To think that itemised tax statements

[jinsei]

will cost money to produce, which could be better spent on other priorities?

Presumably, the Tories think they will get some kind of political advantage from doing this.

YABU. Having just received my new council tax bill where the council has broken down my contribution into various categories, there are already precedents. It's good to know what's going on.

I know there are precedents, but I think it's an unnecessary expense. Information about government spending is already in the public domain, if people care to look.

I'd like to know how much this particular exercise will cost.

It might be good to know what's going on but do we agree with what's going on? Well, I don't because I have no way of arguing about it. Our Council tax has risen by £4 this year but only by the Police or Fire Brigade - not the Council.

"Information about government spending is already in the public domain, if people care to look."

The same applies to my council. They send ratepayers the top-line summary but the details are available online. I think open government volunteering information is better than expecting people to ferret about through endless pdf files. As for cost, HMRC seem very fond of sending me various letters during the year about tax-codes etc. - many of which are duplicates and go in the bin. One more letter isn't going to break the bank.

yanbu

Of course they have a political agenda - it's so they can show how much is spent on 'welfare' as they think we will then be anti- benefit claimants

I hope it bites them on the arse and that people can see from the breakdown that actually the largest part of taxation goes on pensions and elderly benefits/care - hopefully that will make the younger people think :

"Hold on a minute, why does Granny have that big expensive house from doing nothing apart from watch it go up over the last 40 years and yet doesn't have to sell it to pay for her care......Why does she get a state pension when her house is worth 750k?. Why does she get winter fuel allowance when the woman who's a carer for her children with autism next door doesn't" ????"

Will it outline how much is spent on defence? I agree with the poster above who says it is to help them justify cutting benefits and healthcare reforms.

YANBU As soon as I heard about it I thought "what a waste of effing money". Yes, there'll be someone employed to punch numbers into a computer, but that money could be spent on employing someone in a more worthy and needy field

That's nice, Laurie - itemised tax statements are great because they'll make us resent Granny. Or perhaps anyone else vulnerable. What a lovely society to live in. Can't wait.

So those getting their itemised council tax bill only read it so they can resent their money going on education? The police? What a twisted world some people live in.

You see that's the problem wolves - 'Granny' in my scenario is not vulnerable, you have just joined that up because I used the word 'Granny'.

'Granny' is asset wealthy, getting a state pension, winter fuel allowance, using the most of the nhs services and doesn't have to sell her home to pay for her care.

The vulnerable person in my scenario is the woman looking after the disabled children.

Far too many Tories people think that it's ok for the elderly to hold on to large amounts of assets as they've 'earned' it - no they haven't earned it, instead we are preventing young families from having secure homes/tenancies and being able to buy.

I suppose, Laurie, that I don't like justifying care of one group by demonising another group. Why can we only help the disabled (of which I am one, as it happens) by taking away from the elderly? There seems to be a nasty atmosphere on MN and RL as well of looking to see what can be snatched from whom.

I don't understand your suggestion that 'Granny' doesn't have to sell her home to pay for her care. The elderly people that I know are having to do that.

And anyone who criticises or resents elderly people for 'using the most of the NHS services' is heartless. The nature of ageing means that we will all probably need more medical intervention then. But don't worry, in many hospitals elderly people are treated very unpleasantly, so they're getting punished for daring to be old.

We get a p60 anyway from our employer which states how much NI & Tax we have paid. This just seems like duplication and a waste of time.

Why shouldn't 'Granny' have a state pension and full access to the NHS? After all, she's paid into both. Or are you suggesting that the asset rich, shouldn't be allowed to use the things that they have paid for through taxation, all their working lives.

also meant to add that this govt are divisive setting one person against another. We need an equitable society where the needy are helped by the more fortunate. Taxes are used for the wider good. Look at USA where poor folk have no access to healthcare, I am sure no one would want to live like that

I agree, karma. And the money will be redistributed when Granny dies. No need to grab it away from her in her old age. Being old does make you vulnerable, regardless of your bank balance.

Totally agree with viola. Setting people against each other is horrible.

They have nicely combined pensions with welfare to make it look like a third of all tax is going on JSA for the feckless. I would be interested to know if they are just putting in state pensions (around 40% of the welfare bill) or if they have skewed the figures further by pretending that state sector employee pensions (ie civil servants, teachers, NHS pensions) are all part of the welfare bill.

'Granny' is asset wealthy, getting a state pension, winter fuel allowance, using the most of the nhs services and doesn't have to sell her home to pay for her care.

Well by definition "Granny" has raised a family, many of whom will be working and paying tax. Unless it was inherited (unlikely) she and Grandad worked for the money to be able to own a property, and have paid tax for a lifetime.

Why shouldn't she get the pension, benefits and care available to her after a lifetime contributing to the pensions, benefits and care of others?

The vulnerable person in my scenario is the woman looking after the disabled children.

One day she will also need a pension, benefits and care.

Good questions improperly - one problem with this 'itemisation' is that governments will try and manipulate the public with them. I am not against itemisation in principle, but I think that an independent regulator needs to scrutinise it.

'"Hold on a minute, why does Granny have that big expensive house from doing nothing apart from watch it go up over the last 40 years and yet doesn't have to sell it to pay for her care......Why does she get a state pension when her house is worth 750k?. Why does she get winter fuel allowance when the woman who's a carer for her children with autism next door doesn't" ????"'

Granny has paid for the house out of taxed income - why should she not be able to live in it, if she has enough to pay for her care? If she has paid NICs (as my Mum has), why should she not receive her pension? I know a couple who have an autistic child, and he is in the 50% tax band - do they need winter fuel allowance more than a pensioner?

'Will it outline how much is spent on defence?' Not a lot and not enough is the answer to that one.

i was very concerned when i heard this on the news today
my first thought was that it was a complete waste of money - in the age of technology they could convey this info in a much cheaper manner ( TV radio websites) saving money to be spent on the NHS
my second thought is that this is going to lead to a dark bullying campaign against the most vulnerable in our society - welfare claimants. get people pointing the finger at the poor and it will take the attention away from the rich!
well i'm sorry I like living in a country where we have a safety net for the poor cos we could all end up there at any time. all around me people are losing jobs - i want the government to put its efforts into boosting the economy so that they can get back into work quickly and rebuild their lives....not starting a point the finger campaign.
i suspect this info will also be used to justify cutting public sector worker wages

"The vulnerable person in my scenario is the woman looking after the disabled children.

One day she will also need a pension, benefits and care."

And she won't get them, because the government will say she's not been a 'hardworking taxpayer' (like good old granny, even though probably granny was also at home looking after kids and was just lucky enough to have a husband who stuck around) and will have already spent all the money on giving the baby-boomers endless pensions.

This is a blatant attempt to encourage benefit bashing IMO. They are no way going to itemise welfare so people can see how little actually goes in working-age benefits, and people will just start being even more horrible to the unemployed and carers.

The itemised statement is also going to show how much the country pays servicing its debts. If we're trying to judge whether the government is doing a good job, that number coming down will be a good indicator.

FWIW I don't believe this accusation of 'information = division". Here is a breakdown of the welfare budget. Now that you know 17.5% of it goes on pensions are you all feeling aggreived towards pensioners? Thought not.

'total budget' rather than 'welfare budget'...