Britons beware, Labour to rejig council tax

[FactionHeir]

Yes its the DailyMail, but no less serious (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202173/Secret-Labour-tax-having-patio--Millions-homes-assessed-council-charge-hammers-middle-classes.html?ITO=1490)



Secret Labour tax on having a patio: Millions of homes assessed for charge which hammers middle classesBy Simon Walters
Last updated at 8:49 AM on 26th July 2009


Shocking new details of a stealth tax of up to £600 for householders with views of any kind, patios, conservatories and even a nearby bus stop are revealed for the first time today.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show millions of homes have already been secretly assessed by Labour in preparation for council tax hikes expected to target the middle class after the Election.
Homes have been given 'value significant codes' which will make virtually every desirable feature taxable.
Although not every home has been assessed, so far nearly 100,000 householders face being penalised simply for having a scenic view from their windows.
Even those who have a mere glimpse of a river, hill or park - or any other pleasing outlook - stand to pay more under a special category for 'partial scenic views'.
Worst hit among the 11 types of view are likely to be the 26,346 assessed so far as enjoying a full sea view and the 21,709 who overlook a golf course or farmland.
People with garages, conservatories and patios - and even parking spaces - are also in the firing line.
While the list is by no means complete, the figures indicate the chilling detail with which the inspectors are examining Britain's homes.
The documents also reveal the sheer pettiness of the new rules. Balconies are divided into those up to three square metres, three to five square metres and so on. The 'Conservatories' category even covers lean-tos and differentiates between single and double-glazed.
The Valuation Office Agency, which is compiling the massive database of every home in England, has divided the three-quarters of a million people with conservatories into four groups.
The 115,610 with double-glazed conservatories will be hit harder than the 43,821 with single glazing.
People with patios could be in for a shock. A total of 4,932 homes have been registered as having 'value significant' patios - Whitehall jargon for big ones, perhaps with built-in barbecues. There are likely to be tens of thousands more.

Others who enjoy living in a peaceful area will soon have to pay for the privilege. A total of 38,081 homes have so far been given the coding of TQ, which tells council tax chiefs that they live in a quiet street or cul-de-sac.
The UP code for those with good access to public transport, such as those living near a bus stop, may find their council tax goes in the same direction - up.
Some of the details released by the VOA resemble a manual for taxing rich householders till the pips squeak.
About 13,000 homes with pools are listed, with separate categories for indoor and outdoor; as are 1,731 equestrian paddocks; 4,933 stables; 2,863 tennis courts; and 2,268 penthouses.
The system gives all 23million homes in England one of about 100 'dwelling-house codes' for each type, from modest council flats up to mansions. It takes account of architectural styles: brick, thatch or stone fascias, sash windows, age periods and size.
If and when the revaluation takes place, tax will be calculated through a vast and complex formula which uses these codings.
Householders with one or a number of the features could see their council tax band move up by one or possibly two levels.
Moving up from Band D to Band E could mean a rise of around £300. Moving up to Band F could result in a £600 increase.

Other categories - such as having a cesspit, no street lighting or living near a radio mast or pylon - could lead to reduced bills.
Shadow Local Government Secretary Caroline Spelman said: 'Gordon Brown's council tax inspectors have been caught red-handed preparing the way for massive tax rises on middle England after the Election, to fill the black hole in Britain's ruined public finances. There is now cast-iron proof of a council tax revaluation by stealth.
'Only Labour would think of taxing people for looking out of their own windows. Conservatives will scrap these tax-raising plans and abolish tax inspectors' rights of entry into your home.'
The Government has spent a staggering £13million on the VOA's scheme to build the new database.
Ministers have secretly renewed a multi-million-pound deal between the VOA and leading property website Rightmove to access sale prices and floorplans for tens of thousands of homes. The Treasury refused to say how much information the VOA received from Rightmove, whose website has a databank comprising 400million pages of information.
In addition, the Government has spent £3.7million on a US computer system that can pinpoint households on a map and list information gleaned from house-to-house inspections.

The VOA, run by HM Revenue & Customs, has 85 offices and 4,300 staff. Inspectors have stored digital images of more than 1.6million properties and are collecting details on millions more.
It has also tapped into a wide range of other sources. All planning applications, stamp duty and Land Registry records are supplied to the VOA. Inspectors scrutinise Ordnance Survey maps for details and use Google Earth, aerial and satellite images where homes cannot be seen from the road. They also have the right to visit homes to check details.
It is believed the VOA has assessed half of all the homes in Britain.
In 2005, Ministers shelved plans to revalue property, originally set for 2007, over fears of a backlash from voters who could face massive council tax rises.
However, they have not ruled out going ahead with the revaluation if Labour wins the Election.
Current council tax bills are based on assessments done in 1991, many on a 'drive-by' basis by estate agents.
The VOA defended the database, saying: 'It is important information about property is as accurate as possible.'
Window taxes and similar attempts to make people pay for household features have long caused controversy.
In 1696, a tax on windows was introduced to replace the Hearth Tax based on the number of fireplaces in a property, which was abolished because people resented inspectors snooping in their homes.
The Window Tax was assessed from outside, making it cheaper to levy. But people avoided it by blocking up windows, and it was abolished in 1851.


That will probably make life even more difficult in these already difficult times - and make you think twice about buying a good home. It will probably increase the wealth gap even more with only those able to afford the taxes being able to live in good areas.

[rory_20_uk]

I can't see my future in the UK, especially with the debt pile we're accruing at a breathtaking rate.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

What?!

That's kinda funny, people are gonna wish we Germans will bomb their neighborhood again. ~;)

[Fragony]

That's what happens when socialists can't pay the bills for their expensive hobby's and general insanity, now cough it up. Someonw will have to, and that someone is always you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's what happens when socialists can't pay the bills for their expensive hobby's and general insanity, now cough it up. Someonw will have to, and that someone is always you.

I'm not entirely convinced of the first part, Frag, but the second is undeniable. The Tax-payer always pays for the State.

I am inclined to suggest that hence-forth all MPs salaries, benefits, and pentions are stopped, dead.

[Fragony]

I'm not entirely convinced of the first part

Importing everything that is backward in the world does that do healthy economy's, enjoy your kebab.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Importing everything that is backward in the world does that do healthy economy's, enjoy your kebab.

I propose we introduce a new law alongside Godwin.

In any thread, on any subject under the sun, the probability that Fragony will find a way to blame Teh Muslims is exactly 1.

:wall:

[Fragony]

I propose we introduce a new law alongside Godwin.

In any thread, on any subject under the sun, the probability that Fragony will find a way to blame Teh Muslims is exactly 1.

:wall:

Can't just decide I blame the muslims I have to do it first.

How many times should I point out that I blame these leftist idiots, does it exist in some alternative reality where it doesn't appear on your screens, that would explain a lot. And yeah, the English are going to pay more taxes because leftist idiots decided to import the world, or is that any less true because it is me who's saying it, because of I was beaten to it, so many times.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I propose we introduce a new law alongside Godwin.

In any thread, on any subject under the sun, the probability that Fragony will find a way to blame Teh Muslims is exactly 1.

:wall:

The Frag Constant?

Inevitable Fragmentation? (Or Fragation?)

More seriously, it's not the "importing the world" it's the "screw everything up, waste money and raise taxes to make us all poor".

[Fragony]

sounds good

[Rhyfelwyr]

This thread has been successful... :dancinglock:

Even if you are going to tax people, why do it with such an obscure, innefficient system?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Even if you are going to tax people, why do it with such an obscure, innefficient system?

I think you are going to have to take that wicked calumny back. The Council Tax system was introduced by the Conservatives, and therefore cannot have anything to do with The Collapse of Civilisation®.

:wink:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you are going to have to take that wicked calumny back. The Council Tax system was introduced by the Conservatives, and therefore cannot have anything to do with The Collapse of Civilisation®.

:wink:

Well, that was after Labour whipped up the public against the perfectly reasonable "Poll" Tax, which would make a lot more sense if only everyone over 18 had to be registered to vote.

[Furunculus]

what we need is an accepted revelation within the british political zeitgeist that it is IMMORAL for the state to spend more than 33% of GDP outside of national emergencies, and no, furthering the revolutionary cause by emancipating the proletariat from subservience to the bourgeois does not count as a national emergency.

Further any sitting government that were to achieve the holy grail of public spending (25% of GDP) one year prior to a general election, and still win that election, would have their next term of office extended from four to five years.

[KukriKhan]

I am inclined to suggest that hence-forth all MPs salaries, benefits, and pentions are stopped, dead.

Since the whole concept of citizen-politician seems to be mouldering in the grave, maybe we ought to start charging for the privilege of being an MP/representative, instead of the other way 'round. The longer the tenure, the higher the fee.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Since the whole concept of citizen-politician seems to be mouldering in the grave, maybe we ought to start charging for the privilege of being an MP/representative, instead of the other way 'round. The longer the tenure, the higher the fee.

Right now, I could go for having a Baron, or an Earl as Prime Minister. I wouldn't mind them re-instating the heriditary Peers and flipping Parliament so that the Lords are on top again. They can't do any worse.

After four years, they can put it to a referendum of who we want to rule us.

After all, Cameron is more aristocratic than the Queen anyway, he's just illegitimate.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Reminds me one one guy at Uni that kept saying the UK a dicatatorship, you just get a new dictator every 4 years...

[FactionHeir]

I do wonder though, what would it take for them to pass this, and would they need support from the other parties as well?
Would there be any tangible benefit for those whos money is being taken here at all?

I'm also interested in hearing from our local Labour Org members as well what they think of this.

[Mooks]

'Only Labour would think of taxing people for looking out of their own windows. Conservatives will scrap these tax-raising plans and abolish tax inspectors' rights of entry into your home.'


Inspectors scrutinise Ordnance Survey maps for details and use Google Earth, aerial and satellite images where homes cannot be seen from the road. They also have the right to visit homes to check details.

Could never happen in america, at least not without a armed escort.

The brits on this forum need to oppose this and other tax increases, as I enjoy reading your posts and would hate to have you pawn your computers because your in debt.

[Beskar]

Well, that was after Labour whipped up the public against the perfectly reasonable "Poll" Tax, which would make a lot more sense if only everyone over 18 had to be registered to vote.

Poll tax being a good idea? Only in a limited capacity.


what we need is an accepted revelation within the british political zeitgeist that it is IMMORAL for the state to spend more than 33% of GDP outside of national emergencies, and no, furthering the revolutionary cause by emancipating the proletariat from subservience to the bourgeois does not count as a national emergency.

Further any sitting government that were to achieve the holy grail of public spending (25% of GDP) one year prior to a general election, and still win that election, would have their next term of office extended from four to five years.

I would change it, the government is not allowed to go in debt at all, unless it is a national emergency. (and rainy day money doesn't make up for the shortfall)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Poll tax being a good idea? Only in a limited capacity.

A very good idea really. It means you tax the adults in a houshold, not the size of the house or the street they are on. That means you are (aproximately) taxing those who use the local Council services, not the houses they live in.

The flaw was that it used the electoral register to find those adults, and because not everyone is on the register it could be cast as unfair by the opposition. If every adult was registered every adult could be fairly taxed, and no one would turn up on polling day saying, "but..."

Show me the flaw in that.

[Beskar]

Because the way it would be done, is getting the current cost (and surplus) then dividing it equally across everyone. Unfortunately, it only serves in widening the gap between the rich and the poor, since the rich get more money to spend and the poor get far less. End result, the majority do not benefit at all from such a system.

Percentage tax is far fairer, as it takes account of peoples income, and only the rich (a minority) lose out in comparison to the poor (majority). Leaving people who need the money the most, having more in their pockets with those who need money the less, paying more. There is a major ethical and fundamental flaw because of this.

If you really want a system like that, you would have to deal with wage inequality, to make the same fair, hence, my statement in regards to it only works in a limited capacity.

It is mentioned in many religious such as Buddhism (story of the golden bell and dirty gold coin) and Christianity. In the Bible, comments on this is in the New Testament about the donations to the Temple, there are all these rich people, showing off all their wares, making a big show, then there is the very poor old woman who gave a gold coin, which would have costed a lot for her. Jesus said about how God looks at the relative worth of the donations, and God can see that the old woman gave far more than all these rich people making a big display with their wares which end of the day, wasn't even touching much of a tip of an iceberg.


Poll Tax is blatant financial elitism, under the guise of equality and "fairness". It isn't equal and it isn't fair.

Being bluntly honest, give me the luxury style of having indoor heated swimming poor in a 5 bedroom detached country house and I wouldn't care about paying more tax, as I would have more money than I would need anyway. I would love to see your justification for those on low income, struggling with money as it is, pay even more money, making life more difficult for them, especially in this economic crisis, just because you want your sports car to have another wax job by model in a bikini.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because the way it would be done, is getting the current cost (and surplus) then dividing it equally across everyone. Unfortunately, it only serves in widening the gap between the rich and the poor, since the rich get more money to spend and the poor get far less. End result, the majority do not benefit at all from such a system.

Percentage tax is far fairer, as it takes account of peoples income, and only the rich (a minority) lose out in comparison to the poor (majority). Leaving people who need the money the most, having more in their pockets with those who need money the less, paying more. There is a major ethical and fundamental flaw because of this.

If you really want a system like that, you would have to deal with wage inequality, to make the same fair, hence, my statement in regards to it only works in a limited capacity.

It is mentioned in many religious such as Buddhism (story of the golden bell and dirty gold coin) and Christianity. In the Bible, comments on this is in the New Testament about the donations to the Temple, there are all these rich people, showing off all their wares, making a big show, then there is the very poor old woman who gave a gold coin, which would have costed a lot for her. Jesus said about how God looks at the relative worth of the donations, and God can see that the old woman gave far more than all these rich people making a big display with their wares which end of the day, wasn't even touching much of a tip of an iceberg.


Poll Tax is blatant financial elitism, under the guise of equality and "fairness". It isn't equal and it isn't fair.

Being bluntly honest, give me the luxury style of having indoor heated swimming poor in a 5 bedroom detached country house and I wouldn't care about paying more tax, as I would have more money than I would need anyway. I would love to see your justification for those on low income, struggling with money as it is, pay even more money, making life more difficult for them, especially in this economic crisis, just because you want your sports car to have another wax job by model in a bikini.

The Poll-Tax was supposed to replace Council Tax, not Income-Tax, Genius.

[Beskar]

Punishes those with big families in backwater shoddy flats while rewarding single occupancy in a Country Villa with swimming pool.*

Corrected enough?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Punishes those with big families in backwater shoddy flats while rewarding single occupancy in a Country Villa with swimming pool.*

Corrected enough?

No, because "Big families" are still usually only two people over 18, maybe three or four. The Notional "single occupancy" could be A: A single executive, already paying 50% tax, or B: a widow living in her ancestral home who barely ever leaves the house, only uses four rooms and has meals on wheels.

Currently the Council Tax taxes the property you live in, not the use you make of services. We already have an Income Tax which takes from the Rich and gives to the poor, we already have stamp duty to realise the value of a property when you sell it, Inheritance Tax to punish your children when you die etc.

If there are four working adults (no point taxting the unemployed) in your house, you are a greater burden on the local Police, Health Service, Roads etc. than one person. So why should one successful person pay for the use four unsucessful persons make of the same services.

After all, Income Tax already strips away a greater proportion of the money wealthy people earn than it does poor people.

[Beskar]

There are merits to the argument, just like there are merits for paying people based on rent-rate or property value. Many adults in a house is usually to share the burden of the financial costs which cannot be met living individually. Creating poll tax on number of persons increases the pressures as such, while people who can live single easily actually end up paying less.

Also, there are errors, you say "greater burdern on roads" = Road Tax, "Health Services" = National Insurance, etc, all your comments are actually paid for through different things anyway. You could try and argue waste-disposal, however, since there are limits in place for that anyway, there isn't an extra burden. (and any extra burden is paid for)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are merits to the argument, just like there are merits for paying people based on rent-rate or property value. Many adults in a house is usually to share the burden of the financial costs which cannot be met living individually. Creating poll tax on number of persons increases the pressures as such, while people who can live single easily actually end up paying less.

Also, there are errors, you say "greater burdern on roads" = Road Tax, "Health Services" = National Insurance, etc, all your comments are actually paid for through different things anyway. You could try and argue waste-disposal, however, since there are limits in place for that anyway, there isn't an extra burden. (and any extra burden is paid for)

Road Tax no longer covers road costs, ditto NI, though that is not a fixed rate, but is related to income, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

Fact is, Local Authorities have to raise local taxes to cover a portion of local services.

Asking the Old Dear in the big house to pay top whack for something she doesn't us is more unfair than asking four young men sharing a house to pay the same as the Old Dear for the same service.

[Beskar]

Old Dear in a big house has the money? If not, they can sell the big house and buy a smaller one, and they are still set for life. As you said "Why pay for something she doesn't use" what does Ms. Old Deary need with a big house? If she doesn't want to pay for not using it, then simply get a smaller house so they don't.

Compared to 4 young men, possibly on minimum, changing job to job trying to get work in this financial situation without pennies to their name.

Change the example, you got 4 men owning one car between them, compared to Old Deary having 4 cars which she doesn't use. If the old deary doesn't want to pay for the cars, she could simply sell them. Or should the 4 men pay for 4 car's worth while there is only 1.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Old Dear in a big house has the money? If not, they can sell the big house and buy a smaller one, and they are still set for life. As you said "Why pay for something she doesn't use" what does Ms. Old Deary need with a big house? If she doesn't want to pay for not using it, then simply get a smaller house so they don't.

