General Chat

It is impossible to detect a modern tv with a van.
Instead the BBC assumes that all households have a TV capable device Inc smartphones and tablets.
Not paying and getting a criminal record and - ve credit rating plus fine is a daft way of saving £3 per week.

Of course you can declare that you never watch any kind of live program. Good luck.

Sylvia, I've been retired for many years but when I worked, the self-employed who had a reasonable income often budgeted for an accountant and accountants usually knew which type of employment the taxman was going to concentrate on in any one year. It saved the worker trying to claim for every little thing and getting knocked back.

So, for instance, one year the taxman would focus on, say plumbers and hairdressers. He would hone up on the necessities of those particular jobs. Reasonable depreciation of, say, vans (plumbers - unless you were a mobile hairdresser, in which case you'd need a vehicle), fittings etc and purchases of items such as overalls and protective boots, scissors and towels, could be claimed for tax relief but woe betide if you tried to claim for a raft of sumptuous lunches and client schmoozing. You get the drift .....

The accountant would also advise on partnerships, limited companies etc - all legal ways of reducing the tax bill.

I'd be surprised if the Canadian taxman didn't follow the same tactics. None of them is daft!

Having said all that, recent cases in the UK reveal that some accountants have become chancers to the detriment of their clients, many of whom have been 'dragged through the mud' by the taxman because of accountants' bad advice. If it were me, I'd never use those accountants again but greed often overrules good advice.

Big brother is watching you - taxman and tv detector vans!!!

Annx, you’re right. 35 years for the new State Pension. I must have got the 39 years from an old pension forecast.

Sylvia, the ordinary PAYE Joe or Joanna Blogs can can submit a tax form to deduct certain ‘expenses’ but they don’t make a great deal of difference.

Pulling it back to High earning TV personnel or so called entertainers can afford top notch accountants to reduce their tax liabilities. Mind you, some of the tax avoidance schemes have come unstuck!

JoyLouise and DET ........ thank you for that information.

For 2018, in Canada ........

0% tax below $11,809
Then it increases by 10.6% for each group between $10,000 and $40,000 until it reached the tax rates below

15% on the first $46,605 of taxable income, +
20.5% on the next $46,603 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income
over 46,605 up to $93,208), +
26% on the next $51,281 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income
over $93,208 up to $144,489), +
29% on the next $61,353 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income
over 144,489 up to $205,842), +
33% of taxable income over $205,842.

The average tax rate over $1,000,000 is 33.1 percent

Added on to this is a tax payable to the province in which you work, differing rates in each province.

But we then have various deductions that we make when filing our tax returns ............... eg, a basic personal tax credit, union or professional fees, cost of books or safety equipment, donations, medical expenses amounting to more than 3% of taxable income, etc.

Most salaried people PAYE, so all the deductions are against tax already paid ............... usually resulting in either a balance-off where amount due = amount paid, or a refund of over-payment.


The tax year is January - December, and we have to file our returns by the end of April. We can file jointly as a married couple or individually ..... we've always filed separately


I remember my brother was only one of many who married in the UK before the end of March because he could claim to have been married for the whole of the precious year and so claim the Married Exemption. :-D

In 2007 when I retired it was 39 years for a woman and 44 years for a man. then they dropped it to 30 years in 2016 for all, to enable more to get a full pension. Now I think it has gone up to 35 years. I might be wrong though as it's hard to keep up with all the messing around with things!

I don't think anyone really thinks they should have low pay but a more reasonable pay would be fine. Also as noted far too many unnecessary outside broadcasts, if you can't afford it don't do it.
Just do advertising and deal with it!

I stand corrected, the tax-free allowance is slightly higher than the amount I thought it was, Sylvia.

For SylviainCanada - earnings are taxed as follows

Taxable Income Tax Rate (Band) Tax Rate
Up to £11,850 Personal allowance 0%
£11,851 to £46,350 Basic rate 20%
£46,351 to £150,000 Higher rate 40%
Over £150,000 Additional rate 45%
(3 Apr 2018)

A Higher Rate tax payer would pay the 20% plus the 40% on earnings over £46,351.

There’s another explanation here
www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk
https://tinyurl.com/y89p2djf

Note the rates for National Insurance further down the linked page. That’s what, we’ve been told in the past, funds our entitlement to a State Pension. To qualify for a full State Pension, currently you should have either been paying NI for 39 years, been in receipt of certain Benefits or a combination of the two.
As our State Retirement Age increases so, no doubt, will the number of qualifying years. Our children think they’ll probably be 70 before they’ll be at pensionable age.

The tax bands are graduated from lower-income to higher-income earners beyond the initial non-taxable amount that everyone qualifies for, Sylvia. (Currently, I believed it is £10,500 non-qualifiable, ie free of direct tax.)

This is why I said from 1% (for lower earners) to 10 or 5% for higher earners. The percentage would depend on the income band. I can understand why Rollo mentioned 10% but while I personally agree with 10%, I feel a lot of higher-income earners would complain bitterly at such a higher differential.

Old age pensions for people over age 70 and means tested were introduced in 1908. Contributory pensions payable at age 65 were introduced in 1926. In 1948 a National Insurance pension for a single person was £1. 6s 0d pw. The current value would be £48.37 pw. The fact that the current state pension is around 3 times that much helps explain why the money coming in doesn't go very far!

National Insurance paid in by individuals and employers formed the National Insurance Fund. The original idea was that like any insurance, according to what you paid in, providing the qualifying conditions were satisfied, a pension would be paid out at pension age. The National Insurance Fund was, and still is as far as I am aware, 'ring fenced' and can only be used for paying National Insurance benefits which includes the State Pension. Over the years, more and more National Insurance benefits have been introduced, payment rates have increased so the fund has needed the addition of tax to sustain the payments from it.

Ironically, Beveridge's hope was to largely reduce the need for means tested benefits and the stigma attached, but we hear means testing suggested for more and more things these days.

I think we should hang on to our perks, once they go we won't get them back.

I'm very selective when it comes to watching the telly always have been & that includes when the children were at home.
We have had a free licence for a year now but I would willingly pay for the licence HOWEVER there are soooo many repeat programmes on the BBC / TV that in my opinion the licence should be free for EVERYONE!

I watch very little TV on the whole, I don't watch any soaps or reality stuff or sport so when they have been taken out of the equasion (sp) there's not much left for me to settle down to.

In the past months I have been recovering from a bad falll which meant in the early weeks following my fall I was confined to my easy chair for long spells, including during the night because I was unable to get into bed because of the pain & not being able to sleep, I had no choice but to watch the telly during those long nights sitting up in my chair was a god send, even if most things I had to watch were repeats!! without the telly I would have gone spare looking at 4 walls & listening to the clock ticking for several hours night after night!

There are many many people out there who cannot get out of the house or their beds because of serious disabilities & I'm sure most of them rely on the telly for company! & have NO choice but to be "glued" to their TV sets at some point through the day or night!

As for our fuel "benefit" ours goes towards the heating Oil bill, & though very welcome the £200 we receive goes NOWHERE near paying for all the oil we need!!
NONE goes on the grandchildrens Christmas presents!
I save up a little each week so as to be able to get them something, our adult children get nothing for Christmas or Birthdays & haven't had such presents since they left home years ago, they don't need me to buy such things for them & I certainy wouldn't use my fuel money on them! they have money of their own & certainly more than I have!

Joan.

Doesn't your tax rate increase as the amount earned increases??

Do you mean that someone earning £5,000 a year pays the same %tax as someone earning £30,000 or £100,000 or £1,000,000?

Our tax rate increases as your income increases.

That's why the tax deductions and credits work so well, because deducting those from the gross salary reduces amount liable for taxing.

We agree on something then, Rollo. :-D

Extra tax rising from 1% to, say, 10% (although 5 at the top salary range would probably me more acceptable to the majority of hgher-earners).

It is a sad fact that getting skilled and intelligent people for low pay is really difficult. If they have 10-20 years experience and a good track record it is impossible.

Nobody has even been able to live comfortably on low pay. They never will.

Nevertheless I am very much opposed to the current policies on government spending from the BBC and education to UC and police/justice. I would prefer a tax rise big enough to make a difference - say 10% extra on salaries over £ 150 K inc non PAYE earnings. That should go with winding down the vast money laundering operation going on in the City of London.
.
If the government wants any group of people to have a free or discount TV licence then the govt should pay for it not those paying the full wack. It is exactly the same logic as saying that a given group should get a 25% discount on groceries and the other customers should be charged extra to pay for it. Bus passes and WHA have to be paid for by somebody. That somebody should be general taxation (if at all) not working people on ordinary wages and strapped for cash local government.

What kind of consultation is that, channelling pointed questions to promote its cause when the decision is that of the government.

Short-sighted, the BBC, as well as still trying to feather its own nest. Hasn't there been enough publicity about the fact that future pensioners will not be as well off as current ones. It goes to show how out-of-date are the decision-makers at the Beeb.

They will go to the bitter end, though, in order to safeguard the exhorbitant salaries they pay to the chosen few. Greed, greed and more greed.

It's not rocket science for someone at the top to sort out salaries to meet funds and to release those who want more or to cut back on the number of presenters and pundits. It's time they familiarised themselves with Mr Micawber!

Doesn't address the super high wages though does it?

The UK state pension ( despite what politicians said ) was never funded from its inception in 1911. The reason if obvious .... it is impossible for pension fund payments in, say 1935 to be adequate for living costs 30 years later.
There have been various attempts to get around this such as SERPS and the current ukgovt pension scheme.
Private pension schemes have nearly all ended leaving vast unfunded liabilities.
The UK Govt has recently restarted something similar to SERPS but it will be a long time before it has much impact. Although I am mostly hostile to the Tory govt this scheme has a lot going for it.
So meanwhile state pensions are paid from tax.
Life expectancy in the UK is falling so maybe the answer lies with Malthus.

something has to give ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46274054

As a matter of interest ................ how are British pensions funded (other than private ones)??

Here in Canada, we get Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan at age 65 (names may differ in different provinces, eg Quebec).

Everyone who has a job has into those pensions while working. For certain groups of people, the employer may make contributions to one or both of them, so the worker pays less.

BUT .............. the pensions of today's seniors are in fact funded by the contributions of today's workers because our contributions funded the pensioners back then.

Now, here comes the problem ...... and I think you are also facing it in the UK ..............

there are, or soon will be, more people over the age of 65 than of working age, and even fewer who are under 24.

So the funding behind both OAS and CPP is decreasing, and at some point there is not going to be sufficient. Those under the age of 40 or 45 are looking at the prospect that there will be no money in the OAS or CPP funds for them by the time they reach 65, even though they will have been paying into them all their working lives.

It isn't a fair system when you really think about it!!


The other thing that is different here is that the idea behind the government pensions was, and is, not to fund a comfortable lifestyle, but to provide a basic amount of money. Everyone is encouraged, if not expected, to help fund their own retirement by contributing to Registered Retirement Savings Plans until age 71, Tax Free Savings Account, private company plans, etc etc.

In fact, if you have an income after retirement that is above a certain amount because you have an excellent private pension (or are very wealthy!), the OAS payments are "clawed back", which means they are not in fact paid ............. the idea being that such people don't need OAS and it leaves more in the pool.

And that applies even if THEY have paid OAS out of their salaries for 40+ years.

Encouragement is given by various tax credits for payments into RRSPs etc when you file your tax return every year. Every financial planner in the media advises that even a contribution of $5 or $10 a week into an RRSP from when someone first starts earning money will provide a nest egg.

We don't get winter fuel allowances, free bus passes, etc etc, although there are provisions for similar to be provided for disabled and those who have no other sources of money. In my city, we can buy a cheaper bus pass ........ same price for a child age 6-18 as for those over 65 ............ and VIA (the national train service) has a Senior's Fare which is about 30% lower.

Of course, not everyone earns enough money to make any other contributions to retirement plans than the mandatory OAS and CPP, and those seniors find it difficult, although there are sources of extra money, eg Guaranteed Annual Income Supplement, that can be applied for every year.


My dad died in 1971 in England, got his pension but didn't get a fuel allowance, free bus pass, etc etc. But he thought he was living in heaven because he was being taken care of!

Our friend Rollo is a.wind up merchant
He will sit back & laugh at the replies on here ;-)