> taxed to the eyeballs
Emotional phrases aside, what is your total NI + income tax deduction percentage, and what percentage do you think you should be paying?
Emotional phrases aside, what is your total NI + income tax deduction percentage, and what percentage do you think you should be paying?
They're well known an documented, but I'm sure you know that already.
It is funny you say these are well known and documented, yet provide no links or sources.
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates https://www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare
For other readers who don't want to go through that:
Say you earn £99,999 and get a pay rise to £100,000 and have two pre-school aged children, you lose £4000 (£2000 per child) per year, so you now earn less.
Now for the next ~£25,140 you earn you'll pay an effective tax rate of 60%, so from £99,999 you first have to hit ~£110,000 to break even, then it's ~60% tax up to £125,140, then beyond that it's 45%.
And you wouldn't be receiving it at all if you didn't have children.
Like I would choose to not means test such a policy were in charge, but it's also got nothing to do with marginal tax rates - it's why liberals like me generally oppose means tested welfare policies (because it costs more to deliver and tends to deliver less).
You also don't have childcare costs once they go to school, so the loss of that outgoing makes up for the loss of the tax credit.
I'm also liberal, and I think that everyone should be given the child tax credit, if the government wants you to work, and earn, and have children (it does), the tax credit is an effective way to help everyone work harder and earn more.
The issue I've been trying to describe, is that after you've already had children, and you then hit 100k, you lose it entirely, making you 2k per child worse off, so let's say you get to 100k, and you already have two children in childcare, you lose 4k, then you get a pay rise to 110k, with the loss of the 4k and at the same time you also hit a marginal tax rate of 60%, you now earn exactly the same as you did at 100k.
If you got a with-inflation pay rise every year from 100k onward, you'd be earning less for almost all of that time until those children go to school.
Lowering the higher band threshold to 100k from 125k and not tapering the personal allowance would actually leave you better off.
EDIT: Typo in my numbers (100k > 110k).
That said, I agree that is pretty stupid.
The only connection to marginal tax rates is that the pay bands line up though?
On the part from 0 to 1000, no taxes
1001 to 10000, ten percent
10001 to 20000, twenty percent
20000 to 30000, thirty percent
30001 and more, forty percent
So if you were earning 29000 and get a raise to 31000 those 29000 are still taxed as they used to and the extra 2000 are split among the two bands around 30k.
Edit: Ah, there's a baseline personal deduction (12.5k) that disappears between 100-125k, meaning, for that narrow band, every dollar earned in that range has a higher effective tax rate due to that deduction slowly disappearing. It's still progressive, so you don't suddenly start paying 60% tax on everything.
https://www.brewin.co.uk/insights/earn-over-100k-beware-the-...
EDIT: it's interesting that anyone genuinely asking and trying to understand is getting downvoted as opposed to anyone who just disagrees with me.
Obviously very different if you're self employed or have income mostly from investments or properties, but the you have an accountant to do it for you.
The income numbers are already there and if I want to check it's easy: my employer gives me a form with the same numbers in the same numbered boxes. I just need to specify how much income I had from bank interest.
The tax witholding system usually works as well - the main exception being straight after starting work for the first time or changing jobs, when you can have a temporary code. In these cases I just called HMRC and told them what was going on. The employer gives my pay numbers to HMRC and HMRC give my employer a tax code that determines how much to withhold each month.
I struggle with the child tax credits. If I'm childless and move from 99,999 to 100,000 it doesn't change my situation at all. I don't think we can view that in the same light - it's a tax credit benefit, but it's not just a matter of earnings. The goal is to support lower income families, so the line has to be drawn somewhere, and whether it's gradual or not someone is still going to complain about it going away.
Having it go away is less of a problem than having it go away all at once. If it was phased out over a range of incomes such that every marginal dollar of gross is still a marginal increase in net, that'd solve the problem mentioned in this thread. Key property of a tax system: the function from gross income to net income should always be monotonically increasing.
Nobody is expected not to use it if they earn below the point it is taken away, it's just an arbitrary tax on parents who earn 100,000, while at the same time a few other paper cuts are piled on.
I know Americans always do tax returns, sounds like a pita for you guys, and I believe until recently you had no choice but to use some sort of service and couldn't DIY it?
Here if you're PAYE (salaries), it's dealt with on your behalf, the tax is deducted before you're paid and you don't have to deal with it, unless you're self employed. It's not necessarily a huge issue, but it's a time cost and that has to have a price, and if you get it wrong, HMRC are notoriously hard and will demand full payment immediately, if you're lucky and they accept your "excuse" (their word), they might let you split it over 3 months.
At this point it's best to make sure you have £10,000+ in savings aside just in case.
I've not had to do a tax return yet, but I've frequently seen tax bills in the tens of thousands from family and friends because their accountant got it wrong, and holds no liability.
I don't think it's as big an issue for me people have taken from my original wording, that's fine, poor choice of words on my part perhaps, but it has certainly been blown out of proportion including some minor jabs at me and (incorrectly) at my political leanings etc. Despite this really all having nothing to do with politics or news and quite clearly as I pointed out at it's direct effect on my family finances.
As the saying goes here in England, "I'm sorry I mentioned it".
This seems to be me to be a weird framing. It's a tax benefit for parents that's taken away when you hit £100k. When you hit £100k you don't face an arbitrary tax, instead you're now playing by the same rules everyone else is. You're in parity with your child-less coworker. Not disadvantaged, just no longer advantaged.
The government has been clear they want you to work harder and earn more, they also want you to have children and raise future tax payers, if you do have children either your career and earnings take a hit or you need to put them in childcare, in that case I think all child care should be tax free, they're only in there so you can work and earn and pay tax. It's typical that your wages should increase with experience but you can't un-have children, perhaps you didn't even know you'd hit that threshold when you had them, or more likey that such a threshold even exists.
If we don't think of it like that, but simply that you're no longer advantaged as you put it, the issue is that it's sudden and affects unevenly, two parents can earn £99,999.99 EACH and still receive it, but a single parent or one person in a couple earns that extra penny they're now £2000/child worse off and still have to put their children in childcare.
Of course there's an option to have or not to have children, but I'd argue that the global consensus in countries with ageing populations, like the UK, is that the government want you to work more, and for longer and have more children, so it should be fair to say that from the government perspective, having children is the expected norm.
We could imagine fixing the problem by making the childcare voucher phase out between 80k and 100k, and at 100.2k you'd get exactly the same amount as you get under the current system.
In this hypothetical would you still say taxed to the eyeballs? If so, what would your justification be?
With a progressive tax band, the burden is different, you're aware of it ahead of time and you set your living standards accordingly, you won't see a big sudden drop and can adjust accordingly. You can't suddenly sell your home or find a much higher paying job in the same space of time a small pay increase took you over the cliff.
For my generation, a professional that's having a family has probably focused on their career to get there, having there kids once they break some income threshold at a certain age, let's say it's 80k to fit with your numbers. You bought your home somewhere where those higher salaries are, paid a premium, higher SDLT on a small new build flat, you upsize when you have kids, buy a(n) (old) house, now overpriced due to property price jumps in the last few years, another chunk of SDLT, bills much higher, then you hit 100k as your costs have gone up significantly, that might be manageable, but you've just lost 2k per child to the tax credit trap, then the next 10k breaks even, after that you're taxed at 60% while your salary can't/won't be able to increase enough to offset that additional tax burden and your living standards have materially dropped because you got a pay rise.
I suppose the nuance I'm trying to convey is one of timing compounded by cliffs in the tax system that wouldn't become the sudden problem they are if the tax system wasn't set up the way it is.
One could argue that you could have known this, but I don't believe anyone would be seriously aware of the pitfalls until they have kids or hit a salary where you're going to be hit with a big step in tax burden.
Sure it won't affect everyone the same, but if you happen to meet those specific criteria with that specific timing, it can certainly feel like being "taxed to the eyeballs" even if that isn't the best way to put it. I'm far from the only person in that position, it's just the natural progression for some.
I hope that explains my position a bit better. I wasn't trying to say "I pay too much tax as a percentage of my income", in fact I DON'T think that, but I and others I've spoken to in this situation believe it's a tax-based ceiling on our progression and is a tax-based contribution to the growing wealth devide pushing anyone down that attempts to break into the middle class, which as a whole just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; no I'm not putting myself in those brackets before someone jumps on me, but pushing the middle down makes the rich richer and the poor poorer (sorry slight tangent at the end there).
Owning a home, having significant savings, holidays abroad at least once a year, sending your children to private school, etc are probably some things I'd consider markers of being in the lower middle class.
On that basis, homes are becoming harder to own, savings are being eaten up by higher cost of living, the pound is weakening and taxes are making it untenable to send your children to private school.
Maybe my idea of what being middle class is is wrong, but it can't be far off, and that's exactly the group of people who aren't going to go much further beyond that to whatever comes at the next stage, I don't know what living standards look like for people above that; multiple properties, significant portfolios, not working for a living?
If my perspective if off, I'm willing to hear it.
You come across as out of touch and entitled. You live in the future - enjoy it!
But it’s not obvious that the standard of living associated with being better off would ever have been near the 90th, let alone 90th percentile of salaries?
Not convinced that sending children to private school would ever have been seen as a ‘lower middle class’ expectation.
But I’m also not convinced that the markers you describe are not available to someone at the 75th percentile of income, say, let alone to people at the 95th percentile. Now the luxuriousness of those markers may not be at the level marketed in glossy brochures etc but isn’t that an issue with unrealistic expectations?
I suspect it's nowhere near the 95th percentile of earned wealth.
If the income of everybody above the 80th percentile dropped to be equal to the 81st percentile, the 80th percentile income wouldn't change the ones above would just be very closely bunched.
(Last time I checked the opposite was true and they got more spread out)
The truth is I don't know the exact numbers but it's not relevant to my point, as I've tried to point out elsewhere.
Now despite your previous admission, you are here telling me that you did answer it and I just didn't like the answer. The question has revealed more about you and your motives than we could have ever imagined.