Spring Budget 2023

CapitalOne said:
Running your affairs as a “company” with capex and claiming vat back on cars or whatever rather than just paying tax like everyone else.

Allow me to turn it around. If there are no breaks available why do it? You can move jobs as many times as you like without being a contractor. 10 gigs in 5 years looks dodgy as hell on a CV regardless of the tax arrangements.
Click to expand...
Flexibility in choosing when and where you work, plus the ability to develop your own skills and take responsibility for your own development (not many companies put much effort in these days). I would imagine others have their own reasons.

IR35 isn't a tax break, it's a set of "rules" to determine if someone is a disguised employee rather than a legitimate contractor.
 
Uther said:
Lol.
news.sky.com

Labour to reverse 'tax cut for the rich' pension reform if it wins the next election

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced he will also increase the pensions annual tax-free allowance under measures designed to increase the workforce by removing disincentives to being employed for longer. But Labour says it only benefits a wealthy few and will push for a vote on Tuesday.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Could they just reverse the annual allowance change, there is no need for an LTA really.
 
Mr Jack said:
This seems bad:


Sure, that's a narrow number of people affected, but a tax/benefit system that has these kinds of massive perverse incentives is badly designed.
Click to expand...
That analysis isn't entirely correct I don't think. For a start, everyone is entitled to 15 free hours regardless of how much they earn; so the impact is at least half of what they state.

The point is true though - the £100k threshold is a well known "triple punch" as you lose tax free allowance, £2k of government top-up and the additional free 15 hours. It is now a "quadruple punch" as you would strive to get to get beyond £125k and "move on" past the issue, but now it is 45% from 125000 onwards.

The daft thing has always been -- if one parent earns over £100k but the other earns £10k - you aren't eligible. However a family of parents earning £99k and £99k are eligible.
 
Last edited:
dLockers said:
That analysis isn't entirely correct I don't think. For a start, everyone is entitled to 15 free hours regardless of how much they earn; so the impact is at least half of what they state.
Click to expand...

No offence, but I'm going to take The IFS analysis over yours :)

The daft thing has always been -- if one parent earns over £100k but the other earns £10k - you aren't eligible. However a family of parents earning £99k and £99k are eligible.
Click to expand...

The UK should allow couples to file joint taxes, as you can here in Germany.

MadMossy said:
I understand the concern but your talking less than 1% of the population that earn 100k or more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my point at the bottom. But there's still no justification for this kind of perverse mess.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
No offence, but I'm going to take The IFS analysis over yours :)
Click to expand...
Do as you please but I live this exact scenario --- I can't see anywhere where they reference the fact that everyone gets 15 hours free. The point still stands mind, that earning over a £100k requires a maths degree to calculate "net benefit".
 
Last edited:
MadMossy said:
I understand the concern but your talking less than 1% of the population that earn 100k or more.
Click to expand...
What sort of argument is that? Why not give people incentive to push higher rather than put this huge trap at an arbitrary figure, at least taper off the support. No excuse for this.
 
200sols said:
What sort of argument is that? Why not give people incentive to push higher rather than put this huge trap at an arbitrary figure, at least taper off the support. No excuse for this.
Click to expand...

Someone earning £100k is unlikely to want to use a nursery that offers free places anyway lol
 
Freefaller said:
The problem is for childcare providers the money they get from the gov isn't really enough to run the nursery so they still rely on normal income. I guess they need to plan to ensure there's enough nurseries and child care providers that aren't going to go out of business by receiving only subsidised funding.
Click to expand...

This. Most nurseries are currently taking Govt paid places in at less than cost. All this means is more nurseries will go bankrupt or there just wont be the places there for people to take advantage of so in reality its going to have little affect.
 
n111ck said:
Someone earning £100k is unlikely to want to use a nursery that offers free places anyway lol
Click to expand...

Well that's completely false.

You sort out your tax affairs so you effectively earn "below" 100k so that you can get the 30hrs, regardless you still get 15hrs even if you do earn over 100k. It helps a lot.
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
This. Most nurseries are currently taking Govt paid places in at less than cost. All this means is more nurseries will go bankrupt or there just wont be the places there for people to take advantage of so in reality its going to have little affect.
Click to expand...
Why are nursary so expensive?

Are they earning too much money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom