Miliband in tax hypocrisy shocker....

[Northern Munkee]

Well he is a Blairite...

[davepoth]

MartyPubes said:

Call this a hunch but I think you might have voted Conservative.

Actually I'd be surprised if he did - his stance sounds rather leftist.

[0a]

Legal, perhaps.

His behaviour cannot be morally consistent with remaining a member of the Labour Party, however it's hardly surprising.

[sidicks]

MartyPubes said:

Call this a hunch but I think you might have voted Conservative.

As in this case, hunches can often be wrong...

You can't see a problem with someone who was in the running to be Labour leader, a party who have vociferously criticised other individuals for structuring their affairs to minimise tax, to be utilising those same tax avoidance measures??

Really?

Call this a hunch, but are you a Labour supporter??

Sidicks

[Eric Mc]

sidicks said:

Apart from the fact that most high earners (e.g. the despised bankers) will be on PAYE so cannot use it!

Sidick

You obviously don't understand how the bank bonus systems work then.

[sidicks]

Eric Mc said:

You obviously don't understand how the bank bonus systems work then.

Care to explain Eric?

Having spent 6 years at banks and having paid tax on my bonuses I think I have a good idea....

[Eric Mc]

sidicks said:

Eric Mc said:

You obviously don't understand how the bank bonus systems work then.

Care to explain Eric?

Having spent 6 years at banks and having paid tax on my bonuses I think I have a good idea....

The top execs get paid in share options rather than cash bonuses. By careful tiiming of the cashing in of their share options, they can effectively pay 10% tax on the amount - and no NI. Not bad if you can wangle it.
They can also make use of offshore trusts to avoid tax altogether - especially if they are non-domicile in the UK.

I take it you were a general staff mermber rather than on the board of directors?

Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 30th January 09:16

[thinfourth2]

i don't know what is more shocking

A politcian having double standards or someone paying 21grand a day for a millibrain

[rovermorris999]

Share options depend on the shares being worth something so a good incentive to keep the company performing well. A good idea I'd have thought.

[Eric Mc]

rovermorris999 said:

Share options depend on the shares being worth something so a good incentive to keep the company performing well. A good idea I'd have thought.

That's the idea. I don't think anyone is disputing their use in that context. The problem is how share options are taxed.

And an even more invidious fact is that the payment of the share option bonus is AGREED IN ADVANCE whether the exec delivers above and beyond what their job should have delivered.

Bonuses should only be paid (in whatever format) when the individual goes beyond what was expected of them. They should not be paid bonuses for just "being there".

[BOR]

If this is true, then it's a resigning matter.

Who are we supposed to rely on, to make fkers pay their way if not our elected representatives ?

Bankscum are openly trying to take millions in bonuses out of our pockets, boardrooms are awarding massive pay increases to other boardrooms and vice versa, tax officials are allowing multi-nationals to decline to pay what they owe, billionaires are channelling their earnings through their non-dom wewives to avoid paying what they owe etc.

And at the bottom of the pile lie us, the workers, the citizens, the tax-payers relentlessly being fked by these troughers.

I for one, am sick of it.

[Bing o]

Eric Mc said:

Bonuses should only be paid (in whatever format) when the individual goes beyond what was expected of them. They should not be paid bonuses for just "being there".

So you're exepcted to generate an additional 20% profit year on year, you achieve that, and yet you don't get a bonus. Good luck with that.

[sidicks]

Eric Mc said:

The top execs get paid in share options rather than cash bonuses. By careful tiiming of the cashing in of their share options, they can effectively pay 10% tax on the amount - and no NI. Not bad if you can wangle it.
They can also make use of offshore trusts to avoid tax altogether - especially if they are non-domicile in the UK.

I take it you were a general staff mermber rather than on the board of directors?

Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 30th January 09:16

I was not a board member but senior enough for a decent amount of my compensation to be paid in shares (rather than share options). Those shares could not be sold for 3 years (50%) or 4 years (50%) and when they were sold, income tax (and I though NIC too) was due at the appropriate marginal rate.

Are you referring to different schemes?'

Sidicks

[Eric Mc]

Perhaps.

Having shares categorised as Business Shares allowed them to receive Entrepeneurs Relief whan the CGT was being calculated. This still applies although there is now an upward ceiling which there wan't pre 2008.

Perhaps your shares didn't qualify for Entrepeneur's Relief.

[Eric Mc]

Bing o said:

Eric Mc said:

Bonuses should only be paid (in whatever format) when the individual goes beyond what was expected of them. They should not be paid bonuses for just "being there".

So you're exepcted to generate an additional 20% profit year on year, you achieve that, and yet you don't get a bonus. Good luck with that.

How do you know when the profit generated exceeds 20%? 20% of what anyway. Sounds like it's all a bit arbitary. You set a low target so it's easily achieved and bingo, you get a bonus.

It's all a con folks. They are raking it in at the expense of you and me.

I do not for one second think that any of these sharks are worth even 1/10 of what they earn. They have systematically shafted the lot of us and paid themselves handsomely for doing so.

Parasites of the worst kind in my opinion i.e. the type that gorge on their host and then kill it.

[Mikeyboy]

One or more of my bosses has his son down as a beneficiary of this type of scheme, at one point he had his now ex-wife and son on their at the same time. Still, he doesn't claim to be a socialist.

[mattnunn]

I think the Arctic systems case put an end to the HMRC bhing about familly run businesses.

The crux of their argument was that a husband and wife or any other close familly member, could not, by definition, have a business relationship, i.e the wifes share in the company would always be seen as a gift, not a proper business purchase and her role within the business could never be assumed to be real, no share of risk or workload, therefore she wasn't entitled to a dividend from the company.

A quite ludicrous assumption from HMRC, but it was tied up in the courts for years.

I see no hypocrisy in what Milliband has done, and see nothing in his actions which shows tax dodgery or evasion, assuming his wife takes an active partnership in the running of the company and a share of the risk in the company.

[Mikeyboy]

mattnunn said:

I think the Arctic systems case put an end to the HMRC bhing about familly run businesses.

The crux of their argument was that a husband and wife or any other close familly member, could not, by definition, have a business relationship, i.e the wifes share in the company would always be seen as a gift, not a proper business purchase and her role within the business could never be assumed to be real, no share of risk or workload, therefore she wasn't entitled to a dividend from the company.

A quite ludicrous assumption from HMRC, but it was tied up in the courts for years.

I see no hypocrisy in what Milliband has done, and see nothing in his actions which shows tax dodgery or evasion, assuming his wife takes an active partnership in the running of the company and a share of the risk in the company.

Hmm, the hypocrisy is that as a socialist he is supposed to believe that paying tax is for the greater good, and as a senior politician and a former member of HMG he is not supposed to look for ways around paying his due to society.
Its the price you pay for being a senior socialist politician.

[turbobloke]

Mikeyboy said:

mattnunn said:

I think the Arctic systems case put an end to the HMRC bhing about familly run businesses.

The crux of their argument was that a husband and wife or any other close familly member, could not, by definition, have a business relationship, i.e the wifes share in the company would always be seen as a gift, not a proper business purchase and her role within the business could never be assumed to be real, no share of risk or workload, therefore she wasn't entitled to a dividend from the company.

A quite ludicrous assumption from HMRC, but it was tied up in the courts for years.

I see no hypocrisy in what Milliband has done, and see nothing in his actions which shows tax dodgery or evasion, assuming his wife takes an active partnership in the running of the company and a share of the risk in the company.

Hmm, the hypocrisy is that as a socialist he is supposed to believe that paying tax is for the greater good, and as a senior politician and a former member of HMG he is not supposed to look for ways around paying his due to society.
Its the price you pay for being a senior socialist politician.

Agreed. Quite a few on here have no objection to paying the lawfully required amount of tax and no more, and wouldn't normally object to others doing likewise, but when the others include hypocrites like Microgland, he deserves all the flack he gets.

After all his mentor Tiny Bliar has set such a good example in this regard