Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
51% of 2024 Reform voters thought the government was taxing and spending too much compared to only 27% of UK voters overall, even Tory voters were only 31% taxing and spending too much
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
I cannot believe you could come up with 2)
You need to have a cuppa and a rich tea biscuits
77% of 2024 Reform voters thought the death penalty should be permitted for some crimes.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
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.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few hoarders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital hoarders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
If I presented that to a client I would expect them to be on the phone screaming at me tomorrow morning.
Mind you I’m used to the 3 week lead time the FCA insists on - which is fun when you know you may need to do a last minute change because for some reason production doesn’t look like your preproduction server
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few hoarders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital hoarders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
capital hoarders
Call it for what it is, @HYUFD. A deliberate desire to cheat the tax system by failing to spend (and therefore pay VAT).
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
51% of 2024 Reform voters thought the government was taxing and spending too much compared to only 27% of UK voters overall, even Tory voters were only 31% taxing and spending too much
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
The issue to reflect on is not whether potential Reform voters think government spends too much; the heart of the matter is whether in fact Reform voters wish to keep intact for themselves personally the state structures by which they and their families receive NHS, pensions, police service etc, roads and infrastructure, education free to 18 and a welfare state safety net for when things go wrong.
If they do, they are, whether they know it or not, committed to high spend and high tax. It is, I think, 100% certain that they want it done better and more, not worse and less.
Try proving from real data that the people of Clacton don't want the state provision I have listed above. It can't be done.
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
51% of 2024 Reform voters thought the government was taxing and spending too much compared to only 27% of UK voters overall, even Tory voters were only 31% taxing and spending too much
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
The issue to reflect on is not whether potential Reform voters think government spends too much; the heart of the matter is whether in fact Reform voters wish to keep intact for themselves personally the state structures by which they and their families receive NHS, pensions, police service etc, roads and infrastructure, education free to 18 and a welfare state safety net for when things go wrong.
If they do, they are, whether they know it or not, committed to high spend and high tax. It is, I think, 100% certain that they want it done better and more, not worse and less.
Try proving from real data that the people of Clacton don't want the state provision I have listed above. It can't be done.
They certainly don't want more spent on welfare or even much more on the NHS and public services if their taxes go up to pay for it, even if they would be less bothered by more tax on the rich.
If you want high spend and high tax you will be voting Labour, SNP or Green or Plaid not Reform
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
I am not convinced that it is possible to give an affirmative and rational account of what Reform plan to do if they govern the country; that is, the sort of account which balances and weighs policies, priorities, outcomes, costs, tax, debt, deficit etc in the light of an overall vision of what direction the country is to go in. The sort of account IFS could get a handle on and comment. This factor may limit how many PBers are prepared to argue for it.
The fact that the Tories suffer the same way is no justification for Reform's failure. The Tories are not at the moment serious candidates for government.
SFAICS posters here who favour Reform do so because all other options are sub optimal. Which is true. But under the laws of logic and reality that doesn't amount to an argument that actually works.
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
a cognitive deficit?
There’s something odd for sure. Your original post was clear enough.
I remember trying to overpay my poll tax to match the rates bill I had previously. There was no way to do it. They weren’t interested in allowing an overpayment. Though direct donation to the council was allowed.
That made me feel like an idiot. The point I was trying to make was lost. I didn’t pay.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
51% of 2024 Reform voters thought the government was taxing and spending too much compared to only 27% of UK voters overall, even Tory voters were only 31% taxing and spending too much
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
The issue to reflect on is not whether potential Reform voters think government spends too much; the heart of the matter is whether in fact Reform voters wish to keep intact for themselves personally the state structures by which they and their families receive NHS, pensions, police service etc, roads and infrastructure, education free to 18 and a welfare state safety net for when things go wrong.
If they do, they are, whether they know it or not, committed to high spend and high tax. It is, I think, 100% certain that they want it done better and more, not worse and less.
Try proving from real data that the people of Clacton don't want the state provision I have listed above. It can't be done.
They certainly don't want more spent on welfare or even much more on the NHS and public services if their taxes go up to pay for it, even if they would be less bothered by more tax on the rich.
If you want high spend and high tax you will be voting Labour, SNP or Green or Plaid not Reform
Youn rightly make no suggestion that the Reform voters of Clacton want less spent on themselves. You are right. The rest of my argument follows ineluctably. The fact that people don't want it to be true that high spend = high tax makes little difference to the mysterious workings of reality.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
I cannot believe you could come up with 2)
You need to have a cuppa and a rich tea biscuits
77% of 2024 Reform voters thought the death penalty should be permitted for some crimes.
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.
Isn't he the one who changed his name to Bowie so he wouldn't be confused with the lead singer of the Monkees?
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
It's time for the rest of the world to ignore Trump on trade and tariffs, and look to get together. Mercosur-UK-EU-CPTPP-EFTA would be a good start. In the fullness of time, China could be offered some kind of partnership too, because they need markets for their goods.
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.
Genuinely baffles me - not that much compared to the amounts spent elsewhere, would probably have a reasonably quick and visible effect, and whilst not especially popular (people just want to be told bad people will go to prison for a long time), shouldn't be too unpopular either.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
It's time for the rest of the world to ignore Trump on trade and tariffs, and look to get together. Mercosur-UK-EU-CPTPP-EFTA would be a good start. In the fullness of time, China could be offered some kind of partnership too, because they need markets for their goods.
It's a good thing that at least they often get impeached or even jailed?
At least, like South Korea, they lock them up. Here they get a title and ermine.
Nah, you get that for bribing politicians with party donations - the ex leaders don't even tend to be accused of big crimes, so we're either fortunate in their probity or not even getting to the stage of investigating them.
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.
Isn't he the one who changed his name to Bowie so he wouldn't be confused with the lead singer of the Monkees?
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
Just possibly the whole RefUK thing is just astroturfing by foreigners?
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
No, for plenty of Reform voters executing many of them instead is.
Though yes I don't disagree with the point, very dangerous and violent offenders should be locked up but most prisoners need to spend more time in workshops and less in cells and more schemes like Timpsons offer for ex cons should be offered by employers
(Has any other politician ever been that unpopular? Even Nicholas II and Louis XVI had supporters up to their executions.)
She is the follow on to the hilariously bad Pedro Castillo (espoused by @Foxy, IIRC) who managed the worst possible auto-coup. Ever.
Made Jan 6 by Trump look like a work of genius.
I don't think so. I don't know who Pedro Castillo is.
Very lefty school teacher and union official. Turned out to more corrupt and stupider than the average Peruvian President.
Funny you mention far left and education. NASUWT has been taken over by a former Fire Brigades Union rep with no teaching experience. Matt Wrack was installed by executive committee members who want a merge with the NEU.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
51% of 2024 Reform voters thought the government was taxing and spending too much compared to only 27% of UK voters overall, even Tory voters were only 31% taxing and spending too much
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
The issue to reflect on is not whether potential Reform voters think government spends too much; the heart of the matter is whether in fact Reform voters wish to keep intact for themselves personally the state structures by which they and their families receive NHS, pensions, police service etc, roads and infrastructure, education free to 18 and a welfare state safety net for when things go wrong.
If they do, they are, whether they know it or not, committed to high spend and high tax. It is, I think, 100% certain that they want it done better and more, not worse and less.
Try proving from real data that the people of Clacton don't want the state provision I have listed above. It can't be done.
They certainly don't want more spent on welfare or even much more on the NHS and public services if their taxes go up to pay for it, even if they would be less bothered by more tax on the rich.
If you want high spend and high tax you will be voting Labour, SNP or Green or Plaid not Reform
Youn rightly make no suggestion that the Reform voters of Clacton want less spent on themselves. You are right. The rest of my argument follows ineluctably. The fact that people don't want it to be true that high spend = high tax makes little difference to the mysterious workings of reality.
That isn't necessarily true either, Labour, LD and Green voters were far more in favour of high tax and spend than Reform voters in the polling I linked to.
Reform voters certainly won't put their own taxes up to increase public spending
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.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
Just possibly the whole RefUK thing is just astroturfing by foreigners?
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.
Genuinely baffles me - not that much compared to the amounts spent elsewhere, would probably have a reasonably quick and visible effect, and whilst not especially popular (people just want to be told bad people will go to prison for a long time), shouldn't be too unpopular either.
Yes, if all those people moaning that a prison sentence for a particular criminal "isn't long enough" had to foot the bill for a longer sentence I think they might reconsider. I recognise that some criminals are really bad and need to be confined for public safety but surely for those who are not a danger to the public, money would be better spent on rehabbing them and maybe even getting some useful work out of them (filling potholes? Fitting solar panels?). Surely those committing lesser crimes and for the first time deserve a second chance.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Shame the old thread just got superseded. As someone who practised tax law for quarter of a century, I was enjoying HYUFD's continuing wilful self humiliation.
On what? You butted in to an argument you hadn't followed from its origin.
Kjh was saying the government should have deprived him of his WFA, if he didn't use so many tax minimisation schemes and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold for losing his WFA
I'm back and I assumed with a new thread this would have died, but no and @hyufd accused me of whitting on about it.
For the final time @hyufd what are all these so many tax minimising things I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details so prey tell.
And what the hell does 'and take cash in hand from his capital he would have been well over the taxable income threshold ' mean? It is gobbledygook nonsense. What the hell does 'cash in hand' in this context mean?
There is no income tax on withdrawal of capital. I have already paid income tax before creating it. Some of it may attract CGT which I pay. There is no cash in hand stuff, whatever that means in this context. You are getting confused with people not declaring income which I have never done.
You are barking. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't restart it, I was responding to those who did.
You were the one who was whinging your cash withdrawals from your capital and your ISAs didn't mean you lost all your WFA not me.
If your income was otherwise over the taxable income threshold where WFA was lost you otherwise would have
Answer the questions above then:
a) What are all these 'so many tax minimising schemes' I did again? Can you provide a list. I have given you all the details of what I have so it should be easy.
b) What does 'take cash in hand from his capital' even mean? There is no such concept with Capital. There is no income tax on spending your savings. Unless you are now implying I avoid CGT which I don't.
c) What do you think I could have done to put me over the £35k limit? I would love to know. If I cashed in my ISAs I still wouldn't be over it. Go on tell me how I have avoided going over the limit because if there is some way I can magic such an income I definitely want to know.
@hyufd you have lost it big time. This is idiotic stuff.
The mind boggling thing about this, is I am the one who wants to pay more tax, who doesn't want the WFA and I am the one being accused of being a tax avoider. You need to give your head a wobble.
Yes so the cash you get from your capital which is not taxed means you do not have the taxable income to meet the WFA cut off threshold for starters.
You weren't forced to build up that capital or take cash from it and it would cost too much for HMRC to trace all the cash you withdraw from it to take you over the £35k threshold so you receive no WFA. So stop whinging about it
You are stark raving mad? 70% of my capital in my house and my DC pension. So are you saying nobody should buy a house or take out a pension. The rest is what I have saved for my retirement. Are you saying people shouldn't save for their retirement?
The reason I don't have a taxable income at £35k is because I don't have a DB pension. Nobody gave me one. What was I supposed to do? Lots of people don't have one or only small ones. Are you saying they shouldn't save for retirement?
You do come up with the most idiotic stuff sometimes.
Come on tell me what I should have done then?
Stop whinging about still getting your WFA then, those with DB pensions as you say don't now get it even if they have the benefit of a DB pension income
I'm whinging because lots of people are getting it who shouldn't. That money should be used for those less well off, not for people who are wealthy. So that is why I am whinging.
It is an utter waste of money. It needs to be means tested and set at a lower threshold so people like me don't get it. And even if I return it most won't.
It is a reasonable whinge.
It is means tested...
You're struggling with basic comprehension now, let alone the correct use of tax terminology. What do you think the words "and set at a lower threshold" mean in the post you think you are correcting ?
Everybody with taxable income over £35k already loses WFA if you really want to butt in again to a discussion hours old and not even give the full quote
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
It's very hard to have any capital and be on pension credit - even £10,000 in savings will drastically reduce what you receive.
I won't comment on trying to identify pensioners with £35,000 of income because as you say it's a very expensive task.
As I've repeated continually I would have raised income tax by 3p and kept the WFA as that would have kept pensioners with a total income of £20,000 better off while still being cheap to administer.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
It's very hard to have any capital and be on pension credit - even £10,000 in savings will drastically reduce what you receive.
I won't comment on trying to identify pensioners with £35,000 of income because as you say it's a very expensive task.
As I've repeated continually I would have raised income tax by 3p and kept the WFA as that would have kept pensioners with a total income of £20,000 better off while still being cheap to administer.
May have made more practical sense but would have broken a Labour manifesto pledge
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).
By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).
The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.
It is not a tax return in anyway.
Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 9m MacArthur Park today is what a mass deportation regime looks like. It’s what it’s supposed to look like. Mass deportation is both the cause and the excuse for mass militarization.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).
By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).
The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.
It is not a tax return in anyway.
Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
It's very hard to have any capital and be on pension credit - even £10,000 in savings will drastically reduce what you receive.
I won't comment on trying to identify pensioners with £35,000 of income because as you say it's a very expensive task.
As I've repeated continually I would have raised income tax by 3p and kept the WFA as that would have kept pensioners with a total income of £20,000 better off while still being cheap to administer.
May have made more practical sense but would have broken a Labour manifesto pledge
So what - this Government's biggest mistake is that they don't have the money to do anything but told their MPs (and anyone who only pays attention at election times) that the economy was doing fine and that the Government had enough money to do what it needs to. And neither of those things are at all true if you've been paying attention...
Reeves biggest mistake was not being clear last July, and putting 3p on income tax because she's going to have to come November...
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
PAYE isn't a tax return, it's the collection of tax by your employer to remit to HMRC as a payrun is made. There is also a minor reporting element but that's more to do with the tax being paid this period - it's not a tax return.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
51% of 2024 Reform voters thought the government was taxing and spending too much compared to only 27% of UK voters overall, even Tory voters were only 31% taxing and spending too much
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
The issue to reflect on is not whether potential Reform voters think government spends too much; the heart of the matter is whether in fact Reform voters wish to keep intact for themselves personally the state structures by which they and their families receive NHS, pensions, police service etc, roads and infrastructure, education free to 18 and a welfare state safety net for when things go wrong.
If they do, they are, whether they know it or not, committed to high spend and high tax. It is, I think, 100% certain that they want it done better and more, not worse and less.
Try proving from real data that the people of Clacton don't want the state provision I have listed above. It can't be done.
They certainly don't want more spent on welfare or even much more on the NHS and public services if their taxes go up to pay for it, even if they would be less bothered by more tax on the rich.
If you want high spend and high tax you will be voting Labour, SNP or Green or Plaid not Reform
There is no party advocating tax and spend. All of them , Reform included, support borrow and spend.
Apols for a derailing with AI stuff. But this is one of the first tracks that's caught me on a "It's surely AI generated video (unless there's a hidden trove of Giallo I have missed). But... is the music also AI? I don't think so, but.....?":
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).
By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).
The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.
It is not a tax return in anyway.
Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
I think you'll find that the median Telegraph reader thinks it is very much a tax return. And therefore it is.
"BERLIN, July 7 (Reuters) - France has told Germany it wants a workshare of some 80% in the joint Franco-German fighter jet FCAS, a defence industry source told Reuters, backing up a report by respected German defence publication Hartpunkt.
The project, with an estimated volume of more than 100 billion euros, has been plagued by delays and infighting over workshare and intellectual property rights between France and Germany as well as their respective national industries."
"BERLIN, July 7 (Reuters) - France has told Germany it wants a workshare of some 80% in the joint Franco-German fighter jet FCAS, a defence industry source told Reuters, backing up a report by respected German defence publication Hartpunkt."
Britain's decision to run its own separate fighter project is looking better by the day.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
1) It isn't, if voters main priority is high tax and spend they will be voting Labour or Green or Corbyn's new party, not Reform.
2) If Reform start executing some of the prison population (and most of their voters back capital punishment) that would of course create some space
On your (1) I think you will find the voters of Clacton would prefer high levels of free stuff from government (NHS, pensions, schools, welfare safety net). The tax levels arise from this wish, not an altruistic desire to pay up. Reform sometimes imply it can all be done very cheaply. It can't.
Your (2) would be better unsaid.
51% of 2024 Reform voters thought the government was taxing and spending too much compared to only 27% of UK voters overall, even Tory voters were only 31% taxing and spending too much
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
The issue to reflect on is not whether potential Reform voters think government spends too much; the heart of the matter is whether in fact Reform voters wish to keep intact for themselves personally the state structures by which they and their families receive NHS, pensions, police service etc, roads and infrastructure, education free to 18 and a welfare state safety net for when things go wrong.
If they do, they are, whether they know it or not, committed to high spend and high tax. It is, I think, 100% certain that they want it done better and more, not worse and less.
Try proving from real data that the people of Clacton don't want the state provision I have listed above. It can't be done.
They certainly don't want more spent on welfare or even much more on the NHS and public services if their taxes go up to pay for it, even if they would be less bothered by more tax on the rich.
If you want high spend and high tax you will be voting Labour, SNP or Green or Plaid not Reform
There is no party advocating tax and spend. All of them , Reform included, support borrow and spend.
The Greens are, Labour are increasingly doing so too, most likely via a backbencher supported wealth tax.
The Tories are more fiscally conservative now with Stride and Kemi
"BERLIN, July 7 (Reuters) - France has told Germany it wants a workshare of some 80% in the joint Franco-German fighter jet FCAS, a defence industry source told Reuters, backing up a report by respected German defence publication Hartpunkt."
Britain's decision to run its own separate fighter project is looking better by the day.
Britain's fighter jet is an assuciation with Hamas-supporting Erdoğan, and signed when he was still currying favour with the rest.
The fact that it is continuing, and has not been reviewed since, is becoming something of an uncovered scandal by the press.
Apols for a derailing with AI stuff. But this is one of the first tracks that's caught me on a "It's surely AI generated video (unless there's a hidden trove of Giallo I have missed). But... is the music also AI? I don't think so, but.....?":
This is now the norm: you cannot be sure if anything you see or hear on the internet is human created or AI. The media have been focussed on ChatGPT and other LLMs, but it's the image, video and voice/music generators that are the main disruptors.
Youtube, Amazon and Spotify are already having problems with undeclared AI created videos, books and music respectively. Currently they can sometimes be identified as AI, but that's not going to be possible for long.
Technology is moving so rapidly very soon we'll see videos of politicians and famous people doing or saying things, coverage of important events, etc, and there may be no immediate way of telling if they actually happened or not.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few horders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital horders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
I give up. You are an idiot. Any pensioner who does not have a significant DB pension and was a high earner will have done exactly the same as me so they can retire comfortably. That is a huge number of pensioners. Without my capital I have nothing to live off. Do you not understand this? How are you so stupid?
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
So stop whinging about keeping your WFA or as I said sell your capital and go off and live in a tent.
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
As usual showing your ignorance.
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is a tax return, done by employers.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
I don't know how you have the nerve to type stuff you know nothing about.
PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).
By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).
The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.
It is not a tax return in anyway.
Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
Is PAYE submitted direct to government to pay employees tax bills? It is. Is it therefore easy to remove allowances after submission of said bills? It is.
Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.
Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.
So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
Apols for a derailing with AI stuff. But this is one of the first tracks that's caught me on a "It's surely AI generated video (unless there's a hidden trove of Giallo I have missed). But... is the music also AI? I don't think so, but.....?":
This is now the norm: you cannot be sure if anything you see or hear on the internet is human created or AI. The media have been focussed on ChatGPT and other LLMs, but it's the image, video and voice/music generators that are the main disruptors.
Youtube, Amazon and Spotify are already having problems with undeclared AI created videos, books and music respectively. Currently they can sometimes be identified as AI, but that's not going to be possible for long.
Technology is moving so rapidly very soon we'll see videos of politicians and famous people doing or saying things, coverage of important events, etc, and there may be no immediate way of telling if they actually happened or not.
The biggest problem is that amazing things created by people without AI in the future will be accused of having been created with it by the envious.
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.
Genuinely baffles me - not that much compared to the amounts spent elsewhere, would probably have a reasonably quick and visible effect, and whilst not especially popular (people just want to be told bad people will go to prison for a long time), shouldn't be too unpopular either.
Yes, if all those people moaning that a prison sentence for a particular criminal "isn't long enough" had to foot the bill for a longer sentence I think they might reconsider. I recognise that some criminals are really bad and need to be confined for public safety but surely for those who are not a danger to the public, money would be better spent on rehabbing them and maybe even getting some useful work out of them (filling potholes? Fitting solar panels?). Surely those committing lesser crimes and for the first time deserve a second chance.
Apols for a derailing with AI stuff. But this is one of the first tracks that's caught me on a "It's surely AI generated video (unless there's a hidden trove of Giallo I have missed). But... is the music also AI? I don't think so, but.....?":
This is now the norm: you cannot be sure if anything you see or hear on the internet is human created or AI. The media have been focussed on ChatGPT and other LLMs, but it's the image, video and voice/music generators that are the main disruptors.
Youtube, Amazon and Spotify are already having problems with undeclared AI created videos, books and music respectively. Currently they can sometimes be identified as AI, but that's not going to be possible for long.
Technology is moving so rapidly very soon we'll see videos of politicians and famous people doing or saying things, coverage of important events, etc, and there may be no immediate way of telling if they actually happened or not.
The biggest problem is that amazing things created by people without AI in the future will be accused of having been created with it by the envious.
Yes, without doubt. We've already seen students being punished for submitting 'AI created' work, when it's just a false positive from detection software reacting to people who have good grammar and a slightly formal writing style.
For laughs a friend who works at a university ran their AI detection software over an article I wrote for a computer magazine about about 20 years ago. It flagged my work as probably AI created...
Is HYUFD giving Roger a run for his money on being wrong about everything?
No I am right on most things, whatever the tedious left liberal herd on here may think
Except God of course
Given your professed beliefs I'm surprised you're so keen on someone who only had one child, who hung around with a group of men and had no kids of his own
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
29% of current voters back Reform on average in polls, no way do we have 29% of posters on here backing Reform.
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
At the end of the day, a prison sentence is expensive for the state/taxpayer, isn't very successful at rehabilitatiing offenders and doesn't seem to deter many from reoffending. On top of this, many with criminal records, especially if they are jailed, have problems finding work afterwards (if they are lucky, it's usually minimum wage menial work) so continue to be a drain on the state/taxpayer. The system is completely broken, and building more prisons is not a solution.
