'Jeremy Corbyn's £3million state salary'

Cosimo · 17 Apr 2016 at 12:49

Looks as though more are at it (Sunday Times):

Ian Lavery, the shadow trade unions minister, is facing the threat of a tax investigation and calls to resign after he refused to talk about a mortgage he had received from a miners’ benevolent fund.

Pressure is mounting on the former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, after he repeatedly refused to say whether money from sick and injured miners had been used to pay off the home loan, insisting it was a “private matter”.

This weekend Lavery also refused to say whether the loan, made in 1994 at below the market rate, was properly declared to the taxman as a benefit in kind, provoking demands for an inquiry.

Lavery, who is already under investigation by the parliamentary standards commissioner, also faces accusations that he may have broken trade union laws by failing to declare the loan in the union’s annual returns.

Tax inspectors have been asked to examine the loan along with payments of more than £62,000 made to Lavery by the NUM after he quit to become an MP. They have been urged to consider whether the payments should have been classed as redundancy, which is tax-free on the first £30,000.

Dolph · 17 Apr 2016 at 12:57

Cosimo said:
Looks as though more are at it (Sunday Times):

Surely that's irrelevant because he's not a Tory...

stewski · 17 Apr 2016 at 13:00

Dolph said:
But tax avoidance is a failure of government, not the individual, and meaningless without also looking at contribution.

This does assume of course that there is an actual purpose to your actions, not just an irrational hatred or actions driven by jealously...

Clearly companies e.g. Amazon http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rq85p have already changed their actions on avoidance due to Public Relations, as I have said there are many individuals and organisations who make a full contribution.

The Dyson's, JK Rowling's Charles Dunstone's etc these would be highly rated, the Googles of the world less so.

I believe a simple change like this would allow the public to avoid supporting tax avoiders and would lead to a change in policy from many. It may or may not be less effective with individuals.

As for if the idea comes from Jealousy, it's not relevant to the suggestion.
If it would increase legitimate contributions I fail to see any harm in it.

Cosimo · 17 Apr 2016 at 13:01

Dolph said:
Surely that's irrelevant because he's not a Tory...

Never happens to one of their own.

Dolph · 17 Apr 2016 at 13:03

stewski said:
Clearly companies e.g. Amazon http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rq85p have already changed their actions on avoidance due to Public Relations, as I have said there are many individuals and organisations who make a full contribution.

The Dyson's, JK Rowling's Charles Dunstone's etc these would be highly rated, the Googles of the world less so.

I believe a simple change like this would allow the public to avoid supporting tax avoiders and would lead to a change in policy from many. It may or may not be less effective with individuals.

As for if the idea comes from Jealousy, it's not relevant to the suggestion.
If it would increase legitimate contributions I fail to see any harm in it.

So it is about increasing contributions then. We can therefore add an additional label to those who are not net contributors of taxation at all.

Glad we got that cleared up.

RaohNS · 17 Apr 2016 at 13:18

Dolph said:
My mother in law used to work for the csa, those deductions you mention are court sanctioned.

Interesting, seizing money does not need any court order they can just do it.

How does the DEO go through Courts to get? It cannot challenge the decision

stewski · 17 Apr 2016 at 13:18

Dolph said:
So it is about increasing contributions then. We can therefore add an additional label to those who are not net contributors of taxation at all.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Sure.

That "Badge" will include: teachers, firemen, police and all the services a country actually needs to function. I don't see that it'd make any difference to such individuals. In my days out of the private sector as a teacher; I would have had pride in such a badge.

I wonder how much pride the avoiders badges would hold, In the case of Amazon that story about avoidance was a sales nightmare that lead to profound change. Why name and shame one at a time? Put a system together to show how much we are actually in it together, or not.

P.S. I'll avoid side swipes about any counter bias and just say, great lets do both.

Blackjack Davy · 19 Apr 2016 at 17:43

h4rm0ny said:
Bizarrely and weirdly, I'm tempted to vote Labour for the first time ever. And that's not because I'm too Left wing, it's because I'm too Right. I don't really like most of Labour's policies but Corbyn is the only leader who is genuinely anti-war, is genuinely against the surveillance state, against selling off the NHS. And similar. Honestly, I don't think Labour has the best policies economically, but for me, these things are larger issues than short term economic policy. The best government we've probably had in living memory, for me, was the Tories trapped in a coalition with the LibDems. It was basically a Tory government but with the LibDems acting as a limiter on their grosser corruptions. All I've really wanted from a governing party is basically Tory but without the nastier bits (like Theresa May trying to read my emails). Corbyn might actually redress the balance on the big ethical issues.

You honestly believe that? He was vehemently anti-EU and now he's backing them. They all compromise their principles once they get a whiff of power under their nostrils. Will he turn tail and vote for the renewal of Trident if he gets into power? You betcha.

wordy · 19 Apr 2016 at 18:35

Blackjack Davy said:
You honestly believe that? He was vehemently anti-EU and now he's backing them. They all compromise their principles once they get a whiff of power under their nostrils. Will he turn tail and vote for the renewal of Trident if he gets into power? You betcha.

I believe it, he seems one of the few politicians who isn't in it for himself. Like H4rm0ny said I disagree with some of what he stands for but I think he's not in politics to play the game of thrones, like Blair, Cameron et al.

I believe that if he changed his mind on something like Europe it's because he believes it's to this countries benefit.

Pudney · 19 Apr 2016 at 18:44

stewski said:
None of this rhetoric actually says anything against the idea of grading accounts based on their level of avoidance and compelling organisations and individuals to have that badge on their accounts.

Bronze for Google, Gold for another provider, it could be a powerful persuader in many cases.

But no, there is nothing that can be done, the ruling elite are untouchable?

As I understand it, at the very least large businesses with CRMs do get graded as "high", "medium" and "low" risk. This isn't just the risk of avoidance, but also the risk of errors. E.g. a business that handles a lot of cash transactions is more prone to VAT errors if til readings aren't reliably/consistently taken.

Richeh · 19 Apr 2016 at 18:56

The courts no longer have anything to do with child maintenance. It is completely handled by the CMS and as such overrules preset court orders. I believe court orders under a year old may still be valid in certain circumstances but at a year CMS takes over. CMS has been out since 2013 so this doesnt happen anymore as the judge tells people to see the CMS for maintenance. Unless really unlucky and the judge is old and not up to date!

DEO's and the requirements for enforcing them are written into Child Support Law. A DEO is also only enforceable if all other options for the Paying Parent to pay ate exhausted or the Paying Parent states explicitally they will not pay. Occasionally accidents may happen as in every area of work but these are a low number.

Yes there is an upper limit for child maintenance. At some point the Receiving Parent needs to pay part of the way. The percentages are the same across the board of your gross earnings, 12% for one child, 16% for two etc there is an upper rate for people earning over a certain amount. Assessments of £600-800 or more per month are not uncommon.

People on benefits have a flat rate of £7 per week. Possibly rising to £8.40 if on the Collect and Pay service due to the 20% charge (which is not there at the start of the case and is only put on for late/missed/short payments).

The LAW is not perfect and is certainly fallible in many areas but a lot of what is said above is nonsense.

stewski · 19 Apr 2016 at 20:29

Pudney said:
As I understand it, at the very least large businesses with CRMs do get graded as "high", "medium" and "low" risk. This isn't just the risk of avoidance, but also the risk of errors. E.g. a business that handles a lot of cash transactions is more prone to VAT errors if til readings aren't reliably/consistently taken.

When you say

this isn't just risk of avoidance

can you source where you get the idea that it is related to risk of tax avoidance at all.

Thanks in advance.

RaohNS · 19 Apr 2016 at 20:42

Richeh said:
1) The courts no longer have anything to do with child maintenance. It is completely handled by the CMS and as such overrules preset court orders. I believe court orders under a year old may still be valid in certain circumstances but at a year CMS takes over. CMS has been out since 2013 so this doesnt happen anymore as the judge tells people to see the CMS for maintenance. Unless really unlucky and the judge is old and not up to date!

2) DEO's and the requirements for enforcing them are written into Child Support Law. A DEO is also only enforceable if all other options for the Paying Parent to pay ate exhausted or the Paying Parent states explicitally they will not pay. Occasionally accidents may happen as in every area of work but these are a low number.

Yes there is an upper limit for child maintenance. At some point the Receiving Parent needs to pay part of the way. The percentages are the same across the board of your gross earnings, 12% for one child, 16% for two etc there is an upper rate for people earning over a certain amount. Assessments of £600-800 or more per month are not uncommon.

People on benefits have a flat rate of £7 per week. Possibly rising to £8.40 if on the Collect and Pay service due to the 20% charge (which is not there at the start of the case and is only put on for late/missed/short payments).

The LAW is not perfect and is certainly fallible in many areas but a lot of what is said above is nonsense.

1) What I said. But the powers available are immense and are by definition arbitrary. As an example their assessment is the overruling factor and their assessment is impossible to challenge and over turn. There is also the other factor that a mother can disagree with payments received and claim them again and there is no recourse at all for the dad even if that payment is marked as johnnys maintenance.

2) That's all well and good on paper but it is surprisingly common how often they are imposed (eg if there is no known contact number or contact address. There are also elements that as mentioned are more expansive and stringent than that in that non-payment can result in forced order of sale, seizure of driving license, travel bans and of course something many dads have done to them each year: Prison.

But we are starting to detract from the thread.

stewski · 19 Apr 2016 at 20:45

RaohNS said:
1) What I said. But the powers available are immense and are by definition arbitrary. As an example their assessment is the overruling factor and their assessment is impossible to challenge and over turn. There is also the other factor that a mother can disagree with payments received and claim them again and there is no recourse at all for the dad even if that payment is marked as johnnys maintenance.

2) That's all well and good on paper but it is surprisingly common how often they are imposed (eg if there is no known contact number or contact address. There are also elements that as mentioned are more expansive and stringent than that in that non-payment can result in forced order of sale, seizure of driving license, travel bans and of course something many dads have done to them each year: Prison.

But we are starting to detract from the thread.

It's an interesting counter point to how corporate/high finance tax collection appears to be handled.

muon · 19 Apr 2016 at 20:50

Dolph said:
No, I just don't expect people to claim the moral highground on taxation when they are not actually contributing at all.

A wealth creator who avoids 90% of the maximum tax they could be liable for will contribute more to the state coffers than corbyn paying 100% of what is due.

What kind of argument is that?

MPs now aren't allowed to legislate on tax because they are public servants?

By the argument, who is allowed to legislate on the highest earners? The people that earn more than them?

As for the £3m number, he has actually earned £1.5m over 30 years.

The other half is adding up everything he will earn through his pension (so on average add another 20-30 years) and that is at an unfavourable valuation. I'd be disappointed if I only got £50k a year from a £1.6m pension pot.

stewski · 19 Apr 2016 at 20:55

muon said:
What kind of argument is that?

A silly one?

muon · 19 Apr 2016 at 20:58

Tunney said:
What bizarre logic. Whether Corbyn pays his taxes in 'recycled' cash or not, he contributes to the state through his *ahem* labour.

Nah, he should work for free.

My job doesn't create wealth either. I obviously shouldn't be allowed to comment on tax rates for people earning more than me. May as well give up my vote. I also shouldn't be allowed to elect officials who scrounge off the state.

Solicitors, Doctors, Accountants etc. Do they create wealth?

Pudney · 19 Apr 2016 at 21:23

stewski said:
When you say can you source where you get the idea that it is related to risk of tax avoidance at all.

Thanks in advance.

Not really easily as I'm on my phone on the way home from work. This has some detail

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tcrmanual/tcrm4100.htm

But I haven't read properly

Pudney · 19 Apr 2016 at 21:30

stewski said:
When you say can you source where you get the idea that it is related to risk of tax avoidance at all.

Thanks in advance.

Not really easily as I'm on my phone on the way home from work. This has some detail

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tcrmanual/tcrm4100.htm

But I haven't read properly

Second paragraph here refers to avoidance

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tcrmanual/TCRM1000.htm

stewski · 19 Apr 2016 at 21:31

Pudney said:
Not really easily as I'm on my phone on the way home from work. This has some detail

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tcrmanual/tcrm4100.htm

But I haven't read properly

Thanks, interesting read, it doesn't look quite like an avoidance grading as I suggested, but HMRC do some work in this area. Obviously grading is time intensive, but the larger the account the larger the potential for minimising avoidance.

I wonder if the risk rating is a matter of public record.