We recently did this I know but I'm just after some clarification.
I believe it wasn't a universal payment after 2013, if you earnt over 50k it was reduced if over 60k you got nothing.
There is talk of doing a tax return if earning over 50k, why is this necessary if you are paye? Is it purely to fess up to your Mrs receiving child benefit?
If you've been earning that for the last 4 years and never really thought anything of it are you going to get dry humped prison stylee by the taxman.
Would it have been coded in yo your tax code without realising (vain hope).
I earn over the threshold but my wife is part time so doesn't, she was receiving the payments for a year before we called and stopped them, I had to pay it all back. HMRC will allow you to get the payments and pay back, bit of an interest free loan. It is one of these things where it is individual earnings, not joint, so if you both earn £50k you can receive the full amount but if one earns £60k and the other £0 then you receive none of it.
There is talk of doing a tax return if earning over 50k, why is this necessary if you are paye? Is it purely to fess up to your Mrs receiving child benefit?
Yip - you have two choices do a SA or ask them to stop paying the benefit
If you’ve been earning that for the last 4 years and never really thought anything of it are you going to get dry humped prison stylee by the taxman.
Absolutely, he will be looking for the amount you have not paid, plus penalties, plus interest. The penalties are slightly better if you volunteer the problem than them discovering it. You can argue the toss but unless you are prepared to take it to court HMRC won't back down or ever admit that any part of the system is either stupid, not working properly or that they are at fault. There is some case law that they will (mis)quote and which may make the argument at tribunal harder anyway.
Would it have been coded in yo your tax code without realising (vain hope).
No the only way they know is if you have done a SA.
A friend of mine " ahem" ,recently found out the law changed in 2012 and if you earn over £50k and claim child benefit , you have to fill out a tax return.
Lots of long term PAYE folk have been caught out and are currently paying back the fines and interest! My friend was recently advised by a HMRC bod to appeal the decision on the grounds of lack of awareness of the change in law.
To complete the return a P60 is required and the amount of child benefit received...which could be argued ,is all information the HMRC have already got.
Give them a call - far easier than the bloody government gateway.....which makes this place look like Microsoft homepage.
HMRC will allow you to get the payments and pay back, bit of an interest free loan.
They told me to do one and had to pay it back in one, I also don’t earn £50k but they say I still owed it.
No it's not coded into your tax code, such a thing would be too common sense for HMRC. However it was fairly widely publicised at the time.
Just got my P60 and this is the first time I have earnt over £50k (only just over at £51k). I need to check pension deductions but according to the calculator (which may take it back under £50k) if that is the post-pension deductions figure then I need to pay £118. P60 is at home so cant confirm this until tonight.
So if it is over £50k after pension deductions then I need to complete a tax return this year for the 2018/2018 tax year?
Thanks
stupid and confusing rules.
you pay back if you earn over 50k after certain pre tax deductions, like pension and c2w.
unless you have a separate pension to your employer just use the figure on your p60 as it should be right.....at least that what I have been doing so fingers crossed I'm right...
I think the advantage of doing SA and still receiving the child benefit is that it allows your partner to continue to build NI credits.
SA is pretty easy once you’ve done your first one. If you don’t have any other stuff to put in the assessment it’s literally a 5 minute job to put in your p60 figures and the benefit received.
As above it was fairly well publicised at the time. Worth arguing with HMRC on some things, but probably not this!
oh yea income from other sources needs to be included too, I think there is a £1k savings allowance which for us is plenty. Things like profit from renting etc...needs to be on SA
I think the advantage of doing SA and still receiving the child benefit is that it allows your partner to continue to build NI credits.
There is an option with HMRC where you can declare you don't want the child benefit, but your non-working spouse still wants the NI credits. Thus avoiding the need to do an SA. This is what we do, as my wife doesn't work, and I'm above the threshold for getting anything.
If you earn just above the threshold it may well be worth adding more into your pension via salary sacrifice (or child tax vouchers if you are in a scheme already)
It really is shit that a joint income couple can drag in £99998 a year and claim it all but a couple who earn say £65000 get nothing! What kind of shit maths is that!
I'm afraid HMRC are taking great delight in dry-humping people for this. We were aware of the change in the Tax Credit system, because they withdrew the payment...but the child benefit stuff passed us by. As above, prepare for the taxman to lick his lips and ask for the money back, plus interest, plus fine.
However it was fairly widely publicised at the time.
Certainly didn't reach us suckers, who naively thought that if we weren't entitled to a benefit, the government would simply stop paying it to us...I'm surprised they didn't, as a minimum, write to all recipients of CB to warn them of the changes.
So fess up, and get ready to do at least one full SA return, presumably for 2017/18 in your case.
its like 2013 all over again.
blame osborne, was his shit idea.
It really is shit that a joint income couple can drag in £99998 a year and claim it all but a couple who earn say £65000 get nothing! What kind of shit maths is that!
Exactly the same maths that says a couple with a combined income of £99998 will pay less tax than a single person earning the same. This sort of "inequity" is riddled throughout the tax system so you're hardly being singled out.
As has been said, self assessment really isn't that difficult and there are plenty of other reasons why as a higher rate tax payer that you should want to complete one.
e.g. getting the correct tax relief on pensions, gift aid etc.
Urgh, just checked my P60. And now registered for SA.
Echo the comments above about a single wage being over the threshold. Its proper crap.
I've just rang "the man" and fessed up. Do SA now and I have got till 31st Jan to pay up the full amount.
Really helpful person who I spoke to to be fair. However I had a chat off the record and she said if I knew of anyone in the same boat it was worth telling them to call them, before they call you. Their stance at the minute is one of reasonable leniency, as they are aware there are many people on paye and over the threshold who have no clue, they are also not intent on dumping 8k immediate demands on people and are trying to be "helpful" with repayment plans.
They have set up a "new team" to deal with this problem and are looking in to all earners over 50k then subsequently sending out the letters of doom!
There must be others just on here who have no idea either.
Remember to include any charitable donations where you signed up to Gift Aid as you're due a rebate on those (Gift Aid means the charity gets Basic Rate tax added to your donation, but you can claim the difference between Basic and your marginal rate on your self assessment form). Of course, you did keep those records for a year when you didn't expect to need them. If you're marginally over the £50k threshold, that could tip you back to no additional tax. Oh, and don't forget your p11d, if you have any non-payroll stuff (car, health care etc) - here we have to wait until July for that.
Gotta say that I can't believe people who say they were unaware of the change. It's been all over everywhere for years. How can you be bright/hardworking/productive/organised enough to be pulling in Fifty something thousand pounds a year whilst raising a family and not know that this is a thing?
So if it is over £50k after pension deductions then I need to complete a tax return this year for the 2018/2018 tax year?
Probably depends on how your pension is deduced. We use salary sacrifice at work, which means it comes off the gross and the tax man never sees it, nor does it appear on pay slips or P60s. So you can earn £90k, pay £40k into a pension and only earn £50k as far as HMRC is concerned. If the pension deductions appear on your pay slip, then it will appear on your P60, so be counted as part of your salary.
It's not being unaware of the change. In my case a few pay increases and bonus was enough. OK so I should have remembered but I'm not the only one to forget.I had to repay it,do a SA for last year. We don't get CB any more so I asked to go back to PAYE, which has been agreed.
I'm just about to register for all this for the first time as the little man arrived 3 weeks ago. The bit that no-one seems to be able to tell me is whether i need to declare the bonus i have earnt each year? Its not guaranteed so do i need to declare it, or is it all based off your P60?
I was aware of the changes what I was not aware of is the PAYE does not cover this.
Is it just married couples? What about cohabitees? My other half gets CB (which she puts into a child ISA for her daughter) I don’t claim it for my boys, because their mother gets it as the resident parent. If I crept over £50k, would it effect either CB claim?
I’ve just rang “the man” and fessed up. Do SA now and I have got till 31st Jan to pay up the full amount.
Really helpful person who I spoke to to be fair. However I had a chat off the record and she said if I knew of anyone in the same boat it was worth telling them to call them, before they call you. Their stance at the minute is one of reasonable leniency, as they are aware there are many people on paye and over the threshold who have no clue, they are also not intent on dumping 8k immediate demands on people and are trying to be “helpful” with repayment plans.
