Oh don't spoil the fun Janner!janner said:
You're right though - well spotted - it will probably be ruled out as other low paid public sector workers would, quite understandably, want it. It was also be difficult to politically justify giving more highly paid officers the concession - yet not to do so could lead to some morale damaging anomalies in remuneration.
Do you know what an MP earns? Compare it to the private sector.asst_dep_to_dep_asst said:
Erm - AFAIK higher rate taxpayers still pay 11% NI up to the Upper Earnings Limit (about the same as the higher rate band) and then pay 1% above that - an innovation of that Tartan Thief at No 11 that further erodes the difference between NI and Income Tax.Always_a_Civvy said:
The document is actually quite interesting in itself, and it is clearly this report that the Times is talking about, but although the base pay compares (subject to exchange rates etc) well in the UK, this doesn't take into account our historically much much higher tempo of operations, or higher cost of living, or taxation status. From the table on page 33 (37 in PDF), only the Netherlands charges Income Tax to servicemen abroad, so all the Blairite spin about "comparative remuneration" is bollox.
I say again. Lickspittle *******.
My apologies Geoffrey - I thought that was indeed the position, or am I remembering the system under Thatcher?geoffrey said:
So you mean that higher rate taxpayers above the upper limit pay 40% income tax plus 12% NI?. Actually that's a bit unfair then: everyone should pay the same rate of NI. 
If only it were so simple.... there is an upper threshold for NI, above which the rate drops to 1% where previously it had been 0%. This threshold is different to the thresholds used for tax. Previusly it meant that all income above this threshold was taxed at the prevailing rate for income tax, whereas now an extra 1% has been effectively added to the tax rate above this threshold.Always_a_Civvy said:My apologies Geoffrey - I thought that was indeed the position, or am I remembering the system under Thatcher?
If NI were truly used as the source for NHS, pensions etc then I'd agree, however both NI and Tax revenues both go into the same general bucket. NI is therefore a form of taxation and increases in NI are increases in taxation no matter what Gordon says to the contrary.Always_a_Civvy said:Oooooo.... I feel MUCH HAPPIER NOW!
No, not quite. Everyone who pays lower rate (ish) pays 22% tax plus 11% NI (total 33% of earnings) up to about £36k - although the stop points for both types of tax are slightly different and subject to different tax-free allowances. Higher rate taxpayers pay the 33% up to that £36k ish level and then pay 40% tax plus 1% NI (total 41%) with no upper limit.Always_a_Civvy said:My apologies Geoffrey - I thought that was indeed the position, or am I remembering the system under Thatcher?
Oooooo.... I feel MUCH HAPPIER NOW!
PS: What does AFAIK stand for? :?:
Talk about complicated Geoffrey! I hadn't realised it was quite that complex. Oh the benefits of being a standard rate taxpayer! I'll stick to criminology and law - much easier to understand!!! - I'm sure Rosie will agree. It makes understanding the average EU Directive seem like child's play! 8O :lol:geoffrey said:No, not quite. Everyone who pays lower rate (ish) pays 22% tax plus 11% NI (total 33% of earnings) up to about £36k - although the stop points for both types of tax are slightly different and subject to different tax-free allowances. Higher rate taxpayers pay the 33% up to that £36k ish level and then pay 40% tax plus 1% NI (total 41%) with no upper limit.Always_a_Civvy said:My apologies Geoffrey - I thought that was indeed the position, or am I remembering the system under Thatcher?
Oooooo.... I feel MUCH HAPPIER NOW!
PS: What does AFAIK stand for? :?:
So the total amount of tax and NI paid is always more, the more you earn. Your point seemed to say that Higher rate taxpayers pay only 1% NI on whole salary, which is silly. I might have misread you though - sorry.
PS AFAIK = As Far As I Know
