More envy gripes about excessive salaries.
Discussion
ExChrispy Porker said:
Globs said:
I very much doubt it, the effective tax rate is huge on lower incomes, and Lineker will have a decent accountant.
You also have to factor in fuel duty, VED, VAT on essentials, airport tax, insurance tax, TV licence(sic), council tax etc.
Also the lower incomes would go via PAYE, whereas I suspect Lineker pays 20% through a shell company.
and Lineker doesn't pay VAT and the rest?You also have to factor in fuel duty, VED, VAT on essentials, airport tax, insurance tax, TV licence(sic), council tax etc.
Also the lower incomes would go via PAYE, whereas I suspect Lineker pays 20% through a shell company.
Effective tax rate.
Lineker will probably pay 20% on income, and perhaps VAT on stuff. This is all spare money, so if he buys property outside the country he will pay no VAT at all, or if he invests in gold or shares, no VAT on those either.
Lets say he ends up paying 25% in tax as he buys some cars or a boat. That's 500k in tax.
Someone on 35K will have an effective tax rate of much higher than that, 25% + 22% NI + this money is for stuff, so 20% VAT etc. Say 60% goes as tax, which is conservative, then 57 people on 35k will be paying 1.2m in tax.
So tell me Crispy, which is the bigger number, 500,000 or 1,200,000 ?
You can use Google if you need to.
crankedup said:
I just hope that one sunny day the BeeB will be allowed/pushed to go fully commercial. That will open up all the competition needed to slim down this monolith. At the same time I would expect program quality to remain unaffected. For me ITV seem to be banging out high quality drama that used to be the preserve of the Beeb.
And for those of us that don't watch dramas?
Though i'd happily see the license fee cut to 25% if the beeb binned all the popular s
t like football, soap operas, games shops and all the reality TV crapKeep BBC 2, BBC 4, radio 4 and 6 music and bin the rest
thinfourth2 said:
...
Keep BBC 2, BBC 4, radio 4 and 6 music and bin the rest
Just bin them all.Keep BBC 2, BBC 4, radio 4 and 6 music and bin the rest
Despite it being a public broadcaster there's an equal amount of s
te on the BBC at large as on the commercial channels (irrespective of large pay deals in some areas). So where's the genuine benefit of having it publicly funded? There is none. It's outmoded and unnecessary.Give all BBC 12mths' notice to go and get some commercial sponsorship. Draw up some rules for government/public broadcasts (assuming there aren't any already. Which I doubt). Then scrap the license fee from next year. Job done. Maintain only the body that allocates the broadcast channels.
Parents and individuals can decide whether what is being broadcast for them/their families is suitable and we can be rid of the nonsense that always surrounds the BBC.
Globs said:
I very much doubt it, the effective tax rate is huge on lower incomes, and Lineker will have a decent accountant.
You also have to factor in fuel duty, VED, VAT on essentials, airport tax, insurance tax, TV licence(sic), council tax etc.
Also the lower incomes would go via PAYE, whereas I suspect Lineker pays 20% through a shell company.
You actually quite like the guy...even though in your mind you've convinced yourself he's a tax swindler.You also have to factor in fuel duty, VED, VAT on essentials, airport tax, insurance tax, TV licence(sic), council tax etc.
Also the lower incomes would go via PAYE, whereas I suspect Lineker pays 20% through a shell company.
Err...yeah....you sound like you're a big fan!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You actually quite like the guy...even though in your mind you've convinced yourself he's a tax swindler.
One does not preclude the other, but tell me, what did I say to make you jump to the (false) conclusion that I think he is a tax swindler? Go on - show me the quote.Do you even read my posts before you (repeatedly) display your ignorance?
markcoznottz said:
Get rid of the dorks, just show us the football. As said do you need any of it? News readers, weather girls etc..
I think you have something there; I'm not a footy fan, but Private Eye commented on the anodyne nature of the 'chat' purveyed by Lawro, the 2 Alans or Lineker, and alleged, possibly unfairly, that it was down to them not wanting upset their chums and ex-colleagues. The article highlighted the John Terry racism farrago; it wasn't mentioned at all, which is odd given it's supposed to be a chat show about football. I watched an episode to see if the piece was in any way accurate, and it was; they fail to discuss anything remotely controversial and are not working very hard for their overlarge wage packets.rog007 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
All these people saying how easy it is, well why aren't they doing it for 2m a yr instead of pissing their day away on a motoring forum.
I see wot you did there (with 1599 posts in 5 months to your credit!) 
Murph7355 said:
thinfourth2 said:
...
Keep BBC 2, BBC 4, radio 4 and 6 music and bin the rest
Just bin them all.Keep BBC 2, BBC 4, radio 4 and 6 music and bin the rest
Despite it being a public broadcaster there's an equal amount of s
te on the BBC at large as on the commercial channels (irrespective of large pay deals in some areas). So where's the genuine benefit of having it publicly funded? There is none. It's outmoded and unnecessary.Give all BBC 12mths' notice to go and get some commercial sponsorship. Draw up some rules for government/public broadcasts (assuming there aren't any already. Which I doubt). Then scrap the license fee from next year. Job done. Maintain only the body that allocates the broadcast channels.
Parents and individuals can decide whether what is being broadcast for them/their families is suitable and we can be rid of the nonsense that always surrounds the BBC.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Unlike some on here, I'm not bitter and twisted towards those who do.
The only one twisting things here is you.What makes you think people who object to paying one pundit 2m are bitter and twisted?
What exactly makes this pundit worth 1,970,000 better than a local football commentator/pundit?
I just can't see how he's worth any more than 50k tops, and certainly not worth putting 57 people out of work for.
Your entire 'defence' of this is to accuse everyone else of envy - can you actually defend this decision at all?
Globs said:
Sigh..
Effective tax rate.
Lineker will probably pay 20% on income, and perhaps VAT on stuff. This is all spare money, so if he buys property outside the country he will pay no VAT at all, or if he invests in gold or shares, no VAT on those either.
Lets say he ends up paying 25% in tax as he buys some cars or a boat. That's 500k in tax.
Someone on 35K will have an effective tax rate of much higher than that, 25% + 22% NI + this money is for stuff, so 20% VAT etc. Say 60% goes as tax, which is conservative, then 57 people on 35k will be paying 1.2m in tax.
So tell me Crispy, which is the bigger number, 500,000 or 1,200,000 ?
You can use Google if you need to.
You are assuming that Lineker is not just paying PAYE tax as am employee of the BBC.Effective tax rate.
Lineker will probably pay 20% on income, and perhaps VAT on stuff. This is all spare money, so if he buys property outside the country he will pay no VAT at all, or if he invests in gold or shares, no VAT on those either.
Lets say he ends up paying 25% in tax as he buys some cars or a boat. That's 500k in tax.
Someone on 35K will have an effective tax rate of much higher than that, 25% + 22% NI + this money is for stuff, so 20% VAT etc. Say 60% goes as tax, which is conservative, then 57 people on 35k will be paying 1.2m in tax.
So tell me Crispy, which is the bigger number, 500,000 or 1,200,000 ?
You can use Google if you need to.
Can you state this the case for a fact?
If he is PAYE then he will be paying 60%+ on his earnings.
Devil2575 said:
Globs said:
Sigh..
Effective tax rate.
Lineker will probably pay 20% on income, and perhaps VAT on stuff. This is all spare money, so if he buys property outside the country he will pay no VAT at all, or if he invests in gold or shares, no VAT on those either.
Lets say he ends up paying 25% in tax as he buys some cars or a boat. That's 500k in tax.
Someone on 35K will have an effective tax rate of much higher than that, 25% + 22% NI + this money is for stuff, so 20% VAT etc. Say 60% goes as tax, which is conservative, then 57 people on 35k will be paying 1.2m in tax.
So tell me Crispy, which is the bigger number, 500,000 or 1,200,000 ?
You can use Google if you need to.
You are assuming that Lineker is not just paying PAYE tax as am employee of the BBC.Effective tax rate.
Lineker will probably pay 20% on income, and perhaps VAT on stuff. This is all spare money, so if he buys property outside the country he will pay no VAT at all, or if he invests in gold or shares, no VAT on those either.
Lets say he ends up paying 25% in tax as he buys some cars or a boat. That's 500k in tax.
Someone on 35K will have an effective tax rate of much higher than that, 25% + 22% NI + this money is for stuff, so 20% VAT etc. Say 60% goes as tax, which is conservative, then 57 people on 35k will be paying 1.2m in tax.
So tell me Crispy, which is the bigger number, 500,000 or 1,200,000 ?
You can use Google if you need to.
Can you state this the case for a fact?
If he is PAYE then he will be paying 60%+ on his earnings.
Celebs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218027/Bi...
Daily Wail said:
Many of the BBC's best-paid presenters are classing themselves as freelancers to avoid tens of thousands of pounds in tax.
Big-name stars such as Jeremy Paxman, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis have set up companies to channel their earnings, which will save them from having to pay the new 50 per cent income tax rate on salaries over 150,000.
The BBC is accused of encouraging the arrangement, which saves it millions of pounds a year in employer's national insurance payments, levied at 12.8 per cent of any salary.
More than 20 BBC presenters who are classed as freelance have set up service companies for their earnings.
Plebs: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-21...Big-name stars such as Jeremy Paxman, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis have set up companies to channel their earnings, which will save them from having to pay the new 50 per cent income tax rate on salaries over 150,000.
The BBC is accused of encouraging the arrangement, which saves it millions of pounds a year in employer's national insurance payments, levied at 12.8 per cent of any salary.
More than 20 BBC presenters who are classed as freelance have set up service companies for their earnings.
This Is Money said:
The BBC spent 4million laying off staff only for nearly half of them to continue working as normal.
The money was paid to around 70 workers as compensation because their posts were being relocated north to Salford.
But after accepting the redundancy money 57,000 each, on average about 17 of them simply carried on in the same jobs, it is understood.
A further 15 or so others pocketed the money and then decided to move to Salford anyway where they were re-hired to do the same work, albeit for private companies.
It's endemic in local councils too, where they SHOULD be PAYE imo: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-s...The money was paid to around 70 workers as compensation because their posts were being relocated north to Salford.
But after accepting the redundancy money 57,000 each, on average about 17 of them simply carried on in the same jobs, it is understood.
A further 15 or so others pocketed the money and then decided to move to Salford anyway where they were re-hired to do the same work, albeit for private companies.
Telegraph said:
Almost 100 highly-paid posts at local authorities are being filled through the deals which enable employees to reduce their tax bill.
The schemes allow public servants to make their own tax arrangements rather than be paid through the PAYE system
Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee said MPs would investigate the practice, describing it as totally wrong.
Details of the agreements were disclosed under Freedom of Information law after more than 400 councils were asked how many staff are paid through limited companies.
Hackney Council, in east London, had the highest number with 39 staff paid through external companies, the investigation by BBC Radio 4s File on 4 programme found.
Basically tax is for those who can't afford to avoid it.The schemes allow public servants to make their own tax arrangements rather than be paid through the PAYE system
Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee said MPs would investigate the practice, describing it as totally wrong.
Details of the agreements were disclosed under Freedom of Information law after more than 400 councils were asked how many staff are paid through limited companies.
Hackney Council, in east London, had the highest number with 39 staff paid through external companies, the investigation by BBC Radio 4s File on 4 programme found.
Globs said:
What exactly makes this pundit worth 1,970,000 better than a local football commentator/pundit?
Lineker has played in a world cup semi final and 2 quarter finals. He scored in a semi final penalty shoot out. He scored in normal time of the semi final, and scored 3 goals in 2 quarter finals. He came third in the world player of the year in 1991 and won the world cup golden boot in 86. He's played for top clubs like Barcelona, spurs and Everton and played in Japan too.The BBC have decided they want someone with that experience to front their football coverage. Many of the programmes he fronts are live. Making live TV look easy is very difficult. How many people with his experience can do that job? And there's your answer, supply and demand. He gets £2m a year because that's what you have to pay to secure someone with that rare combination playing background and tv presentation skills. If they didn't pay it someone else would and they'd lose him.
Jesus...it ain't rocket surgery!!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Globs said:
What exactly makes this pundit worth 1,970,000 better than a local football commentator/pundit?
Lineker has played in a world cup semi final and 2 quarter finals. He scored in a semi final penalty shoot out. He scored in normal time of the semi final, and scored 3 goals in 2 quarter finals. He came third in the world player of the year in 1991 and won the world cup golden boot in 86. He's played for top clubs like Barcelona, spurs and Everton and played in Japan too.The BBC have decided they want someone with that experience to front their football coverage. Many of the programmes he fronts are live. Making live TV look easy is very difficult. How many people with his experience can do that job? And there's your answer, supply and demand. He gets £2m a year because that's what you have to pay to secure someone with that rare combination playing background and tv presentation skills. If they didn't pay it someone else would and they'd lose him.
Jesus...it ain't rocket surgery!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff