How does the new tax rate affect you?

[gettin2dizzy]

This year it's up (slightly), but next year I'l be bringing in 9% less.

I can't really get my head around why they're nailing us on low incomes

check it out yourself
http://www.binaryincome.com/ukbudget.php

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I'm better off this year than last, but next year I'm effectively taking a ?1300 pay cut...

What the ****!

[G]

Bloody hell i get a rapping in 2009/2010
Yet everything else will go up, tax, petrol, other bills.......

How it can be justified I have no idea.

Crazy really.

I will try not to let the politics of this crazy country wind me up :smt088:smt056


EDIT: I think I may start to claim my back hurts and stop working, then have 6 kids and start labouring cash in hand instead of trying to earn an honest living. :( Its quite clearly the way forwards.

[600+]

same here more money in this year but less in 09-10

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The governments position really is untenable.

They either have to accept that they're responsible for the rises in the level of inflation, or massive tax hikes above said level. Sigh.

[blueto]

yep. im taking a pay cut to. 11% less

[gettin2dizzy]

It's amazing that the tax cut for the higher earners is being subsidised by the >?22k earners.

Sickening really. A 9% wage cut is just too much, especially considering I didn't get a raise either.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It's amazing that the tax cut for the higher earners is being subsidised by the >?22k earners.

There's a tax cut for higher earners? :shock:

edit: You're right, but it's higher than 22k I can tell you that.

[Dan]

I thought the 10% rate was scrapped from 2008-2009 tax year not 2009-10 as that site says?

[sarah]

There's a tax cut for higher earners? :shock:

edit: You're right, but it's higher than 22k I can tell you that.

certainly looks like it. try putting 60k into the calculator

[Flamin_Squirrel]

certainly looks like it. try putting 60k into the calculator

Yeah that's what I tried.

Try ?15k - 10% reduction in take home pay. If that's acurate then that's utterly utterly outrageous.

I'm anoyed about 4% cut for me, but 10% on ?15k would be absolutely crippling.

Speachless.

[slark01]

it's really gonna hurt!!
God knows how badly until the time comes, hopefully i'll be in full time work and earning enough to compensate for the loss, otherwise it's the streets for us.

[glade]

That site doesn't quite agree with another site i usually use... (and its usually quite accurate with what I actually get paid) so i wouldn't worry too much yet.

http://www.listentotaxman.com

[gettin2dizzy]

Yeah that's what I tried.

Try ?15k - 10% reduction in take home pay. If that's acurate then that's utterly utterly outrageous.

I'm anoyed about 4% cut for me, but 10% on ?15k would be absolutely crippling.

Speachless.
Tell me about it :( I suppose 9% of nothing is still nothing though

[gettin2dizzy]

That site doesn't quite agree with another site i usually use... (and its usually quite accurate with what I actually get paid) so i wouldn't worry too much yet.

http://www.listentotaxman.com
Different tax year

[Luckypants]

I do not get these idiots that are the opposition treasury spokespersons. I spotted the fact that low paid workers are gonna get hit by this as soon as the 'honourable gentleman' opened his mouth. Took the Tories almost two days to spot it.

I am aghast that the labour party (in name only these days) are effectively increasing tax for the low paid while in turn giving a tax cut to those on higher incomes. I will pay significantly less tax this year while someone earning half my income will pay more. This does not mean that I am not in favour of this move, just that it appears that Labour are trying to buy the votes of 'middle England'.

[Gazza77]

For once I will be better off. :) Sadly, that is then taken straight off me as my pension contributions are rising. :(

[muffles]

I also seem to be one of the few that has an increase year-on-year in that calculator :shock:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

This does not mean that I am not in favour of this move, just that it appears that Labour are trying to buy the votes of 'middle England'.

I don't think they are trying to buy the votes of middle England. Earning ?60k+ is certainly achievable for lots of middle class people, especially in the SE, but not until later on in their career. A tax break when you're age 55+ isn't going to mean much if you've spent 35 years being screwed.

It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Labour are making the poor, their voter base, even poorer; making sure middle class people who might vote for them poorer, so now they won't; and making the rich richer, but who'd never vote for them anyway.:confused:

[timwilky]

The problem with this, is that the policy makers forgot about the unfairness that is tax system. It is morally wrong to apply a national minimum wage and then tax people earning that minimum wage.

All taxation on the low paid stinks and should not part of a modern society.

And yes, I am better off under the new rules

[lily]

I get an increase this year but then take a massive hit the year after.....Thats so not fair!!!

I also get a yearly pay increase so does that mean that I will be hit more next year (than I already think i will be) when my salary increase in December??!!!!

[carty]

It looks like I will be better off too, I agree with Tim above that it is completely unfair to tax the low earners.

What upsets me is the thought that my tax pays for benefits cheats to sit on their asses in a free house. That's another thread.

[Ed]

Crikey:smt103

Friend's daughter in her first job earns ?14K, take home will fall from ?941 to ?847, a drop of ?94 =- 10%. That's sheer wickedness.

EDIT - and wifey loses ?106

Wicked thieving b*stards. How can they justify this?

[Sosha]

Some labour government.

Great way of encouraging people off benefits.

So what band to MPs fall into anyway?

[G]

Its going to be interesting in April 2009 then.

In the space of a month BAM a families household income could be down as much as ?220+ a month.

In a period where people are apparently living off credit cards and only just making end meet I can see alot more court ordered reposessions coming to the UK. ?220+ a month is alot of money to loose over night.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

So what band to MPs fall into anyway?

You've got one guess...

[muffles]

Its going to be interesting in April 2009 then.

In the space of a month BAM a families household income could be down as much as ?220+ a month.

In a period where people are apparently living off credit cards and only just making end meet I can see alot more court ordered reposessions coming to the UK. ?220+ a month is alot of money to loose over night.

Maybe they are actively trying to start a recession :???:

[metalmonkey]

I don't really understand how all this work, the have made it complex. But it does not seem fair to tax people who earn less money.

I wil be better from what I understand, but I know I'll end paying more than that 2% then took off income tax somewhere else. This can only bad for this country.

I know that until my student loan is paid off, I won't be that much better off, but if I earn what I plan to next year I will be paying off over ?1600 in student loan, a few pound a week my ****.:mad:

So what happens when people can't afford to live casue of the rise in tax?

[G]

Maybe they are actively trying to start a recession :???:


You might not be far wrong.....they know they have stuffed up badly, they know that more than likely david cameron will be taking over when gordon finally gets off his **** and allows people to vote for what they want.......lets make life difficult for him.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Maybe they are actively trying to start a recession :???:

Alistair Darling probably doesn't know what a recession is, unless Gordy's told him. Darling is such a wretched spineless character (much like most Labour ministers), so obviously Browns puppet.

In fact I can imagine Gordan saying 'come along Darling', Black Adder stylee.

[muffles]

You might not be far wrong.....they know they have stuffed up badly, they know that more than likely david cameron will be taking over when gordon finally gets off his **** and allows people to vote for what they want.......lets make life difficult for him.

Alistair Darling probably doesn't know what a recession is, unless Gordy's told him. Darling is such a wretched spineless character (much like most Labour ministers), so obviously Browns puppet.

In fact I can imagine Gordan saying 'come along Darling', Black Adder stylee.

So time to batten down the hatches then?! :(

[glade]

Different tax year

This year and last year don't match, so the prediction for 09/10 could also be innacurate.

[kwak zzr]

thieving robbing gypsy bas#ards!!!!

[embee]

Why has this suddenly become a story? It was well known when Gordon F. Brown announced it a year ago, but no-one could be ar$ed to make a fuss about it. Typical useless opposition/press/media. Bunch of wastrels.

Oh, and let's get it clear, they have not abolished the 10% tax rate, it has been increased to 20%. The 22% rate is cut to 20%, and the 10% rate is increased to 20%, get it?

Of course the MP's have to get by on only 20k towards their second mortgage and 4k for taxis to do the supermarket shopping, all out of our pockets.

Hand me the flame thrower ................................

[gettin2dizzy]

I'm not convinced that calculator is right actually...

[muffles]

Oh, and let's get it clear, they have not abolished the 10% tax rate, it has been increased to 20%. The 22% rate is cut to 20%, and the 10% rate is increased to 20%, get it?

Lol, I am hoping you don't mean that seriously? I can't see how you can not say the 10% tax rate is not being abolished... bit like saying "We have not abolished benefits, we have simply changed the rate to 0%" :p

[the_lone_wolf]

Oh, and let's get it clear, they have not abolished the 10% tax rate...
**crowd**

OH YES THEY DID

**crowd**

what was the 22% band is now 20%, the 10% is gone, done away with if you will

definition of "abolished" - " To do away with"

a little on the nose...

[Steve W]

Apologies if this has already been pointed out but the sums are b*ll*cks...

Tax allowances have gone up for 2008/09 and will (almost certainly go up for 2009/10). The 10% rate has been abolished from today which does mean (I understand) that some low earners will pay more income tax...

[scooby]

just means I,l be worse off. don.t know how someone eanning under ?15000 pa is supposed to live.Im becoming more n more disalusioned with this country

[embee]

Lol, I am hoping you don't mean that seriously? I can't see how you can not say the 10% tax rate is not being abolished... bit like saying "We have not abolished benefits, we have simply changed the rate to 0%" :p

Of course I mean it.

It's simple, last year you could earn your allowance, then some was taxed at 10%, then some at 22%, then the rest at 40%.

Now you earn your allowance, then what was at 10% is now at 20%, then what was at 22% is now at 20% etc.

The bit that used to be taxed at 10% is now taxed at 20%, What part of that equates to it being "abolished"? It's been increased to 20%.

If the old rate was 10% and the new rate was 15% you wouldn't say it's been abolished, you'd say it was increased. The fact that it happens to be the same as the next rate up doesn't mean it's been "abolished".

I just hate politicians, lying devious scheming spiteful thieving robbing gravy-train-riding trough-snouting ................................................ :rant:

[chakraist]

haysus, i'm staying a student forever

[Ed]

Of course I mean it.

It's simple, last year you could earn your allowance, then some was taxed at 10%, then some at 22%, then the rest at 40%.

Now you earn your allowance, then what was at 10% is now at 20%, then what was at 22% is now at 20% etc.

The bit that used to be taxed at 10% is now taxed at 20%, What part of that equates to it being "abolished"? It's been increased to 20%.

If the old rate was 10% and the new rate was 15% you wouldn't say it's been abolished, you'd say it was increased. The fact that it happens to be the same as the next rate up doesn't mean it's been "abolished".

I just hate politicians, lying devious scheming spiteful thieving robbing gravy-train-riding trough-snouting ................................................ :rant:

Am I missing something here:scratch:

Or is this some sort of fuzzy logic known only to mathematicians?

Of course it's been abolished. Like it no longer exists. It's not hiding under the table and it's not simply afraid of the dark. It's gone. Abolished.

[the_lone_wolf]

Am I missing something here:scratch:
nope


i think we're all wondering what embee's been smoking...

:smt033

[embee]

...but no-one is saying the 22% rate has been abolished are they? They say it's been reduced.

Likewise the 10% rate hasn't been "abolished", it's been increased. If it was abolished you wouldn't be paying any tax on that part of your earnings.









OK, so it's semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all robbing b@$tards.





.......and I've drunk it all anyway. [-(

[timwilky]

dont worry Embee I understand. the first grand or so of taxable income used to be taxed at 10%. That has now increased to 20% taxation

The next 20 grand or so used to be taxed at 22%. That has decreased to 20%.


Yup robbed those who used to pay more most of their tax at 10%.

[lukemillar]

Yup robbed those who used to pay more most of their tax at 10%.

10% band was 0-2230.

Look at tax bracket shifts alone (not NI) anyone earning less than ~21k is year is worse off while those earning more is better off under the new scheme.

[muffles]

...but no-one is saying the 22% rate has been abolished are they? They say it's been reduced.

Likewise the 10% rate hasn't been "abolished", it's been increased. If it was abolished you wouldn't be paying any tax on that part of your earnings.









OK, so it's semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that they're all robbing b@$tards.





.......and I've drunk it all anyway. [-(

I'd say the 22% rate has been abolished too, lol...only fools would say otherwise!

First reason being you stated the %, which has changed, and no longer exists, hence abolished. Now if you were perhaps just using the number (i.e. 10, 22) to refer to the band, and not as the actual rate of tax, fair enough. But it's never described as "you pay 20% on the first 2000, and then 20% on the next 35000" - i.e. indicating there's still two bands in existence, and that they have changed rather than being abolished ;). Instead it is always described as a single 20% band. Now that's semantics :p