Personal Savings Allowance guide

polymaff

Doc_N wrote: »

You're forgetting how HMRC is funded, and who's adding all the new legislation and attendant complexities. It's funded by the Government, and if HMG cuts the funding to such an extent that HMRC can't function effectively because of lack of staff and inadequate IT systems it's not going to be able to perform very well, is it? Ever tried running a race with one leg tied up? Exactly the same with the NHS - the managers get all the blame and the government, which is the real cause of all the problems because it doesn't provide sufficient funding, gets off the hook.

Doc_N wrote: »

OT ranting? I don't think so - just defending HMRC and other public sector organisations against unfair and unjustified attacks.

Absolute statements without supporting evidence, rhetorical questions and off-thread/topic matter are all typical of a rant. The para quoted above contains all three. Have your rant - we all need the occasional rant - but mark it as so, and don't associate it with other, more considered, postings.

In particular, in my book, selective quoting from a different thread is troll-like behaviour.

bigadaj

Doc_N wrote: »

Sorry to have hurt your sensitivities.

I naively thought I was the one making the considered statements in defence of a beleaguered ill-funded government department unable to defend itself because to do so would mean the instant dismissal of its Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary.

OT ranting? I don't think so - just defending HMRC and other public sector organisations against unfair and unjustified attacks.

If the chief executive and permanent secretary seriously believe that Hmrc are hamstring to the extent you claim by government policy then as senior managers they should be making that point and arguably resigning. It would be a sensible and honest approach so looks rather unlikely.

Doc_N

bigadaj wrote: »

If the chief executive and permanent secretary seriously believe that Hmrc are hamstring to the extent you claim by government policy then as senior managers they should be making that point and arguably resigning. It would be a sensible and honest approach so looks rather unlikely.

You're absolutely right, and the theoretical position is that the Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary would resign (it's just one person, by the way).

Likewise the heads of similarly impacted government departments and public bodies.

In the real world, though, that doesn't happen because people don't tend to commit economic suicide - they usually have families and commitments and don't fancy spending the rest of their lives in relative penury.

It takes someone like Stephen Hawking to blow the whistle on the government and counter the lies coming out of the mouths of people like Jeremy Hunt.

bigadaj

Doc_N wrote: »

You're absolutely right, and the theoretical position is that the Chief Executive and Permanent Secretary would resign (it's just one person, by the way).

Likewise the heads of similarly impacted government departments and public bodies.

In the real world, though, that doesn't happen because people don't tend to commit economic suicide - they usually have families and commitments and don't fancy spending the rest of their lives in relative penury.

It takes someone like Stephen Hawking to blow the whistle on the government and counter the lies coming out of the mouths of people like Jeremy Hunt.

I wouldn't agree that this is a case of an average person whistle blowing. This is someone who is earning six figures and would essentially only be pulling forward plans for an alternative career that they would be exercising when they finish their term or retire form the civil service. A range of non exec positions on potentially board positions, advice on public sector policy etc etc normally explained as delayed recompense for several decades in public service lenury I believe.

They are in a select elite class that does have the luxury of being able to exercise a conscience, whether this might impact their future earning power and potential is I'd suggest far closer to their thinking.

lindajill

Sorry to interrupt the current thread, but I wonder if anyone can help with my enquiry. This area may already have been covered previously, but I don't fancy reading through 20 pages of discussion to check!

If the total interest paid on personal savings from multiple financial institutions (as a result of following guidance from Martin & Co on this website in an attempt to maximise returns!) exceeds £1000 a year - and where the various financial institutions provide annual statements covering differing periods other than a fiscal year - how are we supposed to accurately calculate the amount of interest paid in any one tax year? Where balances and interest rates change regularly, and where interest is paid daily, this is a nightmare! Surely all providers should now be forced to produce annual statements for each financial year and not some other arbitrary period!!!

Any help gratefully received!

ColdIron

lindajill wrote: »

Where balances vary constantly and interest is paid daily

Your balance is not relevant and no savings account pays interest daily. It may be calculated daily but it will be paid monthly, annually, on anniversary etc

Surely all providers should now be forced to produce annual statements for each financial year

They already are

polymaff

lindajill wrote: »

Surely all providers should now be forced to produce annual statements for each financial year and not some other arbitrary period!!!

You're absolutely right - on both counts. They need to promptly produce the modern-day equivalent of the old s975 AND they need to stop issuing documents that might fool people into thinking that the pointless trash they do provide IS the s975 replacement.

The problem is that if you talk to the management of these institutions - stop wasting money supplying misleading data, etc. - they agree.

And then nothing changes.

eskbanker

lindajill wrote: »

the various financial institutions provide annual statements covering differing periods other than a fiscal year

[...]

Surely all providers should now be forced to produce annual statements for each financial year and not some other arbitrary period!!!

Which institutions are you referring to who provide tax statements that don't correspond to tax years? All of those I deal with are correctly aligned with tax years....

polymaff

eskbanker wrote: »

Which institutions are you referring to who provide tax statements that don't correspond to tax years? All of those I deal with are correctly aligned with tax years....

Maybe, but LJ writes of annual statements, not tax statements.

eskbanker

polymaff wrote: »

Maybe, but LJ writes of annual statements, not tax statements.

....in which case, the answer to the question posed ("how are we supposed to accurately calculate the amount of interest paid in any one tax year") is simply "Look at your tax statements not any other annual statements"!