CinnabarRed's tax thread

Definitely not planning to lie about it!! Just interested in the technicalities of how it will work

If you already have it, then are we all being asked to reapply? I think they'll work out it will cost too much to implement initially and wait til the UC is launched, and then everyone reapplies.

Hmm, interesting. They will ask you when you apply I suppose if anyone in your household pays HRT, but what the comeback would be if you ticked "no" and argued that you didn't know what your DH / DW earned, and what they'd do to check, I don't know.

It was also the bollocks about someone on £20k funding CB for a higher rate payer. Higher rate payers by definition fund their own cb through their tax and fund the benefits for others too. Higher rate payers pay more tax, and why no one said that to the Chancellor beats me.

It's not how they'll check Sweet, it's how they frame the legislation to allow them to do so, without compromising the principle of independent taxation, infringing the Data Protection Act, and my right to have my details and income private from dh.

I don't think the idea is to make it taxable at HRT rate - I think it would be taxed at 100%. I think they will ask people to opt out voluntarily before the start of the year - which is what they would prefer from a cashflow basis, of course - but if not, it would have to be through tax.

I still don't know how (or if) they would cross-check though, especially in your circumstances, scaryteacher!

It'll be interesting to see how this is dealt with; as we have independent taxation, how will they check if people do NOT opt to tell them that they have cb? Even if it were to be included as dh's income and not mine, and we got taxed on it, it would still be worth paying the tax, as we would be still be getting 60% of the cb. If it had to be declared as my income, I don't pay tax.

Thanks, scaryteacher. I agree that I don't put anything on my tax return identifying DH, who has a different surname (though I might've ticked a 'Married' box). We may well have different tax offices, no idea!

But don't tax credits work on the basis of household rather than individual income - if so, maybe there will be a separate form to fill out to claim CB rather than it being given 'by default' as before. I guess this form would have to have a line for each adult in the household and if any was above HRT, the claim would fail?

Is Osborne's plan to more-or-less rely on people opting to declare if their household gets CB?

Sweet - I don't think they can link addresses, see my query further up. Dh and I have different tax offices, and as we have independent taxation, our tax affairs should under data protection, not be linked in any way.

How will they phrase any new question anyway? Dh can't on his return tick that he receives cb, as I get it (albeit into joint a/c, but before we moved, was paid at the PO in my name, as I wanted to support our rural PO). Under the principle of independent taxation, he could know nothing about my tax affairs, whilst I could know nothing about his, and we each could do our own returns. We could in theory, have entirely separate finances.

If they want to reverse this, then they have to make the tax free allowances transferable imo, which would probably negate any cb savings they would make. Certainly, £6k plus transferred to dh (my allowance in full) is worth more than the cb and my tax refund from GCSE examining every year.

Ooh, poor you!

Yay, I love this thread!

Cinnabar, will HMRC just use address matching to see which taxpayers are in a household for Child Benefit purposes? Or will it be a new question on the tax return, do you think?

What an amazing thread - thanks Cinnabar - it's well worth being resurrected. So, was wondering if you were still answering money-type questions? Will be content with a if you're not...

What I've wondered a lot is why bankers get paid so much. No, seriously...

I work in IT. It's a skilled profession and you can earn up to about £100K if you're good and you work for the right place. But the market won't bear anything beyond that. Any company paying even its most skilled IT guys £500K (say) would quickly go out of business due to competition from leaner operations.

So why are banks different? Why doesn't competition drive down wages? Why doesn't "Asda investment bank" open, paying it's top staff £200K instead of £2 million, undercutting the others by miles, and delivering better value to its customers? It happens in almost every other market - so why not in banking?

What I'd love to know is how the Govt are going to get around the principal of individual taxation when removing cb from hr tax payers.

Dh higher rate; I don't work as we are abroad. Still get UK cb as Forces exempt from not being able to get it if abroad. I get the cb not dh, and I have no taxable income, so am basic rate. I could declare it on my return, but don't have to, as it isn't taxed. Dh doesn't declare it, because he doesn't get it. We should not be linked on any data base, as we have never claimed means tested benefit.

I know this is a bit of an old thread but it is still fascinating. Thanks so much Cinnabar (if you are still about) for bothering to post at such length.

Oops - Richard Murphy.

Hi CinnabarRed - did you catch Richard Turner on R4 PM programme yesterday? He was talking about the 50% tax rate.

He lived up to my expectations of him .

newwave, I believe there's a rhyme about that: "It's the right what gets the power; it's the left what gets the blame; ain't it all a bleedin' shame"

If the unions had done as much damage with their actions as the bankers gambling did the right wingers on here would have been going ballistic yet the same people seem to accept it. We are told dont upset the poor loves or they will sulk and take their ball home.

The bankers have done far more damage than Bob Crow ever can or will but they seem to always be given a "get out of jail free" card.

Next time LFN or others of her ilk complain about a rail strike and the "unions holding the country to ransom" maybe you should consider that the bankers are doing much the same or worse with their "leave our theft bonuses alone and dont your dare raise our taxes.

Cinnabar what a fantastic thread. I am a tax professional myself and I find the policy aspect fascinating, but I don't get to do as much of it as I would like these days!

I do wonder what features of the banking industry swings the balance of power so much towards the (top) employees?

A self perpetuating oligarchy maybe who run things in their own self interest.

I'm not saying it's right. But then I'm not a Marxist .

The government 'bailout as back up' needs to be dealt with. Which should reduce the profits. But whether that will change the profit distribution between 'key' employees and shareholders I don't know.

I do wonder what features of the banking industry swings the balance of power so much towards the (top) employees?