• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Taxation discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
I suspect it's the clawback of Child Benefit for Higher Rate Taxpayers - or, in other words, the recouping of a benefit.

Having thought about it, it can’t be.

Firstly, Child benefit per 4 weeks or per month can only be certain amounts, and £180 isn’t one of them.

Secondly, in the example quoted, it was an Avanti driver doing overtime. Avanti drivers are on more than £60k basic, so will have already paid the child benefit back through PAYE, and you can’t pay it back twice. (Besides, if you are an Avanti driver with children, you should make it easy for everyone and stop the benefit at source).

It could be Child Support Payments if (unusually) they are made as a % of income.

Either way, it doesn’t stand up to a first level of scrutiny. And there really can’t be many Avanti drivers who are paying back a student loan and have kids!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Having thought about it, it can’t be.

Firstly, Child benefit per 4 weeks or per month can only be certain amounts, and £180 isn’t one of them.

Secondly, in the example quoted, it was an Avanti driver doing overtime. Avanti drivers are on more than £60k basic, so will have already paid the child benefit back through PAYE, and you can’t pay it back twice. (Besides, if you are an Avanti driver with children, you should make it easy for everyone and stop the benefit at source).

It could be Child Support Payments if (unusually) they are made as a % of income.

Either way, it doesn’t stand up to a first level of scrutiny. And there really can’t be many Avanti drivers who are paying back a student loan and have kids!
The Child Benefit is paid to my wife, but I’m the earner. Therefore we take the payment, and HMRC claw back through my tax code.

As for stopping at source, just be careful - do it wrong and you cause a load of issues over other entitlements that hang off Child Benefit.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
The Child Benefit is paid to my wife, but I’m the earner. Therefore we take the payment, and HMRC claw back through my tax code.

As for stopping at source, just be careful - do it wrong and you cause a load of issues over other entitlements that hang off Child Benefit.

Ok, but you pay that back anyway, regardless of overtime.

I stopped our CB years ago, no issues, and no messing about with tax.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,115
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
A 10% wealth tax clearly wouldn't be on, but @miami does have a point in that Inheritance Tax, the one that is supposed to avoid too much wealth accumulating in too few hands, doesn't work. The question is, would taxing wealth in some other way be fair? Here's an article written in July 2019 by the Resolution Foundation which made me think a bit (the Resolution Foundation is dedicated to increasing the standard of living of low to middle earners, so isn't some right wing organisation):

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/comment/who-owns-britains-13tn-wealth/

Britain is in the middle of a decades-long wealth boom. Total wealth now stands at a record £12.8tn, or almost 13 million millions. But where you live, and when you were born plays a big part in how much of that wealth you are likely to own.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain’s collective wealth – the value of our property, pensions and savings – was about three times as big as the UK economy’s national output, or GDP. But since the 1980s, as wealth has boomed, it has surged to close to seven times the size of annual GDP. This growth continued even through the 2007-8 financial crises.




What is our wealth made up of?


Britain’s wealth boom has been driven mainly by rising house prices and pension entitlements, combined with rising home ownership in the 1980s and 1990s.

People often think of Britain’s wealth as being held in property and to an extent they are correct – at £4.6tn, it represents 36% of total wealth.

However, the total value of pensions is actually marginally bigger at £5.3tn – 42% of total wealth.

Net financial wealth – savings, ISAs, stocks and shares – is worth £1.6tn. Physical wealth – wealth in possessions – is harder to measure but, according to the latest data, we even own £4.3bn worth of personalised number plates.



What does it take to be wealthy?

How much wealth do you need to be in the wealthiest part of the population? To do this, we break the adult population down into families, and then sort them into 10 equally-sized groups – or deciles – based on their wealth.

In 2018-19, you needed wealth of around £670,000 per adult – excluding physical possessions – to get into the richest tenth of families in the UK. Wealth of £105,000 per adult would put you in the top half of the population. By contrast, the bottom tenth of families tend to have more debts than they have property, pension and financial wealth.



Wealth inequality has fallen

While Britain has a lot of wealth, it is not shared equally across the country.

But this is not a story of ever-rising inequality. In fact, the share of Britain’s wealth held by the richest 1% fell for most of the 20th Century, and has been stable ever since. This shift is mainly down to the sharp rise in homeownership.

We have moved a long away from the Downton Abbey-esque world of the 1920s. However, there are still enormous wealth gaps between different households.





Much of our wealth is concentrated in London and the South East, where a few households have very large amounts of it.

This is because London’s population is young and home ownership is low, so a typical household has relatively little wealth. In fact, high-wealth households in the capital have 24 times as much wealth as low-wealth ones.





Generational divide

Many of us aim to build up wealth over our lives, from getting on the property ladder to saving and investing, and watching our pension pots grow.

But younger people’s personal wealth is not growing at the same rate as their parents and grandparents. Those born from the mid-1960s onwards were less likely to have become homeowners in time to benefit from the rapid house price growth that started in the 1980s, or to have been enrolled in generous pension schemes.

This is part of the reason why sixty-somethings are the wealthiest age group, with average wealth equivalent to £332,000. Many are at the end of a career and have had time to accumulate savings, pensions and property. By contrast, those in their eighties have £186,000, while individuals in their 30s have just £55,000.



The impact of inheritance

The final stage of wealth is passing it on to the next generation though inheritance.

Inheritances have more than doubled over the last 20 years – and are expected to do so again over the next 20 too, as larger, wealthier generations pass through retirement. This means millennials – the generation currently aged 19-38 – are set for an inheritance boom in the future.But it’s a long way off, with the average millennial not expected to receive it until they reach 61; that’s far too late to help them onto the property ladder.

And those are the lucky ones. Nearly half of Millennials who don’t yet own homes have parents with no property wealth, meaning they are unlikely to receive a significant inheritance. By contrast, those with home owning parents are three times as likely to own a home by the age of 30.



Why wealth matters

Why does the size and distribution of Britain’s wealth matter?

Many hope that hard work and a good job means you can earn your way to prosperity. But large wealth gaps mean that whether you receive an inheritance could become the most important factor.Those without this source of wealth are more likely to face long-term housing insecurity, higher private rental costs, and insufficient funds for their retirement.

Britain is doing a pretty good job of growing its £13tn wealth pile, but less well at sharing it equally. How much wealth we have is often regarded as a private affair, but who holds it and how it is accumulated matters for the wider economy, and society as a whole.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
I think what the above doesn't really address, for the ordinary Joe already on the property ladder whose "wealth" is tied up primarily in the house they bought years ago and still live in, is how much of that wealth might be needed to fund care costs in later life once the property is sold. Depending on longevity, that could significantly reduce what's available to be passed on to future generations (whilst also reducing the cost to the public purse).

Separately, responding to @Bald Rick's comments about stopping Child Benefit, he is quite right, you can elect not to receive payments as opposed to receiving them and then having them recovered through the tax system. Either is absolutely fine. But @35B is also right to point out that not being registered for Child Benefit at all can cause problems. For example, my local authority required evidence of an active and valid Child Benefit claim to confirm my kids were eligible to apply to secondary schools in the area when the time came, even though I had opted not to receive the cash under the high earner's charge. There are also National Insurance implications.
 
Last edited:

JB_B

Established Member
Joined
27 Dec 2013
Messages
1,414
The Child Benefit High Income Tax charge is a horribly clunky measure which sits very awkwardly between individual-level personal taxation and household-level means-testing. It's no surprise that the OTS (amongst others) are recommending reform.

On the other hand, if you are affected, you might consider it a nice problem to have - even after seven years of fiscal drag the vast majority of ChB claimants don't earn enough to fall in scope.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
I do worry for future generations. When I bought my first property in the mid 1990s I could comfortably afford it on a 3.5x multiple of sole salary, being single at the time. Fast forward to today and there's no way I would be able to afford where I live now if I hadn't got on the property ladder then. And at no time have I ever speculated, all moves have been genuine relocations due to changing jobs or domestic circumstances.

That said, I really cannot support the idea of a wealth tax which clobbers people for notional and unrealised gains in the values of properties that they live in, haven't yet sold, and couldn't find the ready cash to settle the tax bill for without selling up. I'm also sceptical about the idea of fixing a tax charge now to be paid in umpteen years time - inheritance and capital gains tax already exist and can be adapted to deal with that if the political will exists.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
I do worry for future generations. When I bought my first property in the mid 1990s I could comfortably afford it on a 3.5x multiple of sole salary, being single at the time. Fast forward to today and there's no way I would be able to afford where I live now if I hadn't got on the property ladder then. And at no time have I ever speculated, all moves have been genuine relocations due to changing jobs or domestic circumstances.
I’m in exactly the same boat. Doing a bit of research though, and the situation isn’t quite as bad as I thought.

My first house was £58k, almost exactly the U.K. average house price at the time. I got a mortgage that cost a little over £400/month, which was then about 35% of my post tax/ NI income.

A similar house in a similar area is now around £240k, slightly over the U.K. average. A mortgage with the same proportion of deposit would now cost £1000/month. Assuming my pay had risen by RPI (nearly doubling in that time) that would now be 41% of my post tax / NI income. So a little more, but not outrageously so. And that doesn’t allow for any ‘help to buy’ assistance you can get now.

Why is it that a house that is 4 times the price is almost as affordable now? The reduction in interest rates is the main reason - the mortgage rate was over 8% back then. But the tax / NI regime is also different. Back then I paid 26% of my salary on tax and NI. Now, with an RPI adjusted salary, I would only pay 22% of my salary on tax and NI. This is because successive governments have reduced the income / NI taxes on the lower paid.

So, although average house prices have risen dramatically, the affordability isn’t, actually, that much different. There will of course be some variations in areas were prices have risen by much more than average But that will be offset by areas where prices have risen much less than average.


Interestingly, if I had a higher deposit, I could reduce today’s mortgage on the same property to less than £600 / month, which on these calculations is considerably more affordable than back then. When I bought my first house there were cheaper deals if you had a bigger deposit, but not 40% cheaper !
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,942
Location
Wennington Crossovers
Although your typical first time buyer in a nice town like St Albans is likely to have student loan debt, so you can put a few more % on that tax burden.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
Although your typical first time buyer in a nice town like St Albans is likely to have student loan debt, so you can put a few more % on that tax burden.

My first house wasn’t in St Albans, nor anywhere near it. But when I bought my first house, I was indeed paying back my student loan, and also some other student incurred debts too.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,397
Location
0035
Back to the original topic at hand; I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the tax relief available for those working at home.

This has been given significant publicity this year for obvious reasons and has been increased as of the start of this tax year. Additionally, some companies have given their employees hundreds of pounds worth of equipment in addition to laptops and other technology required to do their job.

I'm more minded to go the other way and suggest that unless government guidelines say people should work from home (like it does at the minute) employers and employees that are not self employed or working for SMEs should pay additional tax given the money they are saving in transport, refreshments and time.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,942
Location
Wennington Crossovers
Not sure that stands up. If I go to the office now I cycle and take my own lunch. There's a very marginal expense for wear and tear on the bike but otherwise I'm not 'avoiding' any spending by working at home.

To take a wider view, some reduction in commuting is desirable anyway - whether to reduce the environmental damage of road traffic or to avoid spending billions on future rail capacity which is only needed in the rush hour.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,397
Location
0035
Not sure that stands up. If I go to the office now I cycle and take my own lunch. There's a very marginal expense for wear and tear on the bike but otherwise I'm not 'avoiding' any spending by working at home.

To take a wider view, some reduction in commuting is desirable anyway - whether to reduce the environmental damage of road traffic or to avoid spending billions on future rail capacity which is only needed in the rush hour.
That may be the case, it is however saving you time, and you must surely accept that your case is in the minority - for the majority of office workers will either be shelling out for at least one of work clothes, lunch out (even if only ad-hoc) and/or transport.

Let's not forget that public transport and many other city services (whether private or public) are not presently viable with such low footfall.

If employees are choosing to work from home, whether that be to save money or time (or a combination of both), there is a cost to society, and more critically this also affects the viability of services that essential or low-paid workers rely on.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
I'm intrigued how you would go about drafting legislation for a tax on time saved! (Or for that matter a product or service not consumed)
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,942
Location
Wennington Crossovers
This is the tail wagging the dog though. Public transport should be there to support society - not society designed around filling up trains.

Clearly some city centre businesses won't survive without footfall, but as long as people are still earning they'll spend their money somewhere - at least some of that will be in the suburbs and commuter town where they live. People still need food and clothes whether they're working out of the home or in it!

As a proposal it's completely unworkable. It was put forward by a bank who have a huge interest in keeping their property portfolio afloat.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,397
Location
0035
I'm intrigued how you would go about drafting legislation for a tax on time saved! (Or for that matter a product or service not consumed)
That isn’t what it is.

I would firstly remove the £6 a week added to your tax code (which in the instance of this year only requires someone to have worked from home for one day to claim for the entire tax year). I know it’s supposed to reflect the additional costs for people working from home, but it doesn’t reflect the fact that people are saving substantial sums on transport and other expenses.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
I'm unsure though how an objectively fair and reliable basis could be devised for taxing an individual for not doing something. Perhaps a levy on employers on the difference between the number of registered employees and seats available in an office might work, but you'd then run up against the problem of how to assess organisations with sizeable field forces or hot desking. For example my own employer already only has desks for just over half the workforce, because the rest are expected to be out and about at client premises, and if social distancing is here to stay in some form that reduces capacity further

I get the high level intent in the suggestion, but the difficulty is operationalising it in a workable fashion...
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
I'm unsure though how an objectively fair and reliable basis could be devised for taxing an individual for not doing something. Perhaps a levy on employers on the difference between the number of registered employees and seats available in an office might work, but you'd then run up against the problem of how to assess organisations with sizeable field forces or hot desking. For example my own employer already only has desks for just over half the workforce, because the rest are expected to be out and about at client premises, and if social distancing is here to stay in some form that reduces capacity further

I get the high level intent in the suggestion, but the difficulty is operationalising it in a workable fashion...
Once upon a time, the government decided that the old ways of taxing us were too hard, and implemented a window tax. They were surprised at the consequences of it, when people bricked up windows rather than pay the tax; the take fell and it was eventually abolished.

I very much doubt that this idea of a WFH tax from Deutsche Bank will ever fly given the practical difficulties it will cause. Not least, I'd expect MPs to object as the principle would hit them either personally or as employers of aides who won't always work in the office.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,189
My job requires me to be on site office most of the time. Many of my colleagues are able to work from home and they have effectively had a significant pay increase this year because they have saved the cost of their commute.

Those that do the same job as me resent this position so I can see why there are calls for some sort of tax on people working from home. No idea how it could be done but it would be a way of levelling things up a bit.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
4,217
My job requires me to be on site office most of the time. Many of my colleagues are able to work from home and they have effectively had a significant pay increase this year because they have saved the cost of their commute.

Those that do the same job as me resent this position so I can see why there are calls for some sort of tax on people working from home. No idea how it could be done but it would be a way of levelling things up a bit.
So are these people also saying that if someone decided to move closer to work they would also be resentful?
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,153
Location
Birmingham
I'm more minded to go the other way and suggest that unless government guidelines say people should work from home (like it does at the minute) employers and employees that are not self employed or working for SMEs should pay additional tax given the money they are saving in transport, refreshments and time.

I don't really save any money and i've always made my own sandwiches for work whether in an office or WFH. So basically you want the government to tax my free time? Hmm.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,397
Location
0035
I don't really save any money and i've always made my own sandwiches for work whether in an office or WFH. So basically you want the government to tax my free time? Hmm.
You are in a very small minority of people who has no expenses in travelling to work!

The people who lose out are not those who are working from home - it tends to be the lowest paid and those that have no choice in where they can work. Effectively they are subsidising the lifestyle of people who tend to be in the better paid jobs which involve working from home.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,153
Location
Birmingham
You are in a very small minority of people who has no expenses in travelling to work!

The people who lose out are not those who are working from home - it tends to be the lowest paid and those that have no choice in where they can work. Effectively they are subsidising the lifestyle of people who tend to be in the better paid jobs which involve working from home.

I didn't say i have no expenses, anything i have saved is eaten up by the extra costs of being at home. A lot of office jobs (which allow WFH) are pretty lowly paid as well. I think you are assuming some city workers saving thousands in season tickets is the norm.
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
I didn't say i have no expenses, anything i have saved is eaten up by the extra costs of being at home. A lot of office jobs (which allow WFH) are pretty lowly paid as well. I think you are assuming some city workers saving thousands in season tickets is the norm.
I would disagree about the past, although it may become the norm going forward. But low paid office roles, which by definition are the junior people were less likely to "be trusted" WFH.I suspect that the reality of the past few months has shown that generally not to be the case.
There may be those that do not want to WFH when things return to normal, however if employers feel they can reduce costs by reducing office footprint, no canteen etc then contracts may well be changed.
How the taxation issue around that gets handles is open to debate, but currently you can claim some benefits (or could when I did it), they may get removed.
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,457
Location
Somewhere
Some people who maybe working from may be saving money on commuting...but I would bet their electricity, heating, internet (if on certain packages) and weekly food bill would increase. I'd also wager a lot will still probably have their car so still paying insurance and VED etc.

Suggesting a tax for home working is in my opinion preposterous.

My job requires me to be on site office most of the time. Many of my colleagues are able to work from home and they have effectively had a significant pay increase this year because they have saved the cost of their commute.

Those that do the same job as me resent this position so I can see why there are calls for some sort of tax on people working from home. No idea how it could be done but it would be a way of levelling things up a bit.

What difference is there between someone working from home or someone living so close to the office they can walk/cycle?
 

maniacmartin

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
15 May 2012
Messages
5,395
Location
Croydon
My job requires me to be on site office most of the time. Many of my colleagues are able to work from home and they have effectively had a significant pay increase this year because they have saved the cost of their commute.

Those that do the same job as me resent this position so I can see why there are calls for some sort of tax on people working from home. No idea how it could be done but it would be a way of levelling things up a bit.
I don't think taxing those working from home is the answer to this. Surely it would be better for your employer to pay those who have to be onsite more than those who can work from home if working onsite is seen as more burdonsome.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Interestingly, today's Times has an interview with one of the external economists on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, who suggests that productivity gains from working at home are limited to a couple of sectors. I think, as I have long done, that we'll see people return to the office as they (we) and employers realise there are plenty of benefits to people working together. And, working in one of those sectors, I also believe that the gains are much less than stated - I long to be able to sit down with colleagues at a whiteboard and work through a problem face to face - the various forms of tech just don't compare.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
Suggesting a tax for home working is in my opinion preposterous.
Quite. I am not paying to commute so that is quite a saving at the moment. I still need to eat lunch, wear clothes, go shopping etc. I can't go to pubs and restaurants simply because current regulations don't allow it.

Please could someone enlighten me what exactly is the product or activity that people are suggesting should be taxed?
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,189
Quite. I am not paying to commute so that is quite a saving at the moment. I still need to eat lunch, wear clothes, go shopping etc. I can't go to pubs and restaurants simply because current regulations don't allow it.

Please could someone enlighten me what exactly is the product or activity that people are suggesting should be taxed?

Consider two people, A and B, doing similar jobs, same rate of pay etc. Both located at the same place of work and attend that place every day.

Person A is told to work from home. They save the cost of travelling to and from work, potentially several thousands of pounds every year
Person B cannot work from home and has to continue to travel to the place of work

B is rather annoyed that A is now considerably better off. A does have to pay more for heating at home but can even claim a small tax relief for that!

There is an argument that A should pay more tax, but as I said upthread I have absolutely no idea how it would work or if it would be feasible to introduce such a tax.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
Whilst I sympathise, I cannot see why this is a matter for taxation by the state. If an employer wants to rethink the balance of remuneration and expenses between those who are required to travel for work and those who are not, that's a separate question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top