Self assessment & Child benefit

nilagin

nilagin

Daniel-san
Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,804
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm confused, this business about registering now for self assessment with regards child benefit if you earn over £50k. Do you need to register if you earned more than £50k by April just gone or if you're likely to earn more than £50k by April 2014? I've looked on the Gov. website and it doesn't really say.
Reason I ask is, last year (2012-13) I didn't earn more than £50k, where as for this year (2013-14) I will. Apparently although the registration date has gone, any fines will be wavered providing returns are made by January.
 
nilagin said:
I'm confused, this business about registering now for self assessment with regards child benefit if you earn over £50k. Do you need to register if you earned more than £50k by April just gone or if you're likely to earn more than £50k by April 2014? I've looked on the Gov. website and it doesn't really say. Reason I ask is, last year (2012-13) I didn't earn more than £50k, where as for this year (2013-14) I will. Apparently although the registration date has gone, any fines will be wavered providing returns are made by January.
Click to expand...

if you earn over £50k and under £60k you're still entitled to some benefit. Some more details here

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefitcharge/stopstartpayments.htm

no harm in completing a self assessment form anyway
 
Interesting one for me also. Based on my basic earnings, I would be no where near the 50k threshold. However, taking into account bonuses, I very well might. I'm still due two more bonus payments before April 14, this could range from 0 to possibly 15k in total. At 0, I would be under, at the top end, well over.

What do I do? Declare over and lose out for my two kids, declare under and then accidentally go over? If i do go over, next year I could be under again. Would I lose out going forward forever?

What I think I have decided to do, for this year at least, is if I do earn over 50k, stick everything over this into my pension as a lump sum. Is this allowable and would it be ok?
 
wisemen said:
What I think I have decided to do, for this year at least, is if I do earn over 50k, stick everything over this into my pension as a lump sum. Is this allowable and would it be ok?
Click to expand...
yes by reducing your taxable earnings means you will still be entitled. It's only when you earn over £60 k that the tax you pay equals the child benefit amount
 
Craig1912 said:
if you earn over £50k and under £60k you're still entitled to some benefit. Some more details here

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefitcharge/stopstartpayments.htm

no harm in completing a self assessment form anyway
Click to expand...

But like wisemen, the problem is not knowing the full earnings until April next year. I know I will be over £50k by next April but I have no way of knowing the full amount until then. So is this registration for self assessment for 2012-13 or 2013-14?
What I don't get is the tax man knows how much I've earned, so why do I have to fill in a form and remind him. Seems totally pointless, a waste of my time and theirs. :wacky:
 
As far as I can see, you need to fill out a self assessment for 2012-13 to account for earnings between 7th Jan and 5th April 2013. It's not clearly spelled out though.

Best bet is to ring HMRC and ask. They're very good at dealing with queries if you speak to them.
 
cambsno said:
One of the most unfair taxes ever...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't quite put it in that bracket it's hardly the poll tax! I think the bedroom tax is far worse.... "You are loosing £25 per week because you have a spare bedroom which you don't need.... Ok I'll move into a smaller house..... You can't we haven't got any...." - That's an unfair tax.

It HAS been done very badly but you can see the logic behind it. If someone is earning a £1000 per week should the government then give them a further £20+extra for more kids. Any time that they take a benefit away it will cause upset but I would think that it should be based on NEW claims so not affecting people already collecting it. The austerity measures have cost me about £250 net per month off my wages so I know better than most how this is affecting people.
 
cowasaki said:
I wouldn't quite put it in that bracket it's hardly the poll tax! I think the bedroom tax is far worse.... "You are loosing £25 per week because you have a spare bedroom which you don't need.... Ok I'll move into a smaller house..... You can't we haven't got any...." - That's an unfair tax.

It HAS been done very badly but you can see the logic behind it. If someone is earning a £1000 per week should the government then give them a further £20+extra for more kids. Any time that they take a benefit away it will cause upset but I would think that it should be based on NEW claims so not affecting people already collecting it. The austerity measures have cost me about £250 net per month off my wages so I know better than most how this is affecting people.
Click to expand...

Its the fact that a family with 1 earner on £60k gets no benefit, while one with 2 earners on £48k (so £96k total) get to keep it all - totally unfair.
 
cambsno said:
Its the fact that a family with 1 earner on £60k gets no benefit, while one with 2 earners on £48k (so £96k total) get to keep it all - totally unfair.
Click to expand...

& how many families is that actually happening to?, unlike the bedroom tax.

I agree its badly thought out in its implementation, but its not unique in that
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
Its the fact that a family with 1 earner on £60k gets no benefit, while one with 2 earners on £48k (so £96k total) get to keep it all - totally unfair.
Click to expand...

wheras neither of them actually needs it - how you can get benefits at all while earning that kind of money baffles me.

I agree that they should have set the bar based on household income , but they also should have set it much lower
 
Last edited:
Any tax like this has winners and losers.
 
boyfalldown said:
& how many families is that actually happening to?, unlike the bedroom tax.

I agree its badly thought out in its implementation, but its not unique in that
Click to expand...

The bedroom tax has LOTS of victims. 2 people have committed suicide in Blackpool as a direct consequence of it !


Yes it's an issue if a couple bringing in 95K get it but a single parent getting 45K doesn't BUT does someone bringing in £45K necessarily need it.... maybe, maybe not but it could have possibly been fairer if it had been for new claims.
 
cowasaki said:
The bedroom tax has LOTS of victims. 2 people have committed suicide in Blackpool as a direct consequence of it ! Yes it's an issue if a couple bringing in 95K get it but a single parent getting 45K doesn't BUT does someone bringing in £45K necessarily need it.... maybe, maybe not but it could have possibly been fairer if it had been for new claims.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing any of that, or disagreeing with you- I think the bedroom tax is a joke. My reply was directly to the example simon gave
 
nilagin said:
What I don't get is the tax man knows how much I've earned, so why do I have to fill in a form and remind him. Seems totally pointless, a waste of my time and theirs. :wacky:
Click to expand...

It's the same with tax credits. An annual form giving them information they already have.


Steve.
 
cowasaki said:
I wouldn't quite put it in that bracket it's hardly the poll tax! I think the bedroom tax is far worse.... "You are loosing £25 per week because you have a spare bedroom which you don't need.... Ok I'll move into a smaller house..... You can't we haven't got any...." - That's an unfair tax.
Click to expand...

I have a spare bedroom I don't need, two in fact as it's a three bedroom house and there is only one of me.

I am not being taxed for it. My tax code is unaltered and my income is unchanged, at least as a consequence of the number of unoccupied bedrooms in my house.

Perhaps your use of "tax" is completely incorrect?
 
onomatopoeia said:
I have a spare bedroom I don't need, two in fact as it's a three bedroom house and there is only one of me.

I am not being taxed for it. My tax code is unaltered and my income is unchanged, at least as a consequence of the number of unoccupied bedrooms in my house.

Perhaps your use of "tax" is completely incorrect?
Click to expand...
Is it a council or housing association house and do you receive benefits to pay the rent?
 
nilagin said:
Is it a council or housing association house and do you receive benefits to pay the rent?
Click to expand...

No and no. But I have spare bedrooms and this was described as a tax on spare bedrooms.
 
The bedroom tax is what the press and public at large are referring to the change in housing benefits. If you have a house or flat and getting housing benefit they are reducing this benefit to people who have spare bedrooms. This amounts to a significant reduction in the household income for those involved but as there is a serious shortage in the smaller properties people cannot necessarily downsize plus they wouldn't necessarily get help doing so or can't because kids are at school etc. As this affects people who are on a smaller income the effect is far greater than people on £1000 a week loosing their child benefit.

It is such a problem that people have committed suicide over it and the EU have even sick their oar in.

I don't get any benefits as i earn to much to and my youngest is 19.
 
boyfalldown said:
That's just not picking on your part. That term is in very common use, and I'm sure you know it
Click to expand...

Exactly. Much like "poll tax" was.

And it is effectivelya tax on spare bedrooms even if the only people paying it are those least able to afford it.
 
POAH said:
partially as it goes on one persons salary rather than combined parental but if you are earning 50k a year you don't need child benefit etc
Click to expand...

Surely that depends on your outgoings. House prices around here, are almost 3 times what they were 20 odd years ago. People now have to take out bigger mortgages. If they move somewhere cheaper they will likely swap some of that mortgage payment for commuting expenses.
 
nilagin said:
Surely that depends on your outgoings. House prices around here, are almost 3 times what they were 20 odd years ago. People now have to take out bigger mortgages. If they move somewhere cheaper they will likely swap some of that mortgage payment for commuting expenses.
Click to expand...

that's your issue though - buy a cheaper house.
 
nilagin said:
Surely that is dictated by where you work and need to live to commute.
Click to expand...

you still have to buy a house you can afford. when we had a combined income of 40k we didn't count on government hand outs to pay for things so why should someone that gets 50K need it.
 
POAH said:
you still have to buy a house you can afford. when we had a combined income of 40k we didn't count on government hand outs to pay for things so why should someone that gets 50K need it.
Click to expand...
For someone on £50k they will lose over £3200 extra in tax compared to someone on £40k, then there is the extra national insurance contributions as well. Not a great deal of difference between the earnings then.
 
POAH said:
you still have to buy a house you can afford. when we had a combined income of 40k we didn't count on government hand outs to pay for things so why should someone that gets 50K need it.
Click to expand...

I think the point with this particular benefit is that it was always a universal benefit from its inception and with fairly short notice it was taken away from a particular section of society. It wasn't unreasonable to assume that would have been a reliable source of income contributing to the household budget.

The argument as to whether it should be have been removed from higher earners or not is a separate issue.
 
nilagin said:
For someone on £50k they will lose over £3200 extra in tax compared to someone on £40k, then there is the extra national insurance contributions as well. Not a great deal of difference between the earnings then.
Click to expand...

still going to be a significant difference between the two.
 
it's only about 1k a year for one child. people on high salaries would not miss that. if they do they need to curtail their spending habits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top