8,150.00 div by 52 = 156.73 810L How we suppose to pay our Rent's and Service Charges
13/10/2012 1:39 pm
How our we suppose to pay our Rents's and Service Charges it isn't until you see what is your Personal Allowance then you realise.
My rent and Service Charges per week is over £150.00 per week
Why should we go cap in hand to the Housing Benefit
Sort: Newest first | Oldest first
13/10/2012 1:55 pm
Earning a Survivable income but the Government is encouraging a Supression of Wages, and lambasting us with High Levels of Personal Debt
13/10/2012 7:33 pm
Also how is this fair to low paid worker that above 8,150 which is 156.00 per week (most peoples rent is this amout) then paying 20 per cent tax after 8.150 and the figures goes up to 42,375 why aren't low paid workers paying only 10 per cent
15/10/2012 1:25 pm
After £7,600 you start paying National Insurance at 12% - or had you forgotten that form of Income Tax which seems to cost more and more every time taxes are 'cut' for the poor!
The simple answer Raindrop is that you are not. You are supposed to leave your home to be occupied by someone richer, and hence more deserving, whilst you go off to find a rented room, or share a rented room, or live on the street which is where you belong if that is all that you can afford. The harsh realities of Tory policy is just this I'm afraid. The harsh reality of Labour Opposition is silence!
15/10/2012 1:40 pm
Chris how long has low paid workers being paying 20 per cent after the Personal Allowance (has it been always or what please). I cannot find anything on the google
15/10/2012 3:32 pm
The 20% was bought in under the former Labour Government, in 2007, continuing the reduction from 35% started under Thatcher previously.
But the changes in thresholds for paying National Insurance and the cost of National Insurance is an often forgotten burden on the poor. For instance, if you earn over £42k you only pay 2% national insurance, whereas you pay 12% on earnings below £42k. National Insurance works completely against the 'from each according to their means' principle by taking a disporoportionately much higher value of tax from the poorest wage earners, and nothing based upon wealth at all.
15/10/2012 3:48 pm
Chris, just to clarify your point, you don't 'only pay 2% national insurance' if you earn over £42k, you pay it on the bit above £42k.
I would also point out that 'from each according to their means' is a Marxist principle and this isn't a Marxist country.
National Insurance is just that. You don't have to pay higher car or home insurance based on income, so I don't see why NI should change - unless people who put more in are allowed more benefits.
I thought it was weird enough relating rents to income tax thresholds already....
15/10/2012 3:49 pm
Thanks you Chris for the information and your valueable time
15/10/2012 3:58 pm
What is it weird Sanco relating Rents to Income Tax. Why do you think its weird
15/10/2012 4:12 pm
Absolutely Sancho - which is why charging extra income tax to social tenants is so wrong also.
However, National Insurance, which was set up to fund the specific costs of health care, unemployment, and retirement as part of the Welfare State and so that each was contributing to the benefits that they could anticipate, according to their means whilst earning, so that the benefit was 'free' when required. Yes, we are not a Marxist country, but Marx did not copyright the notions of freedom and fairness.
There is no logical covering of cost that supports the ceiling of £42k on the main NI contribution rate. If for some reason the NI paid on the £42k (which is around £4,000) covered the expected health, pension and unemployment costs of an individual then it would make sense, However, as we know, each of these benefits is met more from general taxation than it is from NI payments. Therefore higher income earners are gaining a disproportionate benefit from their taxation, and lower income earners are contributing more of their income, proportionately, to their pension, health care, and unemployment assistance than someone earning much higher amounts.
None of this has anything to do with Marxism Sancho - but is the way out taxation system favours the rich by taking more via national insurance from the poor because of the £42kpa ceiling beyond which only 2% is paid.
15/10/2012 5:26 pm
Raindrop, I don't understand why the level at which your personal allowance is set is related to your rent. That's all. They're completely different things. I suppose it's slightly interesting as a comparator, but it means nothing.
Chris, £4000 per annum over a 50 year period of work (i.e. £200k, plus interest) should cover the average person's pension and health needs. Not everyone's the average person, so you add a little bit on for people over that threshold to cancel out the people under the threshold. 2% from a few millionaires should cover it...
I'm not suggesting Marx copyrighted freedom or fairness, Chris, but he did pretty much invent the idea that people should pay into 'the system' according to how much they earn / have. As it happens, I am a big believer in increasing income tax across the board and certainly for higher bands, but don't agree on NI which is, simply, not a tax but an insurance policy.
15/10/2012 7:59 pm
Sorry Sanco its is not a Insurance Policy. Because if you died early. Your partner (if not married) or the children do not get a penny of the money.
I just quoting the affect its having on the low paid people. Its does make any sense that our Rents and Service Charges increasing yearly. But the low paid worker never gets ahead. With the increase of Fares begining of the New Year and that a small increase in Minimum Wages. Government think we can just say can I have more hours. Think we can go and find extra work. When we may already not know until Friday what rota the Manager put us on the following week. It will be worst when Universal Credit comes in for the low paid worker on part time hours.
I do not want to go cap in hand to the Housing Benefit to claim due to I am a low paid worker. Why I know to many migrants in the country taking the job's.
Yes you may say some do not want these job's. Well we never know due to the fact that the Mirgants our taking these job's.
16/10/2012 10:10 am
Sancho - bearing in mind it is recorded that Christ collected from his followers according to their means and distributed back to them according to their needs, I cannot see how you claim Marx invented the idea - or was he a lot older than he looked, old enough to perhaps date back to the earliest towns who, it is suggested, operated in this way also.
£200k per lifetime - about the cost of 5 hip operations. Good job we only have two legs each Sancho. It sounds a large sum of money, but I doubt it even covers a lifetime's health cost, let alone supporting through the leaner times and supporting the pension - which is probably why such things are funded out of general taxation and not specifically from National Insurance. Face it Sancho, of the 35 million working age people their combined NI contribution is £140bn - not even enough to cover the benefits bill. The truth is, the higher earners are contributing proportionately less because of the lower tax charged on higher incomes.
16/10/2012 10:56 am
Chris, you're assuming Christ existed...
I don't really have the time to get into a massive long debate with you. I'll leave it to that Parish Council bully fella to do that.
Two quick points - you know exactly what I mean about Marx; you pretty much quoted his philosophy word for word. As I said, we're not a Marxist country. I make no statement on whether that's good or bad, merely that it's the truth we need to face.
The other is that it's £200k, plus interest. Put £4k in the bank every year for 50 years and see how much you have at the end - it's a lot more than £200k.
It's interesting to see your comment about NI contributions from working age people against Raindrop's comments about economic migrants. What we really need is more working age people to come in, pay into NI and then not stay around for retirement....
16/10/2012 11:35 am
That he is mentioned in historical texts written by Tacitus, along with other noted Jewish figures, events and outcomes of those days in Palestine - not to mention having the Bible and the Koran as containing supportive details to his existance, It think there is not a question that Christ existed Sancho.
Yes - you are correct Sancho in that Marx drew from a wide understanding of history as to what had worked and what had not, and had the contemporary condition to draw upon also - but other than the 'ism' ascribed to him he did not invent that upon which he commented - in that you were not correct.
True point about the investment (although currently the return would not even cover inflation).
Absolutely regarding the need for more working people to be participating in our system to maintain its viability and value - although that is different from more 'working age' as this in itself would not help. Equally, if all working people paid in by the same proportion, the system would be better funded and more sustainable. I'd extend that to all citizens then gaining the same benefit, but that is a different debate.