Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
No Bull

Personal Allowance Credit

Recommended Posts

Should be stopped altogether.

Those in need should get the specific benefit already in place and quite rightly so.

Handing out wads of cash to thousands, just because they don't pay enough tax is crazy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all receipients of the Personal Allowance Credit are (were) tracky wearing scum with the latest mobile phone, although surely there is at least one which allows the likes of our senior politicians and some members of this forum to form their opinions.

 

Not all recipients of the Personal Allowance Credit Tax are low income millionaires wives, although surely there is at least one which...ditto...ditto

 

The Personal Allowance Credit has been described by Eddie and others as a blunt instrument. So rather than sit and think how to properly sharpen that instrument the Isle of Man Government Treasury Minister (surely guided by his protégé Juan Watterson, although I am not sure who is doing the guiding) has simply abolished PAC., or rather just made it blunter.

 

The UK has Working Tax Allowance

 

A similar system would tick all the boxes quite nicely even for those Daily Mail reading members of manxforums but also, I am sure, for Treasury Minister Eddie Teare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrespective of a person's view of the tax credit, last year's (2014) budget stated there was no change to it. This February's budget stated it would reduce to £400 and would apply to those affected and aged 65 or over or disabled etc, in the 2015/16 tax year. The issue here is that the change has since been backdated in a sneaky way. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, a little misinterpretation here. Incidentally, there was quite a detailed thread on this back in 2012 when the concept went for public consultation and only 18 people responded.

 

The amount of the PAC is set at the budget each year. So

 

2012 Budget set the 2011/12 PAC

2013 Budget set the 2012/13 PAC

2014 Budget set the 2013/14 PAC

2015 Budget set the 2014/15 PAC

 

The 2014 budget could not therefore have said there would be no change to the 14/15 PAC - it was dealing with the 13/14 PAC!

 

The new qualifying conditions apply to the 14/15 PAC, which hasn't been paid yet. In that sense, the change is backdated, however nobody is being asked to repay anything they've already had.

 

As for sneaky, that's a matter of opinion. It can't have been that sneaky when he read out the changes in parliament and it was broadcast live on radio and all the details published on the government website and even featured on the front page of the IOM Newspapers Budget Special http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=8f7d6993-ef71-47b7-9bb4-1a03bd4d5c93 I'm not sure what else he could have done to publicize the changes. perhaps called round to see each recipient and tell them personally?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for sneaky, that's a matter of opinion.

I believe that Mr Teare gave a talk about the budget to the Positive Action Group recently. His introduction was to go through the main points of the budget.

 

However, he didn't mention the changes to Personal Allowance Credit until he was reminded of it by a member of the audience, who wasn't allowed to question him further on the subject as the person running the meeting refused the member of the audience to question Eddie further.

 

There was uproar (well a 6,000+ epetition) when the £50 toilet tax was introduced. When approximately that many people, all by definition on low income, now have 10 times the amount of toilet tax cut from their income, then I am sure there will be a lot of hardship.

 

Meanwhile already wealthy landowners are paid £millions for keeping their land nice. Something that I reckon they should have to do anyway, legally if not morally.

Edited by Wann
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the personal allowance credit, to retrospectively disqualify claimants is fairly poor form and sets a dangerous precedent. I'm surprised people aren't making more out of this.

 

Seeing as the relevant changes to the tax credit took place on April 6th 2015, and seeing as the year of assessment is April 6th 2014 to April 5th 2015 then according to the governments own guidelines, if you qualified for a tax credit in the 2014/15 tax year, you did so before the changes came into place and are therefore entitled to the tax credit.

There's two explanations as to why this confusion has cropped up that I can think of,
1) it's a mistake and the tax office got it's wires crossed. This explains why it wasn't clarified that this was the case immediately and also why people are only now becoming aware of it.
2) Someone is trying to pull a fast one, and it's fairly damning if that is the case because they are taking the money away from the very poorest in society.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teare, Watterson & Co. sleep at night because they can satisfy themselves that they are taking this money away from millionaires whose annual investment income might be less than £9,500, and so qualify.

 

Although of course there is an area of the Tax Return that specifically relates to investment income, so why not use this as an automated exclusion?

 

"It was a blunt instrument" they said, but sharpening the instrument is beyond their wit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's still pretty damning though isn't it? Yes they may be getting rid of that specific problem but obviously there's going to be a lot of collateral along the way. As said previously, everyone receiving tax credit isn't some form of unworthy scrounging scum. As someone mentioned before, it would make far more sense if this really was their concern to change the current format to a working tax credit, but that would still mean that they have to pay.

 

​I spoke to three different people at the tax office about this and every single one was uncooperative, defensive and rude, one even giving me the silent treatment until I had to hang up. I'm less inclined to think it's a mistake and more inclined to think they are actually sneakily trying to get this through hoping no one will challenge it.

 

I can't see how this is legal, it's an abuse of power. I for one don't like the sound of that, no matter how righteous they think they are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they really did back date it, I've not seen that before. Thanks for that, you did what the tax office could not. At the time of the draft going through, I did not believe that to be their intention.

Interesting to note there as well that Eddie Teare does not actually say that the changes are back dated for 2014/2015 but instead just that they come into effect in 2015/16. It would be very easy to misinterpret it therefore. I wonder if some of those who approved it knew exactly what they were doing.

 

There's a strange disconnect there in his speech too. He doesn't want to impact the vulnerable with this change, but in reducing and removing it (with less than two months notice) and not implementing anything else (his goal being to do so) how could it ever not?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted the tax office and asked, if i submit my tax return for 2014/15 and I meet the qualifying criteria for a PAC, will the payment be for 2014/15 or 2015/16 and the lady said it would be for 2014/15.

 

Eddie Teare you are an embarrassment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My neighbour has been battling cancer (and with it severe stress related mental health issues) since 2011. Having to live on incapicity benefit is not something he enjoys or finds easy but the tax allowance credit at least help offset some of the horrendous cost of keeping warm in the winter when you're pretty much confined to your house all day and are a victim of Manx gas pricing. Not everybody listens to or understands budget speeches so when the £500 pa was denied him, to say it came as terrible shock is a massive understatement, and yes it was back dated so he doesn't get a penny. He appealed but was told bluntly that he now didn't meet the criteria as he wasn't over 65 or blind. Ah, so it was his own fault then. Eddie Teare is nothing more than an arrogant bullying twat. £500 might only be a couple of days pay to him and his fellow greedy self serving cronies in the old boys club but to some it's a lifeline.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You good people need to remember that at the end of the day, all this is being inflicted, essentially, in the name of keeping taxes low for those who could easily be able to contribute a great deal more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...