|
Post by bigospedros on Apr 21, 2008 13:01:48 GMT
i would suspect the difference is that under the old system, my salary was taxed at 10%, 22% and 40% (but not very much!) ... whereas now it's 20% and a little bit of 40%.
Whereas Chris was on 10% and possibly some 22% (don't know his salary) and now he's all on 20%.
So the swing for lower salaries is bigger than for those on higher salaries.
I think ... anyway ... jeez, tax is confusing ... :S
|
|
|
Post by nancepants on Apr 21, 2008 13:31:21 GMT
I know each individuals' amounts vary and so do the numbers of individuals, but isn't it odd that you're better off by £30 and chris is worse off by over £200! pete's better off by £30 a month, whereas chris's £200+ was for a year.
|
|
|
Post by Ath on Apr 23, 2008 16:37:47 GMT
Yeah that sounds fair...
|
|
|
Post by bigospedros on Apr 23, 2008 16:51:54 GMT
been reading today that they're gonna take another look at it because they seem to think that most poor people are families and therefore saw no impact as their tax credits / benefits went up. They kinda forgot about young people / people with no kids / those on state pensions!!
Seems to have caused some cat fighting in the House of Commons ... all very bitchy if you read it!
*Saucer of milk for Mr Cameron!!*
Anyway ... I hope they sort it, because it's certainly not fair and whilst I'll obviously make use of the extra cash I now get, I'd rather it went to someone that really really needed it.
|
|
|
Post by Ath on Apr 23, 2008 16:56:47 GMT
Same here, personally I think I'm in the same boat as you Pete but not by much. Think it was <18k that would suffer?
|
|