Those on a salary (tax changes)

Pawnless Endgame · 2 May 2011 at 16:03

Yeah my salary stayed the same for 3 years 2006-9 and the take home element increased by about £12 per month after each non-mover year.

Fuzz · 2 May 2011 at 16:08

I'm not looking at the take home element at this point in time, just following on from suggestions above.
The row I'm looking at is "Net change from 20XX"

Frozennova · 2 May 2011 at 16:10

My net change due is correct comparing pay slips from before and after the increase.

How much people actually earn is irrelevant, some one has to do the lower paid jobs.

Fuzz · 2 May 2011 at 16:12

Taxing doesn't have to be taxing... yea right, what pen pusher thought that one up.

Jog on.

Vonhelmet · 2 May 2011 at 16:20

Scubascorpion said:
Taxing doesn't have to be taxing... yea right, what pen pusher thought that one up.

Jog on.

Tax is incredibly taxing.

Fuzz · 2 May 2011 at 16:27

I'm not sure what's correct on there now, having just read a note below

2011 / 2012 Tax Year Changes

Sunday Feb 27 2011; Made good use of a quiet day today while watching the Ireland v Scotland 6 nations and updated the tax figure for the upcoming 2011 budget. The default values for the year is still at 2010/2011 so you'll have to change this to see what the next year's budget is going to take away from you, because believe me, your wage packet is going to be smaller after April 6th.

[TW]Fox · 2 May 2011 at 16:29

Your wage packet is bigger if you earn less than about £42k a year.

Basher · 2 May 2011 at 16:47

The pre-tax stays the same (obviously) but I am £20 poorer a month.

MagicBoy · 2 May 2011 at 16:51

[TW]Fox;19036216 said:
Again, unless you only earn £13k you've got your sums wrong.

I don't. Nowhere near in fact.

They're not my sums, it's done automatically by the payroll system. Payday is the around the 14th IIRC which might explain it. Comparing March to Aprils payslip the difference was approx £25 using the new tax code.

[TW]Fox · 2 May 2011 at 16:54

£25 in favour? If it was because you get paid on the 14th that would be £50 over a full month!

If you earn say £30k you benefit by a tenner, 20k you benefit by about 20 quid...

MagicBoy · 2 May 2011 at 17:00

Those were the figures. It's possible that pension contributions have a knock on effect? As long as the tax code is right (which it is) then I'm happy.

[TW]Fox · 2 May 2011 at 17:02

Not unless you are suddenly paying less pension conts..

MagicBoy · 2 May 2011 at 17:04

[TW]Fox;19037755 said:
Not unless you are suddenly paying less pension conts..

Hell no. They're trying to force through a 3% increase!

Don't get me started...

robgmun · 2 May 2011 at 17:09

Conscript said:
I'm about £50 a month better off (although that's combined with a 3% pay rise I've had at the same time.)

SNAP!

Kemik · 2 May 2011 at 17:29

vonhelmet said:
Tax is incredibly taxing.

OMB on Wednesday

chippie · 2 May 2011 at 17:47

FallshirmjAEger said:
I don't think anyone can decrease your pay (tax or no tax) if you've signed a contract stating you will be payed x amount per annum etc. Not at least without your prior agreement.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal and your employer needs to be sued.

[TW]Fox;19035298 said:
Your employer cannot just re-adjust the numbers without changing your salary, why would any employer do this?

Jez said:
No employer should change your salary due to changes in taxation.

Ignoring the fact that the OP got it wrong, and looked at the last payslip of the last tax year.....

The above quotes are not always correct, there could be a situation where the exact thing the OP thought had happened does happen.

If you enter into a net pay arrangement with your employer, then in your contract you agree what your take home pay is. This is your net pay. The employer is then liable for the tax/NI payments that would be needed and pays them over accordingly. So, if you agreed that your net pay each month would be £1000, and the tax and NI rates increased, you would still take home £1000, but your employer would have an increased tax and NI bill to achieve this.

Admittedly, net pay arrangements are pretty rare, but nevertheless, do exist.

Vonhelmet · 2 May 2011 at 18:14

Kemik said:
OMB on Wednesday

Best of luck future CTA compatriot!

Camalot · 2 May 2011 at 19:30

22 quid better off than before.

Fuzz · 2 May 2011 at 19:35

chippie said:
Ignoring the fact that the OP got it wrong, and looked at the last payslip of the last tax year.....

The above quotes are not always correct, there could be a situation where the exact thing the OP thought had happened does happen.

If you enter into a net pay arrangement with your employer, then in your contract you agree what your take home pay is. This is your net pay. The employer is then liable for the tax/NI payments that would be needed and pays them over accordingly. So, if you agreed that your net pay each month would be £1000, and the tax and NI rates increased, you would still take home £1000, but your employer would have an increased tax and NI bill to achieve this.

Admittedly, net pay arrangements are pretty rare, but nevertheless, do exist.

Just checked my original contract from 2005 (signed nothing new since :rolleyes:

) and it states the following:
Remuneration;
You will be paid a salary at the rate of £XXXX net per week payable weekly in arrears.

So I guess that answers that question then.

So effectively the company would get a divvy off the government on MY personal allowance if my pay does stay the same next month. Doesn't sound fair somehow..

[TW]Fox · 2 May 2011 at 19:36

Why would you sign an agreement like that?!

Have you had had a salary update/raise at all in that period?