Dreams of Working From a Beach Risk Turning Into a Tax Nightmare

[Whorty]

actually you might be better of with <50k + benefits. and 2 tax allowances cumulated are always better than one.

2 people on < 50k cumulated + benefits are probably better off than 1 100k sole taxpayer.

this society is screwed and even 100k in london is not a lot. GhostofTarbera , can you pitch in with this?

How does a couple, earning £25k each, receive benefits (accepting the weekly child benefits if they have kids*)?

As Vetran syas though, if you can't live on these salaries you quote then you seriously need to look at your lifestyle. Or just grow up. The world does not owe you a living; to paraphrase BR14, if you're not happy with the UK society/market/wages/whatever, then instead of constantly whinging, just bugger off to a society where you will be happy.


* I assume this still exists?

[GigiBronz]

do supply some facts. Plenty of people I know have sole earners on less than £50k and joint earnings less than £50k.

£100k after take home is £67k not a bad screw.

How does a couple, earning £25k each, receive benefits (accepting the weekly child benefits if they have kids*)?

As Vetran syas though, if you can't live on these salaries you quote then you seriously need to look at your lifestyle. Or just grow up. The world does not owe you a living; to paraphrase BR14, if you're not happy with the UK society/market/wages/whatever, then instead of constantly whinging, just bugger off to a society where you will be happy.

* I assume this still exists?

2 people earning 25k is 3.4k net. 1 person earning 100k is 5.5k. difference is not that large BUT:

"If either you or your partner has an income of more than £60,000 a year before tax, you will have to repay all of your Child Benefit as Income Tax"

AND

after 100k you lose free childcare:
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.u...efit-from-2013

" The government will pay for 30 hours of childcare per week for children between three and four years of age.
Free childcare isn’t available where either you or your partner have adjusted income over £100,000.
"
https://bhp.co.uk/news-events/blog/h...the-same-time/

why are you old farts still defending the current system when it is a farce. because if has done for you so well over time but now has made the society uninhabitable?

I would have left to be honest if there was a better place to go in Europe...

5.5k net in london to raise a family is dogtulip. you'd be lucky to afford to put £500 aside. want to save for a house? LMAO, you could only dream.

and if you save on food and buy only the low costs ones(which you will definitely do with that income), some takeaway (because you'd be working A LOT) you'd be lucky not to develop a condition by 55. YOU are what you EAT.

[vetran]

How does a couple, earning £25k each, receive benefits (accepting the weekly child benefits if they have kids*)?

As Vetran syas though, if you can't live on these salaries you quote then you seriously need to look at your lifestyle. Or just grow up. The world does not owe you a living; to paraphrase BR14, if you're not happy with the UK society/market/wages/whatever, then instead of constantly whinging, just bugger off to a society where you will be happy.


* I assume this still exists?

* only if you aren't overpaid.

Child benefits start being charged as a BIK on a single earner at £50K they disappear at £60K its the Tories screwing hard working families.

so one earner on £60k is £2k (per child) worse off than 2 earners on £30k each.

Though lots of couples would be delighted with one earner on £60k.

[vetran]

2 people earning 25k is 3.4k net. 1 person earning 100k is 5.5k. difference is not that large BUT:

"If either you or your partner has an income of more than £60,000 a year before tax, you will have to repay all of your Child Benefit as Income Tax"

AND

after 100k you lose free childcare:
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.u...efit-from-2013

" The government will pay for 30 hours of childcare per week for children between three and four years of age.
Free childcare isn’t available where either you or your partner have adjusted income over £100,000.
"
https://bhp.co.uk/news-events/blog/h...the-same-time/

why are you old farts still defending the current system when it is a farce. because if has done for you so well over time but now has made the society uninhabitable?

I would have left to be honest if there was a better place to go in Europe...

5.5k net in london to raise a family is dogtulip. you'd be lucky to afford to put £500 aside. want to save for a house? LMAO, you could only dream.

and if you save on food and buy only the low costs ones(which you will definitely do with that income), some takeaway (because you'd be working A LOT) you'd be lucky not to develop a condition by 55. YOU are what you EAT.

Yeah £2.1K a month isn't much its only the equivalent to earning an 'average wage' and being in the top 31% of earners.

child care at about £5.23 an hour (what the government pay at 30 hours a week is £160 a week / £600 a month before tax so yes its a loss but hardly penury.

80% of people are not paying higher rate tax.

on 100k you are in the top 2% of earners.

on £50k you are in the top 5% of earners stop fecking whining!

https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resourc..._do_you_fit_in

[d000hg]

* only if you aren't overpaid.

Child benefits start being charged as a BIK on a single earner at £50K they disappear at £60K its the Tories screwing hard working families.

so one earner on £60k is £2k (per child) worse off than 2 earners on £30k each.

Though lots of couples would be delighted with one earner on £60k.

It's not screwing hard working families that you don't get benefits when you have moderately high income. However, I would 100% get behind the ability for spouses to pool their income/tax allowances. The ability to shift a bit of your allowance is fairly meaningless at these levels.

[GigiBronz]

Though lots of couples would be delighted with one earner on £60k.

because society is built on gullible people and that is how probably it should be. but this is a forum of contractors that are aware of the costs and value their time. that want to be rewarded for the risk they are taking as a contract and live an decent life.

[NowPermOutsideUK]

2 people earning 25k is 3.4k net. 1 person earning 100k is 5.5k. difference is not that large BUT:

"If either you or your partner has an income of more than £60,000 a year before tax, you will have to repay all of your Child Benefit as Income Tax"

AND

after 100k you lose free childcare:
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.u...efit-from-2013

" The government will pay for 30 hours of childcare per week for children between three and four years of age.
Free childcare isn’t available where either you or your partner have adjusted income over £100,000.
"
https://bhp.co.uk/news-events/blog/h...the-same-time/

why are you old farts still defending the current system when it is a farce. because if has done for you so well over time but now has made the society uninhabitable?

I would have left to be honest if there was a better place to go in Europe...

5.5k net in london to raise a family is dogtulip. you'd be lucky to afford to put £500 aside. want to save for a house? LMAO, you could only dream.

and if you save on food and buy only the low costs ones(which you will definitely do with that income), some takeaway (because you'd be working A LOT) you'd be lucky not to develop a condition by 55. YOU are what you EAT.

I couldnt have said it better myself - 100k is nowhere near much anymore - mortgage is 3k a month on a 3 bed flat so thats 2.5k left for eating and saving and enjoying life. I havent even included school fees or god forbid holidays

Fact is 100k a year is really just middle class in london -

[d000hg]

because society is built on gullible people and that is how probably it should be. but this is a forum of contractors that are aware of the costs and value their time. that want to be rewarded for the risk they are taking as a contract and live an decent life.

We might be contractors but the people we're talking about are not. And for that matter, plenty of contractors don't live in London or even the South-East because they've got more sense.

[GigiBronz]

We might be contractors but the people we're talking about are not. And for that matter, plenty of contractors don't live in London or even the South-East because they've got more sense.

Unless you can teleport yourself I don't think you can find reasonable house prices. Nonetheless you'll still have to do 1-2h commute from outside london that on top of 8-12h work will grind you down to a vegetable.

Yeah £2.1K a month isn't much its only the equivalent to earning an 'average wage' and being in the top 31% of earners.

child care at about £5.23 an hour (what the government pay at 30 hours a week is £160 a week / £600 a month before tax so yes its a loss but hardly penury.

80% of people are not paying higher rate tax.

on 100k you are in the top 2% of earners.

on £50k you are in the top 5% of earners stop fecking whining!

https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resourc..._do_you_fit_in

those statistics are as useless as the 2.1% declared CPI...

[GigiBronz]

I couldnt have said it better myself - 100k is nowhere near much anymore - mortgage is 3k a month on a 3 bed flat so thats 2.5k left for eating and saving and enjoying life. I havent even included school fees or god forbid holidays

Fact is 100k a year is really just middle class in london -

I would not say even the middle class. Middle class no longer exists. It's just the working poor and ultra rich.

A lot of people would like to think of themselves as middle class and intellectuals. The matter of fact is they are actually none. They are 3 months away from living on the street, haven't read a book in a year and believe in all the nonsense mainstream media is selling them. Which makes them as thick as mince.