Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Don't laugh but I'm betting on Jeremy Corbyn or Zarah Sultana becoming PM before 2030

1235

Comments

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,546
    If Sinner conks out, my only bet left out of five is Taylor Fritz at 40/1.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,138
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Shame the old thread just got superseded.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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    edited July 7
    AnneJGP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://www.electionanalysis.uk/uk-election-analysis-2024/section-2-voters-polls-and-results/religion-and-voting-behaviour-in-the-2024-general-election/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    'The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately 37,430 British pounds in 2024, compared with 34,963 pounds in the previous year. '
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121

    2 sets to Dimitrov! Sinner in trouble!

    I reckon the roof closure came just at the right time for him, it should interrupt Dimitrov's rhythm.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    edited July 7

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,138
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    'The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately 37,430 British pounds in 2024, compared with 34,963 pounds in the previous year. '
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/

    Full-time. So not "The AVERAGE worker" as you falsely claimed.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,043
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    'The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately 37,430 British pounds in 2024, compared with 34,963 pounds in the previous year. '
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/

    Obviously not every worker is a full-time employee!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    edited July 7
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    'The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately 37,430 British pounds in 2024, compared with 34,963 pounds in the previous year. '
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/

    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
  • eekeek Posts: 30,575
    edited July 7

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,659
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    Foxy said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    'The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately 37,430 British pounds in 2024, compared with 34,963 pounds in the previous year. '
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/

    Full-time. So not "The AVERAGE worker" as you falsely claimed.
    I'm reminded of the USAF designing a cockpit perfectly suited to the 'average' American male.

    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.'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121
    Dimitrov injured - looks like he's out.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    Unfortunate injury in the tennis
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    ydoethur said:

    Dimitrov injured - looks like he's out.

    His tears say it all
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121

    Unfortunate injury in the tennis

    Has the horrible look of a ruptured tendon.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,851
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121
    How gut wrenching (literally) would it be to be 2-0 up and forced to retire due to a sudden injury.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,646
    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,893
    ydoethur said:

    How gut wrenching (literally) would it be to be 2-0 up and forced to retire due to a sudden injury.

    Looks pretty ominous for Dimitrov, he was playing so well :(

    EDIT: he's withdrawing :open_mouth:
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    ydoethur said:

    How gut wrenching (literally) would it be to be 2-0 up and forced to retire due to a sudden injury.

    So cruel as he withdraws
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,052
    It’s very hard to start thinking about bed, when it looks like mid afternoon on a very nice day outside
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,732
    kle4 said:

    Memo to Kemi re PMQs – the tax take hit a 70-year high under your lot.
    Gods, are people still upset about 14 years of Tory government after more than a year has passed? Let it go people!
    Oh behave. Your lot dined out on Liam Byrne's comedy note for 14 years.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059

    kle4 said:

    Memo to Kemi re PMQs – the tax take hit a 70-year high under your lot.
    Gods, are people still upset about 14 years of Tory government after more than a year has passed? Let it go people!
    Oh behave. Your lot dined out on Liam Byrne's comedy note for 14 years.
    One or both of us is being ironic here.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121
    edited July 7
    Poor old Sinner looks very deflated. Must be tough to know what to say.

    Still expect him to thrash Shelton, mind.

    And Norrie to lose to Alcaraz.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    edited July 7
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059
    HYUFD said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    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?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,138

    kle4 said:

    Memo to Kemi re PMQs – the tax take hit a 70-year high under your lot.
    Gods, are people still upset about 14 years of Tory government after more than a year has passed? Let it go people!
    Oh behave. Your lot dined out on Liam Byrne's comedy note for 14 years.
    "Your lot" to kle4?

    You fell into the sar-chasm.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,029

    TVs about to go up in price massively in US:

    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.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,319
    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    edited July 7
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    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
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059
    Nigelb said:

    TVs about to go up in price massively in US:

    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.

    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.
    Haha, legal authority - the Supreme Court has made very clear what it thinks about constraining a Trump presidency, as compared to others.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,184
    HYUFD said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
    Do you mean Reform would scrap NDAs or would scrap this law banning NDAs?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,319
    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121

    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,174

    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...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,319
    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/07/welfare-bill-will-now-lift-50000-out-of-poverty-after-changes-assessment-finds
  • ChrisChris Posts: 12,043
    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    'The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately 37,430 British pounds in 2024, compared with 34,963 pounds in the previous year. '
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121

    HYUFD said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
    Do you mean Reform would scrap NDAs or would scrap this law banning NDAs?
    The law banning NDAs.

    Otherwise, their vetting process would look even more amateurish and inept.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
  • Frank_BoothFrank_Booth Posts: 343
    ydoethur said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    HYUFD said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
    They won't win the next GE

    They may be flavour of the month just now but when reality comes along they will fail
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,026

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059
    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,026
    eek said:

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036

    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
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121

    ydoethur said:

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    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.

    You can see why Boris Johnson scrapped it...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,026

    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).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,029

    Eabhal said:

    Do we think this Epstein stuff could genuinely harm Trump? Seems to have burst the alt-right bubble.

    What's happened? (I haven't been following it.)
    Trump's Justice Dept has, for whatever reason, declared that there's nothing more to investigate.

    MAGA have spent the last few years believing there's a vast conspiracy to cover up the Epstein related malfeasances of numerous politicians.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Do we think this Epstein stuff could genuinely harm Trump? Seems to have burst the alt-right bubble.

    What's happened? (I haven't been following it.)
    Trump's Justice Dept has, for whatever reason, declared that there's nothing more to investigate.

    MAGA have spent the last few years believing there's a vast conspiracy to cover up the Epstein related malfeasances of numerous politicians.
    Sadly, despite some early incredulity, I imagine they will fall into line. They've proven they will change to match his opinions and pronouncements.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Do we think this Epstein stuff could genuinely harm Trump? Seems to have burst the alt-right bubble.

    What's happened? (I haven't been following it.)
    Trump's Justice Dept has, for whatever reason, declared that there's nothing more to investigate.

    MAGA have spent the last few years believing there's a vast conspiracy to cover up the Epstein related malfeasances of numerous politicians.
    And they were actually right, for once.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,174
    @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.

    https://x.com/fawfulfan/status/1942262471063949704
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,732
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Do we think this Epstein stuff could genuinely harm Trump? Seems to have burst the alt-right bubble.

    What's happened? (I haven't been following it.)
    Trump's Justice Dept has, for whatever reason, declared that there's nothing more to investigate.

    MAGA have spent the last few years believing there's a vast conspiracy to cover up the Epstein related malfeasances of numerous politicians.
    Can't they release anything they find ( or make up) about WJC and shred all the DJT stuff?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709

    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
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 5,022

    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.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,732
    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    'The median annual earnings for full-time employees in the United Kingdom was approximately 37,430 British pounds in 2024, compared with 34,963 pounds in the previous year. '
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/

    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
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    HYUFD said:

    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
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.
    No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,848
    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121
    Scott_xP said:

    @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?

    A question most of us have been asking daily about Trump himself for at least five years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,121
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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...
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.
    No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate
    You are far more Reform than conservative even in that comment
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,030
    Scott_xP said:

    @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.

    https://x.com/fawfulfan/status/1942262471063949704

    Someone needs to make tariffs great again.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,851
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,100
    Will Ghislaine get a pardon?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,732
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    You do sound like you might be just a hop, skip and a jump away from defecting to the very dark side.
    No I will remain one of the few still PB Tories left even if this site is also painfully short of Reform backers compared to the national electorate
    I was initially reassured by your post but your critical whimsy around PB Reformers suggest perhaps I shouldn't be.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,226

    Will Ghislaine get a pardon?
    That would be the logical(sic) conclusion.
    Perhaps the grand old Duke of York (or rather his mum’s estate) will get several million £s back as well.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,732

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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!
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,030
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,732

    Will Ghislaine get a pardon?
    Well if nothing happened what is she doing in a federal penitentiary?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,848

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,059
    edited July 7
    When his audience gets mad at him catturd will be back on message.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,184
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,174

    Will Ghislaine get a pardon?
    If she lives long enough
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,893
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @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?

    A question most of us have been asking daily about Trump himself for at least five years.
    "Trump doesn't know what the fuck he's doing! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    edited July 7
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

  • eekeek Posts: 30,575

    Will Ghislaine get a pardon?
    Just because the evidence with which she was found guilty never existed doesn't mean she isn't guilty...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,848
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    MattW said:

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    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.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harwood#TCG_Kocatepe_(D-354)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,670

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @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?

    A question most of us have been asking daily about Trump himself for at least five years.
    "Trump doesn't know what the fuck he's doing! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!"
    Why isn't nearly every single American just head-loweringly, shamefaced, embarrassed by this shite?

    Day after day he demonstrates he is unfit to govern.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,709
    edited July 7

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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.

    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
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,848
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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.

    Your (2) would be better unsaid.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,036
    edited July 7
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 !!!!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,851
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,035
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14883535/Government-sentencing-revie-thieves-thugs-addicts-green-light-shoplift-drugs.html

    Another review Reform would reverse
    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.

    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
    Convicted child killers? Like Letby?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,174
    Decent game between Italy and Portugal
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,508

    This is the worst government ever, they really do hate businesses, this also means fewer billable hours for lawyers.

    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

    Given the comments on law blogs about various such scandals, some lawyers need to read a bit of law. And try following it.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.