Tax to repay - Child Benefit
Discussion
Bullett said:
russ_a said:
If you earn above £50k and receive child benefit then I thought you had to complete a self assessment.
Nope. You can just opt out of receiving it.Obviously, the government were hoping that, rather than go through the hassle of completing a Self Assessment tax return, people would ask for Child Benefit to be stopped - even if they were entitled to it.
The other problem that has cropped up is that some people HAVE asked for the Child Benefit to be stopped - which it has - only for it to recommence again automatically. So even getting it stopped may not work.
Nick Grant said:
I've been caught on this too, wife got the benefit payed to her I forgot about it, didn't put it on my return as I had never even seen it or knew how much it was. Now a letter has come through. This is the first time in my working life that my tax return has had to refect something that someone else got, bizarre. Wife doesn't work.
It's something we discussed when the change came in a year or so ago.The benefit is paid directly to her.
She (potentially) has no idea what I earn, and I (potentially) have no idea what benefits she claims. Both parties can refuse to legitimately volunteer the information.
Also, I can ask that she decline the benefit, she can tell me that she has done so but then not actually do it. My tax returns are now wrong.
Corpulent Tosser said:
Alex said:
Means-tested benefits are evil.
Care to explain why you think that ?Privacy: Government pen-pushers must pry into our affairs.
Means testing always creates anomalies: E.g. pensioners who have saved have to sell their house to pay for care; pensioners who spent and did not save get free care. Couple with a combined income of £99k receive child benefit; couple with single earner on £60k do not etc.
Disincentive: If benefits are removed as people earn by working, why work? If people lose benefits because they have savings, why save?
Cost: The bureaucracy required for means-testing often costs more than is saved.
If a benefit is just, give it to all. Those who "don't need" it, will have already paid into the system many times over.
sidicks said:
Maxf said:
Most people I know on that or a fair bit more don't do self assessment!
No wonder we have such a massive deficit....I have been doing returns for quite some time now as income is right on the line. I've found it worthwhile as I seem to get a nice cheque back most years.
miniman said:
It's laughable that in this day and age the state expects people to make their own judgement as to whether they need to fill out a tax return, and then penalise them if they get that decision wrong.
The tax code should be simplified so that self-assessment is no longer required.Conversely, the tax code might be simplified by getting far more people to complete tax returns.
Most of my problems during Self Assessment season this year have been caused by people who largely pay tax under PAYE but also need to complete SA returns.
It's the combination of the two that makes life very complex.
Most of my problems during Self Assessment season this year have been caused by people who largely pay tax under PAYE but also need to complete SA returns.
It's the combination of the two that makes life very complex.
Alex said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
Alex said:
Means-tested benefits are evil.
Care to explain why you think that ?Privacy: Government pen-pushers must pry into our affairs.
Means testing always creates anomalies: E.g. pensioners who have saved have to sell their house to pay for care; pensioners who spent and did not save get free care. Couple with a combined income of £99k receive child benefit; couple with single earner on £60k do not etc.
Disincentive: If benefits are removed as people earn by working, why work? If people lose benefits because they have savings, why save?
Cost: The bureaucracy required for means-testing often costs more than is saved.
If a benefit is just, give it to all. Those who "don't need" it, will have already paid into the system many times over.
It may make it difficult to administer, though with the access HMRC have to our details I don't see why it should be.
The only point I agree with is that it is stupid to give child benefit to a couple earning a joint 99K but not to a couple with a single earner of 61K.
My own view on child benefit is that it should only be given to people who need it, not acrcoss the board.
Corpulent Tosser said:
My own view on child benefit is that it should only be given to people who need it, not acrcoss the board.
And how do you assess "need"? The simplest method is to base need on income levels and/or savings - which attracts massive criticism - as seen above.And even then, that can be messy, as indicated by this thread.
Any other attempts to assess need based on other criteria is an even more complicated affair.
So am I right in thinking that HMRC wrote to all who were going to be affected when the change was implemented?
Is this an ongoing thing, are they currently identifying people with incomes who have increased to over £50k and who claim child benefit to let them know that they will not be entitled to it?
My point is that child benefit is paid for up to 16 or 18 normally so whilst they may have changed the forms for new parents signing up how are parents who earned less than £50k when the tax was introduced but now exceed it supposed to know that this tax exists? Changing the rules but not notifying people who potentially could be affected in the future, especially those who have never completed Self Assessments before, doesn't seem right so surely everyone receiving CB should have been notified of the change?
Is this an ongoing thing, are they currently identifying people with incomes who have increased to over £50k and who claim child benefit to let them know that they will not be entitled to it?
My point is that child benefit is paid for up to 16 or 18 normally so whilst they may have changed the forms for new parents signing up how are parents who earned less than £50k when the tax was introduced but now exceed it supposed to know that this tax exists? Changing the rules but not notifying people who potentially could be affected in the future, especially those who have never completed Self Assessments before, doesn't seem right so surely everyone receiving CB should have been notified of the change?
