:-) Telegraph really are running out of Corbyn smears now

[The Jorge]

This latest won is priceless. That nasty Pinko Trotskyite is earning his MPs salary and receiving the default pension, what an absolute Jason Cundy he is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyns-3million-state-funded-salary-and-pension-revealed/

[Sir C]

Yes, that's a non-story. What I found strange was that, judging by his tax return, Comrade Jeremy has no savings whatsoever. For 30 years it would appear that he has pissed his salary away, leaving nothing in reserve for emergencies; one can only suppose that if he finds himself ill or out of work, he will expect the state (taxpayer) to support him. Now this selfishness and irresponsibility from someone of the left comes as no surprise, but surely rules him out of ever holding a responsible office?

[IUFG]

He gives all his spare cash to needy people and projects innit

[Sir C]

He gives all his spare cash to needy people and projects innit

He spends it all on quinoa and acrylic tracksuits.

[The Jorge]

You know the sort, where health and social care is free and not farmed out to profiteering companies intent on making a quick buck out of people's misery whilst dismantling one of the world's shining examples of collectivist societal provision.

It's almost as if he's dedicated himself entirely to public service without even paying the slightest thought towards feathering his own nest.

I mean, he even overpaid on his tax. What an absolute ****.

[Sir C]

You mean, he believes in letting other people pay for him.

Selfish, greedy, money-obsessed ****. Him, not you.

[Luis Anaconda]

:nono: No such thing as free health and social care

[The Jorge]

Anyway, surely you think it's a "Private Matter"

[Sir C]

Anyway, surely you think it's a "Private Matter"

Fair enough j, you've got me there.

1-0.

:-p

[The Jorge]

I'm not keeping score, that'd be immature

[reg]

That's the trouble with a welfare state, it eventually turns everyone essentially into a benefits scrounger.

[reg]

There is, it's just bloody expensive.

[Ears are alight]

You know the sort, where health and social care is free and not farmed out to profiteering companies intent on making a quick buck out of people's misery whilst dismantling one of the world's shining examples of collectivist societal provision.

It's almost as if he's dedicated himself entirely to public service without even paying the slightest thought towards feathering his own nest.

I mean, he even overpaid on his tax. What an absolute ****.

Errr. No.

Jeremy Corbyn may have overpaid versus what he declared, but he will have underpaid on what he should have declared but as far as I can see (from his own handwritten tax return) clearly hasn't.

Shall we recall that JC filed this tax return late, with some numbers on it being made up rather than correct (some income apparently overstated, we don't know if the expenses were also overstated) and he left out entirely his pension income on the basis that "that's not taxable income" (quote from his office rather than him but actually it is taxable income, JC, especially when aggregated with a rather large salary by reference to the national average). Not one pension, not two pensions but actually (we discover today) no less than three separate pensions he's already drawing were omitted from his tax return, and all of them should be taxed at at least 25% PRIOR to income tax.

That's because, together with the fact that he's still accumulating service benefits in a very generous final salary pension scheme based on a full MP's salary, now bumped up further by his party leadership position, it would be impossible if he didn't have a total pension pot across all the schemes of over £1m - probably the MP pension alone guarantees that even before you consider his three other schemes (33 years served/60 x even only a basic MP salary of £75k gives a pension of £41.3k pa which on the normal 20x multiplier for a defined benefit scheme is £825k). When you have a pension pot of this size you trigger a Lifetime Allowance charge on pensions income unless you have both applied for protection of historic savings and stopped accruing new pensions savings. This is even before income tax. But since JC is still earning future pension rights via the MPs scheme, he is precluded from having sought that protection.

As mentioned elsewhere, he has also disclosed zero interest, investment or savings income, which could mean he doesn't have any - fair enough in tax return terms if true but evidence of a remarkably racy lifestyle which doesn't look much like him - but maybe more likely given the pensions (non)disclosures means he has simply failed to declare income he should be declaring and on which he should pay tax. A bank will normally deduct basic rate tax from such interest at source, but as JC is at least a 40% taxpayer, he should be making an extra payment. This year, with all that pension income, the Labour leadership extra salary etc, he will probably be a 45% tax payer. So he should pay even more. Unless of course he has in fact not got any savings at all.

Many, many questions there and maybe someone will get round to asking them once they've finished checking the government side tax returns...

[The Jorge]

Also, castigating him for passively accepting the pension linked to pay that he voted against rising is a bit rich. He also claimed the smallest amount of any MPs expenses, not for him the duck islands, the £900 wisteria trims or the multiple flipped houses.

[Sir C]

Also, castigating him for passively accepting the pension linked to pay that he voted against rising is a bit rich. He also claimed the smallest amount of any MPs expenses, not for him the duck islands, the £900 wisteria trims or the multiple flipped houses.

To be fair, I don't think easr was castigating him for accepting his pension, more pointing out that his failure to declare said income makes him a tax evader :(

Poor Jeremy. I hope they don't come down too hard on his cheating arse.

[The Jorge]

Better that than someone intent on rinsing whatever they can, surely

[Ears are alight]

Also, castigating him for passively accepting the pension linked to pay that he voted against rising is a bit rich. He also claimed the smallest amount of any MPs expenses, not for him the duck islands, the £900 wisteria trims or the multiple flipped houses.

My point is his tax return isn't declaring all his income, nor is he paying his due amount of tax. It's not a large amount of assumption on my part - it's based on his own tax return and what his own office has since had to admit, and if anything I have understated his liability to tax (just like the man himself, it seems).

If, as you say, he is a frugal man not given to needless extravagance with other people's money, then I would agree - he seems not to be. But is he then so extravagant with his own money that every penny he receives in income is spent as it arrives and not one penny in an entire working lifetime has made it into a bank account? I think not. But as you say, that's an assumption.

