OK for one, but not for the other

John_Pierpoint

Robert Maxwell leased what he described as the “best council house in the country” from Oxford City Council for 32 years, Since 1992 it has been leased to Oxford Brookes University.Robert Maxwell, Director of Pergamon Press, with a tender of £2,400 a year, [arrived] in 1959.

TruckerT

ash28 wrote: »

It will be taxed at 45%.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20782364

Generali wrote: »

If the housing allowance counts as expenses, which I think it would, then it would be tax free.

I agree that a housing allowance would normally be tax-free, but check out the BBC news item which was quoted by ash28.

TruckerT

Generali

TruckerT wrote: »

I agree that a housing allowance would normally be tax-free, but check out the BBC news item which was quoted by ash28.

TruckerT

The BoE confirms that the housing allowance is taxable, I wonder why.

TruckerT

Generali wrote: »

The BoE confirms that the housing allowance is taxable, I wonder why.

And, if so, then why call it a housing allowance, when it's actually just part of the salary?

TruckerT

ash28

Generali wrote: »

If the housing allowance counts as expenses, which I think it would, then it would be tax free.

It will be classed as a benefit in kind rather than an expense and will be taxable.

HMRC call it a rent allowance - we were in receipt of one on a reducing scale for 10 years when we moved from Scotland to the south east....it was to help with the increased cost of housing......our mortgage doubled for the same size and type of house so it was very welcome.....with a family we may not have moved without it, our living standards would have dropped too much.

I think it's a reasonable amount and probably less than a lot executives get when relocating to London, £10k a month will get you somewhere nice but not palatial.

lostinrates

Much of my childhood was lived out of a shipping container and employer funded moves and employer paid rental accommodation.

Often these moves were a few months at a time, and so the time their employee might have diverted into looking for housing was considered poor use of his resources which should have been available to them. It wasn't particularly well paid work really, and the moves and accommodation and other costs (our flights to my education etc and the portion of my education they funded) probably equalled his normal work salary. I've never really thought about it.


When DH was employed by his firm in Italy they shipped him out and set us up in a ace while we looked for our own place. We wanted our own place suitable for our cats and for independent living. There is lots I remember about being on the employer's dime at home as well as at work that I don't seek to do too often. Expenses is fine, but to choose our own space and address.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

You don't pay tax on expenses but you do on income.

If you pay a salary + expenses then it's better for both employer and employee.

I strongly suspect that this is more about salary envy than the relative merits of salary and expense structures. "He earns more than me and then gets expenses on top!!!"

Nail on the head Generali.
It makes sense for the employee and employer to receive a lower salary and then additional benefits.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I strongly suspect that this is more about salary envy than the relative merits of salary and expense structures. "He earns more than me and then gets expenses on top!!!"

It's about what it says it's about. If it was about salary envy as your attempted put down suggests, then I would be reeling people off on higher salaries. But it's not, hence why that's not what I have written.

Howcome it's wrong for one person to receive such a thing, but ok for another? They are both public workers which MPs have been involved in hiring.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's about what it says it's about. If it was about salary envy as your attempted put down suggests, then I would be reeling people off on higher salaries. But it's not, hence why that's not what I have written.

Howcome it's wrong for one person to receive such a thing, but ok for another? They are both public workers which MPs have been involved in hiring.

different people in the public sector have different contracts of employment; why is that outrageous?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Howcome it's wrong for one person to receive such a thing, but ok for another? They are both public workers which MPs have been involved in hiring.

I told you. Vince Cable stuck his (retrospective) nose in the Royal Mail deal but presumably was told to keep his nose out of the BoE deal.

It's politics - the politics of envy.