193
194

My £500 wage increase... (self.unitedkingdom)

monkey-socks が 投稿

So, I'm getting my first wage increase in a few years! Great! Nearly £500 extra a year. Of course, I'll pay an extra £100 income tax, extra £62 national insurance, and an extra £45 student loan repayments over the year.

I have kids and get child tax credits - we all know these are reducing next year anyway. The extra £500 will reduce these by a further £240. I'm left with just over £50 extra over a year - around £1 a week. Where is the incentive to work harder when almost all of the extra money is taken away from me?

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 406
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]chillikebab 276ポイント277ポイント  (163子コメント)

  1. You're paying back your loans (as everyone should) 2. The more money you get, the more tax you gotta pay (isn't this what people here advocate for?)

[–]rx-bandit 206ポイント207ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but, not on my money.

[–]TheAngryGoatStarkshire 58ポイント59ポイント  (4子コメント)

"When I said taxes should be higher, I meant OTHER people's taxes!"

-said everyone, every time.

[–]velkrosmaak 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow! You get free money just because you have kids?

[–]LikesToCorrectThingsGreater London 12ポイント13ポイント  (7子コメント)

His marginal tax rate is 90%. That's the rate we used to charge millionaires in the 80s.

[–]Timothy_Claypole 24ポイント25ポイント  (4子コメント)

Not quite. Removing subsidies is not the same thing as taxing people. Sure it has the same financial effect in many cases. Not going to dispute that one bit.

But there are differences and it can end up with misconceptions about public spending.

[–]LikesToCorrectThingsGreater London 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ah, but tax credits aren't subsidies, they're a reduction in tax. If you reduce the reduction in tax, you're increasing tax.

[–]Timothy_Claypole 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good point.

[–]ticking12 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Actually tax credits are poorly named and are simply payouts based on income/hours worked, divorced from any PAYE/NI you might pay. It actually confuses people when they are talking about things like double taxation credits which are calculated as part of Income tax.

[–]LikesToCorrectThingsGreater London 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's calculated against your income because it's a negative income tax. It's calculated separately from your positive income tax, but that's not really the point; the same is true if you have multiple jobs - each is calculated independently with separate tax codes if you're on PAYE. Ultimately you have an income tax rate that is your positives added up (from each job) with your negatives subtracted. If you reduce the negatives, that's an overall income tax increase.

[–]Eddie_Hitler 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

People forget both this and the fact that people earned less in those days anyway.

A FTSE 100 CEO in 1986 might have a total remuneration package worth £800k. His counterpart in 2015 could be on as much as £7-10m depending on the company.

People also forget that there was considerably less tax dodging in those days, even though tax rates were higher and people earned less. I do wonder what's changed?

[–]LikesToCorrectThingsGreater London 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Year after year of sub-inflation pay rises for the masses, while top-tier executives get massive bonuses to "retain talent".

I think mechanisation has brought us an oversupply of unskilled or low-skilled labour, whilst those with money can use that to cement their position through massive returns on investment. This is pretty much what you'd expect.

It does worry me as to what the end game might look like.

[–]Psyc5 48ポイント49ポイント  (136子コメント)

You're paying back your loans (as everyone should)

So can everyone who is over 35 pay the 20K-50K they should have owed yet got all the education for free then? Why are young people who caused none of the problems paying for them when the people who did are still alive, oh that is right, because they all voted Tory because they said they would give them even more free stuff.

On the plus side at least they are going to dismantle the NHS so they will all die quicker.

[–]chillikebab 90ポイント91ポイント  (98子コメント)

Times change and with them, in this case, uni fees change. OP knew what he signed up for when he went Uni and the loans he had to pay back - I don't see the issue with paying it back now?

The NHS is getting more money under the new budget - hopefully you won't die too soon.

[–]nicolasbrody 7ポイント8ポイント  (35子コメント)

It really isn't as simple as that. At school you're told constantly to get a good job you need a degree, and most employers won't touch you if you don't have a degree. You are put in a position where you don't have much choice, and going to university doesn't remove the right to complain about having to pay back a loan - a loan which now has interest. With the student loan company now being private they are making money out of people getting an education they have little choice not to get.

[–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk 4ポイント5ポイント  (26子コメント)

oing to university doesn't remove the right to complain about having to pay back a loan - a loan which now has interest.

That 75% of people will never pay back.

[–]RovingAtom 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Not only that, at 17/18 you likely aren't wise enough to know the outcomes of your actions if you skip university altogether. It's perceived as a safe bet to acquire more education, particularly if many of your peers (now competitors) do so.

[–]thepeganator 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not true in the slightest, almost everyone who does the same job as me has no degree, and they earn anything from £30k to £90k+

[–]nicolasbrody 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How old are you? Maybe our experiences differ but many many jobs want a degree at the very least if you are young or crazy amounts of experience, which you can't begin to get at our age without a degree...

Of course there are experiences, but most higher paid jobs when you are young expect or require a degree.

[–]scrollop 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Either the NHS will receive more money or private healthcare firms will under the healthcare budget, with the excuse that the NHS doesn't have the capacity. Unfortunately, this is one cog in the masterplan.

[–]RhaegarionYorkshire 14ポイント15ポイント  (56子コメント)

Why should the young pay for the fiscal irresponsibilty of the old?

[–]croutonicusIsle of Wight 40ポイント41ポイント  (7子コメント)

Why should the old pay for education they were told is free? I can't take you out for lunch on the promise I'll pay and then invoice you for it a week later.

[–]ShanghaiNoon 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

Actually they were told it would be paid through general taxation. Given the deficits racked up by the government over these years it clearly wasn't. Why should we pay for their deficits?

[–]croutonicusIsle of Wight 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why should we pay for their deficits?

Wait who exactly is paying for who's deficit? Surely they could just turn around and say "fuck your student loan, why should we pay for your deficit?"

Honestly you make it sound like those of us who are under 25 have so far made a net contribution to the country and it's only the elderly who are taking from it.

[–]SeismicaTeesside 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Honestly you make it sound like those of us who are under 25 have so far made a net contribution to the country and it's only the elderly who are taking from it.

Not exactly, he's saying that when the older generations were under 25, they recieved more and/or contributed less and that the recent cuts are a result of running a deficit for so long.

I don't know whether that is true or not, because we can't just look at tuition fees in isolation, nor can we say that all public services and financial assistance that the young generation benefits from today existed 20-30 years ago.

[–]croutonicusIsle of Wight 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

they recieved more and/or contributed less and that the recent cuts are a result of running a deficit for so long

That's rubbish though, the budget moved into surplus towards the end of Ken Clarke's tenure as CotE, which turned into a £69bn defecit by the end of Brown's tenure and a £156bn deficit by the end of Darling's.

The current results are the result of partially the fiscal irresponsibility of the previous Labour governments and more the global financial crisis more than the "baby boomer" generation.

I will freely admit that most of the Governments for the last fifty years could have laid a better framework for mitigating loss for the financial crisis but to stand up and say some bloke who's spend 150,000 hours of his life working and paying taxes is responsible for paying your student loan is so fucking naive it makes me ashamed to be associated with this generation. People saying they hope the benefit of the NHS cuts is they are going to usher people like that into an early grave because they don't like the fact they now vote Tory can, if you'll excuse the expression, go fuck themselves.

[–]ShanghaiNoon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not rubbish, the UK has run budget deficits far more often than it has run surpluses. When it did run surpluses they were relatively small in comparison to our deficits.

[–]SeismicaTeesside 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's rubbish though, the budget moved into surplus towards the end of Ken Clarke's tenure as CotE, which turned into a £69bn defecit by the end of Brown's tenure and a £156bn deficit by the end of Darling's.

Oh I wasn't agreeing, just I interpreted his argument that way. No data or facts to support it either, whereas you have.

I will freely admit that most of the Governments for the last fifty years could have laid a better framework for mitigating loss for the financial crisis but to stand up and say some bloke who's spend 150,000 hours of his life working and paying taxes is responsible for paying your student loan is so fucking naive it makes me ashamed to be associated with this generation. People saying they hope the benefit of the NHS cuts is they are going to usher people like that into an early grave because they don't like the fact they now vote Tory can, if you'll excuse the expression, go fuck themselves.

But equally, somebody who benefitted from free tuition fees paid for by the generation before them shouldn't so vehemently object to themselves doing the same for this generation of young people. Its pretty hypocritical in my opinion. But as I said, it's a much more complex issue because we can't just look at tuition fees, and as you rightly said, they are not the cause of the deficit any more than students are now.

[–]werdya 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why should the young benefit from the actions of the old?

It goes both ways. You take the good with the bad. The good that comes from those before us is infinitely better than the bad.

[–]KarmaAndLies 12ポイント13ポイント  (45子コメント)

Because we'll get to do the same thing when we're old.

Plus, frankly, the student loan system is much more sustainable right now since it is self-funding and no matter how poor you are you can go to university which I think is awesome.

I myself only pay 1.5% interest which is lower than any other form of borrowing, and I can save at 3% APR, so I can pay off my student loan at the minimum repayment rate and actually make money on the money I haven't used to pay it off quicker. That's how good for a bargain student loans are.

And this coming from someone who took out the full student loans over three years and is still paying it back. I don't feel "screwed."

PS - Although I fully admit I attended before they increased university fees, so I have it easier than students today.

[–]stats94The Royal County 22ポイント23ポイント  (10子コメント)

the student loan system is much more sustainable right now since it is self-funding

Well actually most experts seems to think it's unsustainable at the moment, plus it costs £16k for each student so it's not even totally self-funding.

Source [1] [2]

[–]Psyc5 7ポイント8ポイント  (9子コメント)

It is laughably unsustainable, ridiculously so, I know people who have been working full time, for 5 years who haven't even covered the interest on the £20K loans, when they are paying them at a £17800 bracket, go live in the north and you can get paid £20K and live a happy life all while paying back £200 a year in loan, a 2% interest rate on a £20K loan is £400 a year...and then they get written off after 25 years, and this is an example of a working person, plenty of people I known don't even hit the bracket, or just went travelling for 3 years.

Then you have the new loans essentially £50K at £21K bracket for 9%, if you earn £30K you pay back £810, real terms inflations to keep the balance comparable adds £1K on it every year, you have to earn over £32K to even cover it, but not really, take out a 5% pension and it is more like £34K, and the whole loan is written off after 30 years. Without interest, you would have to average a pay rate of £40K to pay off £50K in 30 years at these rates, there are a lot of careers that peak at £40K let alone average at it over the length of your career.

[–]Joeybada33 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

I'm calling it now they will get turned into private debt

[–]Psyc5 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Then they will get sued the hell out of, you can't just change a contract, and there will be a whole generation of new solicitors who it effects to support the class action.

[–]jl45Staffordshire 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Government can do whatever they want if Parliament votes for it cant they?

コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

    [–]FurrykNorthern Ireland 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Nah, that won't be the case.

    If it became private debt, the number of people attending University would plummet dramatically and the UK can't really afford that happening. 'Knowledge' is the UKs biggest export, not goods, so we can't afford to let allow our Engineering and Finance sectors fall behind the global market.

    Education doesn't support itself through how students repay the debt, but it does through the extra money it makes the country as a whole.

    [–]Joeybada33 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Well they've started to do it with debt thats not being paid back.

    Also the Tories don't want the government / public to pick up what they consider should be taken on as private debt.

    [–]wildeaboutoscar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't really understand the idea of charging so much of something whilst knowing you're never gouing to get the entire thing back in the first place. I'm not an expert in finance but that doesn't sound logical to me. You may as well keep the fees to more suitable figures and let people actually pay them off. That way you get more money than you would by keeping people on the hook for 30 years if there's no chance of them paying it back in the first place.

    [–]noodledoodledooGreater Manchester 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Student loans now gain interest equal to inflation, about 3-4% and start gaining that interest your first year of uni. I will probably never pay this loan off, so I don't see how it's sustainable at all really when such a small amount of people are actually going to pay it off.

    [–]NikkiJayne28Warwickshire 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't even pay my interest off each year. It's laughable! I just view it as an extra tax and ignore it.

    [–]LikesToCorrectThingsGreater London 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    It's not sustainable. It's a time bomb that will go off in 30 years time when the govt of the day will have to suddenly find billions of pounds each year to write off all these debts that didn't get paid back.

    But DC and GO won't be in power then (they'll be long gone), so they don't give a shit. It's today's students' pensions that will probably have to be raided, or more austerity on the next generation.

    [–]KissTheBlade_Escocia 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Our GDP will be much higher as a result of the investment in education.

    [–]Bilb- 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    So you would rather students pay more and sooner? Or you would like tax payer's to cover all the cost while most people are struggling?

    [–]LikesToCorrectThingsGreater London 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I would prefer a system where people who have the ability have their tuition paid for (it is, after all, a GDP-increasing investment, right?), perhaps with a nominal means-tested contribution from the student to discourage abuse, and non-means-tested government backed loans are made available to everyone for maintenance costs. These loans should have a realistic prospect of being paid back, unlike the current system where 60% of loans are expected to be written off by the governments of 2045 onwards, and some economic analysts believe this is an underestimate.

    Basically, the system we used to have before the coalition fucked it up.

    [–]ArIke475RichardIIIshire 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    when the govt of the day will have to suddenly find billions of pounds each year to write off all these debts that didn't get paid back.

    This is complete nonsense. Write offs have no effect on cashflow. They wont have to 'find' anything.

    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

      [–]nicolasbrody 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Why should you have to pay back a loan with interest on it to get an education which most employers demand you must have? I reject the idea we can't afford free education, it's a political choice to have tuition fees, not a purely fiscal one.

      [–]Chlorophilia 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Because we'll get to do the same thing when we're old.

      What kind of an argument is that? "They're screwing us over but it's fine because we get to be horrible to kids in the future"?

      I myself only pay 1.5% interest which is lower than any other form of borrowing, and I can save at 3% APR, so I can pay off my student loan at the minimum repayment rate and actually make money on the money I haven't used to pay it off quicker. That's how good for a bargain student loans are.

      Which sounds wonderful until you realise that 75% of students going through the current system are never going to be able to pay off their debts. Until I earn almost £30,000, the rate at which my student debt will increase will be greater than the rate at which I pay it back (the £30,000 figure is probably an understatement because by the time I get that, the debt will have become even bigger and hence the annual interest).

      Although I fully admit I attended before they increased university fees, so I have it easier than students today.

      Yes, you do! What you've said above isn't really applicable when you're dealing with almost £60,000 of debt.

      [–]nxtbstthng 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You will be making payments from a lower income so you're actually worse off than those with the higher fees.

      [–]Stealthy_LehningerSurrey 0ポイント1ポイント  (20子コメント)

      Until they sell the student loan book off and increase the rate ;)

      [–]Lanfeix 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

      How does that work? Selling of the student debt? And how can they change the agreed a upon terms?

      [–]Cast_Me-AsideYorkshire 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

      From here.

      'Can they increase the interest rates after I graduate? Didn't I sign up for a certain level of interest when I took out the loan?' I hear you ask. The Tory minister for universities, David Willetts, answered that question himself in a parliamentary select committee last June when he said: "In the letter that every student gets there are some words to the effect that the government reserve the right to change the terms of the loans."

      [–]will_holmesNaaarfak 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Parliament is sovereign, so technically it can do anything. In reality, changing the terms of loans retroactively will never happen, nobody would borrow from the government ever again. It's fiscal suicide.

      [–]Cast_Me-AsideYorkshire 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

      In reality, changing the terms of loans retroactively will never happen, nobody would borrow from the government ever again. It's fiscal suicide.

      That would apply to things like gilts, but not student loans.

      Students don't take out loans because they think mortgage debt on a scale that most will never pay the whole back is an awesome idea. They do so because with only a fairly small number of exceptions it's become a necessity to getting a decent job.

      Not withstanding that the argument that lowered rates of NMW for under 25's are necessary to offset the lack of experience, but it also serves to push people into education which comes with the burden of debt.

      Students aren't an audience the government is afraid of making skittish. They're practically a captive audience.

      [–]Stealthy_LehningerSurrey 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      There's nothing written in law, it was done on a sort of gentlemen's agreement basis. But there is nothing legally stopping them from selling the loan book off.

      [–]LoadOPish 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      When they get rid of the constitution or whatever the Tory Final Solution is this week.

      [–]theplannaclemanCheshire -2ポイント-1ポイント  (12子コメント)

      Rate has already gone up... Now most will be in debt for thier entire lives

      コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

        [–]wildeaboutoscar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I agree with the sentiment but it's not sensible to go back that far. That mistake has already been made, best thing to do is to try and go forward.

        [–]Chlorophilia 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Times change and with them, in this case, uni fees change.

        That's very easy to say, it's quite hard to sympathise with that though when the politicians who "with regret" are raising tuition fees to the extortionate levels they are at today (at a time when most of Europe is actively decreasing fees) had completely free university education themselves. I can't help but feel it's extraordinarily unfair that the people who benefited from free university education feel entitled to make later generations go through debt of a kind they never had to deal with - and completely unnecessarily so.

        [–]How2999 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Oh the NHS budget has been increased, paid for by the young working, to fund who exactly? Oh right, yeah, the elderly who coincidentally are entering their non-tax-paying-years. How nice of them.

        [–]NikkiJayne28Warwickshire 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        My mom works in the NHS - this week they're having some kind of inspectors in, and she said the money that's been spent on jazzing the hospital up is vomit inducing. Floors replaced that don't need replacing, walls repainted that don't need repainting, the entire car park ripped up and resurfaced - when there are things they don't see that are in much more need of money. The canteen isn't even open on a weekend; there is no place for people to get a hot drink and a sandwich other than vending machines.

        They might be getting more money but that doesn't mean it will be spent on the things it ought to be.

        [–]Iainfletcher -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

        There should be a graduate tax on the over 35s (not sure that's the figure actually, I'm 34 and I don't think I was the first year to get tuition fees).

        That would've been fair. It's fucking galling to watch QT with a panel full of people who got free education, decent pensions, well paid jobs, affordable housing that then rocketed in value etc. etc. telling us that we can't afford it.

        [–]croutonicusIsle of Wight 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

        So can everyone who is over 35 pay the 20K-50K they should have owed yet got all the education for free then?

        They already do. About 75% of loans will never be fully repayed, the bill for which will fall on the average tax payer.

        Either way what you're calling for is stupid, you can't retroactively force a loan on somebody for student debt because if they'd known they had to pay they might not have made the decision to take on the debt.

        Also this anger at the elderly is totally naive and completely fruitless, I guarantee once you've spent your whole life in work (they say on average you'll work 100,000 hours in your life) you're not going to be masquerading around saying "I hope I die soon because taking money from the Government I've been paying taxes to for 60 years is unfair." Go ahead and call for it to be made fairer for young people, but making little sadistic comments about how hopefully the elderly are going to die soon is pointless and petty.

        [–]jpty 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Well said, thank you,

        pointless and petty

        and also, plain sick in the head.

        [–]carpetit 5ポイント6ポイント  (13子コメント)

        Even though I studied the arts, we don't really need a further glut of state funded arts graduates, there are already too many, so when people talk about funding education by the state and don't account for the fact that some people will be scraping into media studies courses and then dropping out half way through, I glaze over.

        We need a certain amount of grads in certain subjects every year, we should properly assess exactly what then fully fund these courses 100% including all living costs for the most qualified candidates, and then if they complete the course they owe nothing, and if they drop out they repay everything for pissing about.

        This would mean that only people that are capable of and intend putting effort into a subject will study what actually needs to be studied. By funding everyone these adults would be free to devote all their energies to studying, but wouldn't be wasting everyone's time by creating a useless graduate in Social Media etc. If you want to study history just because you like it, like me, then you pay for it, like me. We would of course still need a number of history grads every year for teaching and academia, and these would get funding too. This is not about science vs arts, it is just pragmatism.

        [–]glglglglglScotland 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

        This would mean that only people that are capable of and intend putting effort into a subject will study what actually needs to be studied

        The only problem with that is, when you leave school, you haven't yet been faced with the difficulty level of a university degree. Even with the best effort, some folk just can't manage those later years but you don't know that until you're in that situation.

        [–]aapowersYorkshire 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Don't know about you (you may have done Highers), but my A levels were as, if not more, difficult than my degree. The level jump between GCSE and A level was huge.

        A lot of my degree was academically tough, but the work load was reasonable and there was time to get everything done during the day. In sixth form, there were genuinely times when I didn't have time to do everything I'd been set. Add in a part time job and it was hell.

        [–]carpetit 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

        We would need to more honestly assess a person's chances before beginning. At the moment there is an incentive to scrape in and hope for the best, the uni doesn't care, they get paid anyway. Maybe a period of grace could be given for the first semester? I don't know, I think it is time for more accountability. Though more people should perhaps be encouraged not to go straight to uni from school. I would imagine a lot of people reassess their futures during a gap year.

        [–]coriacea 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

        But that would screw over people like me. I did badly in A-levels but now after completing two years of uni i'm on track to get a 2:1 and could still get a 1st overall in a science degree in a field which is only being done by a few students each year.

        [–]glglglglglScotland 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

        But still, just because someone can do first year well doesn't mean they'll manage the honours year, and that may be a failing of ability rather than a failing of intent/effort.

        Agreed though that there should be better mechanisms in place to support people who want to take some time out before uni, and that it is made acceptable on a society level.

        [–]lightsaberon 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

        How does limiting our educational level help us compete in a global market? You act like there's a well defined quota of jobs and necessary qualifications well into the future. Maybe we'll need way more engineers than your, undoubtedly, arbitrary quota allowed for.

        You also haven't explained how it is that other countries have no problems with heavily subsidising their higher education system.

        [–]carpetit 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

        I think my system would lead to more graduates in more useful subjects, and fewer graduates in pointless subjects.

        Which particular country did you have in mind? Probably somewhere in Scandinavia. I will tell you why we don't fund a uni free for all grants for degrees in Neighbours, because the british don't really like each other very much, and so if we think someone is taking the piss and we are paying for it, it doesn't sit well.

        [–]lightsaberon 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

        The British? Are you aware that Scottish students get a free education?

        [–]carpetit 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

        It isn't completely free, it is paid for out of the higher public spending per head in Scotland. It is also partly funded by Holyrood withdrawing financial support for part time students. There is no living allowance, so it is patchy at best. If Sturgeon suggested a penny on tax for grants she would get thrown out, but that is what I want to introduce, but only for certain degrees.

        Anyway, until Scotland actually votes for independence I don't think they warrant a special mention. This halfway bullshit is wearisome.

        [–]lightsaberon 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        This halfway bullshit is wearisome.

        Students and graduates in England might see things very differently.

        [–]carpetit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Money was diverted from elsewhere to pay for it, many of the free degrees will be useless subjects and many won't be completed.

        [–]asherah213 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        The Tories are making an awful job of cuts, however it was Labour who increased the debt and gave us all these loans to pay off. I worked out that National Debt when I was born ('80s) was £2,000 per person. By the time I was 18 and eligible to vote it was the equivalent of £20,000 per person (taking out inflation etc).

        It is not one party's fault, it is both of them. That and the short - termist popularity contest our politics has become.

        [–]asmiggsYorkshire! [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

        Higher Education funding issues are separate from the banking crisis the "problem" is that the government wants 50% of the population that's far more people than before to have a university education but is simply unwilling to pay for it. The older generation didn't create the requirement for a knowledge based economy it's simply the cost of progress by the whole human race. The question is should we pay more tax to fund higher education for a larger number of people but don't go trying to lay the blame for this on the previous generation for the problem of requiring a higher level of education for young people most of them didn't have the same access to higher education.

        [–]nxtbstthng 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        An increase of private nhs expenditure of 1% last parliament, how does that equate tobdismantling the nhs? And the student loan repayment system is actually better than it used to be. 9% of earnings over 21k, hardly unreasonable. Melodramatic much?

        [–]umop_apisdn -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

        You say "everybody" but the fact is that times were different then. I went to university in the early eighties and in my school year of 200 pupils, only 4 went on to university. That was certainly affordable. When it was suddenly decided that everybody should go to university by making A levels easier, renaming the polytechnics and technical colleges as universities, and expanding the place available, then it couldn't be free any more.

        [–]Psyc5 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

        They didn't make them easier, they made them more general because there is more to learn, in 1980 a degree in nano-science wouldn't even exist, the implication that scientific knowledge was even the same is rather laughable, the more specialist knowledge that comes, the more general the steps before it have to be to include it.

        Facts are to choose a specialist pathway you have to do it post 18 these days as you couldn't get the knowledge to even have a overview to choose it before then. This isn't a reason to start charging people excessive money to get into those specialisms, it is in fact a reason to make it affordable, so your country is the leading nation for these high skilled, high knowledge, industries, because if you lose that you aren't going to out compete the developing world at making shoes.

        [–]umop_apisdn 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

        Bullshit, they made them easier I have friends who are university professors and they have told me this. I also just downloaded the edexcel 2014 mathematics A level paper here: https://eiewebvip.edexcel.org.uk/Reports/Confidential%20Documents/1406/6663_01_que_20140519.pdf, and despite it being thirty five years since I did my A level I found the questions ridiculously easy - some of them I would expect a thirteen year old to answer, especially question 8.

        Here is a 1978 A level paper. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/155932/response/384044/attach/html/7/F%20208%201978%20A%20Level%20Maths%20iv.pdf.html

        [–]Psyc5 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

        That is the first core of the AS in maths, it isn't an A Level paper, it is an AS paper and the first one at that, and further proves you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

        [–]Stealthy_LehningerSurrey -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Lol Labour are no different,

        コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

          [–]mister_zurkonDurham 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The benefit system can create weird incentives that the tax system doesn't. When you cross a tax threshold, you get hit with extra tax only on the amount above the threshold. With benefits that are means-tested or based on tax thresholds (such as the new UK married couple's allowance that is only available to basic rate taxpayers), an extra pound could mean losing hundreds of pounds of benefits.

          I'm not trying to express a political view about the benefits system. It's hard to imagine a genuine safety net that wasn't fully means-tested. But I do think that extending benefits up through the system so that people in all walks of life can run into perverse incentives, is just silly.

          [–]monkey-socks[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

          Yes, I agree that people earning more should pay more tax, but should that take away 90% of the increase? If overtime were offered at my work, I would end up working for pennies and not bother.

          [–]34MbitBristol 31ポイント32ポイント  (6子コメント)

          not bother

          It's easy to see the reduction in benefits as difficult to swallow as you earn more (you can thank Labour for such a stupidly tapering system), but if you can't see past the few extra grand or hours it takes to be free of tax credits, you'll never earn a decent amount and will always be in low paid work.

          If people would rather keep their career aspirations low so to keep their few grand of tax credits or work hours at 30 rather than 40, then yes they'll save a few thousand in tax credits but ultimately lose tens of thousands a year in potential career gains.

          Your kids only need childcare full-time for a few short years before school. Quitting gainful work and relying on credits is more expensive than paying for childcare.

          [–]nicolasbrody 12ポイント13ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Not everyone can climb the ladder or aspire for more - there's only a finite amount of jobs that pay higher wages.

          The point of this post is that the wage increase is smoke and mirrors, with all the other reductions OP is barely making any more money, not to mention the millions of people who will be poorer under this budget (according to the IFS).

          [–]34MbitBristol 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

          The idea that there are only a finite number of jobs is a zero-sum economy fallacy.

          The more people in gainful and productive employment, the higher the aggregate demand for additional services. That demand spurs supply in modernizations which ultimately improve the quality of life for everyone.

          [–]kafircake 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The idea that there are only a finite number of jobs is a zero-sum economy fallacy.

          I think what you are referring to is known as the Lump of Labour Fallacy. It doesn't suggest that there are a non-finite number of jobs.

          [–]nicolasbrody 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          That sounds good ideologically, but doesn't seem to be playing out in reality. Even if there is more demand, there will always be some people working at 'the bottom'.

          [–]34MbitBristol 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Well yeah, comparatively there will always be someone in the lowest 5%, 10%, 15%.

          Relatively someone might be 'worse off' than others, but in absolute terms they are better off than someone in a higher percentile a few decades ago.

          I'd rather be a lower earner today than a fairly wealthy person fifty years ago. I can travel more easily, have better medical care available, cheap access to seasonless fresh fruit and vegetables, free access to almost limitless information, better and cheaper entertainment and so on.

          The only thing I wouldn't have is the same social status in society, which is a sociological problem not an economic one (although I can associate with a wider group of people today).

          [–]nicolasbrody 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Of course you would be, but all this achievement isn't just down to aspiration. Much of it is down to the workers at the 'bottom' earning the low wages.

          Also not everybody aspires to climb the career ladder, other people have different aims and they shouldn't be punished for that. Life isn't all about work, nor should it be.

          [–]Matthew94 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          If you didn't choose to take on student loans it would have been closer to £100 kept rather than £50. Still not great but it shows that your own choices play into the matter too.

          [–]LoadOPish 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          What percentage of pay is fair then? Half?

          [–]throwawaytribute1 70ポイント71ポイント  (30子コメント)

          Where is the incentive to work harder when it reduces my child tax credits?

          Actual quote from a colleague in 2003.

          [–]user_naemScotland 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

          With tax, NI, student loans, the withdrawal of tax credits and the fact that your partner's income also matters someone getting a£1,000 pay rise could lose £810 of it to the government. There are many situations where a modest pay rise comes with lots of extra responsibility and if you're only seeing £3.65 a week for your £1k pay rise you might sensibly conclude it's not worth it.

          [–]BikeMac 28ポイント29ポイント  (19子コメント)

          When the system fucks you for working hard, it's only natural for people to find ways around it.

          [–]thisistheslowlane 7ポイント8ポイント  (17子コメント)

          That's why I like the concept of basic income. Everyone gets the same basic income regardless of if you have a job or not. This then ensures that when you get a job you don't lose any benefits.

          [–]ChaBeezyCheshire 23ポイント24ポイント  (14子コメント)

          That's a very underdeveloped take on basic income.

          If you do it like that Single Simon is loving life and two kids Paul is hating it

          [–]scuzzmonkey69Democratic People's Republic North of the Humber-land 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Except those two kids get BI too.

          [–]grandimandibula 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

          As it should be. Children aught to be a choice, not an accident.

          edit - stop downvoting this.

          I didn't fuck your other half, you did. And I pay 1.5x the rate of council tax that you do.

          [–]SeyStoneUnited Kingdom 5ポイント6ポイント  (11子コメント)

          Children are the only way of our species surviving. I don't think taking away financial assistance for them is a good idea.

          [–]Gmtom 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

          yo say that like humans are an endangered species.

          [–]SeyStoneUnited Kingdom 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

          If you look at some first world countries such as Japan, you can see the problems caused by a decreasing population. According to Google, the UK birth rate was 1.90 in 2012. That's below replacement rate.

          [–]Gmtom 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

          im well aware, but this isnt an inherently bad thing.

          [–]blizeHGloucestershire 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yup, humans are unfortunately very destructive as a species.

          [–]LordAnubis12Brighton [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

          For a country such as the UK to maintain current lifestyle without environmental damage, we'd need a population of about 25-30 million.

