sorry but imho what utter nonsense - i am struggling to think of a more contrived example .
I agree the excess travel is a weird one. Having said that, another fairly contrived example but one i have seen (had a client ranting at me) and that may arise more often than we think:
Individual earns £65k and has two children with current partner. Also has two children with former spouse. Pays £700/month child maintenance (conveniently calculated to represent £15k of gross income - these aren't the exact figures but are very close as it happens) and has to repay all CHB. Former spouse earns £50k. and receives full CHB.
In essence, one party is left with net income at the equivalent of £50k and no CHB, their former spouse the equivalent of £75k with full CHB. I pointed out it's a very specific scenario but find it hard to argue that it isn't wholly unfair.
rmillaree wrote:
We have individual taxation and responsibility with benefits (as household unit) thats pretty simples and straightforward - the hicbc aint perfect by any means but i doubt any alternative will be much better overall bearing in mind the hassle of change - hopefully by now everyone knows the score - although i still suspect hmrc are defficient ref warnings - at least those who claim now cant say they signed up under different rules !!
Do we really have individual taxation if my tax bill is affected by the actions, income, or benefits claim of my wife, and she is required to disclose to me matters about her income - both in terms of CHB she is claiming (assuming im the higher earner) and her own income (so we can work out who earns the most)? I appreciate there is a joint responsibility to not claim benefits if you have a partner earning above various thresholds - but CHB isn't really seen as a 'benefit' in that sense and there is no periodic renewal process, annual declaration, etc. If the allowance were based on annual declarations, and were based on household income, then THAT would be joint responsibility for benefits claims. What we currently have is a stealth tax charge based upon something that the taxpayer 'at fault' may or may not have any knowledge of (we all have those clients who keep very separate finances im sure).
Also dont forget the HICBC applies to persons who live together in some sort of relationship, not necessarily long term or marriage. It may be rare for new partners to move in together very quickly when one/both have children but we may not just be talking about couples who have been together for years, married, jointly own the home, etc. If someone moves in with their new boyfriend/girlfriend they might not be at the stage of being fully open about 'exactly' how much they earn.
Scrap the whole thing - or make the threshold £100k joint income - or better still £200k joint income. £200k would be a level at which the benefit received wouldn't be too significant and it would be quite tough to argue it was needed, or 'unfair' to lose it.
I mean he will never spend it all and he has to be out of the uk for 5 years and give it away or he will pay IHT on it one day, but.....
Not necessarily.
I have a client who, due to the combination of their (current) residence and domicile, is currently not liable to IHT anywhere. This position will continue to evolve as they spend more years in their current country of residence, but currently they would have no liability at all. So it is possible - not for most of us perhaps but for people like Lord Sugar and my client, it is.
It is worrying. Rights that are very much necessary to protect employees from unscrupulous employers can easily be manipulated by staff and it does feel like the odds are against the employer a lot of the time. It is also a concern that you could employ someone on the open understanding that it's an office-based role and them take it, only to request flexible working once they are here. To an extent there is protection under the two year rule on unfair dismissal i suppose.
That said, i think the key thing is to consider the request properly and communicate the reasons for rejection clearly. I would have no qualms about refusing WFH or Hybrid working, as we can easily justify a rejection. You just need to be careful to avoid making sweeping generalisations or vague excuses (such as GDPR compliance - ok it's somewhat valid but how comes it wasnt an issue during covid, or when i decide i want to spend a day at home, or when we let staff do it as a one-off to see the boiler man, etc).
Also it's a lot harder to turn down if it is connected to a reasonable adjustment request rather than for pure preference.
WFH is fading because the novelty wore off and employees became more entitled.
During Covid we all 'had' to WFH and there wasn't a lot else to do. With restricted freedoms most staff did their hours, went for a run or something during their typical 'commute' time, and if (when) the inefficiency of WFH led to lower productivity one of two things (possibly both) happened:
1) Employers accepted it, because any output was better than nothing, the staff were doing their best, and everyone was glad just to be able to work/earn
2) Employees realised they were saving an hour on their return commute (maybe more) and were grateful to have a job/for their employer support, and did a bit of 'free' overtime.
And so the myth that WFH could/would be as (or more) productive was born. Workers were also , to an extent, able to short-cut and reduce standards and keep the myth running a bit longer. Some were even able to do a genuinely decent job due to their experience and other personal attributes but training of new staff obviously suffered.
Now, staff are WFH for new employers, whom they owe nothing/less to, and see WFH as a right not a privilege. They arent as keen to do extra for free (and to an extent why should they) and employers arent as willing to put up with paying for the inefficiency (and to an extent why should they) so are requesting staff return to the office.
All of this is fine - the hard workers that want to get on will do so, those that want to keep their 'life-work balance' will do so and will stagnate. Except that hasnt happened yet. Instead, particularly in our industry with a shortage of good candidates, employees are demanding high wages for flexible working and employers are having to bite their tongues and concede. If/when we hit recession and jobs are in shorter supply, some people have a hell of a shock coming to them.
Did he ‘think he was being clever’ or is it much more likely that in fact he filled the paperwork in whilst the mother was recovering from childbirth, got it paid into her account, then when they split up five years later and he’d never seen the cash in that time he didn’t think ‘he’ was claiming it?
I can’t see how anyone can be anything other than sympathetic to the guy. The fact he’s paying child support for his kids whilst not getting the CHB even seems to have somehow worked against him.
I have a client who every year when he gets his SATR comments on the HICBC and how his ex still gets hers for the child they had together, whereas he has to pay the CHB for his second child back, even though by the time his kaintenance is taken to account his ex almost certainly ends up with more cash than he does….
I thought quiet quitting was not only putting in nothing extra, but also putting in minimal effort and taking it easy when you were actually at work - but staying just below the threshold of actionable behaviour.
Or, as they call it in the public sector, "going to work".
I've never met anyone who has been 'forced' to operate through their limited company. All of my clients have done it either for either limited liability status or overall tax reduction - with the latter being overwhelmingly the case.
I'm not saying such people dont exist, but we didn't hear people moaning about lack of sick pay etc a few years ago - they were too busy chucking every expense they could think of through their companies....
My answers
I agree the excess travel is a weird one. Having said that, another fairly contrived example but one i have seen (had a client ranting at me) and that may arise more often than we think:
Individual earns £65k and has two children with current partner. Also has two children with former spouse. Pays £700/month child maintenance (conveniently calculated to represent £15k of gross income - these aren't the exact figures but are very close as it happens) and has to repay all CHB. Former spouse earns £50k. and receives full CHB.
In essence, one party is left with net income at the equivalent of £50k and no CHB, their former spouse the equivalent of £75k with full CHB. I pointed out it's a very specific scenario but find it hard to argue that it isn't wholly unfair.
Do we really have individual taxation if my tax bill is affected by the actions, income, or benefits claim of my wife, and she is required to disclose to me matters about her income - both in terms of CHB she is claiming (assuming im the higher earner) and her own income (so we can work out who earns the most)? I appreciate there is a joint responsibility to not claim benefits if you have a partner earning above various thresholds - but CHB isn't really seen as a 'benefit' in that sense and there is no periodic renewal process, annual declaration, etc. If the allowance were based on annual declarations, and were based on household income, then THAT would be joint responsibility for benefits claims. What we currently have is a stealth tax charge based upon something that the taxpayer 'at fault' may or may not have any knowledge of (we all have those clients who keep very separate finances im sure).
Also dont forget the HICBC applies to persons who live together in some sort of relationship, not necessarily long term or marriage. It may be rare for new partners to move in together very quickly when one/both have children but we may not just be talking about couples who have been together for years, married, jointly own the home, etc. If someone moves in with their new boyfriend/girlfriend they might not be at the stage of being fully open about 'exactly' how much they earn.
Scrap the whole thing - or make the threshold £100k joint income - or better still £200k joint income. £200k would be a level at which the benefit received wouldn't be too significant and it would be quite tough to argue it was needed, or 'unfair' to lose it.
Not necessarily.
I have a client who, due to the combination of their (current) residence and domicile, is currently not liable to IHT anywhere. This position will continue to evolve as they spend more years in their current country of residence, but currently they would have no liability at all. So it is possible - not for most of us perhaps but for people like Lord Sugar and my client, it is.
It is worrying. Rights that are very much necessary to protect employees from unscrupulous employers can easily be manipulated by staff and it does feel like the odds are against the employer a lot of the time. It is also a concern that you could employ someone on the open understanding that it's an office-based role and them take it, only to request flexible working once they are here. To an extent there is protection under the two year rule on unfair dismissal i suppose.
That said, i think the key thing is to consider the request properly and communicate the reasons for rejection clearly. I would have no qualms about refusing WFH or Hybrid working, as we can easily justify a rejection. You just need to be careful to avoid making sweeping generalisations or vague excuses (such as GDPR compliance - ok it's somewhat valid but how comes it wasnt an issue during covid, or when i decide i want to spend a day at home, or when we let staff do it as a one-off to see the boiler man, etc).
Also it's a lot harder to turn down if it is connected to a reasonable adjustment request rather than for pure preference.
WFH is fading because the novelty wore off and employees became more entitled.
During Covid we all 'had' to WFH and there wasn't a lot else to do. With restricted freedoms most staff did their hours, went for a run or something during their typical 'commute' time, and if (when) the inefficiency of WFH led to lower productivity one of two things (possibly both) happened:
1) Employers accepted it, because any output was better than nothing, the staff were doing their best, and everyone was glad just to be able to work/earn
2) Employees realised they were saving an hour on their return commute (maybe more) and were grateful to have a job/for their employer support, and did a bit of 'free' overtime.
And so the myth that WFH could/would be as (or more) productive was born. Workers were also , to an extent, able to short-cut and reduce standards and keep the myth running a bit longer. Some were even able to do a genuinely decent job due to their experience and other personal attributes but training of new staff obviously suffered.
Now, staff are WFH for new employers, whom they owe nothing/less to, and see WFH as a right not a privilege. They arent as keen to do extra for free (and to an extent why should they) and employers arent as willing to put up with paying for the inefficiency (and to an extent why should they) so are requesting staff return to the office.
All of this is fine - the hard workers that want to get on will do so, those that want to keep their 'life-work balance' will do so and will stagnate. Except that hasnt happened yet. Instead, particularly in our industry with a shortage of good candidates, employees are demanding high wages for flexible working and employers are having to bite their tongues and concede. If/when we hit recession and jobs are in shorter supply, some people have a hell of a shock coming to them.
Is £50k a sufficiently ‘high earned’ for that thought? This threshold has not changed since the tax was introduced. How is that fair?
Did he ‘think he was being clever’ or is it much more likely that in fact he filled the paperwork in whilst the mother was recovering from childbirth, got it paid into her account, then when they split up five years later and he’d never seen the cash in that time he didn’t think ‘he’ was claiming it?
I can’t see how anyone can be anything other than sympathetic to the guy. The fact he’s paying child support for his kids whilst not getting the CHB even seems to have somehow worked against him.
I have a client who every year when he gets his SATR comments on the HICBC and how his ex still gets hers for the child they had together, whereas he has to pay the CHB for his second child back, even though by the time his kaintenance is taken to account his ex almost certainly ends up with more cash than he does….
What about the really rich parents sending their kids to boarding school?
Or the general reduction in standards, making outsourcing to India more attractive (or at least less noticeable).
I thought quiet quitting was not only putting in nothing extra, but also putting in minimal effort and taking it easy when you were actually at work - but staying just below the threshold of actionable behaviour.
Or, as they call it in the public sector, "going to work".
I've never met anyone who has been 'forced' to operate through their limited company. All of my clients have done it either for either limited liability status or overall tax reduction - with the latter being overwhelmingly the case.
I'm not saying such people dont exist, but we didn't hear people moaning about lack of sick pay etc a few years ago - they were too busy chucking every expense they could think of through their companies....