Litter picking + Incarceration....the Conservative Way....

[ahinton]

Does this not at once shew

Nothing's done that for many years!

that the concept of "work" is no more defensible than the concept of "slavery"? It seems obvious to me.

No, it doesn't. I work. Do I consider myself - and/or indeed am I - a "slave" to it? Of course not! There are plenty of people who are happy in their work as well as plenty who are less so.

I urge every one to write to their M.P.s and ask them to introduce a bill for the abolition of "work" at the earliest possible date.

I'm sure that every one of them would take that as seriously as it merits and act accordingly.

It robs - yes robs - "workers" of more than half their life-time, and contrary to what is often claimed by capitalists, there are alternatives.

But not, apparently, ones that are revealed by you! If everyone stooped working, how would anyone survive? Imagine - no doctors or hospitals, no utility services providers (water, energy, sewerage management et al), no farming (therefore no food), no transportation, public, private or commercial - the list goes on and on. Oh, yes - and no MPs either!

This suggestion really has to be one of your most bizarre; that its perversity rivals its absurdity undoubtedly illustrates a remarkable achievement in itself, though to quite what purpose I have less than no idea...

[scottycelt]

How many times?

That's entirely up to you!

It's not a question of couldn't be bothered. Nobody in my position - and that of lots of others - completes a tax return. It's not required. They wouldn't know what to do with it if you did.

If OTOH I were required to provide details of my income specifically for the purpose of claiming a benefit, that would be the means testing we on this thread have rejected in favour of your scheme, which involves using information collected anyway. Except that as I have shown, it isn't.

What I did? I assume that's a typo. Well it may be required to receive a benefit. Of course in essence that's 'means testing'. But we are all already 'means tested' through the tax system. So what's this big deal about merely confirming or correcting personal financial details through the very same system by way of a tax-form?

Too right!

Thank you.

However, I might have sufficient imagination to suggest a particularly obvious method of getting additional benefit to the poorest in society rather than just everybody of a certain age, whilst you appear to consider the whole very simple idea far too difficult and insurmountable.

Of course it may require a little bit of extra work on the part of government politicians to put through the necessary measures and no doubt there would be the initial cost of introduction, probably eventually greatly outweighed by savings elsewhere.

My soft little heart veritably bleeds at the prospect of such a clearly unwelcome eventuality.

[jean]

I might have sufficient imagination to suggest a particularly obvious method of getting additional benefit to the poorest in society rather than just everybody of a certain age, whilst you appear to consider the whole very simple idea far too difficult and insurmountable.

What you have suggested is a means-tested benefit which has to be specifically applied for.

When I and others pointed out to you that this would require a lot of extra (expensive) bureaucracy, and that it is well known that benefits that have to be specifically applied for are often not taken up, you replied that the information needed, in the form of everyone's tax returns, was already available and lodged with the appropriate authorities.

When I pointed out to you that that's not the case because not everyone has to fill in a tax return, you reverted to the idea of specific applications for specific benefits (see above).

So we're back where we started.

[amateur51]

What you have suggested is a means-tested benefit which has to be specifically applied for.

When I and others pointed out to you that this would require a lot of extra (expensive) bureaucracy, and that it is well known that benefits that have to be specifically applied for are often not taken up, you replied that the information needed, in the form of everyone's tax returns, was already available and lodged with the appropriate authorities.

When I pointed out to you that that's not the case because not everyone has to fill in a tax return, you reverted to the idea of specific applications for specific benefits (see above).

So we're back where we started.

He doesn't like to fall too far from the tree, jean

[ahinton]

He doesn't like to fall too far from the tree, jean

Especiallly when, as now, he seem to have difficulty in seeing the wood for it...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If the only income I have is taxed at source I am not required to complete a tax return . . .

That's not necessarily the case. Anyone who receives any income from savings, for example, has to complete a tax return.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/need-tax-return.htm#1

the point being that interest on savings is taxed at basic rate only.

Scottycelt's point that the tax return (or absence thereof) tells all as far as means (income) assessment is concerned is factually correct.

[jean]

Anyone who receives any income from savings, for example, has to complete a tax return

Unless, as your link states,

If you are an employee or a pensioner and already pay tax through a PAYE code, you can sometimes ask for tax that you owe on income, such as savings and property, to be collected through your code number.

Scottycelt's point that the tax return (or absence thereof) tells all as far as means (income) assessment is concerned is factually correct.

If that was what scotty meant, perhaps that's what he would have said, but he didn't.

What you appear to be saying, however, is that I should be automatically considered eligible for the extra benefits we're considering without the need for me to do anything at all.

[ahinton]

That's not necessarily the case. Anyone who receives any income from savings, for example, has to complete a tax return.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/need-tax-return.htm#1

That's not the case; tax returns must be completed only by those whose income from investments is taxable, which excludes not only ISAs but also insurance bonds and other investment vehicles, as well as cetain NS&I deposits.

the point being that interest on savings is taxed at basic rate only.

That's also wrong; all higher rate taxpayers and those whose taxable investment income takes them into higher rate tax brackets are taxed on all or part of their taxable investment income at the higher rates as appropriate.

Scottycelt's point that the tax return (or absence thereof) tells all as far as means (income) assessment is concerned is factually correct.

Clearly it does no such thing, not least on account of the reasons above; not only that, the additional burden on HMRC would, as has already been noted, also come at considerable additional cost in any case as well as expanding the margin of administrative error.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

That's not the case; tax returns must be completed only by those whose income from investments is taxable, which excludes not only ISAs but also insurance bonds and other investment vehicles, as well as cetain NS&I deposits.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/sa/need-tax-return.htm#1

That is correct in only certain cases. My reference (which you cited in your reply - you didn't read it?) makes it perfectly clear that I was referring to taxable savings. All bank and building society interest if not tax sheltered is taxable and should be declared. That would include income even from a current account (in the days when such gave interest).

All higher rate taxpayers and those whose taxable investment income takes them into higher rate tax brackets are taxed on all or part of their taxable investment income at the higher rates as appropriate.

No, you're wrong again. Interest on savings is taxed only at basic rate at their source. To be taxed at correct rate (as they legally should) they have to be reported to and assessed by HMRC - hence the need for a tax return. Of course, some paying basic rate taxation at source on their savings income may well be entitled to a tax refund. Jean's reply seems to suggest that this can somehow be done on the nod with the HMRC, but in order for the savings income to be correctly taxed (and PAYE coded) it must be declared. If Scottycelt didn't make that clear then so what, it's a piffling and obvious detail.

Clearly it does no such thing, not least on account of the reasons above; not only that, the additional burden on HMRC would, as has already been noted, also come at considerable additional cost in any case as well as expanding the margin of administrative error.

Clearly it does reflect the full taxable income of everyone. And in any event, with electronic filing of returns, the administrative burden is becoming ever smaller.

It is possible to agree with HMRC that in your case a tax return is not required. But you'll achieve this only if your combined earned and unearned income is well below the high rate taxation band. So the pendants might argue (god forfend) that Scottycelt's point fails. But actually, HMRC still knows all the details of your income (your employer and your banks (etc.) make returns). And since you're discussing this point viz a viz benfits, presumably you're only seeking to remove benefits from higher rate tax payers?

[Anna]

I may be wrong (if so please correct me) but we were talking originally about the poorest of those who receive state pension only, not combined with occupational pensions. In which case, if your total income (pension+interest on savings accounts, etc.) does not exceed your personal allowance for the given tax year - which varies according to age - then you pay no tax at all and you can fill in the relevant form to get interest on savings, etc., to be paid gross plus you can reclaim any tax for a given number of years by filling in another form. Hence the need, I think, for the majority of financially disadvantaged people to fill in a tax form? That was my understanding of the situation, but I doubt many pensioners do fill in a form and could be needlessly paying tax on their *building society interest?

*hollow laugh emoticon - what interest!

[ahinton]

That is correct in only certain cases. My reference (which you cited in your reply - you didn't read it?) makes it perfectly clear that I was referring to taxable savings. All bank and building society interest if not tax sheltered is taxable and should be declared. That would include income even from a current account (in the days when such gave interest).

Yes, I did indeed read it but my point is that, as it does indeed apply only to taxable savings (as you youself agree), many people whose investment income is not taxable do not have to submit tax returns and the principle of dealing with the matter under discussion by mans of completed tax returns will not work for everyone quite simply becuase everyone is not obliged to submit such returns.

No, you're wrong again. Interest on savings is taxed only at basic rate at their source. To be taxed at full rate (as they legally should) they have to be reported to and assessed by HMRC - hence the need for a tax return. Of course, some paying basic rate taxation at source on their savings income may well be entitled to a tax refund. Jean's reply seems to suggest that this can somehow be done on the nod with the HMRC, but in order for the savings income to be correctly taxed (and PAYE coded) it must be declared. If Scottycelt didn't make that clear then so what, it's a piffling and obvious detail.

I do not disagree with you on this and what you've stated is not in facg in conflict with what I've written, to the extent that how the tax due is collected is a different matter from whether, to what extent and at what rate it is ultimately due. I return (sorry!), however, to the fact that, as not everyone has to complete a tax return, this idea wouldn't work universally.

Clearly it does reflect the full taxable income of everyone.

No, it doesn't. The fact that someone does not complete and submit a tax return cannot be a 100% reliable indicator that the person concerned is not liable for any tax; some people may omit to complete and submit returns either by innocent mistake or otherwise while othes do not do so because they genuinely have no taxable income. Furthermore, tax returns are not solely for the purpose of recording data about taxable income; thee are other taxes including CGT to be considered. If someone has no taxable income and whose assessable capital gains in any given tax year do not exceed the individual CGT threshold, that person will not be liable for any tax. The amount of the annual individual CGT allowance exceeds most individual personal income tax allowances. As has been poined out already, there's tax free / tax exempt income from ISAs, insurance bonds, certain NS&I products but, in addition, there's EISs, SEISs and VCTs as well as the tax-free rent-a-room allowance. It is therefore possible, then, that someone might be in a position to take advantage of several or even all of these facilities and receive a six-figure or even seven-figure income without being required to complete and submit a tax return and, were such people to be entitled to benefits as free bus passes, eye tests, medical prescriptions, TV licences (for the over-75s), winter fuel allowances purely on the grounds of exemption from tax liability, I sense that the principle of this entire proposal might well risk falling rather flat.

And in any event, with electronic filing of returns, the administrative burden is becoming ever smaller.

Sadly not; for one thing, not eveyone does file returns electronically and the occasions on which personal and corporate data has been misppropriated by HMRC has in fact discouraged some from doing this in the future (I am one of them, although I am unaware that HMRC has mishandled any of my data) and, in any case, the increasing complexity of the tax system has inevitably meant that this burden continues to increase as does HMRC's margin of error.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

What you fail to grasp is that for those with no savings income to declare, and receiving only a work or pension income and therefore having no requirement to make a tax return, nonetheless, the tax people know everything about your earnings since your employer (pension payer) tells them!

So either you fill in a return, or you don't, HMRC knows what's going on.

I'm really not bothered about missing the tiny number of people up to their armpits in VCT, and the rest. I doubt whether you'd find these people using a means testing system either.

[ahinton]

What you fail to grasp is that for those with no savings income to declare, and receiving only a work or pension income and therefore having no requirement to make a tax return, nonetheless, the tax people know everything about your earnings since your employer (pension payer) tells them!

What I "fail to grasp" is not that but what difference this makes to the kind of thing being put forward by scotty when only those who submit tax returns can benefit from it!

So either you fill in a return, or you don't, HMRC knows what's going on.

For the purpose of this exercise, it's not a matter of what HMRC knows or thinks that it knows.

I'm really not bothered about missing the tiny number of people up to their armpits in VCT, and the rest

Including CGT? I know several people who depend upon the regular realisation of capital gains as a supplement to their very small incomes.

I doubt whether you'd find these people using a means testing system either.

I doubt that as well, but then I'm advocating neither the scotty suggestion nor a full-blown means-testing arrangement where HMRC would find themselves with yet more work to risk messing up.

[ahinton]

It is possible to agree with HMRC that in your case a tax return is not required. But you'll achieve this only if your combined earned and unearned income is well below the high rate taxation band. So the pedants might argue (god forfend) that Scottycelt's point fails. But actually, HMRC still knows all the details of your income (your employer and your banks (etc.) make returns). And since you're discussing this point viz a viz benefits, presumably you're only seeking to remove benefits from higher rate tax payers?

I'm seeking to do nothing of the kind! HMRC does not necessarily know as much as you appear to suggest; yes, it will (or should!) know about people's pension income and taxable deposits and investments whether or not they submit or are obliged to submit tax returns but it won't and doesn't need to know about income from such vehicles as ISAs, insurance bonds (onshore and offshore) or from certain NS&I products as they are not taxable irrespective of the amount of income that they might generate.

For the purposs of assessing how poor people might have to be in order to justify qualifying for the benefits under discussion here, it might be as well to note that a couple over 65 years of age will be entitled to a joint total personal annual income tax allowance of £21,000 (increased to £21,320 for those aged over 75) and every couple has a total joint CGT annual allowance of £21,800, so a couple over 75 will be entitled to receive a total of £43,120 p.a. if each member realises the full annual CGT limit - and that's before any other untaxable income from ISAs, insurance bonds, NS&I products, EISs, SEISs, VCTs, the rent-a room scheme and the rest is taken into consideration.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If they have CGT to pay they have to make a tax return.