'Jeremy Corbyn's £3million state salary'
- Thread starter Deiwos
- Start date
No it's not. And they don't particularly like giving it to the company either in my experience in case it encourages "relaxed" behaviour
1. There are independent tribunals available for every decision. Completely unrelated to the CMS. If you pay via any kind of traceable method (not cash) and can provide evidence of payments you would not be asked to pay again.
2. If there is no known contact address (as in an address that doesn't have active bank accounts, mortgage, phone contracts etc ignoring letters doesnt count) then the case stays in a state of limbo and no calculation is ever made until a verified (see above) address is found, as the law is very specific about a verified address being needed down to the start date of the claim being assessed on the date the first indicitive letter is sent to the verified address. In absolutely extreme cases with absolute lack of co-operation from the paying parent to pay forhis child including quitting jobs intentionally, removing money from bank accounts and making huge purchases when thousand of pounds are owed, yes, some of what you mention can happen.
Sorry for derailing the thread
On topic. 3 million over 30 years for an MP is perfectly acceptable in my book. I believe low pay is the reason smarter, 'better' people arent attracted to government jobs and we are left with people who simply should not be in the position of power they are in. I dont think 1 million a decade is excessive for this kind of role.
My parents bought their house for £90k and sold it for over half a million. They win.
Last edited:
How would you even do that properly? What is acceptable avoidance and what is unacceptable avoidance?
I avoid tax by paying in to a pension, my wife avoids tax by doing salary sacrifice for her pension, which is worse? An Irish company based in Ireland is ok, but an international company basing its EU subsidiary in Ireland isn't? Even if they pay the same tax?
No he quite clearly asks what is acceptable avoidance and what isn't.
Is paying into your own pension in your world classed as avoidance?
Last edited:
1) Absolutely not true. If mum disagrees that Johnnys Maintenance (paid through private arrangement) was not a payment you are liable. If what you were saying was true how come my payments were disregarded despite clearly being labeled as such? And anecdotally not just mine a friend had his £400 maintenance per month disregarded and he had to pay several months worth (tempted say 3 by the time they pulled their finger out) all over again because the system is still wrong in its approach and application and has the backing of what should be a tort
2) Again not true and can easily be evidenced: NI number is provided and so if they are unable to contact you then they can 1) apply a DEO or 2) seize money (without court authority) from bank. To clarify the active case starts from when Mum contacts them not the date they "catch up" to dad. This despite the fact that more dads are more likely to pay more than any mums. DADS pay twice as much per week as mums and are twice as likely to pay.
Worryingly, the new system: If you quit your job without a "valid excuse or reason" they will continue to assess you based on what you were earning... That's a nice one isn't it!
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
Anecdotal evidence I know, but child maintenance has been a joke in my case, not a single penny from my father from when he legged it the day I was born until today. He owes about £10k, despite being worth millions, and every now and then we get letters saying they "found" him, but nothing ever comes of it. Hey ho, way she goes!
Your dad is actually in about ~10% of fathers and ~25% of mothers. People who abide by the system are punished but people who abuse it throw the carry can onto all who do. Despite having to pay again I should be paying my vindictive and vituperative ex wife more than what the CMS demanded. Before I was willing to be fair and pay for things but because of her greed she has lost all extra privilege
Why ask me? I don't run the tax office.
Still it's good we've cleared up that the idea is possible.
Clearly the rules for what constitutes avoidance (acceptable or otherwise) are decided by the tax office. As has already been posted on this thread internally the tax office already assess avoidance risk for larger accounts.
Despite the off hand post, I can't see anything here that detracts from the idea.
Last edited:
1. Not on CMS2012 (unless by private arrangement you either mean before the case start date or you are paying in a way you have not been asked to/told not to and the RP has taken your money and then later not accepted it as maintenance - unfair yes but pay the way you are asked (and preferred is DD - so you can list it as Jonny's maintenance so there is no doubt)).
2. Not on CMS2012
And your last point, yes, if you quit your job without a valid reason e.g. just because you dont like it, you shouldn't, you have a child to pay for?
It was you that kept on peddling the idea of your grading system. No one is saying it can't be done only clarification on your idea.
The tax office already decides on what constitutes acceptable avoidance but it doesn't seem good enough as people are bleating about morals. When anyone questions you about it, you go off on a tangent and ascribe a position to people questioning you that they don't hold.
People on all ends of the political spectrum seem to have suggested morality and tax avoidance should be linked. I proposed a change to the system that could improve revenue collection rates. Let HMRC make a judgement call and rating of levels of avoidance (and potentially dependant on your world view, morality of the accounts). Frankly that idea has been clearly laid out.
If you have a specific example of where I ascribed a position to someone that they didn't hold (as opposed to simply asking a question) feel free to quote it.
Several posters have discussed the potential for the tax office grading so as to make it clear to the public when large scale avoidance is being undertaken. I have yet to read a post with a cogent point against the idea.
If you wish to discuss (the tangential point of) my personal thought on pensions (private or otherwise) No problem, but the 2 things aren't really linked.
On private pensions, successive governments have made them almost entirely necessary, whilst allowing them to be needlessly risky investments IMHO. I have no moral problem with the average person paying into one and to my knowledge neither does HMRC. As I've made clear enough for all but the hard of thinking, that which constitutes avoidance (and the level of that avoidance) is best decided by HMRC, not individuals with vested interests.
On NI/State Pension - ageing population and the fact that virtually all money collected by the government just goes in one big pot (instead of being used to fulfil the purpose that they are described for) and spent means the state pension will be almost non existent should I live to be old enough to attempt to collect it.
One last time - my position on pensions is irrelevant to the idea of grading for the level of avoidance.
Last edited:
Only because you choose to make it so. It is quite relevant as you avoid tax by paying in to a pension. You avoid tax by having an ISA. You avoid tax by offsetting losses against profits.
Any grading system would have to be either guesswork (in which case it would be open to legal challenge) or extremely expensive to operate considering the cost of tax accountants to determine what constitutes "unfair" or "immoral" tax avoidance and what constitutes "fair" and "moral" tax avoidance.
Not to mention, as I have mentioned previously, I get fairly nervous when governments start going on about morality. Your morality will be different from my morality, mine from your average MP etc. etc.
No my opinion of pensions (re avoidance) is still not relevant, because the rules to choose what is and what isn't a level of avoidance wouldn't lay with me, as I clearly state HMRC would make the call.
As has been pointed out on this thread, for large accounts risk of avoidance is already graded. If expense is an issue, work top down, largest accounts to smallest. i.e. spend the money on publicly grading the largest accounts.
I strongly disagree that it is guesswork otherwise you could say the same about all tax collection, but as with all systems it will not be perfect.
Not sure I disagree.
That said improvements to the system are clearly possible and begrudgingly I'd say the current government have done more (visible) work on this than the previous 2. It's still far from enough.
You're actually deferring the current liability in favour of a potential future liability. You might avoid it but equally (like the 600,000 people that cashed in their pensions since 2015) you might pay more.