GOV TAX CREDITS fraud - Beware!

Perhaps because you're talking bollocks?

You can base a claim upon your present circumstances simply by putting in your claim as normal, using your previous income as the basis for the claim, then immediately informing them of your change of circumstances and your estimated income for the current year. Takes a few weeks to sort out, but no serious problem.

If you managed to earn enough between April and September to put you above the earnings limits for Tax Credits for the whole year then I would suggest that maybe you are not one of the people the Tax Credits system is targeting. Perhaps you should have saved some of your substantial income?

Your maths are about as good as hers - dont work for the Gov do ya?

Eligibility for tax credits is balanced against tax year (Apr-Apr) - thus:

Anyone eligible for credit Apr-Apr get fuuuuuuuuuull year tax credit Anyone eligible for credit Sept-Sept gets f*ck all (because it's set against

2 tax years not one)

is that simple enough for you - dummo?

state aid (any kind) should be available when you fall on hard times (qualify), not where abouts you 'happen' to lose your job within in the fiscal year

No it's not.

You are very stupid.

Tax credits for THIS year are assessed on a previous year's earnings but are ultimately based on THIS year's earnings. If your circumstances have changed since the previous year you are assessed on you can have your Tax Credits assessed on a reasonable estimate of this year's earnings. Any error in either the initial assessment or a subsequent assessment based on estimated earnings is corrected when the actual earnings figures for this year are known.

I think what he's trying to say is that you'll get more help from tax credits if you are unemployed for a year Apr-Apr than if you are unemployed for a year Sept-Sept, which is usually true.

But he has a point.

But first you have to go through the farce of claiming on your previous year's earnings (even if they bear no relation to what you expect to earn this year), and then phoning them (if you can get through) as soon as you get your claim and telling them your expected income for this year.

And you expect a stupid person to understand all that? The problem with the tax credits system is that a lot of people don't understand that they work this way (which is why the government are having to spend a fortune on adverts). People are being overpaid and not realising it, and then getting into serious hardship when the money is clawed back.

That's exactly what i'm saying - in fact to a degree that you may 'only' get help if you need it Apr-Apr, and you not get any help at all if you need it Sept-Sept

he just doesn't get it does he - well neither did the head of the Tax Credits Dept - but i spose 'thinking' is outside of her job remit

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message news:413b9590$0$49592$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

My current circumstances allow me to claim these wonderfully set up schemes. I recently advised them that their projection of this tax years income was four times my current income (because they work two tax years back for info!), and was told that they would put it in the computer, but it was a new system and it might not work! If it did, I would get a new notice, if not I need to return the annual advice sent two months later. The man didn't know if his efforts would achieve anything or not.

it's a ridiculous system set up by the most money grabbing chancellor in living memory. God help us if he becomes prime minister

John

You will get credit within few weeks - if you inform them of your current situation - but be warned, you will have any monies clawed back if your situation changes for the better before April 05

you could earn 50k per year, after April 05 & you wont have to repay it

of course one benefit is - just dont tell them of changes until April 05, coz they dont know what fuggin day it is

Just a small point you haved missed here, if you are unemployed you would not get tax credits but would sign on and apply for JSA. In theory if you have no savings and no other income you could qualify for both basic JSA (simular to the old "dole" money) and income related JSA (like income support. If you have a partner who was earning they would claim the tax credit at an increased rate from when you finished work. They should be able to action any change of circs at the tax credit office so I would always contact them. The main problem is the hassle of contacting them (if you can get through) and the delay whilst your change is processed, but any benefit always has these sort of issues. I am not the biggest fan of this government , but remember a few years ago most of us getting tax credits would not have qualified for any benefits at all (mind you maybe we were paying less in tax as well). facts I have observed as a civil servant, all governments

1) they give with one hand and take with the other 2) any push to simplify benefits always makes it more complicated

Income based JSA/IS is now only for support of the adults. If you've got children you now claim the CTC (child tax credit), which has replaced the child/family elements of JSA/IS (at least for new claimants). Payment of CTC does *not* depend on the work status of the family (unlike WTC & the old WFTC).

Remember the married couple's allowance? Additional personal allowance? MIRAS? For "most" of us we get less in tax credits than we used to get from the MCA/APA & MIRAS, and none of these were means tested.

Tax credits are a classic example of this. They are only necessary because of our moronic system of independant taxation which taxes families far too heavily (as non-earners can't use their personal allowances against the income which supports them).

A family of 4 on 20,000 earn enough to support themselves without any state handouts, but they have to go through the farce of being taxed much more than they can afford, and then applying separately for tax credits, child benefit, possibly housing benefit as well. So going through 3 separate assessments of their income.

A decent tax system is what we need, like in the USA and most of Europe, then far fewer people would need to claim benefits.

"Andy Pandy" wrote in message news:413df33a$0$31288$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

hear hear! - the problem in a nutshell

the rescaling of mimimum tax threshold is way out of date

asking someone to pay income tax for earnings of sub 5k.p.a is a joke (and they know it) - no one should pay income tax at all until they earn at least

10k (which is still not an income)

I agree min tax thresholds should be raised. Couldn't the govern do some sort of spin where more people pay less tax and a few pay more ie raise the level to 10000 or even higher. Get rid of the 10% bracket shuffle the others upwards and perhaps bring in a much higher 45-50% level? Another tax which should be sorted is council tax. Just add an extra 1-2 % onto income tax as a local tax, that way everyone would pay in line with their earnings, and those not paying tax ie most of the pensioners who struggle to pay current council tax rates would automatically be excluded. It would also save a fortune on admin as the council tax benefit system is v complicated. The downside is a fair number of council employees would be out of a job, but form the governments point of view, this wouldn't seem to be a problem. ali

You mean the 'few' who already pay half the total take.

How about cutting public spending instead.

greg

[...]

See:

esp. the section on the canons of taxation.

You're missing the point. Independant taxation is the problem, not the level of the personal allowance. We don't need higher allowances, about 5,000 per person is probably about right, we need to allow non-earners to use their allowance against the earnings which the government expects them to live off. Like in most civilised countries.

Currently we have the hypocricy of a tax system which assesses people as individuals, but a benefits system (including tax credits which are basically benefits) which assesses people jointly.

But is won't happen because successive governments have been obsessed with getting tax *rates* as low as possible, as they think people are stupid enough to believe that low tax rates mean low taxes. A family in France or the USA on an average household income will pay a much higher marginal rate of tax than here, but much less tax in total.

you can carve it up, how you like (2% per 1K over 10K) but consider this reality - someone earning sub 10K can hardly feed themselves, let alone anyone else

the gov prefered antic is to take tax of them, so they have to scrounge it back (via tax credit farce) - it doesn't do much for their esteem either

Incorrect, marginal tax rates in the US are lower than what they are here.

Allowances are also far more generous.

greg

Why ?

The 'rich' already pay double the amount of tax as a %age of the overall take than they did in good old days of the 70s.

That depends on where you look at it from.

So ? Anyone earning sub 10k is not meaningfully contributing towards the schooling their kids take or paying a whit towards their health care or pensions.

Any short term schadenfruede at squeezing the rich Denis Healey style will soon turn to ash when the overall tax take plummets.

That's because our socialist friend in No 11 wants a nation of welfare dependents beholden to the state.

He can scare them into voting for him the next election by suggesting that 'evil' Tories are going to take all their alleged 'benefits' away.

I couldn't care less about their 'esteem'.

greg

didn't they have Super Tax in 70's (95% over 100k p.a.)?

that's exactly my point - so why bother taxing them in the first place - they simply cant afford it