Building more prisons - on its own - is not the answer. It may be that building more prisons is part of the solution, but it needs to be combined with many other things. Like - for a start - fuding the criminal justice system properly.
Genuinely baffles me - not that much compared to the amounts spent elsewhere, would probably have a reasonably quick and visible effect, and whilst not especially popular (people just want to be told bad people will go to prison for a long time), shouldn't be too unpopular either.
Getting people in court quicker would be popular surely? Would you support increased funding to the Justice system so criminals face trial within 2 years or are you happy for prosecutions of serious crimes to collapse because it's taken so long to get to trial that witnesses can't be traced, have forgotten crucial details, evidence is lost etc..
An overwhelming amount of drugs being smuggled into prisons in England and Wales is "destabilising" the system and hindering efforts to stop re-offending, a watchdog has warned.
Prisons are being targeted by criminal gangs using drones to fly in contraband to sell to bored inmates being kept in cramped conditions, according to the chief inspector of prisons' annual report.
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.
Isn't he the one who changed his name to Bowie so he wouldn't be confused with the lead singer of the Monkees?
He is virtually unknown in Wales, although he does have a famous locker..
Now give bowel cancer tests to EVERYONE from age 30, urge families hit by disease - as explosion in young cases continues of [sic] mystify doctors ... In the UK, bowel cancer claims nearly 17,000 lives a year, with cases rising sharply among younger adults. It is the fourth most common cancer in the UK.
Adults aged 50 to 74 in England are currently offered a free at-home bowel cancer test every two years.
Thousands more thieves, thugs and drug addicts will avoid court under new plans to ease the crisis in the justice system.
A government review led by former High Court judge Sir Brian Leveson will recommend that ‘out of court resolutions’ are used routinely for ‘low-tier’ including theft, drug-taking and some public order offences.
The move will mean many more offenders will escape with a slap on the wrist, with some not even receiving a criminal record.
Sir Brian will also propose increasing the ‘discount’ for a guilty plea from one-third to 40 per cent of an offender’s sentence. Coupled with recent plans to allow offenders to serve just one-third of their sentence, the move would see some criminals serve less than a fifth of their nominal sentence.
Personally I don't think Reform will win the 2029 election. However, assuming they will, two things are already in place which are not being fully accounted for at the moment.
1) Reform can only win if they stand on a manifesto which offers the voters of Clacton and the voters of 324 other seats what they want. What they want includes all the free stuff from the state in quantities similar to now, or more if possible. The technical term for this is social democracy. Its unalterable characteristic is high tax.
2) Reform can only govern within the laws set down by reality. This applies to everything, including that you can't imprison 200,000 people when you have space for 80,000. You can't run trials without judges, courts and magistrates.
The “space for 80,000” is determined by policy not physical capacity.
And you can run trials without judges, courts and magistrates…
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.
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.
They mostly don't, anyone with taxable income over £35k loses it.
It is only a few hoarders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital hoarders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
capital hoarders
Call it for what it is, @HYUFD. A deliberate desire to cheat the tax system by failing to spend (and therefore pay VAT).
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.
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
Are we that painfully short?
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self- identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
We don’t have thousand if those. They just post a lot…
Perhaps we should think of them as an incontinent geriatric pigeon instead?
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.
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
Who cares? No one says this site has to be representative - it doesn't claim to be and it isn't.
It is supposed to be a betting site and a bit more representation would stop it being quite so dominated by Labour, LD and Green voters as it now is
PB appeals to an intelligent, educated demographic, and probably isn’t that unrepresentative politically once this demographic bias is accounted for. It’s not really our fault that the intellectually challenged only have you and Leon to represent them here.
It is also male-heavy, but then data suggests that a more even gender balance would tilt further away from the right.
Now give bowel cancer tests to EVERYONE from age 30, urge families hit by disease - as explosion in young cases continues of [sic] mystify doctors ... In the UK, bowel cancer claims nearly 17,000 lives a year, with cases rising sharply among younger adults. It is the fourth most common cancer in the UK.
Adults aged 50 to 74 in England are currently offered a free at-home bowel cancer test every two years.
Comments
PRODUCTION Environment Maintenance: July 8–August 22, 2025
https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/qg5j5x4y44w1
69% admittedly thought rich earners should be taxed more than average earners but that was still less than the 78% overall who said that
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49887-what-do-reform-uk-voters-believe
Mayor Karen Bass
@MayorOfLA
This is footage from today in MacArthur Park.
Minutes before, there were more than 20 kids playing — then, the MILITARY comes through.
https://x.com/MayorOfLA/status/1942296116378362055
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/
Everything you seem to comment on only affirms your far right pro Reform politics
It is only a few hoarders of vast capital like you who at the same time keep yourself below the £35k taxable income threshold who keep your WFA.
As I said, you could of course give up your capital and live in a tent and light a campfire for heat and use your WFA to buy wood and kindling and matches and finally shut up about it.
For HMRC there is no point chasing the capital hoarders like you as it would cost more to identify all your capital than any WFA savings made
Made Jan 6 by Trump look like a work of genius.
Mind you I’m used to the 3 week lead time the FCA insists on - which is fun when you know you may need to do a last minute change because for some reason production doesn’t look like your preproduction server
And the Dems have actually been (moderately) smart. They've not taken the bait too much. And so Trump is escalating, trying to provoke a reaction.
Call it for what it is, @HYUFD. A deliberate desire to cheat the tax system by failing to spend (and therefore pay VAT).
If they do, they are, whether they know it or not, committed to high spend and high tax. It is, I think, 100% certain that they want it done better and more, not worse and less.
Try proving from real data that the people of Clacton don't want the state provision I have listed above. It can't be done.
I can think of many Reform backers here, mainly those who caveat it with "more in sorrow than anger" type of remarks, but pollsters don't show caveats on whom people have chosen.
Plus we have thousands of self-identifying 'falcons' here who back Reform.
It’s likely to occur but it will be require a trigger similar to the old race riots (someone being killed on camera) for it to kick off
Reform even got 14% at the last GE and even Leon voted Labour then
If you want high spend and high tax you will be voting Labour, SNP or Green or Plaid not Reform
What am I supposed to live off if I didn't accumulate the capital.
How, I mean how are you so stupid that you don't understand how this works?
Why can you not understand that a benefit should have both capital and income thresholds that prevent well off people getting it.
Why do you approve of millionaires getting a benefit to help with their heating ? What is wrong with you?
Justin Wolfers
@JustinWolfers
·
13m
The President has just tweeted another 7 trade "letters."
We have details on 14 countries, and it's weirder than I imagined. The new tariffs are the old "Liberation Day" numbers +/- a few percentage points.
If these were a bad idea 90 days ago, why are they a good idea now?
https://x.com/JustinWolfers/status/1942327030827089967
It is easy to remove WFA from those whose income is above a certain level when their tax return is submitted.
It is not easy to track and trace all the capital accumulated by the likes of you as it has large admin costs more than any savings made by removing the allowance
The fact that the Tories suffer the same way is no justification for Reform's failure. The Tories are not at the moment serious candidates for government.
SFAICS posters here who favour Reform do so because all other options are sub optimal. Which is true. But under the laws of logic and reality that doesn't amount to an argument that actually works.
a cognitive deficit?
There’s something odd for sure.
Your original post was clear enough.
I remember trying to overpay my poll tax to match the rates bill I had previously. There was no way to do it. They weren’t interested in allowing an overpayment. Though direct donation to the council was allowed.
That made me feel like an idiot. The point I was trying to make was lost. I didn’t pay.
In Peru, so many ex-presidents have been accused of crimes that the country has designated a small prison specifically to house them. It's a symbol of corruption, but also of political dysfunction.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/08/1186632810/perus-special-jail-for-ex-leaders-is-all-full-up
It's a good thing that at least they often get impeached or even jailed?
Practically nobody submits a tax return at £35k income. Even up to £100k it is pretty rare if you are paid through PAYE. I assume it will be reclaimed via PAYE.
Nearly every benefit has a capital test. Infact this one did until they increased the threshold.
Honestly you come up with stuff you know nothing about.
Though yes I don't disagree with the point, very dangerous and violent offenders should be locked up but most prisoners need to spend more time in workshops and less in cells and more schemes like Timpsons offer for ex cons should be offered by employers
Reform voters certainly won't put their own taxes up to increase public spending
In the unlikely event of this one doing so, the Court would back them up.
But this Congress won't.
And it's ceding powers at a rate which might mean it's never able to take them back.
It is fairly easy to identify those on pension credit who will have significant capital as virtually none do.
It is far more costly to identify pensioners with income up to £35k with significant capital as lots like you will do
I don't think that explains them polling 30%.
Peruvian politicians are so crap a corruption that they actual accept paper bags of money in public.
I won't comment on trying to identify pensioners with £35,000 of income because as you say it's a very expensive task.
As I've repeated continually I would have raised income tax by 3p and kept the WFA as that would have kept pensioners with a total income of £20,000 better off while still being cheap to administer.
Grazie, Leone.
Having said that, it would risk being insufferably slow, were it not so beautiful.
Deepest MAGA is not happy:
Bannon: loads of our groups are on this Epstein stuff. "hopefully you'll see developments in next couple of days"
https://x.com/gc22gc/status/1942337040168935764
PAYE is not a tax return. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a tax return. Tax returns are filled in by individuals after the end of the tax year. Most don't have to. PAYE is not just used by employers during the tax year, but also pension providers (with the exception of the state pension).
By the sounds of it you have never filled one in, nor know how PAYE works. Your P6 will determine your allowance then based upon this PAYE will work out your pro rata tax at each tax point on the assumption that your income to that point is pro rata for the year. It may not be, but that gets resolved each week/month as the calculation is done afresh and the difference between the tax ytd at the previous month is subtracted from that at this month and the difference is deducted in tax (or even refunded).
The calculation is usually done by computer. In the old days you had tax tables, although it is quite easy, if you know what you are doing to do it manually. I have on many occasions.
It is not a tax return in anyway.
Most benefits have a capital test except this one, particularly those aimed at low income individuals for obvious reasons, as WFA should be. Why this is different is simply because the Govt cocked up and had to U turn and got themselves in a mess. If it can be done for the others, it can be done for WFA, so you are wrong to say it is too difficult.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
9m
MacArthur Park today is what a mass deportation regime looks like. It’s what it’s supposed to look like. Mass deportation is both the cause and the excuse for mass militarization.
https://x.com/BillKristol/status/1942343615054860381
Reeves biggest mistake was not being clear last July, and putting 3p on income tax because she's going to have to come November...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9ua2O0h-Ew
I hope that's cleared it up for you.
"BERLIN, July 7 (Reuters) - France has told Germany it wants a workshare of some 80% in the joint Franco-German fighter jet FCAS, a defence industry source told Reuters, backing up a report by respected German defence publication Hartpunkt.
The project, with an estimated volume of more than 100 billion euros, has been plagued by delays and infighting over workshare and intellectual property rights between France and Germany as well as their respective national industries."
The Tories are more fiscally conservative now with Stride and Kemi
The fact that it is continuing, and has not been reviewed since, is becoming something of an uncovered scandal by the press.
Youtube, Amazon and Spotify are already having problems with undeclared AI created videos, books and music respectively. Currently they can sometimes be identified as AI, but that's not going to be possible for long.
Technology is moving so rapidly very soon we'll see videos of politicians and famous people doing or saying things, coverage of important events, etc, and there may be no immediate way of telling if they actually happened or not.
Is it going to cost a fortune to trace the capital of whinging whining tax minimising, capital hoarders like you? It is. As far more will have said capital up to £35k income like whinging/semi boasters like you.
Do most low income benefit/pension credit claimants have any capital of significance at all? No. Hence it is far easier to trace and costs next to nothing to do so.
So you want to impose massive admin costs on HMRC to trace all the capital the likes of you hoard, just because you won't shut up about still getting your WFA!!
For laughs a friend who works at a university ran their AI detection software over an article I wrote for a computer magazine about about 20 years ago. It flagged my work as probably AI created...
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presents President Trump with a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize
Given your professed beliefs I'm surprised you're so keen on someone who only had one child, who hung around with a group of men and had no kids of his own
Would you support increased funding to the Justice system so criminals face trial
within 2 years or are you happy for prosecutions of serious crimes to collapse because it's taken so long to get to trial that witnesses can't be traced, have forgotten crucial details, evidence is lost etc..
Prisons are being targeted by criminal gangs using drones to fly in contraband to sell to bored inmates being kept in cramped conditions, according to the chief inspector of prisons' annual report.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m8prz7077o
...
In the UK, bowel cancer claims nearly 17,000 lives a year, with cases rising sharply among younger adults. It is the fourth most common cancer in the UK.
Adults aged 50 to 74 in England are currently offered a free at-home bowel cancer test every two years.
But research shows those born in 1990 - now just 35 - are almost two-and-a-half times more likely to develop the disease than those born in 1950.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14881801/bowel-cancer-screening-colon-deborah-james.html
Not just mental health problems affecting the young.
And you can run trials without judges, courts and magistrates…
Thousands of British workers pursue the American dream – but state-side expats warn of several downsides
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/moved-america-better-salary-pay-10pc-tax/ (£££)
Never mind expats, look at the graph. Does this explain the rise of NOTA votes?
Perhaps we should think of them as an incontinent geriatric pigeon instead?
It is also male-heavy, but then data suggests that a more even gender balance would tilt further away from the right.
Federal tax - 37%
California income tax - 13.3%
Total is therefore slightly over 50%.
But there's more! On top of this, property taxes are massively higher than in the UK.