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

[amateur51]

I agree; withdrawing these kinds of benefit would inevitably be unfair to those who most need them and means-testing them would almost certinly be so expensive that the net cost to the government would be greater than by leaving them as they are.

I was speaking with a former employee of HMRC at the weekend who confirmed the expense of so doing and indicated that it would be much more difficult to do than most lay people imagined.

[ahinton]

I was speaking with a former employee of HMRC at the weekend who confirmed the expense of so doing and indicated that it would be much more difficult to do than most lay people imagined.

Interesting - except that it seems strange to me that anyone would imagine other than that considerable expense would be involved, if for no better reason than that it would involve a lot more work in addition to HMRC's existing workload.

[jean]

If you are of sound mind and you do not complete an annual tax return then of course you may not receive a benefit to which you are entitled.

In that case you would only have yourself to blame, now, wouldn't you ...?

If the only income I have is taxed at source I am not required to complete a tax return, so I'm not sure where blame comes into it.

Are you suggesting I complete one as a work of supererogation?

I don't think HMRC would thank me for my pains.

[amateur51]

Interesting - except that it seems strange to me that anyone would imagine other than that considerable expense would be involved, if for no better reason than that it would involve a lot more work in addition to HMRC's existing workload.

Plus the massive haemorrhaging of experienced staff from HMRC recently as a result of public sector cuts - great stuff Gideon <doh>

[scottycelt]

I was speaking with a former employee of HMRC at the weekend who confirmed the expense of so doing and indicated that it would be much more difficult to do than most lay people imagined.

Yeah, right ... <laugh>

[amateur51]

Yeah, right ... <laugh>

Only retelling what I was told. They deal with this sort of 'popular' advice on a daily basis from the amateur tax experts who stalk the InterWeb

[scottycelt]

If the only income I have is taxed at source I am not required to complete a tax return, so I'm not sure where blame comes into it.

Are you suggesting I complete one as a work of supererogation?

I don't think HMRC would thank me for my pains.

All I'm saying is that if you were entitled to a benefit and couldn't be bothered providing HMRC with your correct details if so required well it would be entirely your fault if you didn't receive the benefit.

Seems rather obvious to me but then I'm only a simple 'layperson' with no imagination ... :smile:

[jean]

All I'm saying is that if you were entitled to a benefit and couldn't be bothered providing HMRC with your correct details if so required well it would be entirely your fault if you didn't receive the benefit.

How many times?

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.

Seems rather obvious to me but then I'm only a simple 'layperson' with no imagination ... :smile:

Too right!

[Sydney Grew]

. . . Road tax alone would be c. £0.61 per day, insurance some £2.20 per day and MOT some £0.12 per day . . .

Sorry but that cries out for correction. Insurance - if the canny pensioner shops around - can be £175 per year for a C class, which being divided by 365 yields £0.48 (just 48 new pance) per day. If you are quoted £650 per annum just say no and toddle along to the next insurance company.

[ahinton]

Sorry but that cries out for correction. Insurance - if the canny pensioner shops around - can be £175 per year for a C class, which being divided by 365 yields £0.48 (just 48 new pance) per day. If you are quoted £650 per annum just say no and toddle along to the next insurance company.

I've never encountered so cheap a quotation to insure such a vehicle but that's neither here nor there in the greater scheme of things. You've still not confirmed whether what you mean by an "ordinary" pension is state retirement benefit but, if it is, it's way too low for anyone to manage on for a whole raft of reasons. And what are "new pance"; does one wear them?

[MrGongGong]

I wonder what happened to the wonderful "all in it together" community spirit that so many folks of my parents generation seem to think has somehow vanished from the UK ?

If this was really was widespread as folk seem to think then we would have vast numbers (and I know some do ! ) of relatively well off retired people giving their winter fuel allowance to someone who really needs it while (and this applies to my retired folks) they enjoy 3 months in Spain while still getting the money.

What is worrying is the growing gap , not that some folks happened to be born at the "right" time (too young to fight in WW2, a period of stable employment, benefitting from the rise in the value of property that they were lucky to be able to buy when it was cheap etc etc ), but that some folks have a retirement of endless holidays while others struggle with basic living.

Given that those with the most aren't likely to share what they have, in spite of what the Dave and chums suggest , and given that they no longer have the threat of eternal damnation to bully them into being a bit more generous (and this ISN'T everyone I know !!!) then I guess that Tax is the only way to try and make things a little more equitable.

[ahinton]

I wonder what happened to the wonderful "all in it together" community spirit that so many folks of my parents generation seem to think has somehow vanished from the UK ?

If this was really was widespread as folk seem to think then we would have vast numbers (and I know some do ! ) of relatively well off retired people giving their winter fuel allowance to someone who really needs it while (and this applies to my retired folks) they enjoy 3 months in Spain while still getting the money.

What is worrying is the growing gap , not that some folks happened to be born at the "right" time (too young to fight in WW2, a period of stable employment, benefitting from the rise in the value of property that they were lucky to be able to buy when it was cheap etc etc ), but that some folks have a retirement of endless holidays while others struggle with basic living.

Given that those with the most aren't likely to share what they have, in spite of what the Dave and chums suggest , and given that they no longer have the threat of eternal damnation to bully them into being a bit more generous (and this ISN'T everyone I know !!!) then I guess that Tax is the only way to try and make things a little more equitable.

Good points all, except that I don't think that changing the tax system to try to deal with this will be effective, not so much because the well off will find ways around increased tax burdens or leave the country altogether but more because any extra tax taken will almost certainly not get allocated to those who need that help.

[MrGongGong]

Goodponts all, except that I don't think that changing the tax system to try to deal with this will be effective, not so much because the well off will find ways around increased tax burdens or leave the country altogether but more because any extra tax taken will almost certainly not get allocated to those who need that help.

Indeed more rules are rarely the solution to these things.
But I don't see that appealing to folks better nature will work given that many of these folks (good job my father doesn't read this stuff !!) are those who loved the whole Thatcherite gig and see anyone with less as simply those who were foolish or unwise.

We are only temporarily "able bodied"

[ahinton]

Indeed more rules are rarely the solution to these things.
But I don't see that appealing to folks better nature will work given that many of these folks (good job my father doesn't read this stuff !!) are those who loved the whole Thatcherite gig and see anyone with less as simply those who were foolish or unwise.

Yes, that's more like it. I do know that there are people who have no need of the winter fuel allowance who've tried to return it without success and who have decided instead to donate the amounts to relevant charities.

[Sydney Grew]

Yes, too many people work at jobs that they'd far rather do without and in which they are unhappy - there's no defending that, in principle, of course - but what else would they do unless they can find sufficiently well paid work that they enjoy? How would they support themselves otherwise. It's an unpleasant truth, to be sure, but you've not offered any viable alternative. That said, as I observed earlier, if no one did any work, society would collapse; how else would it support itself?

Let us take the liberty of rewording that argument in a very small way:

Yes, too many people work as slaves, which they'd far rather not do and where they are unhappy - there's no defending that, in principle, of course - but what else would they do unless they can find some other form of slavery that they enjoy? How would they survive otherwise? It's an unpleasant truth, to be sure, but are there any viable alternatives? That said, as I observed earlier, if there were no slaves, society would collapse; how else would it support itself?

Does this not at once shew that the concept of "work" is no more defensible than the concept of "slavery"? It seems obvious to me. 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. It robs - yes robs - "workers" of more than half their life-time, and contrary to what is often claimed by capitalists, there are alternatives.