Proposed New Tax Legislation Affecting Salary Sacrifice for the Provision of Benefits in Kind
At the Budget 2016 the government announced that due to concerns over the rising cost of salary sacrifice, it would consider limiting the range of benefits-in-kind (BIK) that attract income tax and National Insurance Contributions (NIC) advantages when provided as part of salary sacrifice arrangements. Following this Budget announcement, on 10th August HMRC published a consultation document which sets out a high level proposal for the future tax treatment of BIK offered via salary sacrifice.
The consultation period will run from 10th August to 19th October, and during this time Willis Towers Watson will be reviewing the proposals together with industry bodies, as well as looking at what providers have to say, before responding to HMRC. The proposal may be subject to change and/or clarification following the consultation period. The government expects to make an announcement on decision made following the consultation in the Autumn Statement 2016.
The proposed changes in summary
The main proposed change is to introduce new tax legislation from 6th April 2017 that will make a BIK provided through salary sacrifice chargeable to income tax and Class 1A employer NIC, even if the BIK is normally exempt from tax and Class 1A NIC. The BIK charge will be calculated as the greater of the salary sacrifice amount or the cash equivalent.
The proposals specifically target salary sacrifice
Wages: The act determines methods of wage payment and establishes the right for you to not suffer from unauthorised wage reductions.
Bii) Your payslip shows how much you earn per month and the deductions that take place which are tax, national insurance, and other tax deductions. It will show your earning before and after the deductions and it will also show any deductions that may take place e.g. Sick pay, Maternity pay. Your payslip will show any tax information that is needed to pay you and personal information such as your name and employers’ name. It has how much tax and national insurance that can be taken from how much you earn a year.
This idea of reducing taxes to increase investment within the economy sounds like a good idea but hasn’t lived up to its expectations historically. The idea of supply side economics wasn’t a new idea for the American tax code. During the early 1920s, income tax rates were cut multiple times which averaged to a total of most rates being cut by a little less than half. The Mellon Tax Cuts named after Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. He believed that changes in income tax rates causes individuals to change their behavior and practices. As taxes rise, tax payers attempt to reduce taxable income by either working less, retiring earlier, reducing business expansions, restructure companies or spending more money on accountants to find tax loopholes. If executed properly tax cuts can actually benefit economic growth, data from the Internal Revenue Service(IRS) showed that the across-the-board tax cuts in the early 1920s resulted in greater tax payments and larger tax share paid by those in the higher incomes. As the marginal tax rate on the highest income earners were cut from 60 percent or more to just 25 percent, the amount that this tax group payed soared from around 300 million to 700 million per year. (See Figure 2) This sudden massive increase in revenue allowed the U.S. economy to rapidly expand during the mid and late 20s. Between 1920 to 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and
The current tax policy in the United States is very confusing and it is very costly for our government to administer it. It is in the best interest of our country and its citizens to revise or replace our current tax policy.
What’s in it to lose? Nothing because by doing so it can help to reduce the government welfare spending at the same time helping someone to at least make ends meet. Therefore, raising the minimum wage will help people to take of their family basic needs such as good nutritious food, instead of the unhealthy food, health assurance for them to go to the doctor and a place to stay. People that work minimum wages not always able to afford their basic needs. They sometimes prone to sickness because of their unhealthy lifestyle and with no health assurance they won’t be able to afford to go the doctor or their
Heated debates over tax cut have always been one of the central economic themes on the American political table. Since taxes relate directly to the quality of lives, it is by no means surprising to find people showing significant concern about policies regarding cutting or raising the amount they have to pay. The idea that lowering tax rate makes room for growth has remained generally popular among the majority, taking a possible decrease in individuals’ tax burden and increase in productivity into account. There is, however, extensive research conducted on the topic that produced controversial results. Despite its appeal to instant benefits for one’s saving account and investment, reducing tax rate has yet to show a definite positive effect
More than 35% of American adults are obese and as a consequence, are at increased risks for health issues such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes ("Overweight & Obesity"). The U.S. taxpayer is supplementing much of the cost to treat obesity related health issues through public health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid ("Economic Costs"). A positive externality will occur in the form of decreased health care expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid. The U.S. government should impose an excise tax on soda and other beverages that contain sugar. Consumers who drink excess sugary beverages impose a negative internality on their health; as well as imposing a negative externality on the American
HMRC, Salary Sacrifice: An Overview for Employers.[internet]. Available at: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/paye/payroll/special-pay/salary-sacrifice.htm [last accessed 26th November 2010]
The selling point that has brought people to the United States for centuries is the American dream: Prosperity, Luxury, Opportunity, and so on. Unfortunately for many, this dream has been squandered by the receding economy of an indebted country. As inflation runs rampant, the value of the U.S. dollar decreases, lowering the value of household and business incomes. This economic recession has led many, especially those who only earn the minimum wage, to poverty. According to the United States Department of Labor, “The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour” (“Wage and Hour Division”). Some people believe that a solution to this problem is to raise the minimum wage; however, doing so would ultimately result in a negative effect on the
“Of course, nothing helps families make ends meet like higher wages. … And to everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full-time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, go try it. If not, vote to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”
Did you know that an astonishing 43.4 percent of the people in America do not pay any income taxes" (McCullagh 1)? This is roughly 65.6 million people that aren't paying taxes and this is putting our economy and country at its breaking point. Our current tax system penalizes those that work and save money. People that pay no taxes still get to enjoy the benefits. The United States needs to look at which tax is fairer to the people and easier to administer by the government. Although some may disagree, the Flat Tax should replace the income tax to simplify and bring fairness to the system, increase income, and create jobs.
The current basic salaries on the Single Spine Salary Structure (SSSS) have been increased by 13 per cent across board for the year 2015, with effect from January 1, 2015. Also, the minimum wage was increased by 16.7 per cent, from GHC6.00 to GHC7.00 announced by a communiqué issued by the NTC effective January 1, 2015. The communiqué urged all establishments, institutions or organizations whose daily minimum wage was below the new NDMW to adjust its wages upward, accordingly, and recommended that the NDMW should be tax
In the technical sense, penalty rates are a form of tangible benefit within the financial context which generally refers to those payments made to workers outside normal working hours. Regulator motivations for including penalty rates in modern awards as stated by (Sloane, 2014) are twofold: firstly, to compensate workers for work performed during what was historically known as ‘unsociable hours’ and secondly, to dissuade employers from operating within those hours. However, as advocated by (Sheldon & Thornthwaite, 2013) the modern award reviews have ‘provided a forum for employers and their associations to escalate their campaign to the significance of penalty rates in industries operating during the traditionally ‘unsociable hours’, which is evidence that employer associations prefer to enhance managerial prerogative over productivity which is predominantly concerned with the cost of resources. The push for the examination of provisions regarding penalty rates has mostly been seen to affect the tourism and retail industries.
Throughout history, taxation on United States citizens has proven to be a necessary component of a growing economy as means of generating revenue for the federal budget. The federal budget funds the many government programs implemented to keep the disabled, elderly, and unemployed from falling bellow the poverty level. Unfortunately, this fund is not always available when catastrophic evens, such as an economic recession, deplete the revenue coming in and create a budget deficit. In order to regenerate money coming in and replace the deficit, the government calls on money gained from taxes. What happens when tax money is already appropriated to other programs? A tax reform. A tax increase has many times been the
The impacts that followed Stevens20 saw major changes in the Industrial Relations Act 1988, the Superannuation Guarantee Act 1992 and the liability to deduct pay as your earn installments21. Businesses started avoiding the statutory obligations owed to their employees, saving up to 17% by classifying its employees as contractors22. Consequently an entirely new industry rose, attempting to take advantage of the multi-test, structuring their business so it appeared to be one of employer to independent contractor, then employer to employee23. The consequences of this was subsequently seen