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

[ahinton]

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

Of course - but there are plenty of people who realise less than the annual CGT allowance and therefore do not have any to pay and it is these to whom I refer.

It's also worth pointing out that, since Personal Equity Plans (PEPs) were introduced 27 years ago, some couples have utilised their full annual PEP allowances and have continued to do so until these investments were replaced by ISAs and who have continued to do so since, to this day; with good luck and a fiar wind and a wise financial adviser behind them, joint portfolio value have in some cases come to exceed £1m and the income from them (whether taken or not) remain free of all tax and does not have to be included on tax returns. I do not imagine that such people are those that others have in mind for entitlement to the benefits concerned.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Agreed, but I doubt those sorts of people are paying basic rate tax!. So if you want a means testing switch, again the tax system would serve perfectly well.

[Anna]

Well, from a discussion about the poorest pensioners and benefits we seem to have entered a spat about CGT and off-shore investments ..... <roll eyes emoticon> Neither of which have any bearing on the 19% of pensioners in poverty and, if the cuts go ahead, will be even more.
But can you agree with my unread post above that all financially disadvanted people should submit a tax return in case they can reclaim something they have previously paid tax on?

[ahinton]

Agreed, but I doubt those sorts of people are paying basic rate tax!. So if you want a means testing switch, again the tax system would serve perfectly well.

Doubt as you may, but I do know that some are paying no tax at all, never mind "basic rate", not merely because their pension and taxable invetment income neither qualifies for tax liability nor obliges them to submit tax returns but because they have untaxable income from insurance bonds and NS&I products; those who have sufficient income from untaxed pensions and insurance bonds / NS&I products and also have ISA portfolios don't even all draw their income entitlement from their ISA portfolios, so it is reinvested, thereby swelling their values still further and still HMRC gets to know nothing about it because it doesn't need to be told.

[ahinton]

Well, from a discussion about the poorest pensioners and benefits we seem to have entered a spat about CGT and off-shore investments ..... <roll eyes emoticon> Neither of which have any bearing on the 19% of pensioners in poverty and, if the cuts go ahead, will be even more.

Indeed, but my part in that has merely been for the purpose of focusing attention on people with very small pensions but whose otgher investments do not oblige them to complete tax returns and that quie a few such people have what many of us might consider to be high incomes but still don't have to complete tax returns.

But can you agree with my unread post above that all financially disadvanted people should submit a tax return in case they can reclaim something they have previously paid tax on?

There is of course an argument in favour of this in principle, but if everyone over the age of, say, 16 was obliged to complete and submit a tax return every year irrespective of whether they have a tax liability in any given year, the administrative burden on HMRC would increase substantially and that would come at a cost that would ultimately disadvantage the deserving poor whom you mention; it would also mean that, if the outcome of such return submission was that those entitled to reclaim past overpayments of tax could and did indeed do so, whilst that would be a good thing for them it would deplete HM Treasury coffers still further and, as it would also not result in any more tax being paid, the disadvantages would be obvious. For those two reasons, it would surely be no bad thing for the public at large but a bad thing for HRMC's tax take and, were that indeed to turn out to be the case in practice, it might encourage the government of the day to make even deeper cuts than those currently proposed.

[amateur51]

Good to see ahinton abandoning abstruse musicological discussions for his real passion and métier, the vagaries of Her Majesty's Government's Taxation System.

Byzantine is NOT the word.

[scottycelt]

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.

I've said the same thing all along and did not say anything about applying for separate benefits ... that was my whole point about using the tax system to avoid exactly that ... others (with the exception of the 'usuals') seem to understand precisely what I meant and said.

HMRC already has our details. However to ensure these details are correct and we receive any benefits to which we are entitled we could/should fill in a tax-return. Anyone can do that. Those who find it a particular challenge can always seek assistance. Those like yourself who seem to have a curious antipathy to tax-returns would inevitably lose out, if entitled to any benefits. That would be your affair and would have nothing to do with the workability of the system itself.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

[Anna]

Good to see ahinton abandoning abstruse musicological discussions for his real passion and métier, the vagaries of Her Majesty's Government's Taxation System.

Byzantine is NOT the word.

Ooh, Ams, Have I told you lately that I LOVE YOU? xxxxx

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Well, from a discussion about the poorest pensioners and benefits we seem to have entered a spat about CGT and off-shore investments ..... <roll eyes emoticon> Neither of which have any bearing on the 19% of pensioners in poverty and, if the cuts go ahead, will be even more.
But can you agree with my unread post above that all financially disadvanted people should submit a tax return in case they can reclaim something they have previously paid tax on?

Yes, I do agree. I think I indicated as such in #84, but less prominently than your point. The digression into CGT and offshore investments is, of course, absurd.

[ahinton]

Good to see ahinton abandoning abstruse musicological discussions

How is it possible to abandon involvement in something to which one has never contributed?

for his real passion and métier, the vagaries of Her Majesty's Government's Taxation System.

...about which I know - and pretend to know - nothing beyond the fact that it is already grossly over-complex and is likely only to be come more so if everyone is to be required by law to complete and submit a tax return for assessment.

Byzantine is NOT the word.

For that taxation system, it is surely just the correct word! - although othes could easily be thought of that FF might not sanction for repetition here...

[ahinton]

Yes, I do agree. I think I indicated as such in #84, but less prominently than your point. The digression into CGT and offshore investments is, of course, absurd.

I agree too, at least to the extent and for the reasons that I have already said so, but the references to all those various means whereby people are exonerated from the responsibility to complete and submit a tax return is neither a digression nor absurd in view of the number of people that would be covered by this in its entirety; what I don't get is how it would make sense for HMRC to have to meet the massive cost of processing hundreds of thousands more tax returns with little or no prospect of being able to collect any more tax as a consequence and also losing money because this would mean that people entitled to claim back overpaid tax (a very good thing, of course) could more easily do so under such a régime - that's all.

[jean]

It's enough.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Why do you see a huge increase in HMRC processing? They've already divided us into 'must complete return'/no need to complete return'. We're obliged to report any significant change in circumstances. They know the taxable income of both groups. The tax return is thus a good, affordable measure of 'means' as Scotty claims. It would certainly be cheaper that any means assessment process.

[amateur51]

Why do you see a huge increase in HMRC processing? They've already divided us into 'must complete return'/no need to complete return'. We're obliged to report any significant change in circumstances. They know the taxable income of both groups. The tax return is thus a good, affordable measure of 'means' as Scotty claims. It would certainly be cheaper that any means assessment process.

I mentioned in message #64 that HMRC has been haemorrhaging experienced staff for three years so to take on replacement staff for this exercise would be off-budget and thus politically unacceptable.

[ahinton]

Why do you see a huge increase in HMRC processing?

Quite simply because it would inevitably find itself obliged to process many hundreds of thousands of extra tax returns with no likely prospect of profitable outcome in terms of increased tax take - no more, no less.

They've already divided us into 'must complete return'/no need to complete return'. We're obliged to report any significant change in circumstances. They know the taxable income of both groups. The tax return is thus a good, affordable measure of 'means' as Scotty claims. It would certainly be cheaper that any means assessment process.

No, they can't do that realistically, because people's circumstances are not fixed, to the extent that any one individual's tax circumstances can't possibly be guaranteed to be the same from one year to the next.