The place where everyone hangs out, chats, gossips, and argues
#486330
chrysostom wrote:
ess wrote:The figures aren't out yet but in other schemes people were only paying 1% tax on earning so I doubt this scheme will be much different and will almost certainly be significantly less % tax than normals pay.


Bear in mind we don't know whether the scheme itself was successful or how much was invested in the period which lasted less than 12 months before Chris pulled out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... cheme.html

A new article in the Telegraph about this.

Suggests that Moyles probably wasn't using it for his BBC earnings as he's contractually obliged to pay 'the appropriate amount of tax' on that income.


Well its pretty neutral if he put BBC earning in tax avoidance, as we don't know if he has or not.

It's irrelevant whether the scheme is successful or not, its still attempting to use schemes that are setup purely to make tax evasion legal.
Last edited by ess on Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#486331
boboff wrote:.. which are designed only to Evade tax, which is illegal and should be stopped.

But where do you stop?


Very good point. It will be very difficult to stop it completely, but at least nowadays whats been going on for decades is having public attention. Even if it is only a few public facing figures that take the slack.
#486332
ess wrote:Then why are you defending this tax avoidance?


I'm not. I'm saying I understand why people earning more (as in over £1,000,000) might want to try to avoid paying quite so much. I'm not saying its right, I'm saying I understand why they might try.

And I still think personal tax shortfallings falls way short of company tax shortfallings (too mant shorts n falls in the sentence, but meh). The whole Jimmy Carr V's Vodaphone arguement.
#486333
I agree with Ess, about everything apart from the use of quotes in his/her posts, that I find a bit much.

Philip Green is a very good example.

His company is owned by his wife who resides in Monaco, and therefore pays little tax, BUT there is no one else who would have bought the businesses Philip Green did, and who could then have turned them around, employed 10's of thousands of people, and paid Employers NI, import duties, Rates, VAT, etc etc etc so what do we do? Set a taxation scheme so draconian no one invests in the UK, or accept it, and enjoy the benefits it brings?
#486335
dimtimjim wrote:
ess wrote:Then why are you defending this tax avoidance?


I'm not. I'm saying I understand why people earning more (as in over £1,000,000) might want to try to avoid paying quite so much. I'm not saying its right, I'm saying I understand why they might try.

And I still think personal tax shortfallings falls way short of company tax shortfallings (too mant shorts n falls in the sentence, but meh). The whole Jimmy Carr V's Vodaphone arguement.


Doesn't everyone understand why people try to avoid paying tax? #pippatip ;)

Yes much more tax is avoided by companies than individuals, but that doesn't make either morally right. People should vote with their feet, but they rarely do. I don't see starbucks losing many customers to costa.
#486344
I suspect that's probably more to do with the sensationalist nature of how it would be reported and the propaganda that the government have used to demonise fashionably unpopular people - ie Jimmy Carr.

The tax affairs of members of the government are largely private and out of the limelight, yet the highest echelons of the governent have condemned Jimmy Carr as "aggressively avoiding tax" (which they themselves, their donors, sponsors and supporters have done with much more vigour).

I suspect he didn't want to be the subject of a tabloid hate campaign, when in reality he's done nothing more than utilise the same systems as anyone else with a half decent accountant.

But I could well be wrong.
#486346
chrysostom wrote:
ess wrote:much like legal highs.


Legal highs aren't immoral!

This could lead to a 'legality vs. morality of drugs' debate, which is too much to get into.


"Legal highs" really is a very stupid phrase (not of your invention chaps, I realise). Alcohol is a legal high, as is caffeine.

Drugs can't be immoral or moral, they just are - they have been since the dawn of time and they will be long after we've gone.

It's also a decent debate to credit them with the evolution of human civilisation.
#486381
neilt0 wrote:Yes, a flat tax makes complete sense. Which is why Herman Cain is now the U.S. president.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2011/ ... graph?lite


I'll take this opportunity to jump in here with a perspective from across the pond. The flat tax sounds like a great idea on first blush, but then when one starts digging into the details the problems with it start to appear. At least here in The States, flat taxers want it to apply ONLY to earned income (i.e. that one gets from actual wages). What they don't want taxed are the potentially large sums of income that the well-to-do get through investment income. Those who are down on the socioeconomic ladder often have little, if any, investment income. Herman Cain, and many others (i.e. Mitt Romney who just lost the presidential election) proportionately have more of their income as investment income. That is one of the reasons why Mitt Romney was taxed at the same, or less, rate as me (15%) over the last few years. For the record I make far, far less than Mitt Romney does
#486383
I think we've finally discovered the real reason he and Dave fell out, Dave doesn't like tax dodgers.

I do think that Chris has come out of all this looking like a bit of a pillock, not for the actual avoidance, but for seeking a gagging order on the grounds that the story coming out would breach his “right to respect for his private and family life”. I know it's just a standard phrase used by lawyers, but seriously? Between this, the rubbish album, and the crappy sounding tour, he's gone rapidly downhill in my estimation since he's left the show.
#486388
Quite a few saying this is a fake, mainly as the numbers don't add up and it's too simple (image rights, bonuses etc. all appear separately on a pay slip, not as a lump sum - plus his bonuses are much more than that.

Regardless, financially Tevez contributes more to UK society than I ever can hope to (I'll bypass potential rage at how much he earns given that he's one of the world's best in a supremely high earning industry)
#486390
I've been enjoying the idiotic tweeters over the last few days chastising Tevez for earning that kind of money. Because its all his fault he earns that isn't it? In my opinion you can't blame a footballer for earning that kind of sum. Yes of course it's a lot more than it probably should be but good on them for being paid so well. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
#486392
It's funny isn't it?

People rarely have a pop at actors for earning similar sums of money.

If you're good at something that pays well, it's likely that you've worked pretty hard to be there. I've bored everyone on here enough times by justifying footballers' wages though!
#486398
Elizabeth Taylor was the first actress to be paid $1,000,000 for a movie - which in the 1950's was a stupid amount. When she was criticised for getting so much for something as trivial as acting in a film, she is alleged to have commented "If they were stupid enough to offer me a million dollars to do a movie, I was certainly not stupid enough to turn it down."
#486400
Yudster wrote:Elizabeth Taylor was the first actress to be paid $1,000,000 for a movie - which in the 1950's was a stupid amount. When she was criticised for getting so much for something as trivial as acting in a film, she is alleged to have commented "If they were stupid enough to offer me a million dollars to do a movie, I was certainly not stupid enough to turn it down."


Exactly. You cannot ever blame an individual for accepting a high salary or bonus. Even the bankers who got in to trouble last year for accepting a bonus can't be blamed in my opinion. If you are offered a bonus like some of them were and it was contractually agreed you are entitled to it as far as I'm concerned.
#486403
Yudster wrote:Elizabeth Taylor was the first actress to be paid $1,000,000 for a movie - which in the 1950's was a stupid amount. When she was criticised for getting so much for something as trivial as acting in a film, she is alleged to have commented "If they were stupid enough to offer me a million dollars to do a movie, I was certainly not stupid enough to turn it down."

I recently watched "Le Mans" with Steve McQueen. It has amazing footage of car races, but is a terrible film.

I then read a few snippets about McQueen on the interwebs. See if you can guess how much he was paid to appear in "The Towering Inferno" in 1974. Post your guess in a reply, or highlight the spoiler for the answer!

Spoiler:
He was paid $12m, which would be worth $45m in 2012 dollars. Paul Newman was paid the same amount. Mental!
#486405
The issue of bonuses is different I think - a bonus should be earned for exceptional work and achievement of targets. A lot of these bonuses were being paid to people who had not only failed, but whose actions had caused huge financial problems which had a global effect. Yes they were contractually entitled to them, but they shouldn't have been and I think it is wrong to accept a prize that you haven't earned, especially when you have financially ruined other people doing so. So whilst I am not surprised that they didn't turn around and say "sorry, I don't deserve that, keep it" I certainly do blame them, for that and a lot more.
#486411
Emmy wrote:I think we've finally discovered the real reason he and Dave fell out, Dave doesn't like tax dodgers.

I do think that Chris has come out of all this looking like a bit of a pillock, not for the actual avoidance, but for seeking a gagging order on the grounds that the story coming out would breach his “right to respect for his private and family life”. I know it's just a standard phrase used by lawyers, but seriously? Between this, the rubbish album, and the crappy sounding tour, he's gone rapidly downhill in my estimation since he's left the show.


My feelings exactly.

Not sure about the reason of the Chris and Dave spat .. but that would makes sense.

It seems Chris did it, asked to keep it quiet and has been caught, for which I am pleased.

All his rants he did, maybe he should have practiced what he preached !
#486419
R94N wrote:Now NME has picked the story up. I suppose when the temptation came it was too much, even after what he'd said about it in the past. That said I'd probably do the same and so would many people, even those that say do not like it.


Ah that's no surprise. The new editor HATES chris and thinks Grimmy's the best thing since sliced bread. No wonder they picked it up ;)
#486430
Just to say I totally agree with Yudster on a flat rate tax. High earners can afford to pay a higher percentage of tax and should be paying their way. Many of them work hard for their money, but that doesn't mean that the cleaners or the other base rate tax payers aren't working just as hard - the difference is it's for far, far less.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
long long title how many chars? lets see 123 ok more? yes 60

We have created lots of YouTube videos just so you can achieve [...]

Another post test yes yes yes or no, maybe ni? :-/

The best flat phpBB theme around. Period. Fine craftmanship and [...]

Do you need a super MOD? Well here it is. chew on this

All you need is right here. Content tag, SEO, listing, Pizza and spaghetti [...]

Lasagna on me this time ok? I got plenty of cash

this should be fantastic. but what about links,images, bbcodes etc etc? [...]