Unofficial UKBF Manifesto For SMEs

[NickGrogan]

It also means he is earning more in a year (igoring income from trusts etc) than the average person earns in a lifetime.

No, it doesn't. He gets one year's tax allowance against one year's income versus the combined household tax allowances for a lifetime. That's a very big difference.

 

[Newchodge]

No, it doesn't. He gets one year's tax allowance against one year's income versus the combined household tax allowances for a lifetime. That's a very big difference.

Funny. I was talking about a percon's average income. You answer with a complete non sequitur about combined household tax allowances.

 

[NickGrogan]

Funny. I was talking about a percon's average income. You answer with a complete non sequitur about combined household tax allowances.

Not really. Firstly, you were talking about tax, not income.

You said Sunak earned X and paid Y in tax. You commented on the tax, not the income.
I said he pays more tax in a year than the average household earns in a lifetime.
You said this is because he earns more in a year than an average household does in a lifetime.
I pointed out that you were wrong, as you're not allowing for the total tax-free allowance that a household has over a lifetime, versus his one year allowance.

 

[Newchodge]

Not really. Firstly, you were talking about tax, not income.

You said Sunak earned X and paid Y in tax. You commented on the tax, not the income.
I said he pays more tax in a year than the average household earns in a lifetime.
You said this is because he earns more in a year than an average household does in a lifetime.
I pointed out that you were wrong, as you're not allowing for the total tax-free allowance that a household has over a lifetime, versus his one year allowance.

You might read what I wrote.

 

[NickGrogan]

You might read what I wrote.

I did, can you point out where I'm wrong about what you said?

 

[Newchodge]

I did, can you point out where I'm wrong about what you said?

If I must

It also means he is earning more in a year (igoring income from trusts etc) than the average person earns in a lifetime.

I was talking about a percon's average income

You said this is because he earns more in a year than an average household does in a lifetime

 

[NickGrogan]

If I must

OK, sorry, you were more wrong than I thought.

You're saying Sunak pays more tax in a year than an average household pays in a lifetime because he earns more in a year than an average person does in a lifetime.

So you've reduced the number of people from a household (2.2) to one and ignored the combined tax allowance that the average person will receive over a lifetime, compared to Sunak's one annual allowance.

I stand corrected

 

[Newchodge]

OK, sorry, you were more wrong than I thought.

You're saying Sunak pays more tax in a year than an average household pays in a lifetime because he earns more in a year than an average person does in a lifetime.

So you've reduced the number of people from a household (2.2) to one and ignored the combined tax allowance that the average person will receive over a lifetime, compared to Sunak's one annual allowance.

I stand corrected

No you still have it wrong. I have not at any time mentioned a household. Neither have I mentioned tax allowances.

 

[SillyBill]

Millionaires and billionaires living in the UK, paying a pittance in tax, and contributing little to the economy are no loss to anyone.

I refer back to 1% paying 30% of all tax. Simple numbers to understand, at least I thought.

 

[Newchodge]

I refer back to 1% paying 30% of all tax. Simple numbers to understand, at least I thought.

But not accurate numbers.

 

[SillyBill]

on everything over £100k. If you earn that much you should be able to afford a few grand for good tax/financial advice!

That much? Its not a great salary for a reasonably successful business owner employing multiple staff IMO (I know plenty of professionals on not far off that sum too).

I live in an area of the South East (not of my choosing, if I could pick the business up and move it I would) where a rabbit hutch costs £400-500k. If you don't get housing benefit here, you either pay extortionate rent costs (which I am very sympathetic to), or have big mortgages, unless mum and dad gifted you a load of cash. I have a mortgage of £2500/month on a property which most would consider a fairly modest detached family home, certainly I grew up in a bigger one with a father as an insurance broker. Knock off all other bills/costs, and the tax you pay on that salary, I don't see oddles of money sloshing about to manage this obscene wealth..

Sure, we're comfortable as a 1 earner household but we are not living the high life, and the demands are high. You pay the bills, go on a couple of holidays a year, cover the mortgage, support the family, upgrade the car every few years, and that is it. This great misconception that £100k means stinking rich is absurd. If you take that as paye, as many earners do, you will take home £5500 a month. Typically to earn these incomes, where the demands are high, you work all hours so at least IME of knowing people at this level, its unusual for a household to have 2 full time earners, given one will certianly not be there to change nappies, do the weekly shop and will be working late nights and weekends. Yet, according to a lot in our country, apparently we're sipping champagne every night, and eating caviar, so much money we don't know what to do with it. Funny, you don't see many of these people either when up at 4am going into work.

 

[IanSuth]

That much? Its not a great salary for a reasonably successful business owner employing multiple staff IMO (I know plenty of professionals on not far off that sum too).

I live in an area of the South East (not of my choosing, if I could pick the business up and move it I would) where a rabbit hutch costs £400-500k. If you don't get housing benefit here, you either pay extortionate rent costs (which I am very sympathetic to), or have big mortgages, unless mum and dad gifted you a load of cash. I have a mortgage of £2500/month on a property which most would consider a fairly modest detached family home, certainly I grew up in a bigger one with a father as an insurance broker. Knock off all other bills/costs, and the tax you pay on that salary, I don't see oddles of money sloshing about to manage this obscene wealth..

Sure, we're comfortable as a 1 earner household but we are not living the high life, and the demands are high. You pay the bills, go on a couple of holidays a year, cover the mortgage, support the family, upgrade the car every few years, and that is it. This great misconception that £100k means stinking rich is absurd. If you take that as paye, as many earners do, you will take home £5500 a month. Typically to earn these incomes, where the demands are high, you work all hours so at least IME of knowing people at this level, its unusual for a household to have 2 full time earners, given one will certianly not be there to change nappies, do the weekly shop and will be working late nights and weekends. Yet, according to a lot in our country, apparently we're sipping champagne every night, and eating caviar, so much money we don't know what to do with it. Funny, you don't see many of these people either when up at 4am going into work.

But look at the other end of things

£24k gets you c£1500 takehome, that is a quite normal salary for a lot of people, def quite a normal graduate salary. Assume 2 graduates with no kids yet, that used to be the pinacle of having disposable £ but today, even if both on £28k they will be each getting just under £2k after £5 student loan deduction and auto enrolment pensions. Under £4k a month to try and save to buy a house, rent a place, commute, eat etc. As per your comment, they only have a few years like that before one or other drops to pt as they have a kid and get hammered by childcare costs

Around here a 2 bedroom terrace or apartment is £200k and childcare is £359 per week (real figures using my first house which wasnt suitable for a child but will do and the little ducklings nursery near it). A 1 bedroom apartment is £1770 a month in the town centre and you couldnt work from home in it.

Assuming we can't drop the .gov spending in the near future so the total tax take is what it is - where would you put the bill if not the higher earners ?

 

[pentel]

£24k gets you c£1500 takehome, that is a quite normal salary for a lot of people, def quite a normal graduate salary.

£24k will shortly be the minimum wage for 40 hours for a 16 year old with no experience of working and zero skills.

 

[John_Smith_]

Now all of the major parties have launched their manifestos about what they will do if elected, what do you think they could have added to support what they all commonly call 'the powerhouse of the UK economy'?

As a tree services company owner, I've noticed some gaps in the manifestos. They could do more for small businesses like mine. Last week, I struggled to find a qualified arborist for a big job, highlighting the need for better vocational training.

The paperwork for a simple tree removal took longer than the actual work we need less red tape. And while we're naturally eco-friendly, some tax breaks for green businesses would be welcome.

 

[IanSuth]

£24k will shortly be the minimum wage for 40 hours for a 16 year old with no experience of working and zero skills.

If it is it is - but that is irrelevant as it would just lead to inflation and a devaluation in the pound

Forget the 16 year olds - look at the minimum comfortable living costs for a couple of new graduates and that should be about min wage. But only because we have set the entire education system up for an expectation of degree or penury.

Tradespeople get bye by paying a smaller % of their income in taxes both through CIS and cash in hand - those in office jobs don't have that choice so you have to look at what can 2 grads living together afford to live on to have a life and save a bit for the future.

If they can't do that the country will fall apart.

Currently the big issue is a warm roof over their heads - in 1992 my now wife and I rented a 2 room "apartment" which was a kitchen and a lounge/bedroom in a large Victorian house. We had to go out on the landing to get to the bathroom but heating was included and we just had to use the 50p meter for out personal electric (and a 10p meter for the shower in the bathroom) - that cost us £65 a week plus £5 for those meters and graduate salaries (real ones not the uni advertised ones) were about £15-16k/£8ph
Therefore you were paying for a roof over your head from 8 hours work

Today i just looked and a double room in a shared house (so not as big or good) further away from the town centre (needs a daily bus ride not a walk) is £550pcm / £127 per week plus bills so basically double. Current grads are not getting £30-32/£16ph and they are paying back loans (so a grad tax of 9% on anything over £27k once they get that - which is one reason most grads start on less) - closest i cn find to what we had is £750 pcm (or £173pw) plus bills so getting closer to 3x the price

My son is on £32k and him and a mate are sharing a small 2 bed terrace house in Coventry - they are paying £900pcm !!

 

[Newchodge]

£24k will shortly be the minimum wage for 40 hours for a 16 year old with no experience of working and zero skills.

Only if they are offered a job.

 

[pentel]

Only if they are offered a job.

A brilliant way to increase youth unemployment.

 

[Newchodge]

A brilliant way to increase youth unemployment.

16 year olds should be in training, not employment.

 

[pentel]

16 year olds should be in training, not employment.

Same minimum wage for all which by definition would include apprentices, who are undertaking training.

 

[Newchodge]

Same minimum wage for all which by definition would include apprentices, who are undertaking training.

It look as if the proposal on NMW is talking about adults, so 16-18 year olds may be excluded.
An apprentice is not working, so can be paid at a different rate to a worker, or so I understand.

 

[pentel]

It look as if the proposal on NMW is talking about adults, so 16-18 year olds may be excluded.
An apprentice is not working, so can be paid at a different rate to a worker, or so I understand.

It looks like we read the proposals differently, we will have to see how this pans out.

 

[IanSuth]

Under current NMW apprentices have a specific lower tariff than workers, i doubt this would change. Also the mentions in the Kings Speech specifically said "every adult worker" So i suspect what will actually happen is just the 18-20 band will disappear

Current rates​

These rates are for the National Living Wage (for those aged 21 and over) and the National Minimum Wage (for those of at least school leaving age). The rates change on 1 April every year.

	21 and over	18 to 20	Under 18	Apprentice
April 2024	£11.44	£8.60	£6.40	£6.40

Apprentices​

Apprentices are entitled to the apprentice rate if they’re either:

• aged under 19
• aged 19 or over and in the first year of their apprenticeship