Income Tax: how does it work?


P

PeterSaxton

Wouldn't it be better to put it in the white space?

I am not sure that info in the white space is always captured.


Can you imagine what would happen if all tax payers stopped using
accountants and instead sent in their accounting records with their
tax returns and asked HMRC to sort it out!?

Lots of people would get fined for not making there returns
If they fill in the form (when in doubt using the most advantageous
entries for the tax payer) and list queries would that be acceptable?
I would think that would put great pressure on HMRC resources.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Simon

PeterSaxton said:
If they fill in the form (when in doubt using the most advantageous
entries for the tax payer) and list queries would that be acceptable?
I would think that would put great pressure on HMRC resources.
No, because HMRC will only take up the number of enquiries that it is able
and this would be directed at what it perceived to be the highest risk
cases. Loads of incorrect returns will slip through the net
and..................

Actually, isnt that what happens now?
 
S

Simon

Simon said:
No, because HMRC will only take up the number of enquiries that it is able
and this would be directed at what it perceived to be the highest risk
cases. Loads of incorrect returns will slip through the net
and..................

Actually, isnt that what happens now?
Oh, and I forot to mention that with another 12500 jobs gone by 2011, there
will be even less enquiries

And London is now due to lose another building as my building is due to
close by 31 March 2009.
 
D

Dave F.

Andy said:
Because it's obviously nonsense to expect people with 4 kids to be able to
afford the same tax as a single person on the same income,
Err? Why?

The family made a lifestyle choice knowing the consequences.

That's the same as buying a Ferrari & expecting to pay less IT.

I'm getting irritated, as a single person, at having to subsidise other people's children by way of food/clothing & further education.
Especially when it's known that single people put more back in by working longer hours.

Dave F.
 
A

Alan Ferris

Err? Why?

The family made a lifestyle choice knowing the consequences.

That's the same as buying a Ferrari & expecting to pay less IT.

I'm getting irritated, as a single person, at having to subsidise other people's children by way of food/clothing & further education.
Especially when it's known that single people put more back in by working longer hours.
In reality the single person should pay less tax as he will not be
using schools and additional healthcare. China will only give free
assistance to the 1st child, the rest have to be paid for by the
parents. Maybe if they introduced that here people would think twice.

Anyway, he is probably already getting an additional savings on tax
through receiving children's allowance and tax credits.

--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
 
G

gbh

Alan said:
In reality the single person should pay less tax as he will not be
using schools and additional healthcare. China will only give free
assistance to the 1st child, the rest have to be paid for by the
parents. Maybe if they introduced that here people would think twice.

Anyway, he is probably already getting an additional savings on tax
through receiving children's allowance and tax credits.

--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Single people, like me, pay relatively more tax so that we can live in a
civilized society.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Ronald Raygun

Alan said:
In reality the single person should pay less tax as he will not be
using schools and additional healthcare.
Everyone uses schools. Even though the actual cashflow may not work
like this, in theory you can view the tax system as a big long term
pot, which pays for your education when you "consume" it, and you then
pay back into the system once you earn. That way everyone pays for
their own education retrospectively *instead of* for that of the
children of the current generation (which individually one may or
may not have).
Anyway, he is probably already getting an additional savings on tax
through receiving children's allowance and tax credits.
In this context "single" presumably means "childless". How can you get
children's allowance if you don't have any children?
 
R

Ronald Raygun

gbh said:
Single people, like me, pay relatively more tax so that we can live in a
civilized society.
As written, that doesn't make sense, since of course we all live in
the same society, but I take your meaning. You're saying that freedom
from the encumbrances of family life is a privilege worth paying for.

That's an interesting take, seeing parents as little more than slaves
to their offspring, but others might take the opposite view, that the
pleasures and rewards of family life are also privileges worth paying
for.
 
A

Andy Pandy

Dave F. said:
Err? Why?

The family made a lifestyle choice knowing the consequences.

That's the same as buying a Ferrari & expecting to pay less IT.
No it isn't, moron. Is the Ferrari going to pay the taxes to keep the nation
going in 30 years time?
I'm getting irritated, as a single person, at having to subsidise other
people's children by way of food/clothing & further education.
Especially when it's known that single people put more back in by working
longer hours.

And I'm irritated by clueless tossers who can't think beyond the present. The
current generation of workers subsidises children because in 30 years time the
children will be the taxpayers and will be subsidising the current workers in
retirement.

You don't want to subsidise children, don't expect them to subside you.
 
D

Dave F.

Ronald said:
Everyone uses schools. Even though the actual cashflow may not work
like this, in theory you can view the tax system as a big long term
pot, which pays for your education when you "consume" it, and you then
pay back into the system once you earn. That way everyone pays for
their own education retrospectively *instead of* for that of the
children of the current generation (which individually one may or
may not have).
To clarify - I did say further education.
I'm willing to pay for others offspring to be educated upto the age of eighteen.
After that they're on their own. Unfortunately I still appear to be being charged for it.
In this context "single" presumably means "childless". How can you get
children's allowance if you don't have any children?
As a single I also pay for couples & families rubbish to be collected through the unfair Council Tax 'discount'.
 
A

Andy Pandy

Ronald Raygun said:
Everyone uses schools. Even though the actual cashflow may not work
like this, in theory you can view the tax system as a big long term
pot, which pays for your education when you "consume" it, and you then
pay back into the system once you earn. That way everyone pays for
their own education retrospectively *instead of* for that of the
children of the current generation (which individually one may or
may not have).
Yup - if these clueless tossers want to whinge about supporting other peoples'
kids then they can repay the state for their own education, and make sure they
save enough for their retirement so they don't claim any state pension or
benefits, or healthcare etc. Since these will be paid for in the main by the
children they were whinging about having to support.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Andy Pandy

Dave F. said:
To clarify - I did say further education.
I'm willing to pay for others offspring to be educated upto the age of eighteen.
After that they're on their own. Unfortunately I still appear to be being
charged for it.

They'll get better jobs, so pay more taxes, so the government will have more
money to waste bribing pensioners to vote for them.
As a single I also pay for couples & families rubbish to be collected through
the unfair Council Tax 'discount'.

Yeah, it should be abolished. If you buy a car you don't pay less road tax if
you're the only user. If you buy a bottle of wine you don't pay less tax if you
drink it all yourself. Why should you pay less property tax just cos you live
alone? Especially since you don't need as big a property and so should be in a
lower band anyway.
 
D

Dave F.

Andy said:
No it isn't, moron. Is the Ferrari going to pay the taxes to keep the nation
going in 30 years time?
Neither are the children if they keeps getting rebates.

Remember everybody - "The children are our future" Ha,Ha,Ha

"nonsense to expect" are you own words. The answer is Yes, it is expected they pay.
Don't decide to have children then complain "Ooh, it's sooo expensive, It's not fair"
Pay your way in life.
people's children by way of food/clothing & further education.
longer hours.

And I'm irritated by clueless tossers who can't think beyond the present. The
current generation of workers subsidises children because in 30 years time the
children will be the taxpayers and will be subsidising the current workers in
retirement.
Right, lets get this straight. The working *parents* subsides their children.
Their children, when working, will be subsidising their parents.
Single, childless people like me should (with caveats like NHS contributions) should enter into the equation.
What we (on average) take out equals what we put in.

I pay my own way in life, I wish others would.

You don't want to subsidise children, don't expect them to subside you.
Err?? I don't, you pillock. See above.
 
T

Tim

Other things being the same, yep. But they won't be the same.
Just as the parents choose to spend some of their 'hard-earned'
having kids, the single person will spend that equivalent
'hard-earned' on something else -- something that
*they* want (just like the parents wanted the kids).
No it isn't, moron...
Er - yes it is. In your own words (just changing those that
need changing for the new example) : " ... it's obviously
nonsense to expect [someone paying for a Ferrari] to be able
to afford the same tax as [anyone else] on the same income".

... Is the Ferrari going to pay the taxes to
keep the nation going in 30 years time?
Well, let's try another example.
Suppose the single person, rather than "investing" in having children,
instead "invests" the same amount of money in setting up a business.
The business will pay taxes (and the state won't need to wait 15-20
years to get some!), and also provide employment for many people.

So - should the single entrepreneur be able to
make their investment out of *gross* earnings?
 
D

Dave F.

Andy said:
They'll get better jobs, so pay more taxes,
Only in theory, Some of what I've seen of University Grads, they appear to be on step up from factory fodder.
I work with one who has to think hard to work out the difference between Left & Right.
the unfair Council Tax 'discount'.

Yeah, it should be abolished. If you buy a car you don't pay less road tax if
you're the only user. If you buy a bottle of wine you don't pay less tax if you
drink it all yourself.
I don't think you understand the concept of CT.

It's not a case of paying less, just not paying more.
The above examples are both choices, *not* compulsory & for individual use, *not* shared services.
Why should you pay less property tax just cos you live
alone?
I don't want to pay less, I just don't want to pay *more*

It shouldn't be a tax on property, it should be a local IT.

Right, simple equation for you:

A couple pay CT (100%). Each individual pays half (50%)

I however pay 75% because I only get a 25% discount, so I pay more for the same services.
(in actuality, *less* services, because, as a singleton I don't use some of them).

And to anticipate your answer, *no*, many couples do not live in bigger properties & so pay more CT.
 
A

Andy Pandy

Dave F. said:
Neither are the children if they keeps getting rebates.
So who *is* it going to be then, dipstick?
Remember everybody - "The children are our future" Ha,Ha,Ha

"nonsense to expect" are you own words. The answer is Yes, it is expected they pay.
Don't decide to have children then complain "Ooh, it's sooo expensive, It's not fair"
Pay your way in life.
Well don't expect a state pension or any NHS services when you're a pensioner.
My kids' taxes aren't going to pay for spongers like you. Pay your own way.
Right, lets get this straight. The working *parents* subsides their children.
Their children, when working, will be subsidising their parents.
And they'll be paying taxes to subsidise the spongers who didn't have children
to contribute to the next generation of taxpayers.
Single, childless people like me should (with caveats like NHS contributions)
should enter into the equation.
What we (on average) take out equals what we put in.
No you don't. I proved this mathematically with Tim a while ago. Childless
people get subsidised. Even Tim agreed.
I pay my own way in life, I wish others would.
No you don't.
Err?? I don't, you pillock. See above.
So when you're a pensioner, you will not rely on any services paid for by the
taxpayer then, eh? Bearing in mind the taxpayers then will be predominantly the
children you're now whinging about supporting.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Andy Pandy

Tim said:
Other things being the same, yep. But they won't be the same.
Just as the parents choose to spend some of their 'hard-earned'
having kids, the single person will spend that equivalent
'hard-earned' on something else -- something that
*they* want (just like the parents wanted the kids).
So? The government makes decisions to support some activities because they're in
the long term interest of the country. Buying a Ferrari isn't.
"Andy Pandy" wrote
No it isn't, moron...
Er - yes it is. In your own words (just changing those that
need changing for the new example) : " ... it's obviously
nonsense to expect [someone paying for a Ferrari] to be able
to afford the same tax as [anyone else] on the same income".
Oooh... top one! World class pedantry!

If it was an Olympic event we'd have a guaranteed gold this year!
Well, let's try another example.
Suppose the single person, rather than "investing" in having children,
instead "invests" the same amount of money in setting up a business.
The business will pay taxes (and the state won't need to wait 15-20
years to get some!), and also provide employment for many people.

So - should the single entrepreneur be able to
make their investment out of *gross* earnings?
Actually, yes. It sound reasonable that someone investing in setting up a
business would be able to invest out of pre-tax earnings, after all if he
reinvested the profits of his business back into the business he's do it out of
pre-tax earnings.
 
N

Norman Wells

Dave said:
To clarify - I did say further education.
I'm willing to pay for others offspring to be educated upto the age
of eighteen. After that they're on their own. Unfortunately I still appear
to be
being charged for it.
I think that's extraordinarily generous of you, considering that the major
problems facing the world are climate change and the massive increase in
population worldwide. That's happening at the rate of 50% every 50 years,
and if you think that the world can sustainably support that for long, given
the recent food shortages caused by just one year's poor harvest, you're
sadly mistaken. How are an extra 3 billion people going to be fed by the
year 2050? What other scarce resources are they going to be consuming? How
much more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are they going to cause?

The truth is, the greenest people on the planet are those who voluntarily
forego the pleasures of parenthood and who don't put on earth multiple
machines that will continue to pollute the environment for a further 80
years. It's time that was recognised by governments who clothe themselves
in green. They should give massive tax benefits to those who are childless,
and give proper effect to their mantra that the polluter should pay. Tax
all parents heavily, and in direct proportion to the number of their kids.
It's the only way the planet will survive.
 
A

Andy Pandy

Dave F. said:
Only in theory, Some of what I've seen of University Grads, they appear to be
on step up from factory fodder.
I work with one who has to think hard to work out the difference between Left
& Right.

Personally I'd stop the subsidy for all the crap mickey mouse courses you get
these days, and retain it for those that are actually of some use in the world.
I don't think you understand the concept of CT.
It's a property tax.
It's not a case of paying less, just not paying more.
So 75% is not less than 100%?
The above examples are both choices, *not* compulsory & for individual use,
*not* shared services.

So what? You can choose where to live and how many people to live with. Same as
how many people you share your car or bottle of wine with.
I don't want to pay less, I just don't want to pay *more*

It shouldn't be a tax on property, it should be a local IT.
Fair enough. At least children won't then get taxed (they do effectively with
the council tax as a family obviously needs a bigger property).
Right, simple equation for you:

A couple pay CT (100%). Each individual pays half (50%)
What if one's not in work? Then the other will have to pay 100%.

If the single person is on the dole they'll probably get council tax benefit to
pay it in full.
I however pay 75% because I only get a 25% discount, so I pay more for the same services.
(in actuality, *less* services, because, as a singleton I don't use some of
them).

So what? You only need a property suitable for one person, so you should be a
lower band.
And to anticipate your answer, *no*, many couples do not live in bigger
properties & so pay more CT.

So? There're sharing and making good use of a scarce resource in this country,
ie property. Why should those who waste property by not sharing be subsidised?

Next you'll be wanting a discount on your fuel tax because you drive alone.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Andy Pandy

Norman Wells said:
I think that's extraordinarily generous of you, considering that the major
problems facing the world are climate change and the massive increase in
population worldwide. That's happening at the rate of 50% every 50 years,
and if you think that the world can sustainably support that for long, given
the recent food shortages caused by just one year's poor harvest, you're
sadly mistaken. How are an extra 3 billion people going to be fed by the
year 2050? What other scarce resources are they going to be consuming? How
much more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are they going to cause?
Europe's population is predicted to *decline* over the next 50-150 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The truth is, the greenest people on the planet are those who voluntarily
forego the pleasures of parenthood and who don't put on earth multiple
machines that will continue to pollute the environment for a further 80
years. It's time that was recognised by governments who clothe themselves
in green. They should give massive tax benefits to those who are childless,
and give proper effect to their mantra that the polluter should pay. Tax
all parents heavily, and in direct proportion to the number of their kids.
It's the only way the planet will survive.
I think you're made a very sensible decision not to reproduce. The Darwin award
beckons.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top