Universal Credit

[chellie]

which is as it should be...given the many hundreds of thousands of workers who have had to register for UC in the last few months - 100% encouraged by the government - and who would not take kindly to being lumped in with those few who choose to be on, a stay on, UC.

But there are so many who have chosen not to seek alternative work including your son.

No doubt you will see this as having a go at yourself but I have been actively seeking a new job since January. I have been unable to get any help from the government at all. It has been soul destroying to not even get an interview but then I find out that up to 200 people have applied for the same job that I was going for. I have also been hit by COVID as ones that I had got through to interview stage suspended all recruitment or changed their mind about taking on another staff member. I did however choose not to apply for Tesco as I didn't want unsociable as I am not a youngster.

 

[Neilds]

Probably because the majority of the fraud teams have been hived off to deal with the current influx of claimants.[/QUOTE
Teams were cut well before this as part of cost savings. Unfortunately this leads to less fraud being detected and therefore higher costs!

 

[Old Skier]

Strange, in Devon its increased as the local authority teams moved across. I personally know 5 just in the north of the county where I am

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It's important to remember that while 'tax evasion' is illegal, tax avoidance is perfectly legal - and is, imo, obligatory! In fact, many/most of the (so-called) loopholes were quite deliberately created by the Government as a way of funding specifically targeted areas of the economy without directly funding them - the UK film industry being typical!

And there are those who exploit/avoid the tax for sheer greed and is immoral imo.

"Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended," said a spokesman for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

"It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter - but not the spirit - of the law," he said.

Tax avoidance currently costs the taxpayer £4bn a year, according to the latest figures from HMRC.

That is very nearly as much as illegal tax evasion, which costs £5.1bn.

 

[chrisd]

And there are those who exploit/avoid the tax for sheer greed and is immoral imo.

"Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended," said a spokesman for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

"It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter - but not the spirit - of the law," he said.

Tax avoidance currently costs the taxpayer £4bn a year, according to the latest figures from HMRC.

That is very nearly as much as illegal tax evasion, which costs £5.1bn.

I don't see it as you do Paul. Over the years running my own business I avoided paying tax by taking a low wage but reasonable dividend payments to supplement my income. I know there are more contrived ways to avoid tax but the benefit was, in my case, that money stayed in the business and helped it grow. Corporation tax is a necessity I guess, but in a growing business such as I had it meant growth was slower as I had to sent a large % of money to the Inland Revenue annually for all manor of taxes which would have, over the years allowed me to employ more people and grow the business. By the time I retired Corporation tax had been lowered as was retirement relief ?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I don't see it as you do Paul. Over the years running my own business I avoided paying tax by taking a low wage but reasonable dividend payments to supplement my income. I know there are more contrived ways to avoid tax but the benefit was, in my case, that money stayed in the business and helped it grow. Corporation tax is a necessity I guess, but in a growing business such as I had it meant growth was slower as I had to sent a large % of money to the Inland Revenue annually for all manor of taxes which would have, over the years allowed me to employ more people and grow the business. By the time I retired Corporation tax had been lowered as was retirement relief ?

And I’ve no issue with tax avoidance being used for the right reasons, it’s when it’s not.

Look at all the Celebrities a few years back, ie Take That, Jimmy Carr etc, what they did wasn’t illegal, none of them were charged, but they were hit with paying it back, because the judge disagreed at the tax tribunals (which they asked for) with the information they had supplied.

Those are the sort I’m on about not those using the Government avoidance scheme:
schemes that have been allocated a Scheme Reference Number (SRN) by HMRC under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But there are so many who have chosen not to seek alternative work including your son.

No doubt you will see this as having a go at yourself but I have been actively seeking a new job since January. I have been unable to get any help from the government at all. It has been soul destroying to not even get an interview but then I find out that up to 200 people have applied for the same job that I was going for. I have also been hit by COVID as ones that I had got through to interview stage suspended all recruitment or changed their mind about taking on another staff member. I did however choose not to apply for Tesco as I didn't want unsociable as I am not a youngster.

My son is sorting his head out given the career that he has worked on for the last six years is now in tatters. Meanwhile he is still getting a little furlough payment from his nightclub employment (from which he will be made redundant in mid-August) and so receives a reduced UC (as you'd expect); he has registered with a number of agencies for admin-type work but is taking a short breather as he has had taken no holiday for nearly two years - working flat out and every weekend to build the career that has now collapsed. He hopes to get a job next month as he wants to be off UC early September. There may be some milking the system. There are...and many of them have plenty money in savings and we might say shouldn't qualify for a penny of UC - but they do.

 

[3offTheTee]

SILH

What work has your son applied for during the last 4 months?
What work has his partner applied for during the last 4 months?

 

[Deleted member 1740]

And I’ve no issue with tax avoidance being used for the right reasons, it’s when it’s not.

Look at all the Celebrities a few years back, ie Take That, Jimmy Carr etc, what they did wasn’t illegal, none of them were charged, but they were hit with paying it back, because the judge disagreed at the tax tribunals (which they asked for) with the information they had supplied.

Those are the sort I’m on about not those using the Government avoidance scheme:
schemes that have been allocated a Scheme Reference Number (SRN) by HMRC under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) regime.

You cant be against a percentage of tax avoidance can you? Surely it's all or nothing.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You cant be against a percentage of tax avoidance can you? Surely it's all or nothing.

No it’s not mate, it’s not illegal and done for the right reasons, ie the Government backed schemes or ChrisD’s example, I don’t have an issue with it.

The using of it to evade tax by unscrupulous people and business’s is were it needs clamping down.

 

[Leftie]

No it’s not mate, it’s not illegal and done for the right reasons, ie the Government backed schemes or ChrisD’s example, I don’t have an issue with it.

The using of it to evade tax by unscrupulous people and business’s is were it needs clamping down.

So who is going to define what is a right/wrong reason? Who defines who is an unscrupulous person/business and who can/can't legally avoid tax?

It's like golf. If the rules allow something to be done then it's not illegal. It may be against the "spirit of the game"/immoral but allowed. If I were in a position where I had a potential inheritance tax liability, then I would consider using any of the multitude of vehicles available to mitigate it.

Recently the Duke of Westminster (possibly) the richest man in England died and allegedly no inheritance tax was paid on his estate. Exceptionally good tax (avoidance) planning. Was he one of your " unscrupulous people".

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are loads of examples where companies should pay more tax in this country (Starbucks, Amazon, etc) but all the while tax legislation can be manipulated to their advantage then they are doing nothing "wrong".

 

[Hobbit]

My son is sorting his head out given the career that he has worked on for the last six years is now in tatters. Meanwhile he is still getting a little furlough payment from his nightclub employment (from which he will be made redundant in mid-August) and so receives a reduced UC (as you'd expect); he has registered with a number of agencies for admin-type work but is taking a short breather as he has had taken no holiday for nearly two years - working flat out and every weekend to build the career that has now collapsed. He hopes to get a job next month as he wants to be off UC early September. There may be some milking the system. There are...and many of them have plenty money in savings and we might say shouldn't qualify for a penny of UC - but they do.

”He’s taking a short breather as he had taken no holiday for nearly two years...”

He’s 4 months into a short breather, courtesy of lockdown. Yes it would appear some are milking the system....

 

[chellie]

”He’s taking a short breather as he had taken no holiday for nearly two years...”

He’s 4 months into a short breather, courtesy of lockdown. Yes it would appear some are milking the system....

Tea spat over monitor moment

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So who is going to define what is a right/wrong reason? Who defines who is an unscrupulous person/business and who can/can't legally avoid tax?

It's like golf. If the rules allow something to be done then it's not illegal. It may be against the "spirit of the game"/immoral but allowed. If I were in a position where I had a potential inheritance tax liability, then I would consider using any of the multitude of vehicles available to mitigate it.

Recently the Duke of Westminster (possibly) the richest man in England died and allegedly no inheritance tax was paid on his estate. Exceptionally good tax (avoidance) planning. Was he one of your " unscrupulous people".

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are loads of examples where companies should pay more tax in this country (Starbucks, Amazon, etc) but all the while tax legislation can be manipulated to their advantage then they are doing nothing "wrong".

It’s defined by the HMRC, like the examples of the celebrities I gave, some accepted it, some took it to the tax tribunal and lost, none of them were charged with any criminal offence, but still paid up.

As for the Duke of Westminster, absolute disgrace, and the type of loophole that should be closed, whether we like it or not it shouldn’t down to individual wealth and the “type” of accountant you can afford, nothing illegal, but morally it stinks.

 

[Wolf]

My son is sorting his head out given the career that he has worked on for the last six years is now in tatters. Meanwhile he is still getting a little furlough payment from his nightclub employment (from which he will be made redundant in mid-August) and so receives a reduced UC (as you'd expect); he has registered with a number of agencies for admin-type work but is taking a short breather as he has had taken no holiday for nearly two years - working flat out and every weekend to build the career that has now collapsed. He hopes to get a job next month as he wants to be off UC early September. There may be some milking the system. There are...and many of them have plenty money in savings and we might say shouldn't qualify for a penny of UC - but they do.

I've read this post about 5 times to try and understand your POV but I'm sorry it makes no sense because its simply not consistent with your numerous posts about your son over the last 2 year period. Quite a number of times over that period you posted your son had no work & you were bailing him out continuously.

It was only this year you posted he had a good upturn in work and got a regular income. So your own posts suggest over the last 2 years he has had plenty of time off.

As for he is taking a short breather and wants to be in work by September, that will a 6 month breather in which time you have continually bemoaned the government for not helping him & that he has mounting debts he needs help with. In that time he could have been helping himself by applying for various jobs and making his own financial situation better instead of relying on the bank of mum and dad to pay them.

None of this is personal because my MiL is in exactly the same boat, we often have to hear from her how she is only getting x amount of pounds through UC but in the last 6 months hasn't bothered to apply for a single job because she believes the job centre should do it for her and its government fault she hasn't got a job yet depsite the fact she hasn't got off her arse and done anything about it, but comes cap in hand to us for help with money which we don't give.

 

[Old Skier]

I've read this post about 5 times to try and understand your POV but I'm sorry it makes no sense because its simply not consistent with your numerous posts about your son over the last 2 year period. Quite a number of times over that period you posted your son had no work & you were bailing him out continuously.

It was only this year you posted he had a good upturn in work and got a regular income. So your own posts suggest over the last 2 years he has had plenty of time off.

As for he is taking a short breather and wants to be in work by September, that will a 6 month breather in which time you have continually bemoaned the government for not helping him & that he has mounting debts he needs help with. In that time he could have been helping himself by applying for various jobs and making his own financial situation better instead of relying on the bank of mum and dad to pay them.

None of this is personal because my MiL is in exactly the same boat, we often have to hear from her how she is only getting x amount of pounds through UC but in the last 6 months hasn't bothered to apply for a single job because she believes the job centre should do it for her and its government fault she hasn't got a job yet depsite the fact she hasn't got off her arse and done anything about it, but comes cap in hand to us for help with money which we don't give.

I believe the whole thread has been a massive Whaa @Wolf , nothing consistent in any of his posts.

 

[Old Skier]

My son is sorting his head out given the career that he has worked on for the last six years is now in tatters. Meanwhile he is still getting a little furlough payment from his nightclub employment (from which he will be made redundant in mid-August) and so receives a reduced UC (as you'd expect); he has registered with a number of agencies for admin-type work but is taking a short breather as he has had taken no holiday for nearly two years - working flat out and every weekend to build the career that has now collapsed. He hopes to get a job next month as he wants to be off UC early September. There may be some milking the system. There are...and many of them have plenty money in savings and we might say shouldn't qualify for a penny of UC - but they do.

People are allowed a savings threshold in the UJ system which is not as generous as the threshold that many charities use when giving assistance.

The state system may have some flaws but in general it helps most people to live perhaps not in the way they want to, where would your son and the GF be without it. Perhaps in retrospect they should have taken one of the thousands of extra jobs created by the supermarkets.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

People are allowed a savings threshold in the UJ system which is not as generous as the threshold that many charities use when giving assistance.

The state system may have some flaws but in general it helps most people to live perhaps not in the way they want to, where would your son and the GF be without it. Perhaps in retrospect they should have taken one of the thousands of extra jobs created by the supermarkets.

Always goes back to 'get a job in a supermarket - there are thousands of them'...and '...they should think themselves fortunate' - blah blah blah. Except that's nothing to do with what I posted about.

Recall - it's OK to have up to £16,000 in savings to still qualify for UC - and up to £6,000 with it having no impact whatsoever. Yet if you have NO savings and are on UC you can't have any delayed income - of any amount no matter how little - without it impacting your UC...that's just tough - that's OK...how it is. That being the case shouldn't then those fortunate enough to have savings have to use these savings before expecting the state to help them out. After all for a couple, £6000, is about 6months UC. Plenty of time to get a job - in a supermarket perhaps - so they don't use up too much of their savings. That's what I posted about.

You see - the system works better for those who have some money than it does for those have don't have any.

 

[GreiginFife]

Maybe your son should have had some savings then.
Being self employed was his choice after all, no one forced him in to it and with it comes the drawbacks like payments being made late or on terms past invoice.

If he'd had a simple PAYE job then it's unlikely his pay would be late and none of this would matter.

 

[GB72]

Always goes back to 'get a job in a supermarket - there are thousands of them'...and '...they should think themselves fortunate' - blah blah blah. Except that's nothing to do with what I posted about.

Recall - it's OK to have up to £16,000 in savings to still qualify for UC - and up to £6,000 with it having no impact whatsoever. Yet if you have NO savings and are on UC you can't have any delayed income - of any amount no matter how little - without it impacting your UC...that's just tough - that's OK...how it is. That being the case shouldn't then those fortunate enough to have savings have to use these savings before expecting the state to help them out. After all for a couple, £6000, is about 6months UC. Plenty of time to get a job - in a supermarket perhaps - so they don't use up too much of their savings. That's what I posted about.

You see - the system works better for those who have some money than it does for those have don't have any.

I have to disagree here, the system does not penalise those who have been prudent or frugal enough to tuck some money away. My wife is a self employed contractor. On day one she understood that, at the end of each contract there was no guarantee where the next one was coming from or how long it would take to get. As such, she would put some away every month, forgo a few things, cut back where she needed to, to ensure that she quickly had a month or 2 in 'salary' tucked away. She kept doing that throughout and has kept enough to keep her going for 4 months with no income until she found a full time job. What you are suggesting is that those that have done what it takes to save a bit for hard times should be penalised to benefit those that have spent what they have.

The system, in the situation you describe, treats everyone the same. If you have income coming in, you do not get paid UC if you have savings or if you have not. What the system is doing is looking at the position at the start of the claim and not penalising you if you have put some money aside for emergencies, encouraging people to save if you like. Cannot see a problem there.