Tax to repay - Child Benefit
Discussion
oyster said:
I truly do not understand why HMRC allow ANY 40%+ taxpayers to avoid doing a tax return.
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.
They don't really "allow" it, do they?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.
It's the individual's responsibility to ensure they pay the correct amount of tax - HMRC should be more proactive at chasing up tax returns from higher rate taxpayers...
JustAnotherLogin said:
If you can't even trust each other enough to tell each other what you earn/receive and cooperate to fill in your returns- then you shouldn't really be raising a child together.
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
I missed the bit where I said I wasn't going to pay it? I am very lucky to have a well paid job that means we don't have to watch every penny, this comes with the side effect of not having to discuss and account for every penny with my wife. This is a completeley new way of SA working and it caught me out so I didn't complete it correctly that is all. What this has to do with our ability as parents is beyond me and you are wrong to suggest otherwise. 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
oyster said:
I truly do not understand why HMRC allow ANY 40%+ taxpayers to avoid doing a tax return.
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.
Highly likely.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.
I am one of the difficult ones with 2 x PAYE incomes and one freelance job I do for a few days each year. In addition to this (in keeping with PH) I am a company Director and so have to fill out a Return because of that.
I have flirted with the 40% for a while now and although I do not have much in terms of savings income it has been the difference between bands on two occasions.
I am sure that there are many thousands of people out there who are underpaying tax by between £100-£500 every single year. Just as likely though are that there are almost as many paying more tax (or not getting the refunds they would) so perhaps it is one of those deminimis things as one writes off the other and the cost of collecting any small extra outweighs that extra.
In some ways I think that there should be a tolerance built into the system, but harsher penalties for those that chose to sail close to the wind and get it wrong. IE it is found that you have paid up to £100 too little you get a nice letter and are asked to be more careful next year. You underpay by £103 and you get a s
tty letter and have to repay double (so £206) within 1 calendar month.Nick Grant said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
If you can't even trust each other enough to tell each other what you earn/receive and cooperate to fill in your returns- then you shouldn't really be raising a child together.
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
I missed the bit where I said I wasn't going to pay it? I am very lucky to have a well paid job that means we don't have to watch every penny, this comes with the side effect of not having to discuss and account for every penny with my wife. This is a completeley new way of SA working and it caught me out so I didn't complete it correctly that is all. What this has to do with our ability as parents is beyond me and you are wrong to suggest otherwise. 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
JustAnotherLogin said:
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
Not quite all bases covered.Couple 1 has 2 earners and children, who both have salaries of £50k.
Couple 2 has 1 earner and children, the earner has a salary of £60k.
Couple 1's take home pay is £72,283
Couple 2's take home pay is £41,941
Guess which couple gets child benefit?
Alex said:
True, but that is not the point.
No true at all, we trust each other with money to the point where it never gets really gets discussed unless for a large purchase. And I'm not even talking about earning six figures. She fills in a SA to pay her NI, I thought it would go on there, HMRC have now confirmed to me it needs to go on the higher earners SA. I was not aware, my fault, but I think it is a stupid system. oyster said:
I truly do not understand why HMRC allow ANY 40%+ taxpayers to avoid doing a tax return.
Why just 40% taxpayers? Why not all taxpayers?I spend most of my money, big mortgage, nursery/school fees & other bills. Any spare money goes into an ISA. I don't do self assessment because I don't need to.
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.
If people have kids it is their choice, their responsibility.
Scrap child benefit, problem solved.
oyster said:
I truly do not understand why HMRC allow ANY 40%+ taxpayers to avoid doing a tax return.
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.
Really?? I'd say there are substantial numbers in this category with little if any by way of savings, never mind shares paying dividends. Those that do will use tax free vehicles. Look at ISA allowances if you want shares or even cash ISA's. Any cash amounts I have go against an offset mortgage, so no interest. Many in the 50k plus category are probably struggling to keep pace with credit card bills never mind save. 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.
Here's a question....
40% tax payer close to the £50k threshold but under it.
Has company car (with fuel included).
Tax coding already adjusted to reflect the BIK of the car and fuel.
Does this mean the individual is under or over the £50k threshold for receiving CB?
Said person's wife is a 20% tax payer.....
40% tax payer close to the £50k threshold but under it.
Has company car (with fuel included).
Tax coding already adjusted to reflect the BIK of the car and fuel.
Does this mean the individual is under or over the £50k threshold for receiving CB?
Said person's wife is a 20% tax payer.....
wobert said:
Here's a question....
40% tax payer close to the £50k threshold but under it.
Has company car (with fuel included).
Tax coding already adjusted to reflect the BIK of the car and fuel.
Does this mean the individual is under or over the £50k threshold for receiving CB?
Said person's wife is a 20% tax payer.....
Benefits in Kind are not included in measuring the Child Benefit £50,000 - £60,000 thresholds.40% tax payer close to the £50k threshold but under it.
Has company car (with fuel included).
Tax coding already adjusted to reflect the BIK of the car and fuel.
Does this mean the individual is under or over the £50k threshold for receiving CB?
Said person's wife is a 20% tax payer.....
Conversely, pension contributions made by the taxpayer CAN be used to bring the assessable amount down below the thresholds. For instance, an individual with a gross salary of £55,000 would lose half the Child Benefit.
If they made a lump sum contribution to a pension of £5,001 their assessable gross salary would drop to £49,999 and they would lose no child benefit - as well as getting Higher Rate tax relief on the contribution..
Corpulent Tosser said:
Actually I change my mind regarding child benefit should only be given to those who need it - No-one should get it.
If people have kids it is their choice, their responsibility.
Scrap child benefit, problem solved.
Tend to agree with this sentiment. The problem is that having kids is not cheap and so there would always need to be some form of 'safety net' to protect children whose parents rely totally on the state for their income. I can't see how benefit system wouldn't somehow be linked to the number of children in a state-reliant family. This would continue to allow those existing solely on benefits to breed freely while some low and middle earners would be essentially priced out of the market.If people have kids it is their choice, their responsibility.
Scrap child benefit, problem solved.
I m fully in favour of safety nets, and that is what the welfare system was at its inception, not the lifestyle choice it has become for some - but that is another rant for another day.
If a family with kids requires a leg up then they should get it, but I am opposed to a blanket child benefit.
If a family with kids requires a leg up then they should get it, but I am opposed to a blanket child benefit.
Nick Grant said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
If you can't even trust each other enough to tell each other what you earn/receive and cooperate to fill in your returns- then you shouldn't really be raising a child together.
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
I missed the bit where I said I wasn't going to pay it? I am very lucky to have a well paid job that means we don't have to watch every penny, this comes with the side effect of not having to discuss and account for every penny with my wife. This is a completeley new way of SA working and it caught me out so I didn't complete it correctly that is all. What this has to do with our ability as parents is beyond me and you are wrong to suggest otherwise. 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