Best Of

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.

For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.

And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?

There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.

You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.

You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.

If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have

Answer the questions above then:

a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.

b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.

c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.

@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.

The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.

Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.

You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it

You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?

The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?

You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.

Come on tell me what I should have done then?

Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income

I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.

It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.

It is a reasonable whinge.

It is means tested...

You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?

Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote

£35k is an absurdly high threshold.

That's considerably higher than the median salary of £29,400

And of course that £35k is already not subject to National Insurance (8% tax), won't be subject to the 9% graduate tax, which kicks in at £25k not £35k. And will typically not be funding any children dependents or housing costs either.

Its absurd that someone on £25k who works for a living is on a 20+8+9 = 37% tax rate without even counting employer's NICs, while someone who earns nearly £10k more than that pays half the tax rate and gets unfunded WFA welfare on top.

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

Jesus was a Lefty.

No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative

He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.

But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!

Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman

It’s questionable whether he even existed.

If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.

I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.

That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.

Also lives with his Mum

I also live with my Dad.

I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.

Need more people like you. Multi-generational households save the NHS billions a year in care and prevention, and you're using the housing stock much more efficiently than most of us. Also helps with loneliness, for which there is a growing evidence base for why health costs are rocketing.

When Labour go for their flat property value tax you'll be sitting pretty.

It's circumstances, I spent between 1997 and 2013 not living with my parents.

PBers know in 2000 when I was a mere 21 year old and before I started my first job my parents got me on the London property ladder which ultimately set me up for life.

I actually own four other properties, three of which I am in the process of selling as I am exiting the landlord market.

The thing that really scares me for young people today is we are soon going to have a generation who have rented their whole lives and when they are at retirement age they will continue to have to work for their housing costs, fortunately I am lucky that my kids won't have to deal with that.

As an aside, another cost which isn't discussed enough, which like the housing crisis is impacting people having kids is that childcare costs are astronomical, even for people who earn six figure salaries, I am lucky that my parents have willingly provided my kids with 168 hours of free childcare a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last decade and longer.

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

Jesus was a Lefty.

No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative

He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.

But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!

Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman

It’s questionable whether he even existed.

If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.

I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.

That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.

Also lives with his Mum

I also live with my Dad.

I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.

Quite. I come home every day to three people who love me unequivocally, and my wife.

Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.

On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.

Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA

Jesus was a Lefty.

No he believed in the 'Big Society' and charity rather than just the state and was relatively socially conservative

He believed people should sell all that they own and give the money to the poor. I presume that when you did that you thought of some casuistical justification for holding on to the device you're using to post here.

But "socially conservative"? He actually enabled a dangerous criminal to escape the death penalty prescribed by Almighty God for the offence she had committed!

Only if they wanted to be a disciple. He was also quite keen on the parable of the talents and using your skills and investing wisely. He also upheld Mosaic law and believed in lifelong marriage between a man and woman

It’s questionable whether he even existed.

If paternity tests existed 2,000 years ago nobody would have heard about Jesus and Christianity wouldn’t have existed.

I don't think we have a sample of God's DNA even now.

That’s because nobody has asked him. I understand he’s a modest muslim chap residing in the Sheffield area.

Also lives with his Mum

I also live with my Dad.

I know you live alone but you should try coming home everyday to four people who love and adore you, it might make you less of an idiot.

I still can't see Basildon voters being that bothered about how much Mcmurdock borrowed for his businesses in lockdown.

If there was a recall petition and by election in his Basildon and South Thurrock seat I suspect Reform would hold it even if McMurdock was the candidate

You seem to have (although in fairness it is your view of Basildon voters rather than yourself) an unbalanced moral compass. I appear to to be a tax avoider by having ISAs (I forgot to mention I also have premium bonds as well, what a tax avoiding bastard I am) but alleged criminal activity (presumably alleged fraud) is, well, ok.

Bear in mind there is no by election if he is innocent so the scenario of Basildon voters not minding only applies if he isn't.

You spent ages whittering on about how you would keep your WFA without recognising the only reason you did is you albeit legally minimised your tax through ISAs to keep your income below the threshold of taxable income where WFA is removed.

He would need to be convicted and given a jail sentence of over 1 year to be removed as an MP or any jail term, even if suspended, for a recall petition.

I suspect most Basildon voters opposed any lockdown at all and certainly couldn't care less about amounts borrowed to keep businesses going through it. On current polls it would be an easy Reform hold with increased majority

Your first sentence is completely wrong. You have put the cart before the horse and it is mindboggling you can't see it and ISAs are only a trivial part of it.

I have made no attempt to avoid tax

I was not entitled to WFA after the budget because I didn't claim benefits. The U turn that was made means I will now get it when I really shouldn't. That is why I object to the U turn and why I will give it away (if I were a tax avoider I wouldn't do that would I?)

I did nothing whatsoever to get the WFA. It was the Government that made the change, not me.


Here is the list of the so called tax aviodance schemes you seem to think I have taken out:

- I have bought a house and a holiday home which generate no revenue therefore no tax (CGT on sale though)

- I have a drawdown pension that I entirely paid for, but which will give me 25% tax free like everyone else

- I have a relatively small amount in ISAa and Premium bonds which are tax free (the ISAs represent just 2% of my wealth)

- I have shares and saving the dividends and interest on which I pay tax.

Now pray tell me where I have contrived to avoid tax. At least you have ameliorated your accusations now, but you really shouldn't carry on with this nonsense. Buying a home, taking out a pension, taking out ISAs are normal stuff and not some clever tax avoidance so you should not accuse someone who does it as a tax avoider. It is uncalled for.

In addition I did not do it to get the WFA as the change in WFA has clearly just happened.

There will be a huge number of well off pensioners in my position who will now be getting it and who shouldn't.

It isn't a good look to accuse people of stuff like this and smacks of jealousy


PS If I don't give it away my wife definitely will as she is a lot angrier about it.

PPS 'whittering on about it' - How many posts did you make?

WFA is not being given to anyone with taxable income over £35,000 even after the U turn.

The only reason you are still getting it is because of all the tax free schemes you use.

Yes you could send it back to the Treasury but for them to try and trace all the tax free income and wealth the likes of you have to deprive you of your WFA would cost far more in admin costs than it would save, as I already told you

Govt definition - Tax avoidance involves bending the rules of the tax system to try to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended.

Parliament clearly intend ISAs and pensions to work in the way that they are used.

Doesn't stop the likes of kjh giving back their WFA if their use of such legal tax avoidance keeps them under the WFA taxable income threshold

We discussed this last:

a) I will give it to charity

b) What about all the thousands and thousands of others who won't who should not be getting it?

And I didn't use and f***ing tax avoidance schemes* did I?

* if you class ISAs as tax avoidance (I don't) I am still in exactly the same position without them as it only represents 2% of what I have.

@kjh

I heard that yesterday you passed a shop without buying anything. You evaded paying VAT, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I actually agree with the Lord Elon over the America Party. Their 2 party system is utterly corrupted and needs challenging. With the Democrats struggling with "do we select mentalists or the corrupt elite" and the Republicans now cheering on having their own faces eaten by leopards, the time is right for a challenge.

Helps that the challenger has previously been in both party's orbits and accidentally has a bazillion dollars to spend and a major social media platform to use.

PR is the main way to replace a 2 party dominated system

It's the sensible way, my friend. Which is why the Septics, in their current mindset, won't do it.

On a different subject, as an OAP, there have been, so far anyway, two stages in the Cole's pensioner life.
The first was the first fifteen or so after retirement/ We were reasonably fit, felt we'd enough money to go where we wanted to, and wanted to see more of the world. This was helped/hindered by one of our sons settling in Thailand and starting a family there. Grandchildren are an attraction for OAP travel! So we travelled. Spent a bit on the house and garden, but not a lot..... if I have a regret it's not getting solar panels fitted years ago. We invested prudently and lived off our income.
The second stage has been a lot less fun as it's included a significant spell in hospital and severely reduced mobility for me, and we're now wondering about what happens if Mrs C becomes unable to look after me. We've got carer support and we could always increase that, but more of that and we're going to have to look at our savings and investments.
I hope that I'll sign off here for good ...... I've left instructions for whichever of the grandchildren sorts out my computer to let you know ...... before I'm needing even more support. Mrs C feel the same about herself. We both want to go to sleep one night and not wake up, but ......

Long may that time be delayed, your majesty.

Can I just point out that anyone saying merging NI with income tax is straight doesn’t understand the complexity.

Last year the Government tried to change how agency workers get paid - their approach has now been scrapped because the impact would have lead to a 2 year delay for the software companies to implement

So because it wasn’t implemented immediately doing it now would result in it occurring just as the election kicks off

One could take the Blair approach to hereditary lords -

Reduce the employee NI rate to a nominal amount, increase Income Tax by a counterbalancing amount, which would likely be lower than the NI drop in percentage terms, then when the final complex switchover comes it will be a much smaller thing in fiscal terms.

So the critics need to suggest solutions instead of being like Labour MPs who are being the problem rather than the solution.

My top three tax increases would be:

1. Merge income tax and national insurance (thereby increasing tax on pensioner income).
2. Restrict tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate (given how wealthy some pensioners are it's arguable that higher rate taxpayers are saving too much for their retirement).
3. Replace council tax and stamp duty with a proportional property tax, land value tax, or similar tax on property wealth.

I'm sure all of these would provoke howls of outrage to make the kerfuffle over WFA look like the newest political ripple, but fixing the situation isn't going to be done without, as the politicians like to say, hard choices. And on spending, too.