Will Indian young ones lose 18% of their EPF with new tax as per Budget 2016?
Are these calculations correct? These are approximate calculations and are with the assumption that entire corpus will be taxed. The assumption was valid as the wording in the budget speech was not very clear. Subsequently the finance ministry has clarified that only interest generated will be taxed and not the contribution. There are no new calculations done with this assumption. Edit: As per communication from finance ministry this proposal is on hold.
For income tax, you can expect to pay (see here for the rates): For class 4 NICs, it should be (see here for the rates): So expected take-home is £36667. You can avoid the income tax - but not the NICs - by putting money into a pension. For example you might put £7525 in to eliminate the entire 40% part of the bill, which would only cost you £4515 from your take-home pay because it would reduce the tax bill by the £3010. "Best way to invest around 50k Indian rupees and save Tax There is nothing ""Best"". There are multiple options that are available under 80C and you need to select one that suites you best. There are market linked options like ELSS, or assured returns like 6 years FD, or PPF or Term Insurance or other such options." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/04/news/economy/india-economy-modi-slowdown/index.html) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Prime Minister Narendra Modi swept into power in 2014, promising to take India&amp;#039;s economy to new heights.  &gt; India is still reeling from two shocks within 12 months - Modi&amp;#039;s sudden ban last November of 86% of the country&amp;#039;s cash, and a sweeping overhaul of the tax system aimed at turning the country&amp;#039;s 29 states into a single market.  &gt; India&amp;#039;s Supreme Court dealt the economy another blow in April, banning the sale of alcohol within 500 meters of national highways.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74g10i/india_what_happened_to_modis_promise_of_an/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~222577 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **India**^#1 **economy**^#2 **Modi**^#3 **Growth**^#4 **reform**^#5" "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-23/brady-signals-retirement-changes-are-still-on-tax-writers-table) reduced by 60%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Almost 12 hours after President Donald Trump ruled out changes to 401(k) retirement-savings plans, a top congressional tax writer indicated that retirement savings remains under review.  &gt; One alternative plan would call for people to fund their retirement with after-tax earnings, but allow them to withdraw the money tax-free later on, according to Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican - essentially moving toward the model for &amp;quot;Roth&amp;quot; individual retirement accounts.  &gt; Giant asset managers such as Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments have said they fear that cutting 401(k) tax deferrals to just $2,400 a year would reduce the American public&amp;#039;s notoriously low savings rate even more, jeopardizing their retirement income.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78ovy5/brady_signals_retirement_changes_are_still_on/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~234978 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **save**^#1 **retirement**^#2 **tax**^#3 **accounts**^#4 **income**^#5" Yeah good point about the 15%. I was thinking about short term where it's taxed at ordinary income. I do agree something has to be done I just don't know what because they have the whole system balanced. As soon as you introduce one change they figure out a loophole around it. It's screwed up It matters to taxpayers and this country because the Federal Reserve's obligations are guaranteed by them.  Taxpayers don't support fully covering Wall Street's bad bets from the Financial Crisis, which is precisely what QE and current monetary policy are aimed at doing. "I would look into the possibility that the promise ""that no taxes will be withheld"" is all about your status as a 'consultant'.  They may be meaning you to be treated like a business they buy services from.  In Canada the distinction is very watery and I presume the same in India. If you agree to become a business, then you must look into how that business income will be taxed." Two Questions, please feel free to pick either one, or answer both if you want.  1)  If tax reform does get passed and corporate &amp; income taxes are reduced/consolidated, what will be 1. the short term effect on the U.S national debt? and 2. The long term effect on the debt, factoring in the obvious (and already priced in) supply side growth potential of the tax cuts?   It seems to me that the GOP tea partiers/deficit hawks that rose to political power in 2010-2012 have gone oddly mute on the (probable) increase in the federal debt as a result of both the proposed Trump tax cuts and (subjectively) wasteful budget provisions like Wall funding, deportation enforcement ect...   2) A. What is your best guess of the reaction of U.S &amp; European asset markets (Eq &amp; Bonds) in the event of a war on the Korean peninsula, with both conventional and asymetrical weapons &amp; methods used on North, South Korea as well as U.S ally Japan?   I ask because the economic fundamentals of U.S/Western Europe are strong, and am wondering whether an obvious negative market shock (nuclear? war) would be enough to send those respective western economies into recession/financial crisis.    B. What will be the geopolitical result? Does China back NK to prevent a immigration crisi/power vacuum or do they side with the UN/U.S and allow military destruction of NK in the event of a NK-started war? You will be liable to pay the tax For the 2017 year of assessment (1 March 2016 - 28 February 2017) if you earned less than R75 000 you will not have to pay any tax The annual budget speach is this week and the new tax rates will be released but most likely that R75 000 will increase to R78 000+- so if you earn less than that tax would not even be applicable on you, Should you earn in a tax year more than R75 000 then would be able to do your own tax return and payments via E-Filling on SARS's website : http://www.sarsefiling.co.za/ But if you earn less than R350 000 then you don't have to submit a tax return, but there is nothing that stops you from submitting one if you feel that you want to. You can use https://www.taxtim.com/za/ to help you with other questions  you might have. You can potentially bring down your tax-able income by showing a loss in capital value of your equipment that you purchased that is now worth less than it was when you initially purchased it, but these are all things you should discuss with a tax practitioner, I am not entirely sure how you will show a loss in capital value as a sole-proprietor, that is what you will be since you are not a company. "X-Post referenced from [/r/irstudies](http://np.reddit.com/r/irstudies) by /u/smurfyjenkins   [Do Immigrants Cost Native-Born Taxpayers Money? - ""The future impact of one additional immigrant is strongly positive, with the government accruing an estimated net present value of $173,000 to $259,000""](http://np.reddit.com/r/IRstudies/comments/6q012s/do_immigrants_cost_nativeborn_taxpayers_money_the/) *****      ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot. ^^I ^^delete ^^my ^^negative ^^comments. ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=OriginalPostSearcher) ^^| ^^[Code](https://github.com/papernotes/Reddit-OriginalPostSearcher) ^^| ^^[FAQ](https://github.com/papernotes/Reddit-OriginalPostSearcher#faq)" Standard deduction is $6300, and exemption is $4050, totaling $10,350. (For 2016) Twice this for a couple ($20,700). The tax on money just above this is 10%, so the few thousand above will be taxed at a few hundred dollars. Where are you getting the number you showed? Can you edit your question to clarify exactly what you are asking? I'm not sure cost of capital would decrease that substantially. I have a feeling people still need to find a home for their money - as such it'll simply lower interest rates in order to offset the loss of deduction. IMO it would be quite inflationary.  Edit: I do not think this is a good idea, to be clear. The chancellor announced an ISA in this week's budget intended for people saving to buy their first home. For every £200 put in the government will add £50 to the account so I would strongly encourage you to put the money into that as it is also tax free. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-details-corporate-rate-individual-brackets-deductions-cuts-2017-9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; &amp;quot;After years of work, we are moving forward with a unified framework that paves the way for bold, transformational tax reform - tax reform that will bring more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks,&amp;quot; Brady said in a statement.  &gt; While there is no precise number in the plan, officials have indicated the rate could end up somewhere around 10%. Personal tax changes: A bottom individual tax rate of 12%. The plan specifies three tax brackets, with the lowest rate being 12%. That would represent a slight bump in the bottom bracket, which is now 10%. People currently in the 15% marginal tax bracket would most likely be included here.  &gt; &amp;quot;An additional top rate may apply to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers,&amp;quot; the plan reads.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72ves8/gop_tax_plan_overview/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~217749 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **rate**^#2 **plan**^#3 **bracket**^#4 **deduction**^#5" If ordinary income tax rates and contribution rates to tax-advantaged retirement accounts are held constant, It's net negative to the extent that the average retirement account return exceeds the risk-free rate. Rather than pushing money into Roth accounts, the government could leave traditional 401(k)s unchanged, borrow the difference in up-front tax revenue that it's foregoing by doing so, and repay that debt as the tax revenue from traditional 401(k) disbursements comes in. Net of interest on the additional debt, the latter strategy would increase the government's total tax revenue by an amount proportional to the average excess return of the affected retirement accounts, with essentially no downside (other than messaging) relative to the strategy that's being proposed.  Of course, in reality it's likely that retirement savings rates would decline as a result of the change, so that would partially offset the overall reduction in tax revenue. However, the downsides of reduced retirement savings rates arguably far outweigh that benefit. (That's why tax-advantaged retirement accounts exist in the first place.)