlings are very expensive.

Three kids is like running three Scoobs.

topbuzz

Agree with all the above, you want something you pay for it. Maybe poor people should think about improving their work situation and income before firing out a couple of kids. That would help the country and maybe we'd all pay less.

MrRA

What qualifies as being rich? Someone could be earning £50k but have kids, a hefty mortgage etc etc and still be skint. Just because people earn more that doesn't necessarily mean they can afford to be taxed more. Including my pension and AVC contributions (which are only £30 per week I may add) I paid a total of nearly of £800 last week in stoppages. Yes I did a few OT hours along with my normal working week, but still, I find it appalling that I had to pay that much. Luckily for me though I am single, have no kids to support and still living at home with the folks right now.

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

i can agree with this statement in the way in which its going, but im not too keen on the way its worded. if that makes sense.

me and the mrs (or at least ive told the mrs!!) have no plans to have kiddies yet, because were not on the best wages. for the job i do, its the highest wage in the area, but still not fantastic and not worth '***** waving' about. the mrs is happy in her £5something p.h. job, so we get along fine.

maybe its just me, but a lot of these salaries people on here are on, are no where to be seen up here in lincs. think theyre saved for the 'big' city

Mitchy260

Updated table in increments of £1,000...

Updated table

£10,000 - £724.09 / £715.63 (-£8.46 pm)
£11,000 - £779.93 / £773.13 (-£6.80 pm)
£12,000 - £835.76 / £830.63 (-£5.13 pm)
£13,000 - £891.59 / £888.13 (-£3.46 pm)
£14,000 - £947.43 / £945.63 (-£1.80 pm)
£15,000 - £1003.26 / £1003.13 (-£0.13 pm) Break Even Point
£16,000 - £1059.09 / £1060.63 (+£1.54 pm)
£17,000 - £1114.93 / £1118.13 (+£3.20 pm)
£18,000 - £1170.76 / £1175.63 (+£4.87 pm)
£19,000 - £1226.59 / £1233.13 (+£6.54 pm)
£20,000 - £1282.43 / £1290.63 (+£8.20 pm)
£21,000 - £1338.26 / £1348.13 (+£9.87 pm)
£22,000 - £1394.09 / £1405.63 (+£11.54 pm)
£23,000 - £1449.93 / £1463.13 (+£13.20 pm)
£24,000 - £1505.76 / £1520.63 (+£14.87 pm)
£25,000 - £1561.59 / £1578.13 (+£16.54 pm) UK National Average
£26,000 - £1617.43 / £1635.63 (+£18.20 pm)
£27,000 - £1673.26 / £1693.13 (+£19.87 pm)
£28,000 - £1729.09 / £1750.63 (+£21.54 pm)
£29,000 - £1784.93 / £1808.13 (+£23.20 pm)
£30,000 - £1840.76 / £1865.63 (+£24.87 pm)
£31,000 - £1896.59 / £1923.13 (+£26.54 pm)
£32,000 - £1952.43 / £1980.63 (+£28.20 pm)
£33,000 - £2008.26 / £2038.13 (+£29.87 pm)
£34,000 - £2064.09 / £2095.63 (+£31.54 pm)
£35,000 - £2121.26 / £2153.13 (+£31.87 pm) Maximum sweet spot
£36,000 - £2185.43 / £2210.63 (+£25.20 pm)
£37,000 - £2249.59 / £2268.13 (+£18.54 pm)
£38,000 - £2313.76 / £2325.63 (+£11.87 pm)
£39,000 - £2377.93 / £2383.13 (+£5.20 pm)
£40,000 - £2439.47 / £2440.63 (+£1.16 pm)


Note :- NI Upper will be increased from £34840 to £40040 (It was 11% upto £34840 and 1% after. From April 08, it will be 11% upto £40,040 and 1% after and the reason as to why after £35,000 the gains drop)
Cannot progress the table beyond £40,000 as the new 40% IT threshold has not been set yet. (Due March 08) It is currently set at £39825

PeteBrant

I know - It's pretty staggering, and very wrong.

yay - 10:49am and the wrongest statement I will read all day has been posted already.

EddScott

Sounds to me, we are the suckers.

Don't work - get paid
Have a kid - get paid, free house
shack up with single mum - free home
Become ill or have needs - get it free

Theres a reason my family has been on 2 holidays in 5 years whereas my wifes workshy parents have had about 6 in the same time. Plus had £20K work completed on a house they don't pay for.

Devildog

Please expand Pete.

What is so inherantly wrong with the concept of not doing something if you can't afford it?

Devildog

Mitchy - does your table account for personal allowances, and if so, what allowance have you used?

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Totally agree, let's get everyone who has managed to get a good job by working hard at it to pay for everyone who hasn't. That makes perfect sense to me.

After all, it's not like I mind working 12 hours to pay for the extra tax when I do my (somewhat) regular 30hour maintenance weekends locked away in a bloody server room.

IMO, anyone who minds working 3 hours and 12 minutes out of every working day for the government is just selfish and ignorant.

PeteBrant

I will never agree to setting rules as to whether someone is allowed to excercise the most fundamental human right (in fact it is your sole purpose) in existance, ie.e. to procreate, and base those rules on the amount of money they earn.

It is utterly reprehensible.


Aside from anything else, if you insist on lookinmg at it from a financial aspect, if you start imposing rules, then the birth rate drops dramatically, and if that happens, we are all (in Europe as a whole) ****ed. You can forget your pension, or public services, because there wont be enough money coming in through taxation and prive pensions contributions to pay for them.

People are just interested in the "scrounging workshy freeloader" headlines, that account for a minute amount of public expenditure.

PeteBrant

It called contributing to the common good - By default not everyone can earn over the national average wage.

Also, the idea that if you don't earn very much you automatically don't work hard is retarded.

Devildog

Ok..If the scrounging workshy freeloders only amount for a minute amount of public expenditure, then would it be safe to assume there are not that many of them in the grand scheme of things?

SJ_Skyline

Bend over and brace yourselves for another round of taxation

BBC NEWS | Business | Budget 'must raise taxes by £8bn'

EddScott

Not quite sure if I miss-understand here.

My financial situation has a significant impact on whether I have any more children. I can't afford anymore than 1

I know people who knock them out every year. How? because its all paid for.

To be honest, if the birth rate dropped that would only be a good thing. And I'm sorry to say the the freeloaders or those that are on the fiddle are far more widespread than the "minority"

Anyone who lives with a single mum for free is on the fiddle. A mate has a brand new R27 Clio yet pays nothing for where he lives.

The system is a mess and badly thought out.

As for the topic overall my wife and I are £10 better off a month. I gain, she loses. Seems a bit unfair considering shes from a background of freeloaders and shes making the effort to work.

PeteBrant

Depends what your "cut off" point is for the definitiion of "workshy scrounging freeloader" is I suppose.

My definition is probably different to yours.

Makes no odds because there is no point at which you can ban someone from having children on a financial basis.

PeteBrant

It really wouldn't - Why do you think we need immigration? Even a 1% difference between birth and death rate makes a massive impact on tax revenue
So what you are saying here is that the majority of people on benefit are on the fiddle?

Going to back that up with some form of evidence? And I mean evidence, not Worthless Anecdotal Non Knowledge (or W.A.N.K.) as it's known.


Of course there could be improvements to stop this sort of thing, but that is a world away from stopping people from having kids.

Mitchy260

Yes 2007/8 PA of 5225 and 2008/9 of 5435 as detailed on the HM gov website.

The only thing that is unclear is the new 40% tax band setting, so the table cannot go beyond £40k at moment.

PeteBrant

There a neat little tax calculator here, (athough it hasn't got the 2008/9 numbers in yet.

Quite interesting to compare difference is the amount you get taxed yar by year.

Free UK PAYE Tax calculator 2008. Updated for 2007 / 2008 budget.

Mitchy260

I agree, a couple i know are on the fiddle big time.

She is classed as 'disabled' so doesn't work and he earns not a lot more than minimum wage. They went abroad 3 times last year so i doubt they are ever short of cash.

She claims she is a single mum so as a result gets free housing, council tax paid for, motability car which is insured and taxed F.O.C. (Not sure if this also includes a free service)

And then allowances for 2 children, free baby milk (£25-30) Incapacity/disability allowance and god knows what else. Dont even know if they pay for gas/heating bills?

You add that all up and its probably a good £15-1600 a month or so or the equivelant of someone earning around £25-26k year.

She has never worked in her life, pregnant and 'disabled' from school. Why should she have a better quality of life than say someone working behind a till 40hrs a week on a measly £10k

Then as he doesn't pay for housing, car, bills etc his wage is used as the spare cash

Makes my blood boil

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

I'm all for paying a bit back to society, what pisses me off is the amount I have to pay, and now I will have to pay even more. Why does the government penalise me for having a good job?

Also, if we were to have any kids, we'd get *nothing* from the government, but I'd still have to work my **** off to pay for someone else to bring their children up? How is that fair? Why am I not treated the same by the government with regards to children as those I have to pay for?

Bring in a flat tax and cap it at some limit, IMO.

Btw, if you work your guts out and don't get paid much, I suggest you try finding another job (edit: or work less hard).

Devildog

You can't ban them - that's not my contention here - but a little common sense and social responsiblility wouldn't go amiss from time to time. Not to mention contraception....

Devildog

Cheers. Was too lazy to work it back

Mitchy260

Henrik - Every parent is entitled to the £18.10 pw child benefit. (nearly £1000 per year) be it if your income is £10k or £100k

EddScott

If the people on thier bums went out to work we wouldn't need immigrants. Give people incentive to work and with more people in work the government earns more via tax.

No, I'm not saying everyone is on the fiddle but many are and many see it as their right. I'm not making w.a.n.k statements. That amount of people I know who don't give a toss makes it obvious its widespread that its time to stop people pulling off the government.

I would never suggest people shouldn't have kids but my financial situation dictates I can really only support one properly from a baby to hopefully a useful education and a good job.

I can't just keep popping them out on the basis that those idiots who pay taxes will pay my bill.

Anyone seen Shameless - its actually very funnny and what the chap says at the begining of each episode rings very true. Something along the lines of "You pay your taxes to pay our bills"

Its fiction but not too far away from the truth.

I would have quoted each bit but didn't have time - sorry

Devildog

Agreed mate. Its like council tax - why the hell should 2 people who recycle pay so much more than a family of 6 who don't, use more water and create much more waste, not to mention increased utilisation of public facilities, simply because the couple live in a more expensive house?

Makes no logical sense.

But generally the problem is, we are at a stage economocally from local council all the way up where the country is so fecked financially that an income based tax system as we have at present is the only workable solution.

PeteBrant

Agreed, some people have that social responsbility, some don;t. It's seems to me that the majority do - goven that the average family size isn't 6 kids. It's 2.4

Of course there will always be a minority that abuse the system, and moves are being made to crack down on this sort of thing (from next year when your child hits 12, you will have to work) There will always be some that slip through the net, but by and large, the system works.

But the world doesn't work like that does it. Someone has to empty the bins, dig the graves, be labourers, security guards, and so on. You will find that these people don;t work any less hard than you.

Your contribution to society, or how hard you work, is not measure by your wage packet.

You've missed the point - If there are more people dying/retireing than there are being born/coming into the workforce, then you are going to have a shortfall.

Most people feel the same way. Sometimes things don;t go to the big master plan we have and we need to fall back on a safety net.

The current council tax calulations are rubbish - The value of your property has no reflection on your ability to pay - You could have bought it 30 years ago for £10,000 and its now worth £1,000,000.

The only fair way for council tax is based on your ability to pay - and in that respect it has to be income based, as per income tax.

PeteBrant

It always has to be income based doesn't it? What else can you base it on?

SJ_Skyline

Services used? household A uses more services than B, consequently A should pay more?

I think there is room for this taxation model to coexist with an income based one though.

PeteBrant

So someone earning £10,000 could theeorhetically pay more tax than someone earning £10,000,000?


Do you not think that's a bit ****ed up?