Compared to 4 young men, possibly on minimum, changing job to job trying to get work in this financial situation without pennies to their name.

Change the example, you got 4 men owning one car between them, compared to Old Deary having 4 cars which she doesn't use. If the old deary doesn't want to pay for the cars, she could simply sell them. Or should the 4 men pay for 4 car's worth while there is only 1.

Why should you have to sell your ancestral home? You are proposing to punish someone just for having something.

Also, your car analogy proves my point. If she isn't driving the cars on the road, they don't need Tax disks.

Ergo, the Law allows her to have the cars but doesn't tax her unless she uses them.

[Furunculus]

the poll tax would be a good solution provided it is treated the same as income tax, i.e. with a tax-free sum topped up by a lower tax bracket for those under a certain threshold.

[Fragony]

Absolute tax, same amount for everyone, you don't get more service, so why pay more taxes. I could live with a flattax. Having to pay more taxes because you have more money is rediculous. And property tax don't get me started; property-tax is posession-fine. Paying more because you have a swimming-pool, did they dig that hole or anything? No and the labour it took to dig the hole was already taxed. It simply doesn't belong to them.

[rory_20_uk]

Although I do not have the thresholds, I would advocate zero tax up to a level witha flat tax on monies earnt above that level, and get rid of the mydiad of complexity with credits for certain things but not for others and for some children but not others which apart from employing a legion of beurocrats to sort out means that no one including the staff know exactly what is going on - and so the indicdence of fraud is greater.

Yes, having children is a financial burden - but you chose to have them, so cough up. The benefit to employment woul also be greater with more money eaching the worker for longer.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

i would have a flat taxation rate above the average wage.

just that i would have a reduced rate below that, and a zero rate below the poverty line.

[Husar]

Yes, having children is a financial burden - but you chose to have them, so cough up.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The lack of children here is why the government can hardly pay the pensioners anymore, they're trying a lot of things to make people have more children, not less. Of course the lack of jobs for young people doesn't help with that any way you look at it. The money pensioners receive is not the money they paid into the pension fonds that was stored and is then given to them again, it's paid for by the younger generations who have to rely on their kids later to pay for their pensions, thus we need enough younger people with jobs to keep things working.
Not sure that's exactly how it works in the UK but I doubt you have some trasure chests with pensioner payments stored away somewhere.

[LittleGrizzly]

Not sure that's exactly how it works in the UK but I doubt you have some trasure chests with pensioner payments stored away somewhere.

Pension contributions make useful short term funds, to either pay for something extra or to reduce taxes...

Basically short term thinking by politicians... can't blame them though, people want more services and less taxes...

So yeah we need kids to pay for all the retired people...

Im starting to wonder if we should tell people to retire and then pay them... maybe only those that have saved for thier retirement should be able to do so... (army and police we would give pensions)

Obviously those not well enough to work would be supported...

Or is this idea a bit out there ?

[rory_20_uk]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The lack of children here is why the government can hardly pay the pensioners anymore, they're trying a lot of things to make people have more children, not less. Of course the lack of jobs for young people doesn't help with that any way you look at it. The money pensioners receive is not the money they paid into the pension fonds that was stored and is then given to them again, it's paid for by the younger generations who have to rely on their kids later to pay for their pensions, thus we need enough younger people with jobs to keep things working.
Not sure that's exactly how it works in the UK but I doubt you have some trasure chests with pensioner payments stored away somewhere.

You're advocating a Ponzi scheme to solve the problem - more today so more pensioners later, so even MORE children etc etc.

Perhaps reform of the system is better than continuing a scheme which even on paper doesn't work.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The lack of children here is why the government can hardly pay the pensioners anymore, they're trying a lot of things to make people have more children, not less.

They are doing it all wrong then, the german baby-boomers got a nice present, their very comfortable situation can improve with economic growth, but not deteriote with decline. No such candy for the young, they have to pay for it no matter how it goes. So it's the younger generation that is in uncertainty, and with economic uncertainty comes lower birthrates.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Although I do not have the thresholds, I would advocate zero tax up to a level witha flat tax on monies earnt above that level, and get rid of the mydiad of complexity with credits for certain things but not for others and for some children but not others which apart from employing a legion of beurocrats to sort out means that no one including the staff know exactly what is going on - and so the indicdence of fraud is greater.

Yes, having children is a financial burden - but you chose to have them, so cough up. The benefit to employment woul also be greater with more money eaching the worker for longer.

~:smoking:

No one should get credits for just not earning; on the other hand, I am in favour tax-breaks for a limited number of children (no more than three) and for being married.

[Idaho]

I can't see my future in the UK, especially with the debt pile we're accruing at a breathtaking rate.

~:smoking:

So where are you going to move to that is different?

[Idaho]

i would have a flat taxation rate above the average wage.

just that i would have a reduced rate below that, and a zero rate below the poverty line.

I'd agree with that - weirdly enough.

First thing - combine National Insurance and Tax - and just call it tax. Cut out a swathe of beauraucracy.

Then I think we shouldn't be touched by any kind of tax for the first £15k. Then if we are married/partnered the £30k tax free is applied to the couple's total earnings. And then get another £3k tax free per child up to 3 children.

All income above the tax free allowance can be taxed at 50%.

So currently I earn about £40k and my wife about £12k (part time). We have 3 kids. As it stands we both have different tax free allowances, our tax burden is calculated seperately on our own allowances using 3 different tax bands. We both pay National Insurance at different rates as well as the tax. We pay money then get some of it back via child tax credits that are worked out on the basis of last year's income, as well as child benefit taken off my wages and paid to my wife... :dizzy:

It's as if they delight in making it complex.

Why not just say - we as a couple earn £52k - £13k is taxable at 50% - that's £6.5k in tax. No cashback, no benefits, no bands, no NI, no faffing about. One form. Two or three basic principles - easy.

Of course the reason they don't do it like that is because the poorest in our society actually shoulder a massive tax burden that keeps relatively comfortable folk like me in the style to which I have become accustomed.

[rory_20_uk]

So where are you going to move to that is different?

Good question.

Short term - probably nowhere. I have a secure job for 6 months so I'd be a fool to get rid of that without something pretty damn amazing to go off to.
Medium term - I would aim to get some experience in internationally as apparently this is a Good Thing career-wise. The GCC looks tempting for a bit as it is very different in almost every way. Length of time there would depend both on what I find the place to be like and engagements; it's a big enough region that if one state implodes (cough, cough, Dubai, cough cough) one can move to one of the others.
Long term - not sure really. But keeping flexible seems sensible. Staying here is only to be taxed into oblivion whilst the government undertakes replenishing its bank balance and short term policies to try to make the poorest students irrespective of ability have all the advantages of the richest, in case parenting by one's parents is undertaken by anyone.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

Good question.

Short term - probably nowhere. I have a secure job for 6 months so I'd be a fool to get rid of that without something pretty damn amazing to go off to.
Medium term - I would aim to get some experience in internationally as apparently this is a Good Thing career-wise. The GCC looks tempting for a bit as it is very different in almost every way. Length of time there would depend both on what I find the place to be like and engagements; it's a big enough region that if one state implodes (cough, cough, Dubai, cough cough) one can move to one of the others.
Long term - not sure really. But keeping flexible seems sensible. Staying here is only to be taxed into oblivion whilst the government undertakes replenishing its bank balance and short term policies to try to make the poorest students irrespective of ability have all the advantages of the richest, in case parenting by one's parents is undertaken by anyone.

~:smoking:

I would thoroughly reccommend anyone working in another country for a year or so. I still draw lessons from my year in Japan almost 10 years ago.

Where is the GCC? Is it one of those dreadful Gulf States? Personally I wouldn't work in one of them if you put a gun to my head :laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council (http://www.sheikhmohammed.co.ae/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=b10a4c8631cb4110VgnVCM100000b0140a0aRCRD).

[Husar]

First thing - combine National Insurance and Tax - and just call it tax. Cut out a swathe of beauraucracy.

Then I think we shouldn't be touched by any kind of tax for the first £15k. Then if we are married/partnered the £30k tax free is applied to the couple's total earnings. And then get another £3k tax free per child up to 3 children.

All income above the tax free allowance can be taxed at 50%.

So currently I earn about £40k and my wife about £12k (part time). We have 3 kids. As it stands we both have different tax free allowances, our tax burden is calculated seperately on our own allowances using 3 different tax bands. We both pay National Insurance at different rates as well as the tax. We pay money then get some of it back via child tax credits that are worked out on the basis of last year's income, as well as child benefit taken off my wages and paid to my wife... :dizzy:

It's as if they delight in making it complex.

Why not just say - we as a couple earn £52k - £13k is taxable at 50% - that's £6.5k in tax. No cashback, no benefits, no bands, no NI, no faffing about. One form. Two or three basic principles - easy.

I'd vote for you. :2thumbsup: