"Tim" wrote in message ...
What isn't is why the PAYE system can get it so wrong when
their only income is from the one and only job they've got, so
the employer's PAYE system has full details of their total earnings.

But you need to consider it as though the person has two employers, where
"Employer1" is the (one) employer, and "Employer2" is the *IR*.

Eh?

As you've already pointed out, the problem with underpayment of tax is
actually because the IR ("Employer2") doesn't have details of the employer's
("Employer1") pay :- ...

FROM EARLIER
"Andy Pandy" wrote
They had to guess your income, and if they got it
wrong you could end up owing them a large amount...

/FROM EARLIER

So IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME REASON as for the person with two jobs!!!

What are you on about? The reason PAYE may not deduct the correct amount of tax
for a person with 2 jobs is that each PAYE system doesn't have the person's full
income details.

But if it wasn't for the CTC, a person whose only income is from their one and
only job *will* get the correct amount of tax deducted via PAYE, assuming their
tax code was correct and included any benefits in kind etc. Which it normally
would be as the employer notifies the IR of these things. There was *no need
whatsoever* for the IR to have to guess how much you'll earn in order for the
PAYE system to deduct the correct amount of tax. It's only the CTC which screwed
this up.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Most people, believe it or not, don't bother or even
know how to check that the correct amount of tax
is being deducted from their employment income.

"Tim" wrote
Doesn't surprise me. Perhaps they ought to
take more notice of their financial situations?

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Why should they? That's what PAYE is for.

Eh? Nope - PAYE is to get "close to" the correct tax, deducted as you go
along. If it gets it wrong, you are still liable to pay the correct tax
(just as you can get a refund at the end of the year if PAYE deducts too
much).

See above.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Similarly If I buy a bottle of wine or fill up with petrol I don't know
nor care how much tax should be charged, I just assume the tax is
correct. I don't calculate it myself to check it's right, and I don't
expect
HM C&E to send me a bill if the retailer charged me too little tax.

HM C&E would send the tax bill to the retailer in that situation.
But there's a subtle difference though - with tax on wine/petrol etc, the
*retailer* is responsible for the tax. But with employment, it is the
*taxpayer* who is responsible for the income tax which they pay (and if PAYE
hasn't done it correctly, they need to ask for a self-assessment form...).

Really? So I can ask my employer to stop deducting tax via PAYE and settle up
with the IR myself at the end of the year can I?

--
Andy

"Tim" wrote
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first place.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not so!

Yes, very so! - unless & until the system is changed (which we all know
you're crazy about) ...

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first place.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not so!

Yes, very so!

Not So! at alllllllll

if a family have a legitmate claim for the whole of one year between Apr -
Apr, they WONT pay anything back!!!!!!! - That's a Fact !

just be careful, where abouts in the fiscal year you qualify

Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first place.

not so! - the current "Tax Credit" is a sham - for some obscure reason
it's
directly associated with the tax year Apr-Apr (not related to when any
legitmate needs occurs) thus:

Further to this, some families might be earning good money for the first 6
months of the year (April-nov) and then find themselves with no income. It
is possible that this family would be entitled to £0 in the next 6 months as
they have already earned the money - they would be expected to have saved !!
People/families do not work on a year by year basis. Some families might
only need help for a few weeks/months but this system will not allow that.

"Tim" wrote
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first place.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not so!

"Tim" wrote
Yes, very so!

"JethroUK©" wrote
Not So! at alllllllll

if a family have a legitmate claim for the whole of one year between
Apr - Apr, they WONT pay anything back!!!!!!! - That's a Fact !

.... which is why what I said was correct - look at it again.

"Tim" wrote
But you need to consider it as though the person has two employers,
where "Employer1" is the (one) employer, and "Employer2" is the *IR*.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Eh?

The person is getting some money from their employer (let's call him
"Employer1") and some - the CTC - from the IR (let's call them "Employer2").

