Tax Credits

Graham_Devon

gadgetmind wrote: »

You say "abused", the law says "used".

Used and abused. I realise the system lets this happen, but I still feel it's abuse. There are many situations whereby something can happen lawfully but can still be classed as abuse. Theres no law suggesting you cannot make an appointment at your doctors every single day just incase you may need it. However, they would still class it as abuse of the system as it stops others gaining the help they may need.

Define "the wealthy".

Anyone earning >60k a year who can afford to forego their earnings and lock those earnings elsewhere could be seen as wealthy. Anyone that can live on this "low income" and also buy a BTL to rent out could also be seen as wealthy.

The income is only low out of choice, something you appear to celebrate, but don't seem to note in this respect?

I'm personally not too fired up about council housing, but please understand that there is a HUGE gulf between minimising the tax you pay versus maximising the amount you claim as benefits.

There is a huge gulf.

But please understand that that's not the case in this discussion. The specifics of the arrangement is to minimise tax in order to maximise benefits.

A double whammy some may say.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

All he's doing by the way is delaying gratification by prioritising pension saving.

Actively calculating whether you can reduce your hours to get free school meals and other benefits - and working out which month is best to achieve that in is not "delaying gratification".

It's actively calculating how much more you can get out of a welfare system and actively taking the steps to reduce your income to do so.

The gratification here appears to be gaining maximum welfare through calculated methods of working systems to the extreme and provide a net gain overall. Methods which most wouldn't even dream up.

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Any savings over 16k stop tax credits, so you'd need to hide that cash or wrap it up somehow.

I don't believe this is correct. My understanding is that savings will disqualify universal credit claims but not tax credit claims. None of the forms I have ever filled in have anywhere to declare savings. I don't have more savings than it would take to pay of my mortgage anyway so if I wished to I could 'hide' them by paying off the mortgage. The family home is not counted as an asset in any benefits calculations.

The BTL was fully declared for tax but all in last tax year when I paid a total of about 50k in tax.

If I opt to drop hours to lose working tax credits and thus qualify for free school meals it will cost me money and be done to get funds to the childrens' schools which my kids will not benefit from directly.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

I don't believe this is correct. My understanding is that savings will disqualify universal credit claims but not tax credit claims. None of the forms I have ever filled in have anywhere to declare savings. I don't have more savings than it would take to pay of my mortgage anyway so if I wished to I could 'hide' them by paying off the mortgage. The family home is not counted as an asset in any benefits calculations.

The BTL was fully declared for tax but all in last tax year when I paid a total of about 50k in tax.

If I opt to drop hours to lose working tax credits and thus qualify for free school meals it will cost me money and be done to get funds to the childrens' schools which my kids will not benefit from directly.

I've just looked this up and you are correct. You can have whatever amount of savings you like and it doesn't effect tax credits.

You live and learn. How very bizzare for this particular part of the welfare system to ignore svaings when other parts which have a far greater impact on people have limits of just 6k in some scenarios. It's only savings interest income that counts (and presumably careful planning there with kids accounts can sort a lot of that).

And apologies for my loaded comment. I will edit and retract.

Thrugelmir

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I think it's a given that morals are individual and while there may be a societal average it's for each of us to decide how we behave.

An unfortunate consequence of the nanny state that has evolved. Where people maximise everything to their own advantage. As now believe it to be a right or entitlement. Then give £5 to Children In Need to relieve their conscious.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But please understand that that's not the case in this discussion. The specifics of the arrangement is to minimise tax in order to maximise benefits.

The aim in all these arrangements is to reduce the overall tax burden to the individual. Getting upset because getting free school dinners is 'worse' somehow than getting pension tax rebates I just don't get.

I suppose everyone has a different idea of what morality is and thinks their idea trumps someone else's. That's why we have rules.

kinger101

michaels wrote: »

If I opt to drop hours to lose working tax credits and thus qualify for free school meals it will cost me money and be done to get funds to the childrens' schools which my kids will not benefit from directly.

Oh, you're too kind. But it's rather gauche to speak about your charity work.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

An unfortunate consequence of the nanny state that has evolved. Where people maximise everything to their own advantage. As now believe it to be a right or entitlement. Then give £5 to Children In Need to relieve their conscious.

I sometimes wonder if it's possible to have a government that's able to provide incentives whereby what's good for individuals is good for everyone else too creating a positive feedback loop.

I'd agree it would probably need a smaller state and a government above bribing people for their votes.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The aim in all these arrangements is to reduce the overall tax burden to the individual. Getting upset because getting free school dinners is 'worse' somehow than getting pension tax rebates I just don't get.

I suppose everyone has a different idea of what morality is and thinks their idea trumps someone else's. That's why we have rules.

I see you are twisting everything again to make your argument. It seems you always have to make your argument by twisting what someone has said.

A) I've not said I'm upset about free school dinners.
I never said it's worse, better or equal to pension rebates.

You've had to suggest all that to make your argument work.

All I did do was respond to your claim that all someone was doing was "delaying gratification". Clearly, with all the working out done at the start of this thread it's absolutely nothing to do with delaying gratification.

I've made my argument without twisting anything. Maybe you could do the same?

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I see you are twisting everything again to make your argument. It seems you always have to make your argument by twisting what someone has said.

A) I've not said I'm upset about free school dinners.
I never said it's worse, better or equal to pension rebates.

You've had to suggest all that to make your argument work.

All I did do was respond to your claim that all someone was doing was "delaying gratification". Clearly, with all the working out done at the start of this thread it's absolutely nothing to do with delaying gratification.

I've made my argument without twisting anything. Maybe you could do the same?

I have got the impression that you feel a pound of tax credits is different from a pound of pension tax rebate. You give the appearance of having a lot more upset from my behaviour than you do for additional rate taxpayers costing the govt much more with their pension contributions.

I think living every year on only 60% of my post tax income (less than 30k including housing costs) in order to have a decent pension probably qualifies as deferred gratification. The fact that the savings I have built up by doing so allow me flexibility in my income is an added bonus.

Looking to use the pupil premium to advantage my childrens' schools is selfish as it is manipulating the system for local even if not personal benefit but with such a huge system that is manipulated by many (I know so many who work cash in hand as well as benefits, claim to be unable to work on health grounds and cohabit) for personal gain I have to say it doesn't seem very bad n comparison.