Never mind expats, look at the graph. Does this explain the rise of NOTA votes?
Mostly that’s the paradigm shift in the value of the £ v $ since Brexit
Our (light blue) line rises under the Major government, rises faster under the greatest Chancellor who ever lived but never recovers from the GFC. Theirs does. What's different? George Osborne. Plan A. Austerity. The exchange rate. One of those anyway.
This spell of decent weather is the first of any length that they’ve had this year, up here in the north; the bouts of near-Mediterranean conditions that we’ve enjoyed since April simply pushed the spring rains we often get, up here to Scandinavia, and they’ve had a wetter-even-than-usual spring. But it’s now sunny and warm, and difficult to avoid waking up very early indeed.
Shame the old thread just got superseded.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.
A 3p rise in income tax is only reasonable if it is implemented with a 3p cut in National Insurance.
Otherwise why should those working for a living be paying for those who aren't to get WFA?
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.
Not just mental health problems affecting the young.
Surely they will find it’s down to the MaccyD & KFC lifestyle?
There are quite a few interesting theories. Lack of fibre, micro plastics etc etc. We have bowel cancer history in the family and an effective NHS would be looking to screen me in the next few years, young as I am.
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.
Not just mental health problems affecting the young.
Surely they will find it’s down to the MaccyD & KFC lifestyle?
There are quite a few interesting theories. Lack of fibre, micro plastics etc etc. We have bowel cancer history in the family and an effective NHS would be looking to screen me in the next few years, young as I am.
I'm in a high risk group and get the adventure with the camera every five years from the NHS. Something to look forward to this winter
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.
The reality of the heating allowance was that it was given to all because the Govt was unable /it would be mega costly to differentiate between the wealthy and the rest of us. In the overall scheme of thing the additional cost is a pittance. Just make it taxable for everyone.
Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
Reform.must be stopped. It would be ruinous fir the UK.
They're not going to be stopped. But they will probably be in Government with the Tories, and due to their greater experience, the Tories will likely play a very important role in shaping the agenda.
Well if Reform win the next GE, expect that to be one of the first laws they would scrap
Reform.must be stopped. It would be ruinous fir the UK.
They're not going to be stopped. But they will probably be in Government with the Tories, and due to their greater experience, the Tories will likely play a very important role in shaping the agenda.
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!!
Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd
a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.
b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
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
If you fire out contradictory polling like an elephant gun and refuse to withdraw any statement you've ever made then you're bound to be right once in a while.
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..
Indeed, and the right to a fair and public hearing that is held within a reasonable time, is a Human Right. Not that anyone seems to care. Unnecessary delays ( eg due to lack of resources) are not good or fair for victims or the accused.
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.
Yes, why are they bored? Why aren't they working? Surely they could be doing something productive, if they're not doing some sort of rehabilitation programme?
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!!
Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd
a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.
b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
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.
I’m assuming you meant that the invasion was by the Turkish airforce… not that the Turkish ship was sunk by the Turkish airforce…
No, friendly fire sinking of Turkish warship by Turkish airforce:
Harwood was transferred to the Turkish Navy on 17 December 1971, and renamed TCG Kocatepe (D 354). The ship was bombed and sunk in error by Turkish Lockheed F-104 Starfighter and North American F-100 Super Sabre aircraft on 21 July 1974,[1] mistaking it for a Greek vessel during Turkish landings on Cyprus.[1] Fifty-four members of her crew were killed in the incident.
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!!
Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd
a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.
b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
How can you be so stupid. It is because there is a capital test that stops people who have more than a certain amount of capital claiming it. If there wasn't a capital test more would claim it.
The people who claim it don't have significant capital because those that do are prevented from claiming it. Doh!
How do you not get this. I am just asking for the same to apply to WFA.
Also you keep claiming it is difficult to administer. It isn't. It is easy. It is mostly self declaration, like most of tax. HMRC will do random checks, particularly where they see anomalies eg savings or dividend income which implies capital. If a capital test was applied I would not claim it. If I were dishonest and did I would be immediately caught because of both my savings and dividend income showing I exceeded the capital limit.
You really shouldn't post on stuff you know nothing about.
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!!
Two super examples of dogs have 4 legs therefore anything with 4 legs is a dog logic there by @huyfd
a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.
b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
No people on benefits don't have significant capital as they poor, hence why they are on benefits as well as being well below average income
How can you be so stupid. It is because there is a capital test that stops people who have more than a certain amount of capital claiming it. If there wasn't a capital test more would claim it.
The people who claim it don't have significant capital because those that do are prevented from claiming it. Doh!
How do you not get this. I am just asking for the same to apply to WFA.
Also you keep claiming it is difficult to administer. It isn't. It is easy. It is mostly self declaration, like most of tax. HMRC will do random checks, particularly where they see anomalies eg savings or dividend income which implies capital. If a capital test was applied I would not claim it. If I were dishonest and did I would be immediately caught because of both my savings and dividend income showing I exceeded the capital limit.
You really shouldn't post on stuff you know nothing about.
If your income exceeds the threshold you lose your WFA anyway
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.
Not just mental health problems affecting the young.
Surely they will find it’s down to the MaccyD & KFC lifestyle?
There are quite a few interesting theories. Lack of fibre, micro plastics etc etc. We have bowel cancer history in the family and an effective NHS would be looking to screen me in the next few years, young as I am.
I'm in a high risk group and get the adventure with the camera every five years from the NHS. Something to look forward to this winter
Comments
BBC News - Yorkshire Water to introduce hosepipe ban across county - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2073zy4k9o?app-referrer=search
Otherwise why should those working for a living be paying for those who aren't to get WFA?
wealthy and the rest of us. In the overall scheme of thing the additional cost is a pittance. Just make it taxable for everyone.
NEW THREAD
a) People on benefits don't have significant capital because they are tested for it in the first place you idiot. That is the whole point of the capital test to stop people with capital claiming it. That is why there aren't any. If there wasn't a capital test there would be. It is 99% self declaration so not a huge cost.
b) PAYE is a collection method. not a tax return (as numerous people here have told you). It only deducts the correct amount by reference to the P6. The P6 is created automatically if your affairs are simple or via your tax return if not. If wrong you can get it changed. PAYE is not a tax return in any form whatsoever.
Are companies paying much less?
Harwood was transferred to the Turkish Navy on 17 December 1971, and renamed TCG Kocatepe (D 354). The ship was bombed and sunk in error by Turkish Lockheed F-104 Starfighter and North American F-100 Super Sabre aircraft on 21 July 1974,[1] mistaking it for a Greek vessel during Turkish landings on Cyprus.[1] Fifty-four members of her crew were killed in the incident.
The people who claim it don't have significant capital because those that do are prevented from claiming it. Doh!
How do you not get this. I am just asking for the same to apply to WFA.
Also you keep claiming it is difficult to administer. It isn't. It is easy. It is mostly self declaration, like most of tax. HMRC will do random checks, particularly where they see anomalies eg savings or dividend income which implies capital. If a capital test was applied I would not claim it. If I were dishonest and did I would be immediately caught because of both my savings and dividend income showing I exceeded the capital limit.
You really shouldn't post on stuff you know nothing about.