          That doesn't mean going around killing everyone, but if we all had similar living standards with an increasing amount of automation, then having a lower population isn't exactly a bad thing.

          [–]grandimandibula 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

          And I don't think that people squeezing out sprogs before they themselves are emotionally mature and responsible enough is a good idea.
          Heaven knows my parents were fucking atrocious, but that's what happens when 16 year olds have children.

          [–]SeyStoneUnited Kingdom 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

          I don't think anyone thinks that's a good idea. Not exactly a justification for taking away funding for children is it, just as vengeance for the poor choices of the parent?

          [–]tbradley6 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I feel like people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them.

          [–]grandimandibula 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          You see vengeance, I see attempting to prevent the same happening in successive generations. FWIW, I am not a tory, but I would like people to accept repsonsibility for their own actions.

          [–]SeyStoneUnited Kingdom 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

          So would you take away all child benefits?

          [–]Froolow 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

          That's not quite right, because the Basic Income is funded by some sort of income tax - usually designed to be steeply progressive. So there are never any financial 'traps' (where earning an extra pound makes you worse off), but it isn't quite true to say that every dollar you earn goes straight to you.

          [–]otterdamLahndahn 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          OP never said that though. The general point is that you get compensated proportional to your output - work more or smarter, get more money.

          Even now, you aren't the only one paying tax on your own gross pay, but nobody talks about the share of NI paid by your employer.

          [–]StormRider2407Scotland 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          One of my coworkers claims quite a few benefits, but never (or almost never) works more than 16 hours a week or else he'd lose some of those benefits.

          And currently he's on holiday to Majorca or something, using the money he gets from those benefits.

          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

            [–]DrummkScotland 28ポイント29ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Dignity? I'd prefer to pay my own way than rely on handouts to provide for myself, even if that meant working harder.

            [–]iamafalsegod 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I think parents are the most entitled group when it comes to handouts.

            [–]IncarceratedMascot 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I don't earn minimum wage, but I'm paid per hour and my employer pays a set rate about the minimum, which means that I'm going to be about £1200 per year better off after tax. And with the amount I'm paid, that's a huge increase.

            I'm not advocating for the Tories, but I just wanted to show that there are some people that benefit significantly from this budget.

            [–]agent_wanderlust 78ポイント79ポイント  (4子コメント)

            Instead of collecting credits from the government you're paying your own way. Why is that such a bad thing? Do you feel entitled to both the pay rise and the credits designed to help low earners? This is why welfare is broken.

            [–]nicolasbrody -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Many things are broken in our society, welfare isn't anywhere near the top of the list.

            コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

              [–]TTEH3Exeter 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

              You're paying back your taxpayer-funded loan... The incentive is to be self-sufficient and pay your own way, surely?

              [–]theplannaclemanCheshire 24ポイント25ポイント  (1子コメント)

              Remember the tax free income threshold is going up. This should easily offset the income tax amount

              [–]ClownBaby86 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

              It'll give him/her an extra £80.

              [–]shootupyourschool 37ポイント38ポイント  (17子コメント)

              I have no kids. I don't see why you're entitled to free money because you either ejaculated inside someone or let someone do it to you. You should pay your loans back. I don't see the problem with this.

              [–]_tpyoDorset -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

              I don't see why you're entitled to free money because you either ejaculated inside someone or let someone do it to you.

              who the fuck do you think is going to pay for your state pension if you fuck up? People who decide to have kids should get "free money".

              コメントをもっと表示する (15 返事)

                [–]Sharwdry 14ポイント15ポイント  (5子コメント)

                The essential problem of tax is you want to do 3 things:

                1. Provide enough in state support for those who don't work to survive until they can find a job.

                2. Provide enough support for those who are working the worst jobs to be better off than what they would get from system 1.

                3. Provide incentives for working harder through low taxation.

                The labour strategy for this was provide benefits for part 1, provide tax credits for part 2, and part 3 suffered. Now what the Tories have done is completely failed on part 1 - child poverty is going up, foodbank usage is soaring, and the vast majority of out of work benefits are going straight to landlords. They've failed on part 2, getting rid of tax credits is creating a system where it's hardly worth working a minimum wage job. They've gotten better at part 3 - by increasing tax allowances. The problem is they've done so in a hugely regressive way, and I would argue that the real problem is the graduation of our taxes.

                Say you're earning £45k, if you get a pay rise you're going to get maybe ~£1.5k a year if you're lucky, and most of that will go on tax. If you're earning £100k you aren't going to get a £1.5k pay rise, you're more likely to get a £5k pay rise, simply because it's proportional to your wages - however, you're on the same tax threshold! So the person on £45 gets screwed. I'd advocate introduction of 10,20,30,40,45p tax rates. Not to take more tax necessarily, but to insure that everyone actually benefits from working harder.

                On top of that, and this is really important, it should never ever be more tax efficient to be a company than an individual, and it currently is. Cutting corporation tax is just a laughably stupid idea.

                [–]chrisjdOxfordshire 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

                I'd just like to point out the way national insurance works they are actually 4 effectively rates of income tax:

                • The 12% rate (earn enough to pay NI but not income tax).
                • The 32% rate (20% income tax plus 12% NI) - this is what most people pay, it includes anyone full time on the minimum wage, and anyone on the median wage.
                • The 42% rate (40% income tax plus 2% NI, since NI decreases at the same threshold that income tax rises).
                • The 47% rate (45% income tax plus 2% NI).

                The first thing we should do is merge income tax and national insurance together, it's pointless having a progressive tax and a regressive one working alongside each other. It also makes it look like someone paying the 40% tax threshold is paying twice the rate of tax, when in reality it's 10% more (and if the person paying the 20% rate is a graduate younger than their mid-30s they're actually only getting 1% more of their income to take home).

                [–]IanCalManchester - City of Science 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                There'd be another complication there which is that NI is based on a weekly threshold, whereas the income tax is yearly.

                It's an awkward and broken system though, that is true.

                [–]HisHasknessOver the wall 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                If you have 3 children, when there is also an effective rate of 69% (42% tax + NI) + 27% clawback on child benefit (which is collected through the tax system) for those between 50K and 60K after pension contributions.

                [–]Sharwdry -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                I absolutely agree about hte issue with NI, but you have to remember the 4 rates you're talking about aren't effective, practically no one pays the 47% rate, and anyone not on minimum wage is in the 20(32)% band - and probably receiving credits back in exchange.

                [–]iamafalsegod 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                On top of that, and this is really important, it should never ever be more tax efficient to be a company than an individual, and it currently is

                I make a living talking to doctors all day. A tonne of them set themselves up as Ltd companies while operating as sole traders. That's lower taxation despite no change to the way they work. Completely legal and in my opinion, immoral.

                [–]ampqreScotland 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

                1: paying back the loans will finish faster now, if you did not want to pay them back you should not have taken them out.

                2: child tax credits you will now be paying back society instead of leaching off it.

                3:you will get an extra £50

                congratulations you are moving from someone who is leaching off the hard work of the rest of us to someone who is now helping as you keep moving up you will find you get better pay increases.

                [–]PiggySoup 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

                I have kids and get child tax credits - we all know these are reducing next year anyway.

                Tax credits, job, higher education, pay rise, kids.

                Still fucking moaning. Wind your neck in son. There are plenty of others who would kill for even just ONE of the things in that list.

                [–]monkey-socks[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

                Indeed, anyone with a half decent life has no right to criticise any government decisions ever.

                [–]PiggySoup 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                You receive child tax credit. you have a job. your job gave you a raise you could afford university. you are paying, what looks like, the bare minimum of student loan repayments. ("£45 student loan repayments over the year.")

                And you're complaining why? Would you rather have zero income benefits? Zero raise? Zero income at all?

                People like you don't realise just how much you have handed to you on a fucking plate, yet still you moan about how little of a handout the government gives you.

                [–]6ThirtyFeb7th2036North of The Wall [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

                I think you've missed a lot of the points in the thread. Had you not got the pay rise you'd have still had the £250 credit cut anyway.

                You've lucked out in an enormous way that you're getting a payrise at a time of a massive cut that means you're doing slightly better than breaking even. Plenty of people are just going to see the £250 cut.

                [–]monkey-socks[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                No, I'm not talking about the tax credit reduction. That will reduce what I get by around £1200, and I haven't said anything about that.
                Tax credits taper off as you earn more by 41p per pound currently, going up to 48p next year. With this tapering and other taxes etc, I will get around 10% of the pay increase myself. I think this is lower than it should be if the government want to encourage people to work.

                [–]Lolworth💂 London 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

                You basically want to get around a 5k pay rise to notice it.

                [–]6ThirtyFeb7th2036North of The Wall [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

                That's only partially true. In this particular person's case you'd want to get a £5k raise, because he's crossing the threashold where society has deemed he's capable of supporting himself.

                He's getting a £500 pay rise, £200 of that will be taxed directly. If he'd received this pay change at any other time he'd have had the full £300, but he's getting it today, which means that instead of being £250 worse off form the budget he's breaking even.

                Plenty of people will have it way worse off than OP in this budget when their credits are cut without the pay rise.

                [–]Eddie_Hitler 33ポイント34ポイント  (19子コメント)

                I got a £700 payrise this year. Due to the way my deductions work (pension and a share plan), it's actually decreased my takehome by roughly £75pcm.

                [–]Stealthy_LehningerSurrey 111ポイント112ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Yeah but you're putting more in your pension...

                [–]slickspsSwansea 54ポイント55ポイント  (0子コメント)

                You have a payrise, pension and share plan? And you're complaining? :p

                コメントをもっと表示する (17 返事)

                  [–]specofdustPasty Faced Haggis Rider 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Where is the incentive to work harder when almost all of the extra money is taken away from me?

                  So, basically, you're advocating for a reduction in child tax credits?

                  [–]MrTig 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Just a question does your job require you to wear a uniform ? If so and you haven't or your employer hasn't, apply for the Uniform tax relief, it might only be a few more pounds a month in your pocket but it's a few more pounds you have.

                  [–]TrossoKent 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Children are a choice. I was with you until you started moaning about losing your child tax credits.

                  [–]Wisebrah 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

                  Why do people here have such hostility to people keeping more of their money?

                  [–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  Because a large part of 'his' money that he's loosing is actually taxpayer money that was given to him when he wasn't able to pay his own way.

                  [–]jl45Staffordshire 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Why do you hate children? Why do you hate poor people?

                  [–]Wisebrah 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  No hatred for the poor or children on my behalf.

                  [–]fuckin442m8 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  The individualistic 'everyone for themselves' attitudes the neoliberals have installed over the last couple of decades, people see anyone receiving any kind of money from the state as taking it out of their pocket.

                  [–]Wisebrah 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  But that's exactly what it is. The state has no money. The only money it can give is by taking from somebody else's pocket.

                  [–]BFoskettSomerset 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Aren't the reduction in child tax credits just a one-time thing, a change in the benefit system? That's hardly a punishment for working harder, it's just times getting tougher and your pay rise helps you weather the storm. Even if you didn't have a pay rise you would still be losing some child tax credit and your overall income would be dropping, so your pay rise is actually going to help you a lot more than it would in better times.

                  [–]BudpetsEast Sussex 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Work smarter not harder.

                  [–]grandimandibula 10ポイント11ポイント  (19子コメント)

                  Mate, you wanna go to uni to give you the chance at earning more than those you went to school with who didn't, it ain't free. You want a better quality of life, you gotta pay for it.

                  Just don't pretend once you're there, that the work you'll do is in any way more valuable that those who ferry you around, make your food, and keep your workplaces clean. You'll be doing less and earning more than all of them.

                  Edit - a paragraph break.

                  [–]AnonymousTurtle 3ポイント4ポイント  (13子コメント)

                  If someone is paying you more, your work is de facto more valuable. That is the market clearing price for that work.

                  [–]ProfCrastinator 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  Odd comment. There was no air of superiority in the OP, to bring that up is strange and says more about yourself.

                  Also, you, along with many others, are focusing on the student loan aspect. The OP mentioned it as a matter of course, it wasn't the focus of the post nor was there any inclination he/she feels it unfair this is now repayable at a higher rate...

                  The post is about a Tory government banging on about how it pays to work, then when people actually get a pay rise it ends up being essentially worthless.

                  [–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  The post is about a Tory government banging on about how it pays to work, then when people actually get a pay rise it ends up being essentially worthless.

                  Nah the post is bitching that he actually pays his way in life more now and has to pay back his student loans.

                  [–]monkey-socks[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  I think I'm more concerned for the country. If work doesn't pay, people won't bother and that puts us in trouble. The new changes will mean some families will find it more difficult to just rely on benefits, but for some low earners who aren't at minimum wage, there is less incentive to work harder than before.

                  [–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  Your work is paying. You're just not leaching off the government as much. Most see this as a good thing and something to work towards.

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    [–]Psyc5 9ポイント10ポイント  (19子コメント)

                    Is this not exactly the reason they want to get rid of tax credits because they are a disincentive to work. Though above £17800, after national insurance, income tax, pension, student loan, etc. etc. you are only getting around 50% of your pay in your pocket, add in commuting costs, essentially a tax on working which could easily be another 5-10% of your pay, then you are paying 20% VAT on most things you buy, even higher on alcohol and fuel, it isn't surprising when no one has any money left.

                    [–]EmphursisWorcestershire 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                    add in commuting costs, essentially a tax on working

                    Uhhh...

                    [–]Timothy_Claypole 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    Exactly. Discussion of tax gets confused sometimes.

                    [–]CoinsHave3Sides 6ポイント7ポイント  (13子コメント)

                    Could you provide the calculation for the 50% figure please?

                    [–]rocki-iHertfordshire 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    http://m.thesalarycalculator.co.uk

                    On a £17800 salary, assuming a 5% pension and pre 2011 student loan you will receive £14605

                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                      [–]RobotochanAshby-de-la-Zouch 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      I understand what Osborne is doing, and to a point I agree with the principle. But it relies too much on companies doing the right thing and using things like the drop in corporation tax to increase wages.

                      [–]adamski555 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      ITT people keep saying you chose to go to uni so stop moaning about student loans......no one made you have a child. You should not be able to make selfish choices without consequences. You are a giant burden to the state and the money has to come from somewhere. The fact that you only see how your situation applies to you shows how self centred you are

                      [–]iou100Huntingdonshire 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      Your child tax credit will not be cut it is only for children born after 2017

                      [–]MDMA-zingEngland 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      Are you working harder? You didn't say you're taking on extra hours.

                      By the sounds of it you got a pay rise which cancels out your reduced benefits — what's to complain about? You broke even.

                      [–]duluoz1 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

                      I know, it sometimes feels impossible to actually increase your disposable income. But this sub seems to advocate more and more taxation.

                      [–]myooly 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      I think the sub seems to advocate taxation of the ultra rich, which is a little different.

                      [–]duluoz1 18ポイント19ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      Yes, except it defines ultra rich as 'anybody earning more then me'

                      [–]jimicusWhere your aunt, your sister and your mum are the same person. -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      Taxation for the middle classes.

                      We already have a progressive tax system; the 40% band has been brought down to pay for the increased personal allowance. A higher band wouldn't help as much as you'd think, largely because taxation becomes more complicated (and easier to game) as income goes up.

                      [–]tophernator 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      The 40% band went up by a few hundreds pounds. Not down.

                      [–]jimicusWhere your aunt, your sister and your mum are the same person. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      First time it's done that in years; the general trend has been down.

                      [–]Kesuke 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      It's the first time it's gone up significantly in a long time. Infact it's hardy moved in the last 10-15 years, so the number of people being caught by it has gone up significantly (over double I believe off the top of my head).

                      [–]AvatarIIIWest Sussex 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      You know what's ridiculous? I used the BBCs tax calculator to tell me if I'd be better or worse off next year, I earn about 24k per year, apparently next year I will be over £1000 worse off. I accidentally added an extra 0 to my salary (so 240k) and if I were earning that much I'd be less than £20 worse off next year! I guess £1000 is less important to me than £20 is to someone earning a quarter million.

                      [–]Kesuke 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      Virtually nobody earns £240k as a straight up PAYE salary, so it's useless drawing conclusions from it.

                      [–]PeterG92Essex -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

                      You must be earning less than £31,786? As I assume you are on the basic rate?

                      [–]tophernator 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      The higher rate starts at £42,385, increasing to £43,000 in the new budget.

                      [–]PeterG92Essex 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      He won't be on that though if he is paying 20% on the extra £500

                      [–]tophernator 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      No, but he won't necessarily be on less than £31,786 either. He could be earning anywhere between £10,600 to ~£42k and he would still pay 20% income tax on his £500 raise.

                      [–]PeterG92Essex 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      I get what you mean now. I got a bit confused.

                      [–]ct2k7 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      At least you're getting an increase. They were not on offer or available at my work place

                      [–]PoachTWCLanarkshire 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Shifted the burden of supporting your wage from public to private sector and you're marginally better off. Job well done as far as the Chancellor is concerned.

                      [–]chazmuzz 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

                      When my me and brother were at uni, my dad managed to earn £4k more than the previous year. Unfortunately this pushed his earnings over the threshold for our grants. We lost £2k each in grants, so it seemed pretty pointless my dad working all those extra days

                      [–]croutonicusIsle of Wight 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      The latest budget removes grants and replaces them with loans for almost exactly this reason.

                      [–]SaraphiteSuffolk 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      I thought it was because they didn't want to give students free money. From what I understand the new system still has these thresholds and OPs Dad will still be in the same position under the new system.

                      [–]croutonicusIsle of Wight 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Yes but as I understand it you don't gain £2k in grants, you just gain the ability to borrow £2k more.

                      The point is there should never be a point where you're discouraged from:

                      a) Declaring your full income (some people have more complicated income arrangements e.g. business owners)

                      b) Slowing your career progression

                      In order for the Government to give your children free money for exactly the same standard of education as everyone else.

                      [–]shitting_cock 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      But your dad was able to earn the £4k, so you didn't need the grant. That grant went to someone else who did need it, someone like you the previous year.

                      [–]morphemassThe Shed -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Its a Tory government and you're working class. Seriously, what did you expect?

                      [–]idratherwalkalone 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Stop moaning and start your own company and pay less tax.

                      [–]BrotoriousNIGSalford -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      If we accept that benefits are necessary and that they ought to go to those with lower incomes, the natural corollary is that as you increase your income you will lose some of it to escaping the tax credit threshold.

                      This has very little to do with any particular government policy, aside from the policy of having benefits vs the policy of leaving people to suffer.

                      Of course, we could reduce the rate at which you lose your tax credit.

                      What about your next 500 payrise? Will that have the same effect? I doubt it.

                      コメントをもっと表示する (66 返事)