The IR ("Employer2") doesn't know how much the "other" employer
("Employer1", the real employer) is paying the person, which is why the PAYE
tax code is wrong - just like the situation where "Employer1" & "Employer2"
are separate real employers.

Just because "Employer1" may have full details, does not mean that they can
amend the PAYE tax code. Only the IR can do that - and they don't have all
the details. If, of course, someone told them the full details, then the
PAYE tax code could easily be corrected (swiftly & accurately).


"Tim" wrote
As you've already pointed out, the problem with
underpayment of tax is actually because the IR ("Employer2")
doesn't have details of the employer's ("Employer1") pay :- ...

FROM EARLIER
"Andy Pandy" wrote
They had to guess your income, and if they got it
wrong you could end up owing them a large amount...

/FROM EARLIER

So IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME REASON as for the person with two jobs!!!

"Andy Pandy" wrote
What are you on about?

See above.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
The reason PAYE may not deduct the correct amount
of tax for a person with 2 jobs is that each PAYE
system doesn't have the person's full income details.

.... just like the IR doesn't have details of the person's full income
details with 'one employer + CTC'.

How come you're happy on the one hand that two employers can't do PAYE
accurately (because they don't know each other's details) - but on the other
hand you can't see that the IR doesn't have the full details in the
situation that you are complaining about?


"Andy Pandy" wrote
But if it wasn't for the CTC, a person whose only income is from
their one and only job *will* get the correct amount of tax deducted
via PAYE, assuming their tax code was correct and included any
benefits in kind etc. Which it normally would be as the employer notifies
the IR of these things. There was *no need whatsoever* for the IR to
have to guess how much you'll earn in order for the PAYE system to
deduct the correct amount of tax. It's only the CTC which screwed this up.

That's simply not true.

Take MIRAS for instance (a while back) - when the rate of relief was
restricted so that high rate taxpayers did not attract relief at their full
marginal rate. The amount that the PAYE tax code was increased depended on
how much the taxpayer earnt!!


"Andy Pandy" wrote
Most people, believe it or not, don't bother or even
know how to check that the correct amount of tax
is being deducted from their employment income.

"Tim" wrote
Doesn't surprise me. Perhaps they ought to
take more notice of their financial situations?

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Why should they? That's what PAYE is for.

"Tim" wrote
Eh? Nope - PAYE is to get "close to" the correct tax,
deducted as you go along. If it gets it wrong, you are still
liable to pay the correct tax (just as you can get a refund
at the end of the year if PAYE deducts too much).

"Andy Pandy" wrote
See above.

Where? What are you trying to say??


"Andy Pandy" wrote
Really? So I can ask my employer to stop deducting tax via PAYE
and settle up with the IR myself at the end of the year can I?

You cannot do that for the same reason that the retailer also can't turn
round to HM C&E and say "I won't pay the VAT over each quarter as I'm meant
to, I'll save it all up until the end of the year and settle up then." Just
because someone is responsible for something doesn't mean they don't have to
follow the rules!

"Tim" wrote in message ...
"Tim" wrote
But you need to consider it as though the person has two employers,
where "Employer1" is the (one) employer, and "Employer2" is the *IR*.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Eh?

The person is getting some money from their employer (let's call him
"Employer1") and some - the CTC - from the IR (let's call them "Employer2").

The old CTC was not an "income", it was a reduction in tax. It was no more an
income than a tax allowance is.

The IR ("Employer2") doesn't know how much the "other" employer
("Employer1", the real employer) is paying the person, which is why the PAYE
tax code is wrong - just like the situation where "Employer1" & "Employer2"
are separate real employers.

Just because "Employer1" may have full details, does not mean that they can
amend the PAYE tax code. Only the IR can do that - and they don't have all
the details. If, of course, someone told them the full details, then the
PAYE tax code could easily be corrected (swiftly & accurately).

The PAYE system was designed to cope with allowances, not tax credits, as I said
about 15 posts ago. An analogy with someone with two jobs is non sensical. PAYE
could easily have been enhanced to cope with the CTC had it remained. Simply by
using a letter in the tax code denoting eligibity for the CTC, which would
instruct the system to:

a) Reduce the annual tax by the amount of the CTC
b) Have a 46.67% tax band between the higher rate threshold and the higher rate
threshold + 15 times the CTC

(The value of the CTC would be known to the PAYE system as it would be published
along with the year's tax bands).

Then it would have deducted the correct amount of tax for someone with no other
income.

How come you're happy on the one hand that two employers can't do PAYE
accurately (because they don't know each other's details) - but on the other
hand you can't see that the IR doesn't have the full details in the
situation that you are complaining about?

See above.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
But if it wasn't for the CTC, a person whose only income is from
their one and only job *will* get the correct amount of tax deducted
via PAYE, assuming their tax code was correct and included any
benefits in kind etc. Which it normally would be as the employer notifies
the IR of these things. There was *no need whatsoever* for the IR to
have to guess how much you'll earn in order for the PAYE system to
deduct the correct amount of tax. It's only the CTC which screwed this up.

That's simply not true.

Take MIRAS for instance (a while back) - when the rate of relief was
restricted so that high rate taxpayers did not attract relief at their full
marginal rate. The amount that the PAYE tax code was increased depended on
how much the taxpayer earnt!!

Er, do you know what MIRAS stood for? The clue is in the last two letters, "AS".
Anyone getting MIRAS after the rate was restricted wouldn't have had it affect
their tax code at all, as it was all done at source. It fact they wouldn't even
have needed to mention it on their tax return.

--
Andy

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first place.

"JethroUK©" wrote
not so!

"Tim" wrote
Yes, very so!

"JethroUK©" wrote
Not So! at alllllllll

if a family have a legitmate claim for the whole of one year between
Apr - Apr, they WONT pay anything back!!!!!!! - That's a Fact !

... which is why what I said was correct - look at it again.


not at all - you refered to repaying tax credit as "money that you shouldn't
have received in the first place" - i've just demonstrated that "some"
people pay it back and "some" dont - dependant only upon whereabouts in the
fiscal year you claim - that's just plain wrong

"Zoe Brown" wrote in message
...
Only money that you shouldn't have received in the first place.

not so! - the current "Tax Credit" is a sham - for some obscure reason
it's
directly associated with the tax year Apr-Apr (not related to when any
legitmate needs occurs) thus:

Further to this, some families might be earning good money for the first 6
months of the year (April-nov) and then find themselves with no income.
It
is possible that this family would be entitled to £0 in the next 6 months
as
they have already earned the money - they would be expected to have saved
!!
People/families do not work on a year by year basis. Some families might
only need help for a few weeks/months but this system will not allow that.



precisely my point - it's a total sham

"Andy Pandy" wrote
The old CTC was not an "income", it was a reduction
in tax. It was no more an income than a tax allowance is.

Now you're just arguing semantics. Forget what they're called and see them
for what they a lumps of money from two different sources.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
PAYE could easily have been enhanced to
cope with the CTC had it remained. Simply by ...
SNIP irrelevant process description
Then it would have deducted the correct
amount of tax for someone with no other income.

Similarly, the PAYE system could be enhanced to cope with the situation of
two employers. But it hasn't been. So what?

"Tim" wrote
How come you're happy on the one hand that two employers
can't do PAYE accurately (because they don't know each other's
details) - but on the other hand you can't see that the IR doesn't
have the full details in the situation that you are complaining about?

"Andy Pandy" wrote
See above.

What are you trying to say, that an enhancement to PAYE could cope with
CTC - just like an enhancement could cope with two different employers?
Neither enhancement was made, so the comparison is similar.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Er, do you know what MIRAS stood for?
The clue is in the last two letters, "AS". Anyone getting
MIRAS after the rate was restricted wouldn't have had it affect
their tax code at all, as it was all done at source. It fact they
wouldn't even have needed to mention it on their tax return.

Again, the above is simply not true (not for everyone at least). The tax
code was changed if you had a beneficial (low-rate) mortgage from your
employer.