[TV] Newsnight tonight

[rippleman]

And introduce rent control to cap what greedy landlords can charge. At the moment UC is simply being used
to fund landlords' property purchases and is a movement of vast wealth from the state to private individuals.


If you are salaried and caught up with by the CSA (who tend to go for the "low hanging fruit") then yes, it is. If you're a bit shifty and self-emplyed then its easier to avoid them. A friend of mine has two daughters who have children with absent fathers and neither dad is paying.

You are not wrong. Me and my son's mother separated when he was 11 / 12. (over 30 years ago) We came to an amicable financial arrangement; we were both happy with it and it was always paid. After a couple of years she tipped me the wink that she had to provide my name and address to the CSA. I was fuming as like many others I knew plenty of absent fathers who didn't pay a penny.

Couple of weeks later this huge package lands on my doorstep from the CSA. I wrote "not known at this address" and stuck it back in the post. Never heard another word from that day to this.

In respect of the specific case being discussed, I would suggest she gets no benefit payments at all until she has been to the CSA and through the Courts to claim maintenance from the father(s). Only if the father(s) are resident outside the UK (and have no assets in this country) should any benefit claim be considered.

 

[highflyer]

It would be a very boring piece about accountancy. There is nothing wrong or illegal about tax avoidance, you are possibly/probably 'guilty' of it yourself without realising.
Salary sacrifice or an ISA is tax avoidance too.

Not necessarily boring at all. Treasure Islands by the investigative journalist Nick Shaxon is a fantastic piece of writing, examining the offshore system, where it came from.and how it operates. Highly recommended.

'Nothing wrong with tax avoidance' ? That may be your opinion, but it is not one that is widely shared, based on polls.

Nothing illegal? Maybe. Maybe not. Many, if not most, tax avoidance schemes are never tested in court for one reason or another. They may well be illegal (fraudulant).They simply haven't been proven so and thus have not been labelled as evasion.

Very few 'normal' people avoid tax. Using an ISA is not tax avoidance and has never been considered so. It's using the law as intended. So not tax avoidance by any commonly understood definition.

 

[PeterT]

Not necessarily boring at all. Treasure Islands by the investigative journalist Nick Shaxon is a fantastic piece of writing, examining the offshore system, where it came from.and how it operates. Highly recommended.

'Nothing wrong with tax avoidance' ? That may be your opinion, but it is not one that is widely shared, based on polls.

Nothing illegal? Maybe. Maybe not. Many, if not most, tax avoidance schemes are never tested in court for one reason or another. They may well be illegal (fraudulant).They simply haven't been proven so and thus have not been labelled as evasion.

Very few 'normal' people avoid tax. Using an ISA is not tax avoidance and has never been considered so. It's using the law as intended. So not tax avoidance by any commonly understood definition.

The grey area is when you compare tax avoidance to tax planning. There are many clever, legal ways to avoid tax in many situations which those with the time, expertise, intent, resources etc can exploit extremely successfully. One person’s clever ‘tax planning’ can easily be seen by others as ‘tax avoidance’, depending on the details, how much is involved, who is involved, etc.

 

[Machiavelli]

A perfect example of where 40 years of "the private sector is more efficient" & "trust the market" ends up.

I've only just come to your earlier question, and if you follow the thread @stewart12 has direct experience in this field, and is far more clued up than I am.
But I'm of the view that you've expressed here. There has been 40+ years of insufficient housebuilding when the state (local authorities more particularly) have withdrawn from doing so courtesy of the Right to Buy Act. This basically disincentivised local authorities from housebuilding meaning that the private (and third) sector(s) were left to do so. Lower supply within a context of increased demand has just boosted house price inflation. Governments and oppositions haven't confronted this for decades, and we are where we are. Although they probably won't meet the target, the 1.5m new homes in the lifetime of the parliament is a worthwhile ambition to begin to turn this oil tanker around.
And, despite all this, there are huge problems with building more homes which use a lot of steel and concrete -- which each generate 8% of the carbon emissions total -- which ought to train our focus given the WMO's report released today on 1.5 no longer being alive.

 

[Machiavelli]

The grey area is when you compare tax avoidance to tax planning. There are many clever, legal ways to avoid tax in many situations which those with the time, expertise, intent, resources etc can exploit extremely successfully. One person’s clever ‘tax planning’ can easily be seen by others as ‘tax avoidance’, depending on the details, how much is involved, who is involved, etc.

Yup, and it's one of the reasons why the 'tax the rich' response to public spending should be met with caution. I'm for it, but the question is how it's achieved and the extent to which loopholes can be closed to disappoint 'tax planning'.

 

[mikeyjh]

There’s a balance though. Landlord taxes/costs have soared in recent years -> landlords don’t make the profit they can get elsewhere (you can actually be taxed on a loss!) -> landlords sell up -> rental supply falls -> rents go up and round and round it goes unless, like you say, the supply of council houses fills that gap, which it won’t for a generation.

A genuine question but it this actually true? I can think of a few additional expenses like paying for an EICR or Gas certificate, installing smoke alarms etc but these are not significant expenses.

 

[PeterT]

A genuine question but it this actually true? I can think of a few additional expenses like paying for an EICR or Gas certificate, installing smoke alarms etc but these are not significant expenses.

Fire safety costs, rental contracts/renewals now falling on the landlord (previously shared), interest rates higher (can't easily be passed on), phasing out of higher rate tax relief such that even if you make a loss that can now be converted into a taxable profit. That lemon has been well and truly squeezed.

 

[mikeyjh]

Fire safety costs, rental contracts/renewals now falling on the landlord (previously shared), interest rates higher (can't easily be passed on), phasing out of higher rate tax relief such that even if you make a loss that can now be converted into a taxable profit. That lemon has been well and truly squeezed.

Yeah, I'd challenge your use of the word 'soared' but take your point. I also understand the possible side effect of shrinking the rental market BUT if it gets rid of amateur landlords, I'd support it. If you look after your tenants, aren't constantly looking to increase rent etc then the contract costs become immaterial and you end up with a healthy relationship with your tenant and it's a win win....

 

[PeterT]

Yeah, I'd challenge your use of the word 'soared' but take your point. I also understand the possible side effect of shrinking the rental market BUT if it gets rid of amateur landlords, I'd support it. If you look after your tenants, aren't constantly looking to increase rent etc then the contract costs become immaterial and you end up with a healthy relationship with your tenant and it's a win win....

True.

But soared can be true too. Landlords were, like everyone else, getting very low interest rates of say 2% which overnight jumped to say 6%. You’ll commonly hear a tenant saying ‘the landlord has just whacked my rent up’ but if the landlords are now paying triple interest AND get no higher rate tax relief then their new costs will be several times what they previously were. An increase in costs of a few 100% fits ‘soaring’ I would say, and would more than wipe out any profits previously being made, making the whole rental sector unattractive to new landlords.

For what it’s worth, I also believe that while the utopian model is as you describe, in reality (far less so when the supply is scarce), some tenants or properties are viewed as as short term arrangements and it doesn’t matter how much a landlord does or doesn’t do for them their intention is to stay for 6-12 months and move on. That was my experience in the sector anyway, and what was once a very attractive proposition is far less so now - and if landlords are looking to exit the sector, and the supply is not filled in another way (eg by council house building), then rents are only going one way.