[Sir C]

Better that than someone intent on rinsing whatever they can, surely

I don't understand, j. The man has lied on his tax return and evaded tax. Surely he must be condemned and harried to the ends of the earth, for is he not, in effect, just as bad as Tory vermin, stealing bread from the mouths of babes and disableds?

[The Jorge]

I'm sure all his receipts are i

[The Jorge]

I wonder if he'll declare the dressing gown Bill Oddie bought him

[Ears are alight]

Sorry. Just reread that to yourself.

In an attempt to say everyone should be transparent about their tax affairs and pay all their taxes when due, JC publishes a tax return proving that he himself doesn't do either, but that's ok because .... well, because of what?

Admittedly it's not as bad a level of hypocrisy on tax as good old Ken Livingstone who wanted the PM sent to jail for paying the full income tax on £30k of income received while he artificially sheltered £400k in a tax avoidance scheme, but it's still pretty dumb.

[The Jorge]

He's not attemptin to hide anything, stash anything away secretly without paying for it or trying to dodge any IHT by disguising it as a gift from Mumsie. If he's ****ed up, he's ****ed up but it's clearly not an attempt at subterfuge. All of these pensions are a matter of public record.

[Ears are alight]

Pardon me if big round numbers in tax returns look suspicious but they're normally a sign of "estimates" or "plug numbers" rather than actual properly receipted spending.

Now if I tried just entering made up numbers without backup in my tax return, I'd lay myself open to fines, prosecution and potentially being stripped of the right to work in my chosen profession. For JC, it just shows he's cuddly and human, does it?

This is a man with ambitions to run the country and its finances when he can't even run his own. His office actually said, as if this was some sort of excuse, that he was only a backbencher in April 2015, not the leader of the opposition. So this helps him how?

I'm a bit fed up hearing people like JC preach about honesty and morals when they clearly don't pay their own dues and for them to try to demonise people seeking to provide for their families from their own earnings rather than relying on the state. It's not right.

[The Jorge]

If their prime motivation was attempting to provide for their alrady amply provided for families you'd expect they'd have some level of empathy for the families they were attempting to ruin with their heinous policies.

[Ears are alight]

No. There's no distinction to be made as you're ignoring the facts and conflating two different issues while condemning the wrong one.

Incomplete disclosure is the subterfuge and it's JC that is being incomplete, not anyone else. "Oh so sorry, I'm terribly vague about these things" is not a valid reason to fail to declare what is due - would you accept that from someone other than JC. An individual makes a tax return and a declaration that this information is both true and complete - in his case that surely was a false declaration. It is not for HMRC to employ researchers to look into either public or private records to examine what your tax return should have said - it is for you yourself to file it properly.

As regards IHT planning, a gift is a gift - from "Mumsie" or anyone else - and that gift is subject to IHT if the donor dies within 7 years of making it. If still relevant at the time it will I am sure be disclosed in the application for probate of the PM's mother's estate, which is the right place to declare it. But bear in mind also that that money would itself have been taxed when it was earned - IHT is a horrible double tax on the prudent.

[Ears are alight]

OK, so basically people you like are ok to evade taxes, while those you don't must be condemned regardless of their acting lawfully to direct money they themselves have earned and paid taxes on towards the people they care most about in the world?

I am not talking about the PM or his family here, Jorge, I am talking about me and mine. Does that change your perspective a bit?

[The Jorge]

Then, when you're talking about IHT it changes to a sympathetic tone like it's some sort of socialist measure to reduce wealth inequality when, if anything, it's clearly not. Only 5% of deaths are even subject to IHT.

If he's ****ed up, he's ****ed up. That said, it's very much a cock up, rather than a conspiracy. The tax man might not discriminate but it's clear that this isnt a calculated effort to avoid or evade, especially given that everything he owns is a matter of public record.

[The Jorge]

But, if you are talking "wealth management" here then I can only assume you have a fairly decent idea just how blunt an instrument IHT is without even needing to consult an accountant.

That said, if you can afford to plan the transfer of wealth you're in a ridiculously fortunate position, especially when large swathes of country are on their arse and down to the bare bones. It might seem a little gauche to complain about this given the plight of others.

[Ears are alight]

I'm talking about tax returns as someone who has to take care doing his own properly and doesn't see why other people are allowed to "**** them up" if this dishonesty "isn't a calculated effort". Can I be casual and careless on mine then? No.

There is no difference in tone or attitude between me looking at IHT or income tax. I will plan prudently for both but pay my dues of both when required.

Where the difference in tone arises is with the likes of JC talking about tax. Others must always pay more, they're not paying their fair share, etc. They themselves are just a bit scatty, so it's ok for them not to pay theirs, is it? Absolutely not - if they're going to preach they should have their own affairs in order first.

[The Jorge]

I think it was the bit where you described it as "IHT is a horrible double tax on the prudent" that might have given me the impression.

I'm always suspicious of those who have their affairs in order though, which is probably a really good excuse for me getting fined £100 for not getting mine in on time. In fairness, I didnt think I had to as a PAYE person.

[PSRB]

IHT is a complete joke

Thankfully my parents will has in place for over 7 years now.......not that I want them to keel over or anything

[Ears are alight]

We have been talking about tax in general here, and both income tax and IHT in particular. I have of course posted on both.

However as I was explaining above, I don't countenance either tax being evaded. I do strongly dislike others not paying tax they're due to pay when I am myself diligent about completing paperwork accurately. You said it sounded like different people talking form my mouth depending on which tax I was discussing at any one moment. Reread my reply above in this vein and I think it will be clearer for you.

If you are required to do a self assessment return, it will have been easy to spot. The letter from HMRC saying you have to do one with 9 months' notice will have been the big clue.