Hamilton and Button tax avoidance
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
Sorry, but I think that is bull***t.
It is easy enough to say when you are "only" on 100k that you would pay full tax if you were on 10m BUT if you were actually facing a 4 MILLION pound tax bill, you would look to reduce it.
Not at all, they are both higher tax rate payers with very good jobs, they could easily afford fancy cars etc but live very modestly and are very happy, some people aren't money mad and live very happy lives.It is easy enough to say when you are "only" on 100k that you would pay full tax if you were on 10m BUT if you were actually facing a 4 MILLION pound tax bill, you would look to reduce it.
Edited by Lotus E300S on Wednesday 15th April 17:49
Lotus E300S said:
Jasandjules said:
Sorry, but I think that is bull***t.
It is easy enough to say when you are "only" on 100k that you would pay full tax if you were on 10m BUT if you were actually facing a 4 MILLION pound tax bill, you would look to reduce it.
Not at all, they are both higher tax rate payers with very good jobs, they could easily afford fancy cars etc but live very modestly and are very happy, some people aren't money mad and live very happy lives.It is easy enough to say when you are "only" on 100k that you would pay full tax if you were on 10m BUT if you were actually facing a 4 MILLION pound tax bill, you would look to reduce it.
Edited by Lotus E300S on Wednesday 15th April 17:49
Let's look at the whole issue of individuals minimising their tax liability from an ethical point of view. In my case, I own a company that makes stuff and employs people, I pay corporation tax, employers contributions, I collect NI & PAYE, and VAT. As an individual I draw a PAYE salary low enough that it keeps my NI contributions current and tax band low, I then draw a dividend which I pay a lower rate of tax on. I arrange my personal drawings in this way not because I am Island dwelling Bond Villain devoid of all morals and ethics but because I consider that I already contribute more than my fair share, with my nett contribution far exceeding what I get back. I am therefore comfortable with my situation, would I minimise it further of I could? Would I live abroad if I had to? You're damm right I would, If I was that rich then I would consider that in the bigger scheme of things my contribution to society would still be bigger than my drawings and as such I would be paying my way. This is how I view the Hamilton/Button situation, they put their lives on the line on a weekly basis to help create the mahoosive money making circus that is Formula 1, that brings in nett revenue to UK PLC in the Billions, so fair one in my mind, crack on and enjoy the Sunshine.
Jenson Button also has a Charitable Foundation that does lots of good stuff, I only know directly where a tiny percentage of this revenue goes, but the bit I know of which is "only" around £60K's worth filters down the line through other funders and directly saves the NHS circa £500K/year in direct costs and helps save 10-15 lives per month. With each life having a nominal nett "value" when considered in the wider circle of dependants and employment status of circa £1M where an individual categorised as an unexpected survivor is returned to tax paying status, by my simply man maths I'd say that every Triathlon he runs, by wearing a pink helmet or having his fans in pink t shirts at Silverstone saves the NHS and the UK as a whole many many tens of Millions £ each year. These things are never as straight forward as they may first appear, and I doubt very much that your PAYE upper tax bracket paying friends in percentage terms contribute anywhere near as much as either Hamilton or Button.
Jenson Button also has a Charitable Foundation that does lots of good stuff, I only know directly where a tiny percentage of this revenue goes, but the bit I know of which is "only" around £60K's worth filters down the line through other funders and directly saves the NHS circa £500K/year in direct costs and helps save 10-15 lives per month. With each life having a nominal nett "value" when considered in the wider circle of dependants and employment status of circa £1M where an individual categorised as an unexpected survivor is returned to tax paying status, by my simply man maths I'd say that every Triathlon he runs, by wearing a pink helmet or having his fans in pink t shirts at Silverstone saves the NHS and the UK as a whole many many tens of Millions £ each year. These things are never as straight forward as they may first appear, and I doubt very much that your PAYE upper tax bracket paying friends in percentage terms contribute anywhere near as much as either Hamilton or Button.
mel said:
Let's look at the whole issue of individuals minimising their tax liability from an ethical point of view. In my case, I own a company that makes stuff and employs people, I pay corporation tax, employers contributions, I collect NI & PAYE, and VAT. As an individual I draw a PAYE salary low enough that it keeps my NI contributions current and tax band low, I then draw a dividend which I pay a lower rate of tax on. I arrange my personal drawings in this way not because I am Island dwelling Bond Villain devoid of all morals and ethics but because I consider that I already contribute more than my fair share, with my nett contribution far exceeding what I get back. I am therefore comfortable with my situation, would I minimise it further of I could? Would I live abroad if I had to? You're damm right I would, If I was that rich then I would consider that in the bigger scheme of things my contribution to society would still be bigger than my drawings and as such I would be paying my way. This is how I view the Hamilton/Button situation, they put their lives on the line on a weekly basis to help create the mahoosive money making circus that is Formula 1, that brings in nett revenue to UK PLC in the Billions, so fair one in my mind, crack on and enjoy the Sunshine.
Jenson Button also has a Charitable Foundation that does lots of good stuff, I only know directly where a tiny percentage of this revenue goes, but the bit I know of which is "only" around £60K's worth filters down the line through other funders and directly saves the NHS circa £500K/year in direct costs and helps save 10-15 lives per month. With each life having a nominal nett "value" when considered in the wider circle of dependants and employment status of circa £1M where an individual categorised as an unexpected survivor is returned to tax paying status, by my simply man maths I'd say that every Triathlon he runs, by wearing a pink helmet or having his fans in pink t shirts at Silverstone saves the NHS and the UK as a whole many many tens of Millions £ each year. These things are never as straight forward as they may first appear, and I doubt very much that your PAYE upper tax bracket paying friends in percentage terms contribute anywhere near as much as either Hamilton or Button.
I think there is nothing wrong with what you do. You didn't set the rules, you play by the rules what more is to that? The self righteous pricks (drivers, cyclists, people in general with that trait) are the ones that annoy me....Jenson Button also has a Charitable Foundation that does lots of good stuff, I only know directly where a tiny percentage of this revenue goes, but the bit I know of which is "only" around £60K's worth filters down the line through other funders and directly saves the NHS circa £500K/year in direct costs and helps save 10-15 lives per month. With each life having a nominal nett "value" when considered in the wider circle of dependants and employment status of circa £1M where an individual categorised as an unexpected survivor is returned to tax paying status, by my simply man maths I'd say that every Triathlon he runs, by wearing a pink helmet or having his fans in pink t shirts at Silverstone saves the NHS and the UK as a whole many many tens of Millions £ each year. These things are never as straight forward as they may first appear, and I doubt very much that your PAYE upper tax bracket paying friends in percentage terms contribute anywhere near as much as either Hamilton or Button.
mel said:
Let's look at the whole issue of individuals minimising their tax liability from an ethical point of view. In my case, I own a company that makes stuff and employs people, I pay corporation tax, employers contributions, I collect NI & PAYE, and VAT. As an individual I draw a PAYE salary low enough that it keeps my NI contributions current and tax band low, I then draw a dividend which I pay a lower rate of tax on. I arrange my personal drawings in this way not because I am Island dwelling Bond Villain devoid of all morals and ethics but because I consider that I already contribute more than my fair share, with my nett contribution far exceeding what I get back. I am therefore comfortable with my situation, would I minimise it further of I could? Would I live abroad if I had to? You're damm right I would, If I was that rich then I would consider that in the bigger scheme of things my contribution to society would still be bigger than my drawings and as such I would be paying my way. This is how I view the Hamilton/Button situation, they put their lives on the line on a weekly basis to help create the mahoosive money making circus that is Formula 1, that brings in nett revenue to UK PLC in the Billions, so fair one in my mind, crack on and enjoy the Sunshine.
Jenson Button also has a Charitable Foundation that does lots of good stuff, I only know directly where a tiny percentage of this revenue goes, but the bit I know of which is "only" around £60K's worth filters down the line through other funders and directly saves the NHS circa £500K/year in direct costs and helps save 10-15 lives per month. With each life having a nominal nett "value" when considered in the wider circle of dependants and employment status of circa £1M where an individual categorised as an unexpected survivor is returned to tax paying status, by my simply man maths I'd say that every Triathlon he runs, by wearing a pink helmet or having his fans in pink t shirts at Silverstone saves the NHS and the UK as a whole many many tens of Millions £ each year. These things are never as straight forward as they may first appear, and I doubt very much that your PAYE upper tax bracket paying friends in percentage terms contribute anywhere near as much as either Hamilton or Button.
Do you predicate the tax you WANT to pay based on what YOU can get out of the system?Jenson Button also has a Charitable Foundation that does lots of good stuff, I only know directly where a tiny percentage of this revenue goes, but the bit I know of which is "only" around £60K's worth filters down the line through other funders and directly saves the NHS circa £500K/year in direct costs and helps save 10-15 lives per month. With each life having a nominal nett "value" when considered in the wider circle of dependants and employment status of circa £1M where an individual categorised as an unexpected survivor is returned to tax paying status, by my simply man maths I'd say that every Triathlon he runs, by wearing a pink helmet or having his fans in pink t shirts at Silverstone saves the NHS and the UK as a whole many many tens of Millions £ each year. These things are never as straight forward as they may first appear, and I doubt very much that your PAYE upper tax bracket paying friends in percentage terms contribute anywhere near as much as either Hamilton or Button.
Or should there perhaps be a "contribution to others" ethic about why we pay tax?
Over the past 30 plus years you can see more and more that Brits tend to think of tax as buying services for themselves - and they don't like paying tax if they don't receive or want a particular service. It's very much a consumer based approach to taxation.
Other countries, such as the Scandinavian nations, look at taxation in a very different light - and view it almost as their patriotic duty to the nation.
Maybe the Brits don't have a sense of "nation" anymore. It's hard to justify paying for something you don't believe in.
Not really... I don't pay taxes to use any services personally, I understand the common good. Even though I understand it it does not mean I want to give all my money to the tax man. I pay my fair share and use all allowances to minimise my tax liability, nothing wrong with that. Can't understand why people are so rattled about this really....
For anyone that is agrieved for all the people that use the laws and allowances to minimise their tax liability there is an easy solution...
Voluntarily pay more than you are due if that makes you feel better and because you are a better person than the rest of us...
For anyone that is agrieved for all the people that use the laws and allowances to minimise their tax liability there is an easy solution...
Voluntarily pay more than you are due if that makes you feel better and because you are a better person than the rest of us...
Eric Mc said:
Maybe the Brits don't have a sense of "nation" anymore. It's hard to justify paying for something you don't believe in.
I don't think it's that, I think it's that we're heavily influenced by the USA. They're generally very patriotic, but they also believe in "the American Dream". This is the philosophy that if you work hard, you should get to keep the benefits of that work and why should you subsidise anyone else. I think we're moving more and more towards that theory in this country.At no point did I state what my personal opinion is - so I most definitely do not think I am better than anybody. I was asking rhetorical questions because many people don't question their own actions and beliefs - which they always should. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to change their ways. But they should be completely aware of why they are doing something and why they hold a particular view.
I do feel that, by and large, the British view on taxation is that of a consumer of services. We have been propagandised for a number of decades to equate life with a financial/economic equation. I do recognise that finance and economics are important - but they are not the only things that matter in life and if we try to turn every single action we carry out into a profit or loss account or balance sheet event we are becoming less human - in my view.
I do feel that, by and large, the British view on taxation is that of a consumer of services. We have been propagandised for a number of decades to equate life with a financial/economic equation. I do recognise that finance and economics are important - but they are not the only things that matter in life and if we try to turn every single action we carry out into a profit or loss account or balance sheet event we are becoming less human - in my view.
Eric Mc said:
Do you predicate the tax you WANT to pay based on what YOU can get out of the system?
Or should there perhaps be a "contribution to others" ethic about why we pay tax?
Over the past 30 plus years you can see more and more that Brits tend to think of tax as buying services for themselves - and they don't like paying tax if they don't receive or want a particular service. It's very much a consumer based approach to taxation.
Other countries, such as the Scandinavian nations, look at taxation in a very different light - and view it almost as their patriotic duty to the nation.
Maybe the Brits don't have a sense of "nation" anymore. It's hard to justify paying for something you don't believe in.
I think the problem is the value perception.Or should there perhaps be a "contribution to others" ethic about why we pay tax?
Over the past 30 plus years you can see more and more that Brits tend to think of tax as buying services for themselves - and they don't like paying tax if they don't receive or want a particular service. It's very much a consumer based approach to taxation.
Other countries, such as the Scandinavian nations, look at taxation in a very different light - and view it almost as their patriotic duty to the nation.
Maybe the Brits don't have a sense of "nation" anymore. It's hard to justify paying for something you don't believe in.
If people received perceived value (even if not directly to themselves, but to others), then there'd be less of an issue. I think the fact that a lot of people seem to get poor (if any!) value from their taxes is the issue.
And how do you define value?
Sometimes, what seems like a really bad value project might end up being excellent value - given time and hindsight.
It's all very subjective.
I am pretty sure that it is more a psychological attitude. We have been educated to not like tax - so we don't. Other countries don't seem to mind so much - and I'm pretty sure those governments are no more efficient spenders of tax money than ours.
Sometimes, what seems like a really bad value project might end up being excellent value - given time and hindsight.
It's all very subjective.
I am pretty sure that it is more a psychological attitude. We have been educated to not like tax - so we don't. Other countries don't seem to mind so much - and I'm pretty sure those governments are no more efficient spenders of tax money than ours.
You can blame individuals, but as long as tax avoidance schemes exist it's really the politicians & government that should draw your ire.
They could fix these things, they are large and unwieldy but not insurmountable given sufficient drive. If I were a cynic though (which fortunately I am) I'd say that these systems benefit the kind of people, and their friends, who are close to those in government, or maybe even in government, so it's not that surprising that progress on rectifying these tax avoidance loopholes moves at a glacial pace. The rhetoric you hear on TV is mostly there to appease the masses and let them think progress is being made.
I agree that if you are looking at things strictly morally then you could make an argument that Hamilton, Button, Amazon, Starbucks and however many other entities that have creative (but more importantly - not illegal) accountants are "not playing by the rules", but not unlike false whiplash claims you need the people that can change systems to be more invested in doing it, because left up to the participants they will tend to be inclined to do whatever they can to exploit the system.
They could fix these things, they are large and unwieldy but not insurmountable given sufficient drive. If I were a cynic though (which fortunately I am) I'd say that these systems benefit the kind of people, and their friends, who are close to those in government, or maybe even in government, so it's not that surprising that progress on rectifying these tax avoidance loopholes moves at a glacial pace. The rhetoric you hear on TV is mostly there to appease the masses and let them think progress is being made.
I agree that if you are looking at things strictly morally then you could make an argument that Hamilton, Button, Amazon, Starbucks and however many other entities that have creative (but more importantly - not illegal) accountants are "not playing by the rules", but not unlike false whiplash claims you need the people that can change systems to be more invested in doing it, because left up to the participants they will tend to be inclined to do whatever they can to exploit the system.
Edited by Durzel on Thursday 16th April 18:33
We are veering off into a non-motor racing topic that has been discussed to death elsewhere on PH.
Tax becomes complex because if it is simple, it is easy to avoid or evade. Over time, it becomes more complex as the law tries to stop avoidance and evasion. The tax avoidance and evasion schemes therefore become complex too.
It's a kind of an arms race and pretty much inevitable.
Tax becomes complex because if it is simple, it is easy to avoid or evade. Over time, it becomes more complex as the law tries to stop avoidance and evasion. The tax avoidance and evasion schemes therefore become complex too.
It's a kind of an arms race and pretty much inevitable.
Eric Mc said:
Do you predicate the tax you WANT to pay based on what YOU can get out of the system?
Or should there perhaps be a "contribution to others" ethic about why we pay tax?
Over the past 30 plus years you can see more and more that Brits tend to think of tax as buying services for themselves - and they don't like paying tax if they don't receive or want a particular service. It's very much a consumer based approach to taxation.
Other countries, such as the Scandinavian nations, look at taxation in a very different light - and view it almost as their patriotic duty to the nation.
Maybe the Brits don't have a sense of "nation" anymore. It's hard to justify paying for something you don't believe in.
Equally so, is it right that the harder you work the more you have to support others? Is the banding of tax to income morally correct? Why should someone who earns £10K be asked to contribute nothing towards societies running costs, someone on £25K a quarter of their income, someone on £200K 40% and then the possibility of above that having to give half of what you work for to others for no return? would a flat rate across the board be more morally acceptable but less likely to win votes from the majority who like to see the minority subsidising them?Or should there perhaps be a "contribution to others" ethic about why we pay tax?
Over the past 30 plus years you can see more and more that Brits tend to think of tax as buying services for themselves - and they don't like paying tax if they don't receive or want a particular service. It's very much a consumer based approach to taxation.
Other countries, such as the Scandinavian nations, look at taxation in a very different light - and view it almost as their patriotic duty to the nation.
Maybe the Brits don't have a sense of "nation" anymore. It's hard to justify paying for something you don't believe in.
Lotus E300S said:
Had a discussion with a few friends last night (none F1 fans) who were so anti Hamilton/Button because of the tax status they hold, argument was they have had the benefit of British schools/nhs etc while growing up but as soon as they had become successful and rich they turn their backs on the UK choosing to live in tax exiles overseas
I suppose my friends have a point?
No they don't. That's tantamount to saying that if born here you're obliged to live here for the rest of your natural. What an utter load of b****x.I suppose my friends have a point?
mel said:
Equally so, is it right that the harder you work the more you have to support others? Is the banding of tax to income morally correct? Why should someone who earns £10K be asked to contribute nothing towards societies running costs, someone on £25K a quarter of their income, someone on £200K 40% and then the possibility of above that having to give half of what you work for to others for no return? would a flat rate across the board be more morally acceptable but less likely to win votes from the majority who like to see the minority subsidising them?
As I said - discussing the morality or not of the tax system isn't really an F1 topic.mel said:
Let's look at the whole issue of individuals minimising their tax liability from an ethical point of view. In my case, I own a company that makes stuff and employs people, I pay corporation tax, employers contributions, I collect NI & PAYE, and VAT. As an individual I draw a PAYE salary low enough that it keeps my NI contributions current and tax band low, I then draw a dividend which I pay a lower rate of tax on. I arrange my personal drawings in this way not because I am Island dwelling Bond Villain devoid of all morals and ethics but because I consider that I already contribute more than my fair share, with my nett contribution far exceeding what I get back. I am therefore comfortable with my situation, would I minimise it further of I could? Would I live abroad if I had to? You're damm right I would, If I was that rich then I would consider that in the bigger scheme of things my contribution to society would still be bigger than my drawings and as such I would be paying my way.
I think the idea of a tax system is not to be 'paying your way', as you have emphasised. It is a difficult thing to quantify in any case. Companies benefit from the minimum wage in a sense. Someone on minimum wage might well, and would in many places in this country, receive a bit of assistance from government to make ends meet. Whilst there is much in the red top papers about scroungers, if this was removed then the only option would be for companies to pay living wages, and we can't have that, can we. One can't expect the low paid to be taxed even more to pay for their own subsidies.
I know two couples who have struggled to get their kids through university and are now struggling to get them through 'internships', ie working for free, in order to get the jobs they want. That's three kids who are earning nothing (a fourth just employed, and on little more than MW) but can't claim because they are not available for work (I think that's the phrase). Both these couples have a fair income. Some would call them quite rich in fact. But neither has a car as new as my 8-year-old Focus. They are poor because they want to give their kids the chance to compete with the offspring of those they call rich.
They are not comfortable with the situation as, as one of the women pointed out to my wife, if either her or her partner lost their job, they'd be in sever financial problems.
So where are all these taxes to come from? The poor on minimum wage, with their subsidies being a necessity? The middle classes who want their kids to remain in the middle class? In a country that is, we are told, poor the money must come from those with money to spare. Suggesting that you put enough in already given how little you withdraw is not really an argument that stands up.
Not criticising you, your actions or your morals, just your logic.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff