Shame the old thread just got superseded.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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
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.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
You can't package up all the beliefs you dislike like that (well you can, but it makes no sense). I am in no way woke but I think religion is bollocks. And every CoE vicar I've met has been a raving Corbynite.
Most C of E congregation are Tory or Reform voters, or at most LD.
There are also even Tory vicars like Rev Marcus Walker of St Bartholomew the Great.
Though even Corbyn is not as dangerous to western civilisation as the militantly atheist 'progressive' liberal left
In my experience most clergy are quite far left. Not to say their congregations are, though.
Most clergy are Starmer Labour or LD not far left with the odd Tory still in the shires and high church churches in London and even a few Reform in very conservative evangelical churches.
C of E members certainly aren't, 40% of UK Anglicans voted Tory in 2024, 27% Reform, 15% LD and just 12% Labour
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
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.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Did Farage write that for you ?
Pathetic attitude and actually rather sad
Well I know you would let them walk all over you, the culture wars would already have been long lost to the atheist woke progressive left if you were leading the resistance to it BG
Your problem is that most people are of the centre and reject both the hard right proponents like yourself and the hard left
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.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Did Farage write that for you ?
Pathetic attitude and actually rather sad
Well I know you would let them walk all over you, the culture wars would already have been long lost to the atheist woke progressive left if you were leading the resistance to it BG
Your problem is that most people are of the centre and reject both the hard right proponents like yourself and the hard left
And nobody walks over me
Across the western world the contest is increasingly between the populist nationalist socially conservative right and the woke liberal left, the centre is being squeezed between them and the UK is no exception
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
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.
And yet we continue to build 99% tiny huts with zero suitability for such use.
Everyone upping sticks to work in London has a lot of social consequences as well as financial ones.
I don't know how we fix it.
It's impossible from here but the first thing to do would be to give Councils money in the long term to invest in transport infrastructure.
Money comes from opportunities and the easiest way of increasing opportunities is to increase the number of job options people have within say 45 minutes from home alongside the number of possible candidates an employer can choice from.
Worth saying that today I saw that average real wages outside of London are less than the poorest USA State(Mississippi).
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.
Yes they would as it was still a Virgin birth and his message would still have been the same.
Fortunately for you most Christians won't impose fatwas of death on you as you might have received if you had made similar jokes about Muhammad
That's because Christians are called to forgive those who smite them.
Done with enough smugness, that can be even more annoying than issuing a death threat.
No, it’s because Christianity is now weak. In times and places when it was strong, the consequences of thinking freely were no less brutal and gruesome.
Globally there are more Christians than there have ever been, in the West militant secular leftists like you hate Christianity as much as you hate capitalism and anything else that doesn't accord with your worldview. Yet that is just part of the culture wars, for most conservatives as a result the likes of you are the enemy in said wars
This correspondent has NEVER given me the impression that he HATES anyone.
He is a militant atheist left liberal and it seeps through everything he writes
Liberal, for sure. I was always seen as a relatively right wing one, though, by others. Militant, if you mean favouring violent methods, no, and you have no basis to make such a suggestion. Atheist, for sure. It’s entirely obvious that each and every religion is an invented or imagined human construct.
In the culture wars which today dominate western politics you are firmly on the opposing side to conservatives and rightwingers.
Indeed today's right despises woke atheist liberals like you even more than they used to oppose socialist trade unionists in the last century
As a so called Christian how do you 'hate' so much
You are absolutely doing nothing for Christianity or even Jesus in your postings and certainty your inability to apologise or admit you are wrong is testament to just how you betray the faith of millions
You don't win the culture wars by meekly lying down and letting woke atheist left liberals walk all over you
Did Farage write that for you ?
Pathetic attitude and actually rather sad
Well I know you would let them walk all over you, the culture wars would already have been long lost to the atheist woke progressive left if you were leading the resistance to it BG
Your problem is that most people are of the centre and reject both the hard right proponents like yourself and the hard left
And nobody walks over me
Across the western world the contest is increasingly between the populist nationalist socially conservative right and the woke liberal left, the centre is being squeezed between them and the UK is no exception
Ultimately the centre will prevail
I fully expect Farage to be found out and will not be PM
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.
Another point Leon has made in the past is that especially in London some of these homes that now demand two high-flyer incomes were built originally for ordinary sons of toolmakers.
Pretty much every homeowner is living in home that they couldn't get a mortgage on, based on their income, whether brickie or stockbroker. Its a sign that houseprices are not sustainable, at least not at historically normal interest rates.
For what it’s worth I could get a mortgage on my home based on my income. Roughly 4.5 multiple assuming £0 deposit.
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.
Another point Leon has made in the past is that especially in London some of these homes that now demand two high-flyer incomes were built originally for ordinary sons of toolmakers.
Pretty much every homeowner is living in home that they couldn't get a mortgage on, based on their income, whether brickie or stockbroker. Its a sign that houseprices are not sustainable, at least not at historically normal interest rates.
Their own income maybe, with their partners income too very often they still could
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
Really? Of all the policies I can think you, sorry, they, would want to get rid of, why that one first? Not net zero stuff? FOI? Non-crime hate incidents?
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 19m BREAKING: Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the US will impose 25% blanket tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea starting August 1.
Unlike most of the countries Trump is shaking down with tariffs, South Korea has a free trade agreement with the U.S. (KORUS) that was ratified by Congress.
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
Really? Of all the policies I can think you, sorry, they, would want to get rid of, why that one first? Not net zero stuff? FOI? Non-crime hate incidents?
I said 'ONE of the first laws' they would of course scrap the others you mention too and the Equality Act and rephrase the Online Safety Act
Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump · 19m BREAKING: Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the US will impose 25% blanket tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea starting August 1.
Unlike most of the countries Trump is shaking down with tariffs, South Korea has a free trade agreement with the U.S. (KORUS) that was ratified by Congress.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
Really? Of all the policies I can think you, sorry, they, would want to get rid of, why that one first? Not net zero stuff? FOI? Non-crime hate incidents?
I said 'ONE of the first laws' they would of course scrap the others you mention too
Yes, but I'm still none the wiser why Reform would be particularly opposed - they are quite populist on many things, and aiming to target working class Labour people, who sound like they'd be in favour.
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
Since he's not an MP any more, I would rank Lee Anderson above him.
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
Fortunately ITV showed a picture of him. I couldn't have picked him out of a Tory cabinet lineup...
The changes the government made to the welfare bill in the face of a mounting rebellion over its proposals to cut disability benefits will lift 50,000 people out of poverty, an updated impact assessment has found.
The prime minister was forced to abandon the central plank of his welfare bill – cuts to the personal independence payment (Pip) – to avert a large Labour rebellion in the House of Commons last week.
A new impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions has found the change will mean 50,000 fewer people, including children and working age individuals, are in relative poverty after housing costs in 2030.
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
Obviously not every worker is a full-time employee!
76% of UK workers are full time workers and of course some pensioners still work part time
I was just trying to explain to you why you were so far wrong. But I certainly didn't have any expectation you would admit it, and I didn't have much hope you would even understand why.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
There's a lot of fixes needed in the justice system, and unlike some other issues it wouldn't necessarily take all that much extra money too compared to the big problems, but in the meantime unpalatable options will be on the table to avoid complete collapse.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
... and a median is a far more sensible average to take than a mean here.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
I'm not sure the government will do as recommended. Governments of all stripes, when facing popularity issues, tend to go more hang em and flog em, not less.
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.
And yet we continue to build 99% tiny huts with zero suitability for such use.
Everyone upping sticks to work in London has a lot of social consequences as well as financial ones.
I don't know how we fix it.
It's impossible from here but the first thing to do would be to give Councils money in the long term to invest in transport infrastructure.
Money comes from opportunities and the easiest way of increasing opportunities is to increase the number of job options people have within say 45 minutes from home alongside the number of possible candidates an employer can choice from.
Worth saying that today I saw that average real wages outside of London are less than the poorest USA State(Mississippi).
For what average? The US has huge income inequality, so means are much higher than medians.
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
David is a friend of mine and I was his driver in the 2010 election campaign
Didn't Theresa May try to bring that in to stop bosses who harass teenage staff getting away by paying bribes and making threats?
It would be bad news for many law firms as well of course if applied retrospectively - at least one firm would have virtually no senior partners left.
How is it applied specifically to bosses? Or is it across the board?
I've always wondered if NDAs ought to be legal as you could argue people are signing away their right to free expression.
From what I remember it would have been across the board, but since NDAs outwith commercial confidentiality (which would have been exempted) are usually demanded by bosses to cover up their sexual harassment of staff, it would have had the most impact on them.
Which would have been very sad and damaging, of course.
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
They need sitting MPs to defect. Former ones are never as impressive (except maybe for a Johnson or a Truss, not that I can see Farage wanting either of them).
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
Give up, @kjh, he’s swallowed a pack of Duracell and those little legs will keep on going regardless of his being right up against the wall.
@Acyn Reporter: Do the tariff rates change at all on July 9th or do they change on August 1st?
Trump: What are you talking about?
Reporter: Tariff rates. Do they change on July 9th or August 1st?
Trump: They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9th. Yeah. Either a letter or a deal.
Lutnick: But they go into effect August 1st
@Ike_Saul I gotta say: This stuff is happening more and more with POTUS. Just a startling clip where Trump does not appear to be able to articulate what his tariff plan is without the help of Lutnick, and says literally incomprehensible word salad in response to a straightforward question.
@fawfulfan It's pretty clear the Trump administration is hyper-aware he's vulnerable to the same mental fitness questions that brought Biden down, so they keep a cabinet member with him ready to take over the conversation if it looks like Trump is too incoherent to answer a question.
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
David is a friend of mine and I was his driver in the 2010 election campaign
I am sorry to see him leave the conservatives
Certainly not glory hunting for his best chance for a return to the Commons at all
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
They need sitting MPs to defect. Former ones are never as impressive (except maybe for a Johnson or a Truss, not that I can see Farage wanting either of them).
Truss as Reform's Northern Ireland secretary. Trying to walk - unaided - along the long path to Stormont.
It's a straight path with lines painted on it. But that still leaves plenty of scope for someone with her talents.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
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.
The AVERAGE worker earns £37 k in the UK now, so above the threshold for pensioners to keep their WFA
The median average worker earns £29,400, so considerably below the threshold.
Obviously not every worker is a full-time employee!
76% of UK workers are full time workers and of course some pensioners still work part time
I was just trying to explain to you why you were so far wrong. But I certainly didn't have any expectation you would admit it, and I didn't have much hope you would even understand why.
I wasn't so far wrong, the median full time worker as I showed earns more than the threshold to keep WFA and the average worker works full time
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
David is a friend of mine and I was his driver in the 2010 election campaign
I am sorry to see him leave the conservatives
Certainly not glory hunting for his best chance for a return to the Commons at all
He has retired and is not going to seek office again
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
Give up, @kjh, he’s swallowed a pack of Duracell and those little legs will keep on going regardless of his being right up against the wall.
There was a tragedy once and the Duracell bunny died.
Cause - severe sexual over-stimulation.
The battery was put in the wrong way round so he kept coming, and coming, and coming...
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
@Acyn Reporter: Do the tariff rates change at all on July 9th or do they change on August 1st?
Trump: What are you talking about?
Reporter: Tariff rates. Do they change on July 9th or August 1st?
Trump: They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9th. Yeah. Either a letter or a deal.
Lutnick: But they go into effect August 1st
@Ike_Saul I gotta say: This stuff is happening more and more with POTUS. Just a startling clip where Trump does not appear to be able to articulate what his tariff plan is without the help of Lutnick, and says literally incomprehensible word salad in response to a straightforward question.
@fawfulfan It's pretty clear the Trump administration is hyper-aware he's vulnerable to the same mental fitness questions that brought Biden down, so they keep a cabinet member with him ready to take over the conversation if it looks like Trump is too incoherent to answer a question.
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?
So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.
What the hell was I supposed to do?
And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
I cannot believe you could come up with 2)
You need to have a cuppa and a rich tea biscuits
HY seems to be transitioning (careful Mexican!) into an enthusiastic Reformer!
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
Surely they'd go for some sort of bread-and-circuses Squid Game/Running Man dystopia first.
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?
So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.
What the hell was I supposed to do?
And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
@HYUFD is unique on this forum as never being wrong and certainly not to apologise
You are not alone in your frustration with him but you have the understanding of us that you are right, he is wrong and best to move on
David Jones, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has defected to Reform UK, declaring the party is the only one in British politics with “urgency”.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
They need sitting MPs to defect. Former ones are never as impressive (except maybe for a Johnson or a Truss, not that I can see Farage wanting either of them).
I think we should assume that MPs whose defection are important would do so largely on account of career implications. So ignore all non and wannabe MPs, and ignore all MPs who don't mind not carrying on after the nect GE.
For the remainder - and there aren't many Tories to make up the numbers - it is all far too early. They can wait two years or more before deciding, so they will. In that two years Reform could bust, Tories could discover a leader with the combined qualities of Churchill, Attlee and Thatcher, a black swan could make one of its regular appearances. So wait is the watchword for now. And if they go, go as a group together.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
Yes, the British Right still haven't adjusted to the fact that Nige will not be running as a paleo-Thatcherite. That shtick was fine when he needed to destabilize the Tories, but that job's done and he now needs an entirely new angle. Being seen as the workers' friend is a significant part of that.
