We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

ex working cash in hand

135

Comments

  • PlayingHardball
    PlayingHardball Posts: 761 Forumite
    DUTR wrote: »
    Inland Revenue Services carry more power than the CSA, so could well leave the NRP paying less due to higher tax :o

    So be it, all I suggest is that the NRP do the right thing and NOT avoid his responsibilities in life, both to his child and to inland rev and the rest of us honest tax paying people.
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    PlayingHardball wrote: »
    So be it, all I suggest is that the NRP do the right thing and NOT avoid his responsibilities in life, both to his child and to inland rev and the rest of us honest tax paying people.

    Like you I'm an honest tax payer.
    In the case of the story above, if the NRP was contributing nothing at all, then I would be more in favour of the OP's case, when it gets to he is working CIH, so the PWC wants a cut of it, that Im not in favour of, CIH work is often not permanent, so it does as Dissilusioned portrays looks like someone wanting the shirt off his back :o
  • sulkisu
    sulkisu Posts: 1,285 Forumite
    lynzpower wrote: »
    You dont think theres any thing wrong with not paying tax!?!!?

    But OP isn't complaining about her ex not paying tax on his extra earnings - her issue is that she isn't getting any of it.
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    sulkisu wrote: »
    But OP isn't complaining about her ex not paying tax on his extra earnings - her issue is that she isn't getting any of it.

    Which seems ok as long as one is getting a cut :eek:, just as well the NRP in question is not a drug baron :T
  • Lip_Stick
    Lip_Stick Posts: 2,415 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    DUTR wrote: »
    Like you I'm an honest tax payer.
    In the case of the story above, if the NRP was contributing nothing at all, then I would be more in favour of the OP's case, when it gets to he is working CIH, so the PWC wants a cut of it, that Im not in favour of, CIH work is often not permanent, so it does as Dissilusioned portrays looks like someone wanting the shirt off his back :o

    You don't know how much the OP is getting so how can you say you favour the NRP when you have no idea how much the NRP is paying? It could be a measly sum when compared to his actual earnings. Ultimately the NRP is breaking the law. The CSA would take a fraction of this extra income, it's not like he'd hand the lot over.
    There's a storm coming, Mr Johnson. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Lip_Stick wrote: »
    You don't know how much the OP is getting so how can you say you favour the NRP when you have no idea how much the NRP is paying? It could be a measly sum when compared to his actual earnings. Ultimately the NRP is breaking the law. The CSA would take a fraction of this extra income, it's not like he'd hand the lot over.

    He is paying a percentage of his declared income, that is what the PWC is supposed to get and the NRP supposed to pay :T
  • Lip_Stick
    Lip_Stick Posts: 2,415 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    DUTR wrote: »
    He is paying a percentage of his declared income, that is what the PWC is supposed to get and the NRP supposed to pay :T

    Paying a percentage of his declared income, is right, it's his undeclared cash in hand income that's in dispute. He could say to his employer, 'I'll do 20 hrs declared, and 20 hrs cash in hand' making sure he'd pay less CSA, and you'd be fine with that? He could pick what he wanted to pay, instead of what he should be paying.
    There's a storm coming, Mr Johnson. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Lip_Stick wrote: »
    Paying a percentage of his declared income, is right, it's his undeclared cash in hand income that's in dispute. He could say to his employer, 'I'll do 20 hrs declared, and 20 hrs cash in hand' making sure he'd pay less CSA, and you'd be fine with that? He could pick what he wanted to pay, instead of what he should be paying.

    I assumed his cash in hand was earned elsewhere, not with his main employer, I don't do overtime now, much to the dissapointment of my manager, I don't gain much for it, and value my free time more .
    Trouble is the co goverment has already stated that there will be a shift from what one claims to what one contributes.
    Anyways it does not affect you or I , this episode. So we will have to agree to disagree :beer:
  • tiggerkian
    tiggerkian Posts: 87 Forumite
    unfortunatly it works both ways....:( how many pwc's get the children to sign up to a college course and attend for one day...meaning that the nrp has to pay his csa for the duration....i know two wrongs don't make a right and all that.....
  • DUTR
    DUTR Posts: 12,958 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    tiggerkian wrote: »
    unfortunatly it works both ways....:( how many pwc's get the children to sign up to a college course and attend for one day...meaning that the nrp has to pay his csa for the duration....i know two wrongs don't make a right and all that.....

    Yes but that is ok, as it's for the children ;)
    I just work on the assumption I will be paying until DC is 19, any shorter time will be like having a 15% pay rise :beer:
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 353.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.2K Life & Family
  • 260.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture