"it wouldn't generally be wise for a self-employed person operating at this level of business to make major decisions predominantly on the basis of avoiding/minimising repayments to the SLC"?
everyone should make choices on the "whole package" that is clear and we will both agree on that i am sure.
I dont think the op is saying anything about "ignoring" other items that matter - just that one shouldnt overlook the student loan bit. imho student loan is often overlooked by many so nice to be slapped in the face in that regard.
Hopefully we can both agree on that and move on.
Note my original comments were based on this article being targetted at the more exeprienced user rather than soemone who doesnt have a clue that one thing may affect another - in that regard hopefully they are suitably warned
huh
this is a great practical article - not factoring in such items can lead to throwing money down the drain. imho this article is rightly saying one is stupid if one doesnt at least factor in the relevance of these items . Many people are clearly in a position where they will never pay the really old loans - that being the case it can be a decent no brainer to ensure income stays below threshold via whatever legitimate means are at play.
my issue with hmrc and notice to file notices is that i am not aware that hmrc can categorically state these letters have been issued - might be wrong but over the years i have had many honest people strongly assert that they never received the notice to file letters hmrc said they issued. Maybe i have ben unlucky but hmrc should imho have to provide reasonable poof of posting when and where not sure they do that ?
the issue here is that practicably speaking it is a means tested benefit in everything but name and that being the case other ways for paying back are not obviously better thats pretty clear
surely you must concede that with many other aspects household income is important and needs to be declared without moaning - so no idea why child benefit should be such a bugbear just because its the tax return doing the collecting. No one earning over 50k is forced to claim - and if they must repay due to other household member claiming - well thats how means testing couples works.
Benefit claimants should be thankful for the benefits they get and do everything they can to enure they act in diligent and responsible manner ref claims made. The moaning when changes dont suit them or collection is via form they dont like is poor form imho - its a benefit if you need to pay back via whatever method get that done.
i do concede the situation is not exactly ideal - however facts are we are talking about people with joint household income who are practicably speaking claiming means tested benefits - if they want to claim the benefit they have to be grown up enough to take the rules that go along with the situation - no one seemed to bat an eyelid when people had to declare joint income fot tax credit purposes. So ignore the fact the mechanism for repaying is via sa and there would be no bi tching - the fact the repayment part repayment is fairly simply sorted by filing sa return when ye income is known seems to throw people into mass tizzy on some moral level that is all out of proportion to the reality that its means tested benefit and rules are rules.
" there is no advance agreement between the parties"
they live together as one household and clearly have inter dependent finanaces - asking them to act as unit ref the whole claim process aint too much - if anyone who doubts the probity of their partner then their is the official route to check. Why should this means tested benefit be different to all the rest that depend on income of both parties combined - i simply dont get the fuss.
i have no idea why Rebecca keeps banging on about her same biased viewpoint here
"She was very clear that the idea of calculating child benefit based on household income is “insane”."
practicably speaking its a means tested benefit benefit that people have to be grown up enough to take responsibility for this fact if they choose to claim. compared to the hassles of filling out tax credits claims and universal credit people having to take resposibility here "if they want to claim". Ref using joint income isnt a biggie - more complex yes - but for other people who subsidise this giveaway seems perfectly sensible.
i am not overly fussed whatever happens here but it seems like we are treating these people who have the hassle of taking redsponsibility as 5 year old kids who want an ice cream 5 minutes after thye have jus thad an ice cream. The fact they have raised thresholds and there is no easy solution and we still moan and groan despite the increases - oh dear.
on a personal note, the word 'peeps' makes my flesh crawl
oh dear lol - not even sure where i got that one from if i am being honest - i kinda like it - but then again my tastes are odd.
"It is hardly traumatic given MTD software now does much of the calculation to running returns. "
tell that to a joiner or plumber who probably isnt the most it savy it person and who is likely to think its the end of the world when their first customer goes - i am not paying 20% vat .
ref software - its like you have never seen any of the horror stories on here where clients try and do it themselves it needs attention to detail to do it well. Just look at recent first return one where there was 20k difference between traders calcs and that of the vat office !
"Changing the vat threshold by £5k will make absolutely no difference to the economic health of the country. It is a meaningless gesture. It was just padding out a lack lustre budget."
raising the vat threshold most certainly helps at the coalface - its very traumatic for peeps in business to deal with vat if they arent financial savvy so this most certainly helps.
However its clearly electioneering at its finest - they have been happy to not raise the threshold every other year - so to only do it directly before and election really does smack of bribery.
Not sure if any of this clever stuff does anything but annoy most peeps
Hunt said he was going to "end that unfairness" of the HICBC but warned that it requires "significant reforms to the tax system, including allowing HMRC to collect household level information".
so those that have been moaning means we will probably end up withn an even more complciated system where we need sumary income levels for both partners
i wander if its easier to fake it with these new fangled online checks compared to the old skool way of person turning up with their actual photo id and actual utility bill that we can touch and feel.
My answers
"it wouldn't generally be wise for a self-employed person operating at this level of business to make major decisions predominantly on the basis of avoiding/minimising repayments to the SLC"?
everyone should make choices on the "whole package" that is clear and we will both agree on that i am sure.
I dont think the op is saying anything about "ignoring" other items that matter - just that one shouldnt overlook the student loan bit. imho student loan is often overlooked by many so nice to be slapped in the face in that regard.
Hopefully we can both agree on that and move on.
Note my original comments were based on this article being targetted at the more exeprienced user rather than soemone who doesnt have a clue that one thing may affect another - in that regard hopefully they are suitably warned
huh
this is a great practical article - not factoring in such items can lead to throwing money down the drain. imho this article is rightly saying one is stupid if one doesnt at least factor in the relevance of these items . Many people are clearly in a position where they will never pay the really old loans - that being the case it can be a decent no brainer to ensure income stays below threshold via whatever legitimate means are at play.
my issue with hmrc and notice to file notices is that i am not aware that hmrc can categorically state these letters have been issued - might be wrong but over the years i have had many honest people strongly assert that they never received the notice to file letters hmrc said they issued. Maybe i have ben unlucky but hmrc should imho have to provide reasonable poof of posting when and where not sure they do that ?
the issue here is that practicably speaking it is a means tested benefit in everything but name and that being the case other ways for paying back are not obviously better thats pretty clear
surely you must concede that with many other aspects household income is important and needs to be declared without moaning - so no idea why child benefit should be such a bugbear just because its the tax return doing the collecting. No one earning over 50k is forced to claim - and if they must repay due to other household member claiming - well thats how means testing couples works.
Benefit claimants should be thankful for the benefits they get and do everything they can to enure they act in diligent and responsible manner ref claims made. The moaning when changes dont suit them or collection is via form they dont like is poor form imho - its a benefit if you need to pay back via whatever method get that done.
i do concede the situation is not exactly ideal - however facts are we are talking about people with joint household income who are practicably speaking claiming means tested benefits - if they want to claim the benefit they have to be grown up enough to take the rules that go along with the situation - no one seemed to bat an eyelid when people had to declare joint income fot tax credit purposes. So ignore the fact the mechanism for repaying is via sa and there would be no bi tching - the fact the repayment part repayment is fairly simply sorted by filing sa return when ye income is known seems to throw people into mass tizzy on some moral level that is all out of proportion to the reality that its means tested benefit and rules are rules.
" there is no advance agreement between the parties"
they live together as one household and clearly have inter dependent finanaces - asking them to act as unit ref the whole claim process aint too much - if anyone who doubts the probity of their partner then their is the official route to check. Why should this means tested benefit be different to all the rest that depend on income of both parties combined - i simply dont get the fuss.
i have no idea why Rebecca keeps banging on about her same biased viewpoint here
"She was very clear that the idea of calculating child benefit based on household income is “insane”."
practicably speaking its a means tested benefit benefit that people have to be grown up enough to take responsibility for this fact if they choose to claim. compared to the hassles of filling out tax credits claims and universal credit people having to take resposibility here "if they want to claim". Ref using joint income isnt a biggie - more complex yes - but for other people who subsidise this giveaway seems perfectly sensible.
i am not overly fussed whatever happens here but it seems like we are treating these people who have the hassle of taking redsponsibility as 5 year old kids who want an ice cream 5 minutes after thye have jus thad an ice cream. The fact they have raised thresholds and there is no easy solution and we still moan and groan despite the increases - oh dear.
on a personal note, the word 'peeps' makes my flesh crawl
oh dear lol - not even sure where i got that one from if i am being honest - i kinda like it - but then again my tastes are odd.
"It is hardly traumatic given MTD software now does much of the calculation to running returns. "
tell that to a joiner or plumber who probably isnt the most it savy it person and who is likely to think its the end of the world when their first customer goes - i am not paying 20% vat .
ref software - its like you have never seen any of the horror stories on here where clients try and do it themselves it needs attention to detail to do it well. Just look at recent first return one where there was 20k difference between traders calcs and that of the vat office !
"Changing the vat threshold by £5k will make absolutely no difference to the economic health of the country. It is a meaningless gesture. It was just padding out a lack lustre budget."
raising the vat threshold most certainly helps at the coalface - its very traumatic for peeps in business to deal with vat if they arent financial savvy so this most certainly helps.
However its clearly electioneering at its finest - they have been happy to not raise the threshold every other year - so to only do it directly before and election really does smack of bribery.
Not sure if any of this clever stuff does anything but annoy most peeps
sigh
Hunt said he was going to "end that unfairness" of the HICBC but warned that it requires "significant reforms to the tax system, including allowing HMRC to collect household level information".
so those that have been moaning means we will probably end up withn an even more complciated system where we need sumary income levels for both partners
arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
i wander if its easier to fake it with these new fangled online checks compared to the old skool way of person turning up with their actual photo id and actual utility bill that we can touch and feel.