They have set up a “new team” to deal with this problem and are looking in to all earners over 50k then subsequently sending out the letters of doom!
There must be others just on here who have no idea either.
Yeah, despite what some call 'widely publicised at the time' if you are PAYE then widely publicised is a bit like saying that there will be a bad storm in Manila this week or the hunting season for turkey's in Connecticut is going to be delayed a week this year. You don't live in Manila or hunt turkey in Connecticut ... or presumably know the intricacies of hunting them or that this might have any impact on your life or require attention. Probably most importantly you might not realise that hunting turkey is compulsory for all people in the state on the opening of the season including visitors and you were going to be landing there that very day to get a domestic flight somewhere they don't hunt turkeys... (I don't think it is.. its just an example)... Moreover I think the whole idea of self-assessement for those who have never done it is or can be as scary as being told your going to be handed a loaded shotgun...
The HMRC seem to get this... at least the nice chap I spoke to.
I’m just about to register for all this for the first time as the little man arrived 3 weeks ago. The bit that no-one seems to be able to tell me is whether i need to declare the bonus i have earnt each year? Its not guaranteed so do i need to declare it, or is it all based off your P60?
your bonus is earnt income. so yes. it'll be based off your P60 so done in retrospect.
It really is shit that a joint income couple can drag in £99998 a year and claim it all but a couple who earn say £65000 get nothing! What kind of shit maths is that!
Echo the comments above about a single wage being over the threshold. Its proper crap.
Why is it so often the people with the most that are moaning and grabbing to get even more?
Surely the correct response in this case is to be happy and pleased that you're earning stacks of money and no longer need a government hand out that poorer people may rely on.
But no, they're whining about the fact that there's people earning even more money than them in an even more priveliged position.
Really ...
looking in to all earners over 50k then subsequently sending out the letters of doom!
won't affect me then being poorly paid PS worker.
😁
Why is it so often the people with the most that are moaning and grabbing to get even more?
Surely the correct response in this case is to be happy and pleased that you’re earning stacks of money and no longer need a government hand out that poorer people may rely on.
But no, they’re whining about the fact that there’s people earning even more money than them in an even more priveliged position.
Really …
House A:
one person in a household works full time and earns 60k. They lose all child benefits.
House B:
both work part time, one earns 40k and the other 20k. They keep all child benefits.
its a poorly thought out and poorly implemented system. as shown by the fact that a number of people are getting caught out nearly five years after it was implemented.
Gotta say that I can’t believe people who say they were unaware of the change. It’s been all over everywhere for years. How can you be bright/hardworking/productive/organised enough to be pulling in Fifty something thousand pounds a year whilst raising a family and not know that this is a thing?
Because:
1. The media coverage (which was directly quoting the chancellor) said "child benefit would be withdrawn to those earning over the threshold" not "we will introduce a new tax for those earning over the limit and receiving CB.
2. HMRC helpfully wrote to lots of, but not all affected people warning them in advance.
3. If your only dealing with HMRC is as a PAYE employee and standard simple tax affairs then you probably have no reason to go looking for reasons to do a SA.
4. Not sure where you consider "all over everywhere" to be - but I've certainly not seen anything - perhaps they focussed the alleged advertising campaign on the SE where everyone is rolling in it.
5. If you were earning < 50k (especially if it was a lot less) when the rules changed they didn't apply to you and you'd have no reason to make further enquiries.
6. If you don't directly receive the benefit (the legislation makes the highest earner not the recipient liable) then you may well not have realised that they had not withdrawn the benefit as implied (and in some cases the partner may not know the higher earner is above the threshold).
7. HMRC didn't write to people or expect employers to alert people when their earnings changed to >50k.
Our accountant is going to do my SA for me and try and squeeze a bit back.
As regards bonus it doesn't matter, it's still earnings and is basically what took me over. We are still going to claim it firstly because my bonus is not guaranteed and secondly because it goes towards my wife's national insurance contributions and therefore could affect her future pensions if we cancel it.
As for thegeneralist's "awesomeness" comments I'm just a thick builder who genuinely thought the paye bit that's mentioned on my wage slip eveey month took off me what i owed!!
Is it just married couples
Nope.cohabitees affected too. So your income will preclude your current woman from getting it
the generalist:
Nope.cohabitees affected too. So your income will preclude your current woman from getting it
No it won't - it will mean if she (the partner he lives with) continues to claim (i.e. does nothing) HE will become liable for a tax charge (assuming he is the higher earner).
Jam no
House A:
one person in a household works full time and earns 60k. ....
House B:
both work part time, one earns 40k and the other 20k. They keep all child benefits.
its a poorly thought out and poorly implemented system
Yes it's poorly thought out, but my point still stands that why are these people on 60 grand a year moaning about how bad they have it when in fact they are doing pretty well.
I reply to poly. Yes I guess you're correct. I should have written "should preclude rather than "will preclude ie you would take steps to stop her claiming.
House A:
one person in a household works full time and earns 60k. ….
House B:
both work part time, one earns 40k and the other 20k.
Never mind the child benefit Household B is taking home about 5k a year more than Household A.
I remember these arguments about how "unfair" it was way back when it was first introduced. As far as I can tell the only way to make it "fair" for everyone is to either pay it to everyone regardless of income or pay it to no one.
The tax system isn't "fair" as to do so would be impossible. Get over it.
I’m just a thick builder who genuinely thought the paye bit that’s mentioned on my wage slip eveey month took off me what i owed!!
I would advise everyone to never assume that that is the case. HMRC rely on people telling them what they need to know including when circumstances change and for your PAYE to deduct the correct amount the correct code needs to be applied and it is your responsibility not HMRCs or your employers to make sure that that is correct.
No it’s not coded into your tax code
Oh yes it is, if you complete SA each year before the end of Dec.
The generalist- just because someone earns a salary >£50k doesn't mean they are tax experts. I've worked at a private air charter company where maintenance staff and pilots earned well in excess of that. They may have been good at mending Learjets and flying them but didn't have a clue about tax.
As the bulk of taxpayers are PAYE, HMRC get P60s and P11ds so know what we earn.
When it suits them they can be joined up with different sets of data.
For example a mate works for a construction company who pay their subbies under CIS. When they pay subbies, CIS tax is deducted. HMRC ran a check on all the subbies their company paid and then looked at who paid these subbies. There were a few cases where 100% of a subbies income was with the one company. Thus HMRC questioned if they should be employees or not.
If they can put 2 & 2 together here, it would have been logical for them to send letters or SA forms for anyone who's P60 was over £50k.
Agree with gonefishing
Exactly. In retrospect it's a naive assumption to make, as it relies on competence by either the government or HMRC, but to set up a system like PAYE and then randomly rip it up and force people into self-assessment to claw back money that should never have been handed over in the first place is just bizarre.
We can put up with CB being means tested, but they need to do that at source using the same method they used to stop paying me Child Tax Credit, which seemed efficient enough at the time. When salary rose above a certain level, they just stopped giving us the money. Crazy idea...
And as for the sliding scale of losing the cash between 50K and 60K, FFS just decide on a cut-off, and stick to it, rather than adding another layer of complexity.
There may have been a bit of publicity at the time, but the salary was not above the threshold at that time, and no additional communication was forthcoming when it did rise above 50K a couple of tax years later.
More cynically-minded people might think that HMRC are more interested in the fines. Wonder if there is a nice target for this additional source of revenue?
They recently had a red diesel court case thrown out due to HMRC incompetence so must be looking elsewhere to recover. How much CB will they claw back compared to Starbuck's and Vodafone's special tax deals?
I have no beef with the principle of reduced/no CB for high earners. But the system is definitely shite, as documented by the numerous examples above. It’s either a deliberate trap to garner extra income from fines, or more likely a badly thought out and implemented political headline policy. Hard to understand quite why they made it so obtuse though.
No it won’t – it will mean if she (the partner he lives with) continues to claim (i.e. does nothing) HE will become liable for a tax charge (assuming he is the higher earner).
Understood. Just out of academic interest, what would the case be if two adults were living together as friends, or in a landlord-lodger situation? Or two women sharing living costs? How about a loveless but basically amicable couple that stay together out of inertia and for the kids sake, but both see other people? Seems like a massively grey area to me. What defines whether one individuals situation has an impact on the others tax liability? Seems a bit shit to me.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">
<div class="bbp-author-role">thegeneralist</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Yes it’s poorly thought out, but my point still stands that why are these people on 60 grand a year moaning about how bad they have it when in fact they are doing pretty well.