An example from another thread:
Jonleeper said:
Unfortunately it’s worse than that, and one of my favourite soapboxes so you are warned. Before I married SWMBO she was entitled to, and claiming, incapacity benefit & Housing benefit. When we married and moved in together she was then told that she could no longer claim either of these as I earned more than £17,500. She was unable to claim JSA as she is unable to actively seek work, if she works she ends up in hospital within a month, so basically the state said “sod off and live off your husband”! She could have gone back to the Dr and got him to declare her “disabled” but she didn’t believe that she really was and didn’t want to milk the disabled system. We have since enquired a couple of times about what she might be entitled to but been told the same things. About 4 years ago we bought our own house and I weekly(ish) commute to a rented house near my work. She went into the CSA to ask if there was any state help available and was told that what she needed to do was declare us separated and then she could claim housing benefit and income support. As I was genuinely living away most of the time even if they bothered to check it would show up that I was not there so we would be ok. So the advice was to lie to the Government to get some help. Needless to say we didn’t follow that advice and she, effectively, still lives off me.
Eric Mc said:
And how do you assess "need"? The simplest method is to base need on income levels and/or savings - which attracts massive criticism - as seen above.
I agree with you "need" is difficult to assess but common sense would suggest that linking benefits to the average wage ought to be considered. My view is if you are doing above average you shouldn't need support as the chances are you got to your above average position by having the intelligence to understand living within your means, savings and being aware that your life situation may change. Or am I giving 'most' people too much credit here? As I see it if you are on £50k a year but desperately need the additional circa £1700pa of child benefit (based on 2children) then you need to get a grip of your finances! (not suggesting the OP is doing this!!!)
aka_kerrly said:
Or am I giving 'most' people too much credit here? As I see it if you are on £50k a year but desperately need the additional circa £1700pa of child benefit (based on 2children) then you need to get a grip of your finances! (not suggesting the OP is doing this!!!)
Child benefit replaced the old child tax allowance, which is why many opposed means testing of this benefit.Why should you get a £10K tax allowance as an individual but nothing to reflect the fact you have children to support?
You should have got a letter last year asking if you wanted to opt out in adance
I dont have a problem with not getting it.
I have a huge problem with the fact that a household with 2 people, each earning 49,999 PA still get it, whereas a household with one higher earner (but a lower household income) dont.
I dont have a problem with not getting it.
I have a huge problem with the fact that a household with 2 people, each earning 49,999 PA still get it, whereas a household with one higher earner (but a lower household income) dont.
JagLover said:
Why should you get a £10K tax allowance as an individual but nothing to reflect the fact you have children to support?
There are dozens, if not 100s, of anomalies like this, which is why we should wipe the slate clean and start again. Single out-of-work benefit. Single in-work income tax.
Eric Mc said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
My own view on child benefit is that it should only be given to people who need it, not acrcoss the board.
And how do you assess "need"? The simplest method is to base need on income levels and/or savings - which attracts massive criticism - as seen above.And even then, that can be messy, as indicated by this thread.
Any other attempts to assess need based on other criteria is an even more complicated affair.
2 incomes of 45k, total income 90k, receive child benefit
1 income of 61k, no chid benefit
Mother moves in with somebody who earns 61k, she loses CB, even though kids are not his.
Husband goes non-Res, so pays no tax, wife now eligible for CB.
It all smacks of yet another ill thought out scheme, just like the removal of personal allowances. We now have system where real marginal tax rates are up & down like a w
es drawers, tax returns are not straight forward, tax codings all over the place, more & more people needing to do tax returns, more complexity, more honest mistakes. Rude-boy said:
sidicks said:
Maxf said:
Most people I know on that or a fair bit more don't do self assessment!
No wonder we have such a massive deficit....I have been doing returns for quite some time now as income is right on the line. I've found it worthwhile as I seem to get a nice cheque back most years.
I cannot believe there are so many people out there earning £50k+ that have zero dividend or bank account interest. Massive tax evasion I suspect. Not in individual quantities, but in sheer volume of people doing it.
Mr E said:
Nick Grant said:
I've been caught on this too, wife got the benefit payed to her I forgot about it, didn't put it on my return as I had never even seen it or knew how much it was. Now a letter has come through. This is the first time in my working life that my tax return has had to refect something that someone else got, bizarre. Wife doesn't work.
It's something we discussed when the change came in a year or so ago.The benefit is paid directly to her.
She (potentially) has no idea what I earn, and I (potentially) have no idea what benefits she claims. Both parties can refuse to legitimately volunteer the information.
Also, I can ask that she decline the benefit, she can tell me that she has done so but then not actually do it. My tax returns are now wrong.
And for those that try and use such flimsy excuses to cheat the system, the tax office picks it up as they did with the OP.
So all bases seem to be covered. Apart from people in the top 2 deciles of uk inome whingeing about not receiving a benefit designed to ensure children could be fed and weren't forced to work
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff