“Annual Equivalent Salary” – a suggestion for all #benefits statistics ?

I think I stole this idea off Guido but don’t let that put you off. There’s a hint of it in a Guardian article, regards a suggestion of capping benefits at £500 per week:

The Department for Work and Pensions said there had to be a limit on the amount of money benefit claimants could receive. “We think that limit is set at a fair rate of £26k – the equivalent to someone earning £35,000 before tax. If you take child benefit out of the cap, it will simply become ineffective, failing the very principles of our reforms, which is to bring fairness back into our welfare system while ensuring that support goes to those who need it.”

And lo, it works out; input “35000” and you get per week:

Gross Income £673.08
Taxable Income £529.33
Tax £105.87
National Insurance £64.10
Take Home £503.12

I think there’s a lot to be said for phrasing the debate not in terms of paltry-sounding net sums, but in terms of gross annual salary to give some perspective of someone’s effective quality of life on benefits.

35k in London is a lot different to 35k in Aberystwyth.

Comments

3 responses to ““Annual Equivalent Salary” – a suggestion for all #benefits statistics ?”

  1. Darren Moffat

    Isn’t 35,000 quite a bit above the UK national average salary ? Why should someone on benefits be earning more than the average salary ?

    1. That’s a question which seems to be engaging the Commons at the moment. If you believe the Lords last night, the answer is “children would be harmed to aggregate child support with that figure and take money away from someone with more than that.”

  2. Weez

    Is “national insurance” the NHS (I know, that’s supposed to be ‘free’), or is it something else? As near as I can tell, the US Federal tax on $50K (about 32K pounds) is $3,800. The UK tax on 32K pounds appears to be 7878 pounds, leaving 24,122 pounds to the poor sod who earned the money. That’s an effective tax rate of 24.5%, versus a US Federal tax rate on the same salary of about 7.6%. Or have I buggered up the math(s) horribly? It wouldn’t be the first time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *