10% tax band petition

[j1979]

In 2005-2006 the median weekly wage was £362.
Source here page 6

Its is more now...

That histogram on page 6 pretty much summarises how many people are going to lose out... There is hardly and weight below £200

your source is household income not wages

[j1979]

What about people who can only work part time though, Students for example?

And not everyone is being lazy if they are in a 'crappy job'. To put it bluntly, not all people have the ability to get much more than a minimum paid job, regardless of how hard they try.
That and the economy needs the people at the lower end of the wage scale to survive in its current form.
As demoralizing as it may sound, without all those minimum wage workers (and believe me, I've been there) in retail jobs / maccy D's etc. it would fall apart.

your point is spot on!

[j1979]

I don't buy that, anyone can be trained, get educated, put extra effort in to get promoted (eg) to McDonald's store manager. Human ability is under utilised by these people. Which is fine because of your next point:
)

if maccy Ds has a total of 10 employees and 10 people who all work there arses off how many get promoted to manager??

[SiM]

if maccy Ds has a total of 10 employees and 10 people who all work there arses off how many get promoted to manager??

That's my point not all 10 people will (ie they are lazy)... maybe two or three will, and the best candidate would become manager, and the second best would become vice-manager

your source is household income not wages

Fair enough, "Median earnings of full-time male employees was £498 per week in April 2007"... Do you have a source to back up your previous claim?

[Saracen]

.....

but sorry the savings and pension tax, presume that the person has money to save which as mr Brown knows that is unlikly to be the case.

so the 10% tax on savings interest is a load of bull**** spin that certainly does'nt wash with me.

The implications on savings are different from the implications on pensioners. I agree that the impact on savings is nominal, but it will apply to those that have low fixed earnings or modest pension incomes, and top that up from income from savings. It isn't bull-whatever to them - it's very important.

As for pensioners, many mainstream fully-retired pensioners will be better off, because their earnings will tip over the level required and because of the changed tax allowances for them. Those that are likely to get clobbered are early retirees without substantial incomes. But then, it becomes not just dependent on being retired, but your age too.

In any event, my point was really two-fold :-

1) - Saying it applied to anyone of that income level was inaccurate and just likely to inflame the issue
2) - Whenever you look at tax changes in a budget, you have to look at the whole picture, not just part of it.

Oh, and 3) Brown could have structured this change in such a way that it simplified the tax system (which was part of his stated purpose) while still protecting that segment of the low paid that get clobbered. But didn't. Shame on you, Gordon.

Instead, as usual, he produced the usual smoke and mirrors deception, making dramatic announcements about the 2p cut and burying the rest in the small print, which is typical of this manipulative and deceitful government.

[SiM]

Oh, and 3) Brown could have structured this change in such a way that it simplified the tax system (which was part of his stated purpose) while still protecting that segment of the low paid that get clobbered. But didn't. Shame on you, Gordon.

Instead, as usual, he produced the usual smoke and mirrors deception, making dramatic announcements about the 2p cut and burying the rest in the small print, which is typical of this manipulative and deceitful government.

That is just good politics!!! Why are you complaining?

[ctid]

Right, im a student at uni and I earn about 300 quid a month working part time. How is this going to affect me? I pay hardly any tax at the minute(some months nothing at all). How much more tax should I expect to be paying?

Thanks

[TheAnimus]

What about people who can only work part time though, Students for example?

If we're going to have 50% of the population goto uni, the money for this has to come from somewhere? Where should it come from? Them in later life? Or should it only be those who work full time that get taxed? (or should we cut back on spending?)

[TheAnimus]

Right, im a student at uni and I earn about 300 quid a month working part time. How is this going to affect me? I pay hardly any tax at the minute(some months nothing at all). How much more tax should I expect to be paying?

Thanks

have a go on:
Free UK PAYE Income Tax Calculator 2008. Updated for 2008 / 2009 budget.

if your under the personal allowance, then there will be no change, only in NI contributions.

[Agent]

Students pay hardly no tax anyway... I would be surprised if they reached the 20% band! If they do then they either have a damn good job, or they should be studying more anyway...

Not all students are full time. I was aiming more towards people who are 50/50 work/study.

I know plenty of people (In fact I teach some), that have very well paid jobs and are in education / studying.
Being a student doesn't immediately mean that someone has a bad job and should "be studying more".

I don't buy that, anyone can be trained, get educated, put extra effort in to get promoted (eg) to McDonald's store manager. Human ability is under utilised by these people.

I have to disagree with you here.
Not everyone can be educated to the level required to get a better job (and when I say better job, I don't mean changing for a few pence more somewhere else).
Take for example Steven Hawking. There is no way I could ever be educated to the level of this man, understand what he does and make the discovery's he has.
By the same concept there are people that can not be educated to the level of the majority of the population. This doesn't make them "dumb" - I've met plenty of these people who so desperately want to learn but just don't have the mental capacity to do so.
To imply that everyone who works at Maccys could get to a management level there is unrealistic, sadly.

Not everyone wants to be educated for a start, which is the first big issue.

[ctid]

have a go on:
Free UK PAYE Income Tax Calculator 2008. Updated for 2008 / 2009 budget.

if your under the personal allowance, then there will be no change, only in NI contributions.

Thanks Nothing is going to change for me then.

[Agent]

If we're going to have 50% of the population goto uni, the money for this has to come from somewhere? Where should it come from? Them in later life? Or should it only be those who work full time that get taxed? (or should we cut back on spending?)

I am not against people having to pay for their education, but its a balancing act. Could this extra tax affect (or is it effect, can never get it right!) the very people that may hugely benefit from university enough to stop them going? (I've honestly no idea!)
If so, would it have the effect of causing them to get less wages = less tax = less return into the economy?

I was just using students as an example for SiM, its not the best one for this situation and I wasn't trying to apply it as such. It just was a response to SiM's "if they are working only part time then they clearly don't need the money that bad" - The bottom line is, not everyone can work full time.

[j1979]

Fair enough, "Median earnings of full-time male employees was £498 per week in April 2007"... Do you have a source to back up your previous claim?

unfortunatly its difficult to get a reliable source, because all gov offical stats are taken from a small set that does not include temps, part time, migrant workers or over 65s and does include all overtime.

so its impossible to provide you with a good source, but ill keep looking

[SiM]

Not all students are full time. I was aiming more towards people who are 50/50 work/study.

I know plenty of people (In fact I teach some), that have very well paid jobs and are in education / studying.
Being a student doesn't immediately mean that someone has a bad job and should "be studying more".

I suppose... all the students I know are full time (because I am one!)... studying more was a bit of a joke, but there are some full time undergrads who take their job more seriously than their studies!
But if they are well paid, then surely this won't make a difference to them...

I have to disagree with you here.
Not everyone can be educated to the level required to get a better job (and when I say better job, I don't mean changing for a few pence more somewhere else).
Take for example Steven Hawking. There is no way I could ever be educated to the level of this man, understand what he does and make the discovery's he has.
By the same concept there are people that can not be educated to the level of the majority of the population. This doesn't make them "dumb" - I've met plenty of these people who so desperately want to learn but just don't have the mental capacity to do so.
To imply that everyone who works at Maccys could get to a management level there is unrealistic, sadly.

I'm not talking about Steven Hawking level... I have managed to find an above median pay starting job without being as clever as Steven Hawking... I don't think I am over educated either, just an undergraduate masters degree here
I am saying that is improvement is always possible, it might be hard work, but it is possible for everyone (or 95% of the population). Maybe McD manager might not be attainable by everyone, but McD supervisor might be!

Not everyone wants to be educated for a start, which is the first big issue.

That's fine, but they shouldn't expect to be paid as much as the ones who do want to be educated...

[j1979]

That's fine, but they shouldn't expect to be paid as much as the ones who do want to be educated...

i have a degree but my problem in getting a well paid job is that i cant lie in interviews. the adverts always ask for highly motivated people, and im only slightly motivated!

[Agent]

I'm not talking about Steven Hawking level... I have managed to find an above median pay starting job without being as clever as Steven Hawking... I don't think I am over educated either, just an undergraduate masters degree here
I am saying that is improvement is always possible, it might be hard work, but it is possible for everyone (or 95% of the population). Maybe McD manager might not be attainable by everyone, but McD supervisor might be!

You're missing my point

The Stephen Hawking example is just to illustrate a point. How I view him (education wise) is amazingly clever. This is the same way that people who struggle with eduction are going to see the rest of the population.
I have no realistic chance of reaching Mr Hawking's level of education. Some people have no realistic chance of reaching the general populations level of education.

Sure, you can help people as much as possiable (I do a bit of voluntary educational work myself), but its a simple fact that some people are more educationally talented than others.
To simply say "I don't buy that, anyone can be trained, get educated, put extra effort in to get promoted (eg) to McDonald's store manager" and "If anything this provides an incentive for the people who are being lazy in crappy jobs to get out there and find a better job and work hard in them!" is, in my opinion, not true.
A lot of these people are not being "lazy". They just don't have the ability to get a better job, as harsh as that may sound.