Chancellor may tax older taxpayers more than younger.

[dowie]

well that is sort of the issue when people talk about getting "punished" - I can't remember if it was in this thread of the other thread but some posters were making somewhat flippant comments about how these high earners complaining ought to just get a lower paid job so as not to be "punished" - it somewhat misses the point and then just becomes silliness over semantics.

I'd assume the above poster is a salaried employee being offered some additional payments for working some shifts rather than a contractor. In that case there are real issues here from this "punishment" or rather, to avoid the previous silliness people have encountered from using that word, "disincentive".

At my previously place people in support would also be offered extra payments similar to the above for providing coverage over Christmas/NYE... the problem is when it hits a certain sweet spot like the 60% effective rate at 100k then the incentive (and therefore cost to the company) needs to be stepped up further else people aren't so fussed about earning a couple of grand extra when they're both losing out on Christmas and 60% of it gets lost to the tax man.

This is the same sort of issue that might make GP's not feel so keen to do that extra Saturday morning surgery once a month etc..

 

[theone8181]

I bought my flat in 94 and have tripled its worth but spent a lot on it also and to sell it does not give me "disposable income" as I need pay over the odds for someone else's home they are selling.

I am 46 and TBH do not have time for most of todays younger gen (not a blanket statement).

I do not think older people should pay more and I also do not think people who worked longer hours (overtime) should get hammered by tax as I did in my last job.

You get rewarded for being lazy (benefit systems abusers) and hit in the pocket hard for hard work.

But youve paid flat thats now worth triple what you paid, if you want to move because its gone up in value so much you wont have to pay much. If i (or any of the younger generation) bought a flat now, if we want to upgrade we have a massive amount to pay, can you not see the difference.

 

[w1ze1]

Why should I be punished for living longer and working harder as some of you will be same in 10-20 years and I hope not just older but w1zer!

Back to the house part I had to work a lot of extra hours to be able spend a lot of money on the flat so I will not get back 3x my cash as I spent a lot doing it up nicely inside and AGAIN I am going to need to pay over the odds for someone's else's home they are selling so its a moot point.

I could see the point if I was if a big house and downsizing as I was an OAP.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I bought my flat in 94 and have tripled its worth but spent a lot on it also and to sell it does not give me "disposable income" as I need pay over the odds for someone else's home they are selling.

That's how the market generally works... A rising tide lifts all ships, broadly speaking.

I am 46 and TBH do not have time for most of todays younger gen (not a blanket statement).

A blanket statement.

I do not think older people should pay more and I also do not think people who worked longer hours (overtime) should get hammered by tax as I did in my last job.

Why would the government care about your hours? You're earning the money, that's what they care about.

You get rewarded for being lazy (benefit systems abusers) and hit in the pocket hard for hard work.

At the end of the day if you see tax as a punishment, then you'll never really accept any level of taxation.

 

[The_Abyss]

I have been offered to work over Xmas for £900 a day and I have refused because a good chunk of it is taken away from me through tax once I start banging them sort of shifts in.

What a bizarre statement. I can understand not working because of spending time with family at Christmas, or not working because you think £900 a day isn't enough, but not working because of the tax you'll pay on those earnings at the same rate that you already pay tax on your existing earnings is just odd.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Never mind the fact that if you put in a big chunk of work in one go you'll pay less NIC than if you spread it out over time.

Assuming you're not a director of the company, that is, though I doubt that applies in this instance.

 

[Tunney]

If this country's aim is full employment, discouraging people from doing overtime through taxation is a good thing.

 

[dowie]

If this country's aim is full employment, discouraging people from doing overtime through taxation is a good thing.

I think that is a bit simplistic - it isn't like an unemployed person can just stand in for the extra Saturday clinic at the GP practice or provide the Christmas shifts for an existing team doing a specific job

 

[Vonhelmet]

If this country's aim is full employment, discouraging people from doing overtime through taxation is a good thing.

That only makes sense if you assume a significant number of people are stupid enough to not want to work overtime simply because they'll get taxed on the extra earnings.

I mean, if that's the way people think then they may as well give up work entirely and pay no income tax. WINNER.

 

[w1ze1]

That's how the market generally works... A rising tide lifts all ships, broadly speaking.



A blanket statement.



Why would the government care about your hours? You're earning the money, that's what they care about.





At the end of the day if you see tax as a punishment, then you'll never really accept any level of taxation.

You sure live up to your nick.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You sure live up to your nick.

Cheers for the ad hominem. Anything of substance to say?

 

[Spook187]

What a bizarre statement. I can understand not working because of spending time with family at Christmas, or not working because you think £900 a day isn't enough, but not working because of the tax you'll pay on those earnings at the same rate that you already pay tax on your existing earnings is just odd.

I would rather have the time off, the 900 notes should be tax free as it's overtime in my book, I already pay a fortune in tax as it is.

 

[w1ze1]

Hear, hear or at least a lesser tax band as reward for working harder and longer as the Gov seems to want us to do now.

 

[Pudney]

I would rather have the time off, the 900 notes should be tax free as it's overtime in my book, I already pay a fortune in tax as it is.

That's a brilliant idea. Then I'll tell my clients to give themselves an annual salary of £20k and pay themselves a £100k bonus to work on Christmas day tax free!

 

[dowie]

That's a brilliant idea. Then I'll tell my clients to give themselves an annual salary of £20k and pay themselves a £100k bonus to work on Christmas day tax free!

LOL. yeah I don't think he's really thought that one through... I do think that the 60% rate from losing the personal allowance needs to go though

 

[w1ze1]

Sounds like MP's and their scamming so just the norm.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I would rather have the time off, the 900 notes should be tax free as it's overtime in my book, I already pay a fortune in tax as it is.

It is overtime, but why should overtime be tax free

 

[The_Abyss]

It is overtime, but why should overtime be tax free

Because ignorance or 'it's better for me that way'.

No wonder successive governments have been able to bribe large parts of the electorate with cheap tax breaks of little value but with big headlines attached.

 

[Destination]

Indeed

 

[Spook187]

It is overtime, but why should overtime be tax free

Because it's my time, i ain't lining the pockets of treasury any more than I do now, entirely my choice, stop making me out to be the bad one here I pay my way.