Harming children for no good reason
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I'd have to see (e.g.)
gross pay 30,000
less personal tax allowance 11,500 or whatever other allowances
taxable pay 18,500 x 20% tax = (£3,700)
NI lower limit £x
NI rate x% x £y = (£z)
Statutory deductions (£n)
Pension deduction (£m)
Net pay = £30,000 - (£5,700 + £z + £n + £m) = £something
Net weekly pay = £something divided by about 52 (subject to unpaid holiday)
so without the calcs it's difficult to see gross from net and easy to make a mistake
though I believe there are tools to do it
it's easier when you have a payslip for about the right amount to hand
gross pay 30,000
less personal tax allowance 11,500 or whatever other allowances
taxable pay 18,500 x 20% tax = (£3,700)
NI lower limit £x
NI rate x% x £y = (£z)
Statutory deductions (£n)
Pension deduction (£m)
Net pay = £30,000 - (£5,700 + £z + £n + £m) = £something
Net weekly pay = £something divided by about 52 (subject to unpaid holiday)
so without the calcs it's difficult to see gross from net and easy to make a mistake
though I believe there are tools to do it
it's easier when you have a payslip for about the right amount to hand
D
Doggit
Personal allowance of £11500 as of 2017/18
No NI paid on the first £157, and then12% above that to a rate of £886, then 2% on anything above that.
Statutory holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks per year.
Pension contribution of approximately £2 per week under workplace pension scheme.
No statutory deduction other than the above
So on a gross pay of £30k, take home pay of approximately £453 per week
Not so easy to reverse it, but I can if necessary.
No NI paid on the first £157, and then12% above that to a rate of £886, then 2% on anything above that.
Statutory holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks per year.
Pension contribution of approximately £2 per week under workplace pension scheme.
No statutory deduction other than the above
So on a gross pay of £30k, take home pay of approximately £453 per week
Not so easy to reverse it, but I can if necessary.
On an average PAYE gross just take 20% off and you are there abouts give or take a couple of quid. There's no need to overcomplicate things. You tend to do this when you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Jon
Sponsored Links
Pretty much bang on but the average wage (Inc London which skews the figure) is £27k
Long winded way of doing it though and this is not a dig on you @Doggit.
@JohnD take note! Doggie has gone to the effort to explain in detail and I gave you a simplistic way which is near enough for this discussion.
Doggit came up with £453 after all bits added and taken away.
I suggest a 20% deduction from gross. I get £461. I think you will agree that that is close enough for this discussion so please answer my other questions now that you can't be pedantic about that particular point.
Jon
I think this is down to semantics.
Leaving aside the London difference -
For it to be said that the benefit cap is reduced to 20,000 it means that that is the maximum anyone shall receive.
That is a cap.
That a single bloke gets less than that does not mean that that is a cap.
Anyway -
With regard to the average wage; by definition the majority of people earn less than that so the previous cap of £500 per week, irrespective of how many kids they have, was, quite frankly, an affront to any hard working person in an ordinary job.
Whoever thought that that figure was reasonable should get transferred to a department where they can do something for decent wages.
You cannot have it both ways.
i think what we need to remember there is no need for a benefit cap if the government do there job and build enough social housing so don't blame the people blame the government its there fault over many many years from parties off all sides 
Social housing is a benefit too, it's just not liquid like cash. I would expect someone has looked at the economics of formal social housing (big state) vs paying a private landlord to sort the risk (small state) and come up with it more cost effective for the tax payer to do the latter. That is taking into account all aspects of having "council estate ghetto stigma" vs "pricing 'poor people' from 'rich areas' "
Nozzle
Nozzle
not the case
landlords want a return off perhaps 12-20% to cover all eventuallities
social housing has to cover the cost off building plus maintainance over say30- 50 years
private housing costs perhaps 30-50% more than social housing for the same standards
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Also private debt is rocketing and paying a higher rate of interest than Gov debt so even if the returns were the same the private still pays more for its debt.
When repairs and maintenance are performed on a private house - they are performed at or near market rates, not so if it were public sector. What are your thought on 'ghettoization' of what becomes the "poor kids from the council estate".
Nozzle
Nozzle
D
Doggit
Thanks Aquaheat, but I did it to show that it was simple to do. Yours is a nice a quick method, thanks for that, and it's a shame the government can't take it up.
The cap is designed to try and persuade people to get off benefits dependancy. But you're right in that both parties when in power should have built more social housing; but that would reduce rents, not remove the necessity for a benefits cap. But if rents were lower, then people would be able to stay in their local area, so that would be a good consequence of more social housing.
That would be damned nice if we could get it. Return on investment nowadays, is around the 4-6% mark, and that just beats a savings account, but gives capital growth on the property.
The pay off should be in the region of 20-25 years, but isn't calculated the same way. A lot of council house tenants being on benefits, don't actually pay any rent, so it's one department transferring money to another, not actually paying off the cost of building the properties.
Having said that, some councils are in discussion with a few insurance companies, to obtain funding to build new social housing, so they've obviously found a way of financing the loans.
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Are you saying private sector will always pay less for repairs / maintenance than the public sector even when councils run their own building services / repairs?
So last time I checked are repairs as a cost of doing business more than interest paid on debt for the private sector?
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,609
- Reaction score
- 552
- Country
Returns have fallen but not if you are a small landlord with a few properties who is on the lookout for a rundown property to repair or one who has lots and can raise finance cheaper.
Yes, because running a full-time buildings service dept is more expensive than hiring someone as and when you need them. Also, because the dept is publicly run, it will be more profligate with its own (tax money) budget. In general.
Sponsored Links