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?
So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.
What the hell was I supposed to do?
And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.
Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
Yes, the British Right still haven't adjusted to the fact that Nige will not be running as a paleo-Thatcherite. That shtick was fine when he needed to destabilize the Tories, but that job's done and he now needs an entirely new angle. Being seen as the workers' friend is a significant part of that.
Farage would be a more Thatcherite PM than most recent PMs, even more Thatcherite than Boris was I suspect
You mentioned OPT about MAGA obsessives who believe Pearl Harbor was a false flag.
They weren’t the first. Jeanette Rankin, Representative from Montana, thought so too, saying ‘The British are such clever propagandists they might have cooked up the whole story.’ She said this while casting the only vote against declaring war on Japan.
Oddly this absolute batshit line is missing from a Wiki entry that tries to pretend she did it as a point of principle.
Also, we might mention that of course it was Hitler declared war on America, not the other way around (although Congress voted to reciprocate in which vote Rankin, realising what an utter twat she had made of herself over Japan, abstained).
It was truly brilliant of us to get the Japanese to take public credit for the attack.
Let's hope nobody sinks any of their aircraft carriers; that would be us too.
We do have the fastest torpedoes in the world iirc (apart from Russian vapourware).
Other than North Korea I think we’re the only country to have sunk an American navy ship in battle since WWII although that involves a high level of pedantry.
I'm intrigued. That's not a story I've heard. What happened, where and when?
The ARA General Belgrano was the USS Phoenix before the Yanks sold it to Argentina.
Oh, I see.
I thought you meant while still commissioned by the US Navy and I was a bit startled.
Although I gather the HMAS Melbourne did ram a US destroyer, split it in half and sink the bow of it.
Also the IDF strafed a US ship so badly it had to be scrapped.
There was also the former USS Harewood.
Which was transferred to the Turkish navy and sunk during the 1974 invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish air force.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
I cannot believe you could come up with 2)
You need to have a cuppa and a rich tea biscuits
77% of 2024 Reform voters thought the death penalty should be permitted for some crimes.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?
So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.
What the hell was I supposed to do?
And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.
Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital
You really are an unpleasant individual and you call yourself a Christian !!!!
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
There is no Capital test. There was effectively one before because you couldn't get it if you were not on benefits and benefits have an asset test. So people like me now who are wealthy get it. There are an awful lot of pensioners who will not have DB pensions so who fail the earnings test but nevertheless are multi millionaires who will be getting it. I am one. It is wrong.
So as I said, let the state take your house and your ISA and then you won't need to feel guilty will you!
So what about all those others getting it who shouldn't. Wouldn't it be better to give to poor pensioners rather than rich ones. Where is your moral compass?
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
As I said, if you had kept your taxable income over £35k you wouldn't be getting WFA.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
God this is like a broken record. There is nothing I could/can do about my taxable income. I can't magic up an income I don't have. How was I supposed to increase it? I don't have a DB pension. My only income is the state pension and interest and dividends. I can't create an income out of thin air. What is wrong with you that you can't understand this?
So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.
What the hell was I supposed to do?
And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
So stop whinging about receiving your WFA then.
Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital
Where are your morals? As I said earlier it isn't just me. Why should wealthy people get this benefit. It is for the less well off not for the rich. Do you not care? I'm glad I am not a Christian if this is what it means being a Christian. Shame on you for this selfish attitude of not caring. This is embarrassing.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
I cannot believe you could come up with 2)
You need to have a cuppa and a rich tea biscuits
77% of 2024 Reform voters thought the death penalty should be permitted for some crimes.
Comments
C of E members certainly aren't, 40% of UK Anglicans voted Tory in 2024, 27% Reform, 15% LD and just 12% Labour
https://www.electionanalysis.uk/uk-election-analysis-2024/section-2-voters-polls-and-results/religion-and-voting-behaviour-in-the-2024-general-election/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/
And nobody walks over me
Money comes from opportunities and the easiest way of increasing opportunities is to increase the number of job options people have within say 45 minutes from home alongside the number of possible candidates an employer can choice from.
Worth saying that today I saw that average real wages outside of London are less than the poorest USA State(Mississippi).
I fully expect Farage to be found out and will not be PM
Which meant none of their pilots could actually fly it, because all the positions were wrong. Because there is no such thing as the 'average man.'
I don't feel guilty. I just deplore injustice. How you can justify it is beyond me.
Thoughts and prayers for people who have a sense of humour at work.
UK bosses to be banned from using NDAs to cover up misconduct at work
Exclusive: Changes to workers’ rights bill will prohibit the silencing of staff who suffer harassment or discrimination
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jul/07/uk-bosses-to-be-banned-using-ndas-cover-up-misconduct-work?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
EDIT: he's withdrawing
Still expect him to thrash Shelton, mind.
And Norrie to lose to Alcaraz.
Because you partly live cash in hand off your capital you have ensured by the backdoor you don't lose it, you can of course give your capital to the state to ensure you get it on more morally acceptable grounds if you wish as I said.
The cost for the state of investigating the capital of pensioners still getting WFA would be more than any savings made from cutting it however
You fell into the sar-chasm.
The Constitution gives control of trade policy entirely to Congress, the president has no legal authority to do this.
https://x.com/Fritschner/status/1942265810371641421
It's regrettable that the GOP Congress sees itself solely as Trump's poodle.
It would be bad news for many law firms as well of course if applied retrospectively - at least one firm would have virtually no senior partners left.
The former Welsh secretary announced his decision on Monday night, becoming the most senior defection yet to Nigel Farage’s party.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html
The prime minister was forced to abandon the central plank of his welfare bill – cuts to the personal independence payment (Pip) – to avert a large Labour rebellion in the House of Commons last week.
A new impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions has found the change will mean 50,000 fewer people, including children and working age individuals, are in relative poverty after housing costs in 2030.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/07/welfare-bill-will-now-lift-50000-out-of-poverty-after-changes-assessment-finds
Otherwise, their vetting process would look even more amateurish and inept.
I've always wondered if NDAs ought to be legal as you could argue people are signing away their right to free expression.
They may be flavour of the month just now but when reality comes along they will fail
I am sorry to see him leave the conservatives
Which would have been very sad and damaging, of course.
You can see why Boris Johnson scrapped it...
MAGA have spent the last few years believing there's a vast conspiracy to cover up the Epstein related malfeasances of numerous politicians.
Reporter: Do the tariff rates change at all on July 9th or do they change on August 1st?
Trump: What are you talking about?
Reporter: Tariff rates. Do they change on July 9th or August 1st?
Trump: They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9th. Yeah. Either a letter or a deal.
Lutnick: But they go into effect August 1st
@Ike_Saul
I gotta say: This stuff is happening more and more with POTUS. Just a startling clip where Trump does not appear to be able to articulate what his tariff plan is without the help of Lutnick, and says literally incomprehensible word salad in response to a straightforward question.
@fawfulfan
It's pretty clear the Trump administration is hyper-aware he's vulnerable to the same mental fitness questions that brought Biden down, so they keep a cabinet member with him ready to take over the conversation if it looks like Trump is too incoherent to answer a question.
https://x.com/fawfulfan/status/1942262471063949704
It's a straight path with lines painted on it. But that still leaves plenty of scope for someone with her talents.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
Cause - severe sexual over-stimulation.
The battery was put in the wrong way round so he kept coming, and coming, and coming...
https://x.com/catturd2/status/1942046624118706551?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
So I needed to build up capital to live off in retirement. Fortunately I accumulated quite a bit.
What the hell was I supposed to do?
And again this phrase 'Cash in hand'. What are you talking about? There is no cash in hand with capital.This refers to people taking income in cash and not declaring it for income tax. It is insulting you suggest this. Capital is taxed income. It is not subject to income tax. If I do take capital that is subject to CGT I declare it and pay it.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
You need to have a cuppa and a rich tea biscuits
Perhaps the grand old Duke of York (or rather his mum’s estate) will get several million £s back as well.
You are not alone in your frustration with him but you have the understanding of us that you are right, he is wrong and best to move on
For the remainder - and there aren't many Tories to make up the numbers - it is all far too early. They can wait two years or more before deciding, so they will. In that two years Reform could bust, Tories could discover a leader with the combined qualities of Churchill, Attlee and Thatcher, a black swan could make one of its regular appearances. So wait is the watchword for now. And if they go, go as a group together.
Either give your capital to the state or sell it and go off and live in a tent with 1 heater and then you can claim your WFA without self flagellating yourself about still receiving it because you have a bit of capital
Which was transferred to the Turkish navy and sunk during the 1974 invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish air force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harwood#TCG_Kocatepe_(D-354)
Day after day he demonstrates he is unfit to govern.
Only 60% of Tory voters and 46% of all UK voters thought the death penalty should be restored
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
One of the laws that will be passed in my UnDicatorship is that an applicant for an NDA will have his visage projected into the sky for all to see.