7 ms·

The problem isn't the percentage, it's that there are tax traps where earning a single penny more end up in you taking home thousands less, then you hit a margi

The problem isn't the percentage, it's that there are tax traps where earning a single penny more end up in you taking home thousands less, then you hit a marginal tax bands of 60%+, and suddenly you have to earn tens of thousands more just to break even. They're well known an documented, but I'm sure you know that already.

olivermuty 1y ago
That is not how marginal tax works. Marginal tax is… uh… tax on the marginal part? It is funny you say these are well known and documented, yet provide no links or sources.
- alias_neo 1y ago
  Apologies, I thought "well known and documented" implies it should be easy to find", but here you go: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates https://www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare https://www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare For other readers who don't want to go through that: Say you earn £99,999 and get a pay rise to £100,000 and have two pre-school aged children, you lose £4000 (£2000 per child) per year, so you now earn less. Now for the next ~£25,140 you earn you'll pay an effective tax rate of 60%, so from £99,999 you first have to hit ~£110,000 to break even, then it's ~60% tax up to £125,140, then beyond that it's 45%.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    But also it's a childcare tax credit? Like you will only receive this in it's total value for maybe 4 years assuming you have two very close in age kids, and then lose it entirely 1 year later because they would both have started primary school. And you wouldn't be receiving it at all if you didn't have children. Like I would choose to not means test such a policy were in charge, but it's also got nothing to do with marginal tax rates - it's why liberals like me generally oppose means tested welfare policies (because it costs more to deliver and tends to deliver less).
    - alias_neo 1y ago
      Yes, I think you're spot on there. You also don't have childcare costs once they go to school, so the loss of that outgoing makes up for the loss of the tax credit. I'm also liberal, and I think that everyone should be given the child tax credit, if the government wants you to work, and earn, and have children (it does), the tax credit is an effective way to help everyone work harder and earn more. The issue I've been trying to describe, is that after you've already had children, and you then hit 100k, you lose it entirely, making you 2k per child worse off, so let's say you get to 100k, and you already have two children in childcare, you lose 4k, then you get a pay rise to 110k, with the loss of the 4k and at the same time you also hit a marginal tax rate of 60%, you now earn exactly the same as you did at 100k. If you got a with-inflation pay rise every year from 100k onward, you'd be earning less for almost all of that time until those children go to school. Lowering the higher band threshold to 100k from 125k and not tapering the personal allowance would actually leave you better off. EDIT: Typo in my numbers (100k > 110k).
  - olivermuty 1y ago
    This has nothing to do with marginal rates and everything to do with weird means based credits though. That said, I agree that is pretty stupid. The only connection to marginal tax rates is that the pay bands line up though?
octo888 1y ago
[flagged]
- albedoa 1y ago
  > because it isn't aligned with their Daily Mail cliche talking points. He keeps on top of the news from all outlets, and tries to look beyond the biases and form an opinion on a combination of sources.
- alias_neo 1y ago
  Perhaps my wording was the problem, and I didn't ignore your other question, I said the percentage isn't the problem, I also don't know the number, but I'm sure you do. Perhaps it was a problem with my wording but your statement about the daily mail suggests you've entirely misunderstood me, but to be specific I'm generally left leaning and prefer broadsheets, though I currently mostly use aggregators to combine sources to find where the facts are as opposed to "cliche talking points". I thought I was clear when I said that the effect on my wallet is where my opinion is formed, but it seems you might have missed that. I have no problem with paying more tax as a higher earner, but I don't agree with a tax system that literally prevents me from earning a penny more and would even have me earn less unless I can find a significant jump. You clearly have a different view on this but the facts of what I see right in front of me have little to do with talking points and consensus and everything, right now, to do with tax or the tax system. I'm taxed too much on every penny I've earned over over £99,999 and way too much because of the privilege of having pre-school aged children, that's my opinion, agree or not.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - bmsleight_ 1y ago
    >privilege of having pre-school aged children, that's my opinion, Look at salary sacrifice. This give you the option of buying childcare vouchers before tax. So taking you below the 100,000. Otherwise pay more into pension and drop below the 100,000 threshold. Not tax advice, not financial advice...
albedoa 1y ago
Can't help but noticed that you didn't answer the question. It's so good: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44712327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44712327
pmontra 1y ago
I'm not familiar with the UK tax system but the usual solution is to have progressive (?) tax bands. Example: On the part from 0 to 1000, no taxes 1001 to 10000, ten percent 10001 to 20000, twenty percent 20000 to 30000, thirty percent 30001 and more, forty percent So if you were earning 29000 and get a raise to 31000 those 29000 are still taxed as they used to and the extra 2000 are split among the two bands around 30k.
- gambiting 1y ago
  Yes, except like many others have pointed out there are thresholds where you lose certain tax credits and benefits, so it's entirely possible to make £1 more but lose multiple thousand(for example if you're a parent and you go from making £99,999 a year to £100k a year)
  - pmontra 1y ago
    You are right. Those are common in my country too.
SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
Can you provide an example for others? I know I often hear this complaint here in Canada about entering a new tax bracket, but the reality is that only the money earned above the bracket's lower bound is taxed at that higher rate (if the bracket is $10k and you make $10,001, only that $1 is taxed at that higher brackets rate), and so I'm wondering what the UK is doing differently. Edit: Ah, there's a baseline personal deduction (12.5k) that disappears between 100-125k, meaning, for that narrow band, every dollar earned in that range has a higher effective tax rate due to that deduction slowly disappearing. It's still progressive, so you don't suddenly start paying 60% tax on everything. https://www.brewin.co.uk/insights/earn-over-100k-beware-the-60-percent-tax-trap https://www.brewin.co.uk/insights/earn-over-100k-beware-the-...
- alias_neo 1y ago
  See another comment of mine that also shows how going from 99,999 to 100,000 also costs you 2000 for each pre-school aged child you have per year meaning you actually earn thousands less, and to top it off, you now also have to do your own tax returns because you hit 100,000 despite being PAYE. EDIT: it's interesting that anyone genuinely asking and trying to understand is getting downvoted as opposed to anyone who just disagrees with me.
  - teamonkey 1y ago
    For those in the US: the UK tax return (actually a partial return and declaration of income) takes 10 minutes. It’s all done online. There are no complicated calculations, you just declare your income, investment income, interest and other sources, minus any tax already paid. You don’t need an accountant and there are no costs for filing.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      If it takes you only 10 minutes to declare all your "income, investment income, interest and other sources" then you're either lying or doing taxes wrong. It takes me more than 10 minutes just to download all the tax slips, let alone totalling them up.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 1y ago
That jump in childcare costs definitely sounds annoying but if the overall percentage isn't very high then you're not being taxed to the eyeballs. We could imagine fixing the problem by making the childcare voucher phase out between 80k and 100k, and at 100.2k you'd get exactly the same amount as you get under the current system. In this hypothetical would you still say taxed to the eyeballs? If so, what would your justification be?
- alias_neo 1y ago
  The nuance of the situation was obviously missing from that short "emotional" statement I made, but I wasn't intending to start the argument it caused, just expressing some frustration in passing before someone jumped on my back. With a progressive tax band, the burden is different, you're aware of it ahead of time and you set your living standards accordingly, you won't see a big sudden drop and can adjust accordingly. You can't suddenly sell your home or find a much higher paying job in the same space of time a small pay increase took you over the cliff. For my generation, a professional that's having a family has probably focused on their career to get there, having there kids once they break some income threshold at a certain age, let's say it's 80k to fit with your numbers. You bought your home somewhere where those higher salaries are, paid a premium, higher SDLT on a small new build flat, you upsize when you have kids, buy a(n) (old) house, now overpriced due to property price jumps in the last few years, another chunk of SDLT, bills much higher, then you hit 100k as your costs have gone up significantly, that might be manageable, but you've just lost 2k per child to the tax credit trap, then the next 10k breaks even, after that you're taxed at 60% while your salary can't/won't be able to increase enough to offset that additional tax burden and your living standards have materially dropped because you got a pay rise. I suppose the nuance I'm trying to convey is one of timing compounded by cliffs in the tax system that wouldn't become the sudden problem they are if the tax system wasn't set up the way it is. One could argue that you could have known this, but I don't believe anyone would be seriously aware of the pitfalls until they have kids or hit a salary where you're going to be hit with a big step in tax burden. Sure it won't affect everyone the same, but if you happen to meet those specific criteria with that specific timing, it can certainly feel like being "taxed to the eyeballs" even if that isn't the best way to put it. I'm far from the only person in that position, it's just the natural progression for some. I hope that explains my position a bit better. I wasn't trying to say "I pay too much tax as a percentage of my income", in fact I DON'T think that, but I and others I've spoken to in this situation believe it's a tax-based ceiling on our progression and is a tax-based contribution to the growing wealth devide pushing anyone down that attempts to break into the middle class, which as a whole just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; no I'm not putting myself in those brackets before someone jumps on me, but pushing the middle down makes the rich richer and the poor poorer (sorry slight tangent at the end there).

olivermuty 1y ago

That is not how marginal tax works. Marginal tax is… uh… tax on the marginal part? It is funny you say these are well known and documented, yet provide no links or sources.

alias_neo 1y ago
Apologies, I thought "well known and documented" implies it should be easy to find", but here you go: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates https://www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare https://www.gov.uk/tax-free-childcare For other readers who don't want to go through that: Say you earn £99,999 and get a pay rise to £100,000 and have two pre-school aged children, you lose £4000 (£2000 per child) per year, so you now earn less. Now for the next ~£25,140 you earn you'll pay an effective tax rate of 60%, so from £99,999 you first have to hit ~£110,000 to break even, then it's ~60% tax up to £125,140, then beyond that it's 45%.
- XorNot 1y ago
  But also it's a childcare tax credit? Like you will only receive this in it's total value for maybe 4 years assuming you have two very close in age kids, and then lose it entirely 1 year later because they would both have started primary school. And you wouldn't be receiving it at all if you didn't have children. Like I would choose to not means test such a policy were in charge, but it's also got nothing to do with marginal tax rates - it's why liberals like me generally oppose means tested welfare policies (because it costs more to deliver and tends to deliver less).
  - alias_neo 1y ago
    Yes, I think you're spot on there. You also don't have childcare costs once they go to school, so the loss of that outgoing makes up for the loss of the tax credit. I'm also liberal, and I think that everyone should be given the child tax credit, if the government wants you to work, and earn, and have children (it does), the tax credit is an effective way to help everyone work harder and earn more. The issue I've been trying to describe, is that after you've already had children, and you then hit 100k, you lose it entirely, making you 2k per child worse off, so let's say you get to 100k, and you already have two children in childcare, you lose 4k, then you get a pay rise to 110k, with the loss of the 4k and at the same time you also hit a marginal tax rate of 60%, you now earn exactly the same as you did at 100k. If you got a with-inflation pay rise every year from 100k onward, you'd be earning less for almost all of that time until those children go to school. Lowering the higher band threshold to 100k from 125k and not tapering the personal allowance would actually leave you better off. EDIT: Typo in my numbers (100k > 110k).
- olivermuty 1y ago
  This has nothing to do with marginal rates and everything to do with weird means based credits though. That said, I agree that is pretty stupid. The only connection to marginal tax rates is that the pay bands line up though?

octo888 1y ago

[flagged]

albedoa 1y ago
> because it isn't aligned with their Daily Mail cliche talking points. He keeps on top of the news from all outlets, and tries to look beyond the biases and form an opinion on a combination of sources.
alias_neo 1y ago
Perhaps my wording was the problem, and I didn't ignore your other question, I said the percentage isn't the problem, I also don't know the number, but I'm sure you do. Perhaps it was a problem with my wording but your statement about the daily mail suggests you've entirely misunderstood me, but to be specific I'm generally left leaning and prefer broadsheets, though I currently mostly use aggregators to combine sources to find where the facts are as opposed to "cliche talking points". I thought I was clear when I said that the effect on my wallet is where my opinion is formed, but it seems you might have missed that. I have no problem with paying more tax as a higher earner, but I don't agree with a tax system that literally prevents me from earning a penny more and would even have me earn less unless I can find a significant jump. You clearly have a different view on this but the facts of what I see right in front of me have little to do with talking points and consensus and everything, right now, to do with tax or the tax system. I'm taxed too much on every penny I've earned over over £99,999 and way too much because of the privilege of having pre-school aged children, that's my opinion, agree or not.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bmsleight_ 1y ago
  >privilege of having pre-school aged children, that's my opinion, Look at salary sacrifice. This give you the option of buying childcare vouchers before tax. So taking you below the 100,000. Otherwise pay more into pension and drop below the 100,000 threshold. Not tax advice, not financial advice...

albedoa 1y ago

Can't help but noticed that you didn't answer the question. It's so good: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44712327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44712327

pmontra 1y ago

I'm not familiar with the UK tax system but the usual solution is to have progressive (?) tax bands. Example: On the part from 0 to 1000, no taxes 1001 to 10000, ten percent 10001 to 20000, twenty percent 20000 to 30000, thirty percent 30001 and more, forty percent So if you were earning 29000 and get a raise to 31000 those 29000 are still taxed as they used to and the extra 2000 are split among the two bands around 30k.

gambiting 1y ago
Yes, except like many others have pointed out there are thresholds where you lose certain tax credits and benefits, so it's entirely possible to make £1 more but lose multiple thousand(for example if you're a parent and you go from making £99,999 a year to £100k a year)
- pmontra 1y ago
  You are right. Those are common in my country too.

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago

Can you provide an example for others? I know I often hear this complaint here in Canada about entering a new tax bracket, but the reality is that only the money earned above the bracket's lower bound is taxed at that higher rate (if the bracket is $10k and you make $10,001, only that $1 is taxed at that higher brackets rate), and so I'm wondering what the UK is doing differently. Edit: Ah, there's a baseline personal deduction (12.5k) that disappears between 100-125k, meaning, for that narrow band, every dollar earned in that range has a higher effective tax rate due to that deduction slowly disappearing. It's still progressive, so you don't suddenly start paying 60% tax on everything. https://www.brewin.co.uk/insights/earn-over-100k-beware-the-60-percent-tax-trap https://www.brewin.co.uk/insights/earn-over-100k-beware-the-...

alias_neo 1y ago
See another comment of mine that also shows how going from 99,999 to 100,000 also costs you 2000 for each pre-school aged child you have per year meaning you actually earn thousands less, and to top it off, you now also have to do your own tax returns because you hit 100,000 despite being PAYE. EDIT: it's interesting that anyone genuinely asking and trying to understand is getting downvoted as opposed to anyone who just disagrees with me.
- teamonkey 1y ago
  For those in the US: the UK tax return (actually a partial return and declaration of income) takes 10 minutes. It’s all done online. There are no complicated calculations, you just declare your income, investment income, interest and other sources, minus any tax already paid. You don’t need an accountant and there are no costs for filing.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    If it takes you only 10 minutes to declare all your "income, investment income, interest and other sources" then you're either lying or doing taxes wrong. It takes me more than 10 minutes just to download all the tax slips, let alone totalling them up.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Dylan16807 1y ago

That jump in childcare costs definitely sounds annoying but if the overall percentage isn't very high then you're not being taxed to the eyeballs. We could imagine fixing the problem by making the childcare voucher phase out between 80k and 100k, and at 100.2k you'd get exactly the same amount as you get under the current system. In this hypothetical would you still say taxed to the eyeballs? If so, what would your justification be?

alias_neo 1y ago
The nuance of the situation was obviously missing from that short "emotional" statement I made, but I wasn't intending to start the argument it caused, just expressing some frustration in passing before someone jumped on my back. With a progressive tax band, the burden is different, you're aware of it ahead of time and you set your living standards accordingly, you won't see a big sudden drop and can adjust accordingly. You can't suddenly sell your home or find a much higher paying job in the same space of time a small pay increase took you over the cliff. For my generation, a professional that's having a family has probably focused on their career to get there, having there kids once they break some income threshold at a certain age, let's say it's 80k to fit with your numbers. You bought your home somewhere where those higher salaries are, paid a premium, higher SDLT on a small new build flat, you upsize when you have kids, buy a(n) (old) house, now overpriced due to property price jumps in the last few years, another chunk of SDLT, bills much higher, then you hit 100k as your costs have gone up significantly, that might be manageable, but you've just lost 2k per child to the tax credit trap, then the next 10k breaks even, after that you're taxed at 60% while your salary can't/won't be able to increase enough to offset that additional tax burden and your living standards have materially dropped because you got a pay rise. I suppose the nuance I'm trying to convey is one of timing compounded by cliffs in the tax system that wouldn't become the sudden problem they are if the tax system wasn't set up the way it is. One could argue that you could have known this, but I don't believe anyone would be seriously aware of the pitfalls until they have kids or hit a salary where you're going to be hit with a big step in tax burden. Sure it won't affect everyone the same, but if you happen to meet those specific criteria with that specific timing, it can certainly feel like being "taxed to the eyeballs" even if that isn't the best way to put it. I'm far from the only person in that position, it's just the natural progression for some. I hope that explains my position a bit better. I wasn't trying to say "I pay too much tax as a percentage of my income", in fact I DON'T think that, but I and others I've spoken to in this situation believe it's a tax-based ceiling on our progression and is a tax-based contribution to the growing wealth devide pushing anyone down that attempts to break into the middle class, which as a whole just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; no I'm not putting myself in those brackets before someone jumps on me, but pushing the middle down makes the rich richer and the poor poorer (sorry slight tangent at the end there).