80k deposit but cant get any type of Mortgage please help

Mortgage_Mark_2

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

Op's wife is a paye member of staff not a director so she is not a shareholder and no dividends

Hence the 'if' and 'was' in my post, just to highlight how your blanket approach was not entirely accurate.

haras_nosirrah

nospaceforbaby wrote: »

everyone has the choice to pay the full tax rate or not, you can start your own business for about £200 like I did - then you can put yourself on the same perfectly legal tax scheme.

The reason these tax schemes are legal is because the people who make the rules are also fiddling tax, expenses and anything else they can get a way with - Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow they are all doing it.

Not good examples to use. Jimmy Carr and Gary Barlow were caught using illegal tax avoidance schemes (I believe made retrospectively illegal) and made to pay the money back

haras_nosirrah

Mortgage_Mark wrote: »

Hence the 'if' and 'was' in my post, just to highlight how your blanket approach was not entirely accurate.

My original post was saying that the op increasing his wife's paye income to 100 - 150k for 3 months to get around the affordability issues in their application would get picked up by plausibility and any broker who agreed to do the application on this basis would be risking their job as lenders can report concerns to compliance departments if they feel the scenario is unlikely.

You then stated I didn't know what I was talking about and said this was nonsense

As a broker of 10 years experience I would not be happy saying to a lender that the op 's wife earned 100k when a p60 would show this to be rubbish

But hey I write a lot of business so can choose to be picky.

Mortgage_Mark_2

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

My original post was saying that the op increasing his wife's paye income to 100 - 150k for 3 months to get around the affordability issues in their application would get picked up by plausibility and any broker who agreed to do the application on this basis would be risking their job as lenders can report concerns to compliance departments if they feel the scenario is unlikely.

There is no blanket approach as this is the exact scenario we are discussing

*sigh*...

Ok....

nospaceforbaby

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

Not good examples to use. Jimmy Carr and Gary Barlow were caught using illegal tax avoidance schemes (I believe made retrospectively illegal) and made to pay the money back

Barlow was very high profile - around 300 million tucked away, interesting how Cameron avoids the whole subject - because he doesnt wish to open a can of worms about his own affairs and those of his peers as well as so many others like Sir Phillip Green, Alan Sugar etc -

Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to criticise Gary Barlow over alleged use of a tax avoidance scheme.

Labour is calling on the Take That star to hand back the OBE he received in the Queen's Birthday Honours List.

He is facing questions about money he is alleged to have invested in a tax scheme - Icebreaker 2 - being investigated by HM Revenue and Customs.

There is no suggestion the scheme is illegal but it could still be closed down by HMRC at a tax tribunal.

Mr Cameron said he was not going to give a "running commentary" on people's tax affairs - but he had made an exception for comedian Jimmy Carr because "it was a particularly egregious example of an avoidance scheme that seemed to me to be wrong".

Mortgage_Mark_2

The scheme that Jimmy Carr used is still being used by many, many people and is not illegal. It's massive tax avoidance but is not (yet) deemed as tax evasion.

Carr publicly backed away for PR reasons, not because he was 'caught out' by HMRC. It's a very, very in depth scheme whereby you run a limited company, such as 'Jimmy Carr Ltd', but from that company you basically contract yourself to it, and therefore if you ever see a set of company accounts, you'll see (as an example) £1m turnover, £800k as 'administrative expenses' or cost of sales (i.e. the cost of you), and then the rest is left as operating profit to filter through the company taxation system. In the worst cases, almost all of the turnover will go back out again as admin costs/cost of sales.

Whilst it's not morally right, you have to admire the creativity of the people who come up with these schemes, usually based somewhere like the Isle of Man.

Oh, you won't get a mortgage on this type of scheme as a 'contractor' either, by the way. That's a good example of when working for your own company doesn't work, it's a total bluff.

nospaceforbaby

haras_nosirrah wrote: »

My original post was saying that the op increasing his wife's paye income to 100 - 150k for 3 months to get around the affordability issues in their application would get picked up by plausibility and any broker who agreed to do the application on this basis would be risking their job as lenders can report concerns to compliance departments if they feel the scenario is unlikely.

You then stated I didn't know what I was talking about and said this was nonsense

As a broker of 10 years experience I would not be happy saying to a lender that the op 's wife earned 100k when a p60 would show this to be rubbish

But hey I write a lot of business so can choose to be picky.

yes if they ask me for her p60 then I wont be able to show that the p60 states 100-150k for a whole year, I would need to actually pay her that salary for a whole year which would cost me around 40k in tax. I think the best plan is to move to Cornwall, there are loads of decent places by the Sea for 150k, we can put 80k deposit down and get the remaining loan as a legitimate mortgage based on our current declared salaries of around £9k a year each - then I will just clear the balance next year and we`ll be mortgage free in Cornwall, then the money will really stack up as I will no longer be paying out circa 1k a month in mortgage and that will leave us the option to move somewhere bigger/nicer or use the funds from my IT consulting business to set up other businesses and investments.

nospaceforbaby

Mortgage_Mark wrote: »

The scheme that Jimmy Carr used is still being used by many, many people and is not illegal. It's massive tax avoidance but is not (yet) deemed as tax evasion.

Carr publicly backed away for PR reasons, not because he was 'caught out' by HMRC. It's a very, very in depth scheme whereby you run a limited company, such as 'Jimmy Carr Ltd', but from that company you basically contract yourself to it, and therefore if you ever see a set of company accounts, you'll see (as an example) £1m turnover, £800k as 'administrative expenses' or cost of sales (i.e. the cost of you), and then the rest is left as operating profit to filter through the company taxation system. In the worst cases, almost all of the turnover will go back out again as admin costs/cost of sales.

Whilst it's not morally right, you have to admire the creativity of the people who come up with these schemes, usually based somewhere like the Isle of Man.

yes this is exactly what I am doing, I dont feel entirely happy with it on a moral level because I am not contributing to schools, hospitals etc however I am also not funding government waste such as Wars, Olympics, expenses scandals etc - I intend to privately educate my kids and we already pay Bupa for healthcare, we were denied assistance by our local NHS authority in a postcode lottery for my Wife`s fertility treatment which cost me 10k, so we are not putting much in but not really getting much out either.

Mortgage_Mark_2

nospaceforbaby wrote: »

yes this is exactly what I am doing, I dont feel entirely happy with it on a moral level because I am not contributing to schools, hospitals etc however I am also not funding government waste such as Wars, Olympics, expenses scandals etc - I intend to privately educate my kids and we already pay Bupa for healthcare, we were denied assistance by our local NHS authority in a postcode lottery for my Wife`s fertility treatment which cost me 10k, so we are not putting much in but not really getting much out either.

Not really the place for a debate about the morality of what you do, but presumably if you got hit by a bus tomorrow you'd dial 999, rather than Bupa?

Who would you call if someone was trying to break into your house? Or if it was on fire?

Nothing legally wrong with those schemes but the 'I don't claim much back' argument is flawed, IMO.

leveller2911

nospaceforbaby wrote: »

yes this is exactly what I am doing, I dont feel entirely happy with it on a moral level because I am not contributing to schools, hospitals etc however I am also not funding government waste such as Wars, Olympics, expenses scandals etc - I intend to privately educate my kids and we already pay Bupa for healthcare, we were denied assistance by our local NHS authority in a postcode lottery for my Wife`s fertility treatment which cost me 10k, so we are not putting much in but not really getting much out either.

But you expect the Police ,ambulance etc to turn up in your hour of need or will you wave them away?.To say you "intend" to privately educate your children is laughable. You have no idea what the future holds for you. I intend to live till I'm 100 but it's not really in my hands.

There's no doubt where the blame lies with allowing these tax legal loopholes bu morality (or lack of) is only down to you. Having run my own business for over 25 yrs I could have gone down the same route but I have a moral compass...

As previously mentioned you do want your cake and eat it.