The continuing nonsense of "Take Home Pay"

[l35kee]

He would use the family computer rather than have one to his own. A family computer clearly wouldn't be business equipment as it would have your kids games on it or partner's sh*t. Some employers give you laptops which you have to take home so you can use that - yes some idiots actually do -, and other employers will reimburse you for the laptop you brought to do work.

Alternatively he could just post on his phone.

Or go to an internet cafe or his local library. It doesn't matter, we're too into specific examples, doesn't disprove anything.

[WordIsBond]

So you only post here during working time, or you have a desktop computer at home?

I WFH except for client visits. I use the desktop. I only need a laptop for taking with me on client visits or for working when on holiday.

I sometimes do Internet stuff on my laptop, sometimes on my desktop, sometimes on a tablet. But I wouldn't have a laptop if I didn't need it for work. And I wouldn't call the cost of my desktop "income" either.

[WordIsBond]

It doesn't matter, we're too into specific examples, doesn't disprove anything.

It disproves your assertion that expenses are "income".

Anything my company pays for that I would not have bought myself is not income, and so cannot be included in "take-home". You might have a case with child care vouchers, except if someone isn't working they wouldn't need those, either. A better case would be trivial benefits like the Christmas turkey or flu jab, and the mobile phone. Perhaps the relevant life plan as well, though if I had no income I wouldn't need to protect it.

[l35kee]

It disproves your assertion that expenses are "income".

Anything my company pays for that I would not have bought myself is not income, and so cannot be included in "take-home". You might have a case with child care vouchers, except if someone isn't working they wouldn't need those, either. A better case would be trivial benefits like the Christmas turkey or flu jab, and the mobile phone. Perhaps the relevant life plan as well, though if I had no income I wouldn't need to protect it.

It doesn't. I never said all expenses were income. I've made that abundantly clear. My assertion is that it is incorrect to label all expenses as not being income, when many are used in order to use cash in a business that otherwise you would pay tax on or not be able to take at all.

The argument I have faced is that all expenses are true expenses, things you wouldn't have to pay if a permie. That is completely false and gives an inaccurate view of 'take home'.

[TonyF]

It doesn't. I never said all expenses were income. I've made that abundantly clear. My assertion is that it is incorrect to label all expenses as not being income, when many are used in order to use cash in a business that otherwise you would pay tax on or not be able to take at all.

The argument I have faced is that all expenses are true expenses, things you wouldn't have to pay if a permie. That is completely false and gives an inaccurate view of 'take home'.

So bringing this back to the original post, there are examples in the calculator of £300+ each week as expenses.

How much of that would you expect to be "income" that should be counted, and what is it spent on?

[malvolio]

So bringing this back to the original post, there are examples in the calculator of £300+ each week as expenses.

How much of that would you expect to be "income" that should be counted, and what is it spent on?

It's a simple equation, if you take it to the extreme: if you are making a profit on expenses then essentially you are committing tax evasion.

[pr1]

It's a simple equation, if you take it to the extreme: if you are making a profit on expenses then essentially you are committing tax evasion.

Making a profit on expenses by billing a client for more money than the expense cost is not tax evasion - I think you need to re-word your post

[l35kee]

It's a simple equation, if you take it to the extreme: if you are making a profit on expenses then essentially you are committing tax evasion.

It isn't a profit. But paying for a mobile phone through the business rather than personally I would include in an income figure.

[TonyF]

It isn't a profit. But paying for a mobile phone through the business rather than personally I would include in an income figure.

That might account for £10 a week if you're on a daft tarrrif. Where does the other £290 a week in expenses come from that counts as income?

[l35kee]

That might account for £10 a week if you're on a daft tarrrif. Where does the other £290 a week in expenses come from that counts as income?

Childcare :'(