Universal credit

I really wish people would take the time to read things like this properly - hopefully the misinformed on this thread will read your link.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/information-for-online-sellers

at a guess the necessary people would have pojections of what the costs are likely to be eg HS2 and estimated costs

Reporting to HMRC doesn’t mean there is a tax liability - it’s just a threshold they’ve agreed to to advise there MAY be a liability and you need to complete a seller form. Completing seller form for HMRC doesn’t not mean there is a tax liability.

Selling your own second hand items does not create a tax liability regardless of how much you ‘make’.

Selling your own second hand stuff is not classed as earnings though.

AFAIK, with UC you are allowed to have up to £6,000 in savings, between £6,000 and £16,000 they will dock some of your UC.
If you are selling your own items (not buying to sell) then you need to declare earnings over £1,000 in the tax year.

As for Ebay and Vinted, you are allowed to sell up to 30 items in the last 52 weeks, and earn up to £1,700. Anything over that and they will report you to HMRC.

Actually I know people working in the public sector figuring out how to use AI for various different things. It doesn’t have to take a billion pounds (insane number btw). It’s worth doing so you know your systems are secure and over decades how many millions could you save?

Yep, I sold my motorbike... got £3500 for it. I didn't have to declare it and it did not affect my UC.

You can sell your own second hand shite.

No it isn’t. It’s only if you are buying to resell. Selling your own stuff you no longer use is not classed as income.

But we don't know if the costs are too high because it hasn't been invented yet.

Nothing to do with autism. If you have earnings, you must declare it.

usually inventions get made when vast profits can be made. and i dont have the figures but if the costs are too high and profits cannot be achieved then why would the country spend more money ?

How do you know it's going to cost a billion? And how do you know we're only losing a million? (It will be considerably more than that!) You're just making stuff up. This is not how progression works - we can't just say it doesn't work and leave it, we have to say it doesn't work now but how do we make it work? How do you think things get invented?

but to build the system to begin with lets say costs 1 billion and by using it you only save 1 million

how is that cost effective ?

Do you not get it either?! At present there is not a system but we need to find one for the future. It's not rocket science, it's called progress!

How much do you have in savings? Have they actually asked to see your bank statements?

There isn't a way 'because the government would already be doing it'. I'm going to guess that you work for the government don't you? Fuck me, and people wonder why the public sector is deemed to be backward. I can't believe what I'm reading.

so you would build a system to save money but the amout of money needed to be saved would need to be much higher and at present there is not a way to make that system

Not sure why you think I don't understand your point. I do. You said we should be monitoring every penny. I pointed out that's too expensive. Clearly there isn't a way to make monitoring cost effective, or the government would already be doing it. Monitoring is also only the start. It would need to be followed by taking claimants through investigation and possibly prosecution, also extremely expensive. Then, if they have children, responsibility to ensure they are still fed and housed when benefits are stopped incurs more cost. If your concern is for the tax payer, these costs need to be weighed against the desire to punish people.

My concern is the tax payer. Which is why I said we need to find a way to make checking for fraud cost effective. Not that we should spend loads of money doing it for little return. I'm not sure how else to explain this to help you understand my point.

I thought you were concerned with the cost to the tax payer. Just pointing out its going to cost much more to keep an eye on every single benefit claimants vinted and eBay activity on the off chance they've made more than a few quid selling on a bag of children's clothes than we'd save in fraud prevention. So false economy.

Yes, a side hustle will be people flipping items and making money. A side hustle is not someone who is selling stuff that does not fit them anymore. No one makes profit on selling their own second hand shite.

So, in modern day, we need to find the tech to make it work. It's too lazy for government to say 'it's too expensive to means test' or 'it's too expensive to check for fraud'. We need to find ways, it can't be that hard in an increasingly cashless society where most money is moved electronically.

much appricated

We would have no way of knowing if it was your own stuff or not. If (and unlikely) you had piles of expensive items, I don’t know jewellery, records perhaps and you sell an item a week, every week and it’s going on for a year plus then we would say that’s an income. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see it that way, if you think it’s not a business, we would see it as an income. May depend on the decision makers opinion and your argument, but selling things constantly and regular credits, I’d consider that self employment. I’m not talking about old jumpers for £3 here and there sporadically. HMRC would also class as an income. We have a work colleague who sells records- £75-150 plus a pop, so this info is from him!

@Swirlythingy2025 a tax refund would usually be treated as income in the period it’s been received under UC rules. Under HB/CTS old rules it’s capital. But it’s been years since I processed so I could be wrong!