I reply to poly. Yes I guess you’re correct. I should have written “should preclude rather than “will preclude ie you would take steps to stop her claiming.
</div>
Most people, including myself, aren't moaning that we should have the money. As you rightly point out, people with incomes over 60k shouldn't need it.
We're moaning that it's unfair that others with the same or greater household income are still eligible for it. To make it fair, it should have been based on household income, and where the household income is greater than 50k it gets tapered off, to zero at 60k.
And as for the sliding scale of losing the cash between 50K and 60K, FFS just decide on a cut-off, and stick to it
But then people would be getting minor pay rises and losing money. Actually, not so minor
But then people would be getting minor pay rises and losing money. Actually, not so minor
Only a little bit.
To quote a wise sage from earlier in the thread, the correct response in this case is to be happy and pleased that you’re earning stacks of money and no longer need a government hand out that poorer people may rely on.
😉
According to our accountant HMRC will be well within their rights to hit people for "100% benefit penalty" in lamens that means paying back double what you shouldn't have received.
The lady at HMRC I spoke to today confirmed this but hinted it wouldn't be the case if people were honest and open. As I say she also mentioned "a team" had been set up to look at all 50k plus earners with children. I've a funny feeling that "team" will easily cover their wages!
As for thegeneralists on going comments about people who earn too much, I don't think I have it hard, I do work hard though, I just feel it's poorly thought out. I wonder if the couple on a joint 90k income will get a bit of nursery fees help too as they both work full time.
the couple on a joint 90k income
Will also be maximising the benefit of their combined tax free allowance, compared to the ‘high earner/non earner’ couples, which I suspect will make the inequity of this child benefit clusterfudge look like pocket change.
We’re moaning that it’s unfair that others with the same or greater household income are still eligible for it. To make it fair, it should have been based on household income, and where the household income is greater than 50k it gets tapered off, to zero at 60k.
Yep, I get that. It just surprises me that your reaction isn't "goodness me, how lucky I am but "its so unfair..."
It's a shame you can't be happy with what you have.
In response to martinhutch: touche ( with the relevant acute/grave obvs)
Another point to people bemoaning the situation for the single high earners is that they would have been way better off in the kids' early years than the couples with 2 similar salaries.
(Doesn't make the CB situation right, but just wanted to add it for balance
To make it fair, it should have been based on household income, and where the household income is greater than 50k it gets tapered off, to zero at 60k.
Everyone (with children) used to get it without any means testing. Then George Osbourne (IIRC) decided they wanted to save some money, so decided to make it means tested. HMRC came back and said doing the means testing properly (per household) would cost more than it would save (a lot more). So they kludged it, knowing all the anomalies (which were discussed at the time).
HMRC really are a bunch of see you next tuesdays'. Fortunately this **** up isn't affecting us.
However, having recently been charged for tax credit overpayments that go back to 2009, despite giving them all accurate information by their deadline each year, they made a mistake and now want to rectify that mistake by demanding payment. First thing we knew about it was a letter from a debt collection agency. How's that for our government selling off their debts to private businesses?!
Trying to talk to HMRC was a waste of everyone's time and their response to letters was virtually non existent.
£2.5k! We have told them we can afford £20/month and now pay by DDI.
Talking to a few people about this and they've been similarly charged and dealt with in the same uncompromising manner. They giveth with one hand... Gideon and the pig ****er need sorting aht, properly.
So for you people now trying to sort this clusterf... out, you have my sympathies. Whilst knowing that they're seemingly trying to claw back the national debt by screwing the individuals who can't afford to contest, be safe in the knowledge that multi-nationals, offshore accounts and foreign 'investors' are duly paying f all.
Sweet eh?
It was a headline grabbing populust policy that was ill thought through aimed at higher rate tax payers who would garner little sympathy from most voters who Osbourne was trying to appeal to. The principle of higher income families not receiving it is absolutely fine, the unfair way it has been done is not, and that applies to tax and benefits in general. As a couple both incomes are taken into account when benefits are assessed to keep benefits down but when it comes to maximising tax the couple is treated as two individuals. If you've entered into contract to be a couple (marriage, civil partnership) the allowances should combined before tax and benefits should be assessed on joint income as it is now.
The argument from Osbourne at the time was it was too difficult to assess using both incomes, which is odd because they were more than able to do it with tax credits. The reality was it was aimed at rich people, households with 2 30k incomes probably don't consider themselves highly paid but a household with a single income of 60k was fair game.
The tax system is riddled with headline grabbing and short term measures, one of the reasons it's so complex and easy to avoid paying what you owe if you can afford an accountant. It needs a proper overhaul but there will be too many middle income (floating voters) negatively impacted who benefit from the current mess so itll never get sorted.
The other daft thing about this charge is that it removes 1% of your child benefit per £100. So depending how many children you have, your effective marginal tax rate varies. In theory, you could have a marginal tax rate exceeding 100%.
My wife is going to be liable for the child benefit charge this year (or rather would be, if we weren't going to put the money in a pension instead to remove the liability). It is effectively another 25% tax on top of the 42%, for a total 67% marginal rate in that 50k-60k band.
Careful grumpysculler. thegeneralist will be along with his humility stick shortly....
jam bo
That made me proper laugh out loud that did.
Yes cretins, be thankful for what the lord has given you. etc
Glad this has come up as I didn't know anything about it having been a long way under the threshold when my wife signed up to child benefit. Turns out I have been liable for the additional tax for the last couple of years but have never checked as my wife organises and gets paid the benefit.
The chap on the phone from HMRC was very good and they are going to adjust the tax code to recover the shortfall for FY 17/18 and waive any fines as I reported it to them. Still stuck doing tax return for the next 18 years though. Well worth phoning them and reporting it before they contact you!
Time to increase pension contributions to knock net salary under the threshold I think.
lots of people I know up their pension contributions, so in dome ways a good thing as forcing people to save more. depends how big your outgoings are and whether you can afford to tie up the cash.
on the flip side when HMRC owed me £10k for a stamp duty refund they took about 10months to get round to it. I asked if I was able to fine them for slow payment, funny enough no.
They pay a decent rate of interest I think?
I have nothing of real relevance to add, but given that this is about kids and many couples end up with one stopping work or going part time, this might be of interest to some:
saves a few hundred quid at least
Be wary of the married tax allowance also as I'm paying that back as well due to bonuses 😆
Depends how big your outgoings are and whether you can afford to tie up the cash.
Aye, but I can up my pension contributions or the government will take it in tax against the child benefit so either way I am going to lose it at the end of every month. One way or the other that money is going to be tied up. Makes more sense to me to increase my pension pot (plus the increased contribution from my employer) than to give it to the government to waste.
My wife is going to be liable for the child benefit charge this year (or rather would be, if we weren’t going to put the money in a pension instead to remove the liability). It is effectively another 25% tax on top of the 42%, for a total 67% marginal rate in that 50k-60k band.
similar things happen as you cross 100k as well (doesn't affect me personally, I'm just well versed) - tax rate is 40%, nat insurance is 1%, you lose an additional 20% of your income due to tapering of your tax free allowance (so 61% tax so far) and you lose the 15hours/week (~£5k's worth) per child of free childcare for 3-4 year olds and tax-free childcare (~£2k per child) the minute you cross the line. if you had twins aged 3 in full-time childcare you'd have to earn £133k to have as much take-home pay after childcare costs as someone on £100k!
The other way to look at this is if you're on £51k and you take 1k in c2w vouchers, that bike has only cost you £330. flog it at the end of the year for £500 (half price for a year old bike) and you're being paid 50p/day to ride a brand new bike 🙂 (depending on how your scheme is audited, you may get a bik of £250, which would mean you only profit £120 instead..)
And as for the sliding scale of losing the cash between 50K and 60K, FFS just decide on a cut-off, and stick to it, rather than adding another layer of complexity
So you want someone earning 50001 to be *much* worse off than his mate who did 15 minutes less overtime last year?
The high marginal tax rate between 50-60k is bad enough, without making it ‘simple’ and worse.
Agree with the comments on this. It's something we've been hit with and as people say the tax system is stupid and definitely favours the tax man, but that's no big surprise. Don't even get me started on income tax bands. Why we can't just set it at a fixed 28% tax rate irrespective of your wages I don't know.
Why cant we just charge income tax on a household, which would seem much fairer?
The French seem to understand this - https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/calculation-tax-liability/
I guess there is some potential unfairness built in - lodgers, separated (but still living together) couples etc. - but overall it seems a more equitable system
They pay a decent rate of interest I think?
about £75 on £10k in 10months. so nope. less than inflation
Why we can’t just set it at a fixed 28% tax rate irrespective of your wages I don’t know.
I suspect that you are wildly underestimating the level at which a single tax band would need to be set at. 28% is less than the combination of the current basic rate plus NI. I suspect the level would need to be closer to 40%.
In order to sort all of these issues out we would need a total overhaul of the tax system and more than likely require everyone to do some sort of tax return.
Yes cretins, be thankful for what the lord has given you
Tax avoidance? Yes I am quite thankful that we have opportunities to manage how much salary the government take, although I'm not sure some imaginary being has anything to do with it.
Again, like many others, I have little issue with the principle of high earners (including my wife and I) having benefits taken away and paying a greater share of tax than lower earners. (I actually think we need to increase taxation across the board, but people will only vote for tax rises on other people not themselves). What I do have a problem with is the utterly shite way most of our tax/benefits system is implemented and administered.
The generalist- just because someone earns a salary >£50k doesn’t mean they are tax experts. I’ve worked at a private air charter company where maintenance staff and pilots earned well in excess of that. They may have been good at mending Learjets and flying them but didn’t have a clue about tax.
As the bulk of taxpayers are PAYE, HMRC get P60s and P11ds so know what we earn.
When it suits them they can be joined up with different sets of data.
This is so true... many people, myself included have taken jobs as PAYE because we don't know, understand or otherwise want to do Tax amongst other things... if I wanted to have to deal with this I'd probably be in a different job.
This isn't just child benefit either, they have messed the 100-150 limit forwards and backwards as well.
More cynically-minded people might think that HMRC are more interested in the fines.
To be fair I don't think so... they have been pretty helpful.... but I still dread their letters.
I've had 2 in the week where they have changed my tax code...
Just to illustrate how poor the process is for the uninitiated...
I had to input my bank interest... I went to some trouble to do this and it came to something like £12.71 for the year.
To get a self appraisal online I had to do some identity thing with an external service provisor... In my case I used the post office. After all this though ....
I called them up as the online form wouldn't let me put the pence...I could put £12 or £13 but neither is correct BUT the declaration I have to make is that it's correct.
The helpful guy had a laugh with me and said either was fine...and £12 or £13 was inconsequential and he sent me an official email to confirm.
What I do have a problem with is the utterly shite way most of our tax/benefits system is implemented and administered.
The complexity is quite staggering...
By contrast, the UK tax code has ballooned to a preposterous 10 million words, according to the accountancy body Icas. No single human being understands more than a smallish fraction of it. The 2015-16 edition of Tolley’s yellow and orange handbooks, the tax lawyers’ bible, comes in at a record 21,602 pages. It’s a hopeless, dreadful situation.
Each government adds more clauses to it, making it more and more complex.
As the PA increases each year, shouldn't the limit be increased in line as well. I guess the £50k & £60k salary limits in 2013 may be worth c £55k & £65k today
The complexity is quite staggering
And then some!
As the PA increases each year,
If only, look up Fiscal drag, been used for ages to suck more people into higher rate tax bracket.
The complexity is quite staggering…
By contrast, the UK tax code has ballooned to a preposterous 10 million words, according to the accountancy body Icas. No single human being understands more than a smallish fraction of it. The 2015-16 edition of Tolley’s yellow and orange handbooks, the tax lawyers’ bible, comes in at a record 21,602 pages. It’s a hopeless, dreadful situation.
Each government adds more clauses to it, making it more and more complex.
The trouble is as soon as you try to simplify it you will inevitably get some winners and some losers and a soon as that happens you also get people whining and bleating that "it's not fair" because they have to pay more tax than some other group.