£15/hour

[trigger_andy]

Just now, GarethM said:

Yeah, but I could earn my yearly salary in a couple of days doing what you do 😜.

The reality for me is exactly as you predicted. I will significantly reduce my working time to stay under the threshold. It’s a win/win for me. 

[GarethM]

You could argue it might increase employment in higher paying jobs as your employer might need 2/3 or 4 people to fill the gap.

 

Especially if rishi and his masters gets their wishes of having tax standardised around the world.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by GarethM

[topchippyles]

58 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

The reality for me is exactly as you predicted. I will significantly reduce my working time to stay under the threshold. It’s a win/win for me. 

More cash in hand jobs then win/win/win 😏

[trigger_andy]

Just now, topchippyles said:

More cash in hand jobs then win/win/win 😏

And deny HMRC a significant portion of my hard earned wages? No way!

[trigger_andy]

55 minutes ago, GarethM said:

You could argue it might increase employment in higher paying jobs as your employer might need 2/3 or 4 people to fill the gap.

 

Especially if rishi and his masters gets their wishes of having tax standardised around the world.

 

 

They’ll need to significantly need to add employment when you consider that someone on £20k a year pays tax on about £7500 which is peanuts. But opens them to a raft of other “benefits”. Potentially making their ‘contribution’ null and void.

Someone on £140,000 a year bringing their wages down by £20k a year will result in a loss of tax revenue of around £12,000. 
Even if someone on £20k a year claimed no benefits (🤣) they’d pay £1500 a year in tax. 
HMRC will need eight people earning significantly over minimum wage and who does not claim a penny in benefits to replace the lost revenue collected by one single ‘higher’ earner pinching his/her belt a bit. 
 

The idiot masses will never ever compute the simple economic truths of Liz Truss proposals for prosperity. 

[Johnsond]

38 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

They’ll need to significantly need to add employment when you consider that someone on £20k a year pays tax on about £7500 which is peanuts. But opens them to a raft of other “benefits”. Potentially making their ‘contribution’ null and void.

Someone on £140,000 a year bringing their wages down by £20k a year will result in a loss of tax revenue of around £12,000. 
Even if someone on £20k a year claimed no benefits (🤣) they’d pay £1500 a year in tax. 
HMRC will need eight people earning significantly over minimum wage and who does not claim a penny in benefits to replace the lost revenue collected by one single ‘higher’ earner pinching his/her belt a bit. 
 

The idiot masses will never ever compute the simple economic truths of Liz Truss proposals for prosperity. 

Absolutely agree Andy 

As you know I’ve cut right back bud, I know 3-4 lads who are now going for their overseas days to totally step out of the UK tax system. We are talking of guys who were previously putting in a good 30-50k a year to Hmrc 🤷‍♂️you can squeeze people so far but eventually they say to hell with it. As you have seen on here there are still those who blame people at the bottom ( just as those calling the shots want you to) for trying to get on rather than looking at the bigger picture. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Johnsond

[trigger_andy]

14 minutes ago, Johnsond said:

Absolutely agree Andy 

As you know I’ve cut right back bud, I know 3-4 lads who are now going for their overseas days to totally step out of the UK tax system. We are talking of guys who were previously putting in a good 30-50k a year 🤷‍♂️you can squeeze people so far but eventually they say to hell with it. As you have seen on here there are still those who blame people at the bottom ( just as those calling the shots want you to) for trying to get on rather than looking at the bigger picture. 

Can you imagine the amount of minimum

wage earners needed to replace someone no longer contributing £50,000 a year in tax? 
Forget minimum wages earners, how much middle earners would be needed? 
In Angus the average teachers wage is £36,000 a year and pays £4,700 in tax. You would literally need ten additional teachers on this wage paying tax to make up the shortfall of one of your mates dropping out of the tax game.

And before anyone mentions National Insurance these folk (Myself included) pay class 2 NI which is £3 a week. 
 

So ten teachers (who are already a tax drain) needed for each of the 4 of your mates saying GTFO to HMRC. Potentially 40-50 teachers wage equivalent needed to replace the lost revenue of four disenfranchised ‘high’ earners. 

 

[swinny]

39 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

Can you imagine the amount of minimum

wage earners needed to replace someone no longer contributing £50,000 a year in tax? 
Forget minimum wages earners, how much middle earners would be needed? 
In Angus the average teachers wage is £36,000 a year and pays £4,700 in tax. You would literally need ten additional teachers on this wage paying tax to make up the shortfall of one of your mates dropping out of the tax game.

And before anyone mentions National Insurance these folk (Myself included) pay class 2 NI which is £3 a week. 
 

So ten teachers (who are already a tax drain) needed for each of the 4 of your mates saying GTFO to HMRC. Potentially 40-50 teachers wage equivalent needed to replace the lost revenue of four disenfranchised ‘high’ earners. 

 

Some good reading there 👌 

[Mesterh]

On 13/07/2023 at 08:57, Stere said:

The way inflation going £15 an hr is worth alot less  compared to a few yrs back

 

Inflation calculator

WWW.BANKOFENGLAND.CO.UK

---

Use our inflation calculator to check how prices in the UK have changed over time, from 1209 to now.

 

Hmmm. £100 of stuff back in 2022 is now £107.89, I reckon that is total bollocks, more like £130.

I guess there is a bit of fudgery going on there.

 

 

 

 

[Dan Maynard]

10 hours ago, Mesterh said:

Hmmm. £100 of stuff back in 2022 is now £107.89, I reckon that is total bollocks, more like £130.

I guess there is a bit of fudgery going on there.

It depends what it is, doesn't it? One of the things mentioned a while back is all the really cheap/value ranges disappeared so pasta went from 45p to 85p for the lowest income people. It's the old 'typical shopping basket' that nobody actually buys.