Poverty in Oldham
Discussion
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
I'd agree with most things about working on 'the continent'. I'm not sure that London is heavily subsidised at all. On the contrary, I'd say that London is subsidising the rest of the UK.
Now you are just copying what I'm saying!
Waved through pretty quick, compared to HS2 I'd say.
98elise said:
crankedup said:
98elise said:
sidicks said:
oyster said:
Aren't they paid as shares though?
I'd be amazed if that £110m in bonuses even comes anywhere near 45% tax.
You think shares don’t get taxed? I'd be amazed if that £110m in bonuses even comes anywhere near 45% tax.
When I was in investment banking my bonuses paid in shares were basically taxed as income, locked in for a minimum 3 year period. I think that’s normal?
Also how have they managed to keep these schemes secret? I employ an accountant and he's not promoting any of these clever schemes to me.
I have no idea how they get around the finance/HR .
Don’t these celebs go self employed whilst working as a shadow employee.
Maybe these little loopholes are now closed but I have no seen any evidence to support that.
Change your accountant
The Mad Monk said:
Why did she have 4 children?
Surely she must have known what was causing them?
If she's anything like a few work colleagues of a friend of mine it's either 'Religion' or, quite simply, that it's her choice to have as many children as she wishes.Surely she must have known what was causing them?
What can/should be done about it - presumably nothing ?
Robertj21a said:
The Mad Monk said:
Why did she have 4 children?
Surely she must have known what was causing them?
quite simply, that it's her choice to have as many children as she wishes.Surely she must have known what was causing them?
What can/should be done about it - presumably nothing ?
If she chooses to have children, why should I have to pay for them?
Derek Smith said:
A family friend had a daughter who was studying art. She wanted to go for a picture that had not been covered yet there it was, in a stately home not 40 miles away. She could visit any time they stipulated. Death duties on the painting had been ignored in order for his lordship to keep a number of paintings in the country for the benefit of us plebs. Yet, she found, after being told that visiting times were all booked up for years ahead, that no one, that's no one in this country, including said lord I bet, had seen the painting since the death of the current claimed owners. 'It happens a lot' said her tutor.
There will probably be a burglary some time. You get a lot of them.
No one cares. Not anyone in government it seems. Or those who excuse such matters.
If these people do pay all their taxes then who's keeping all these islands with more banks than people going? Tough question, I think not.
I think that's it, no-one cares. Maybe there'll be a paradigm shift, maybe there won'tThere will probably be a burglary some time. You get a lot of them.
No one cares. Not anyone in government it seems. Or those who excuse such matters.
If these people do pay all their taxes then who's keeping all these islands with more banks than people going? Tough question, I think not.
fblm said:
Tim2k9 said:
The solution would be to stop all these payments...
IMO the less draconian solution is to raise the minimum wage, cut Corporation tax and remove in work benefits. That way corporations pay higher wages but lower tax, people earn more but get less in benefits and government pays less in benefits and takes less in tax... No one in full time work should need benefits to raise a family and no one should be able to live comfortably on benefits. Basically if you work you should be able to afford a considerably nicer life than those who can but don't. When I'm emperor it will be so.turbobloke said:
How about another grim graphic: Monaco is the richest and the most expensive city in the world, a subtropical tax haven which attracts extremely wealthy individuals from all over the planet. Neither London nor New York or Paris or Tokyo can be compared with it.
London is relatively poor! It's not fair!! Something must be done!!! Let's spread the jam out so everyone gets a strawberry seed to suck on.
The image posted earlier showing real poverty and pretend poverty side by side has a more important message than that selective northern Europe sob job.
It doesn't have to be a sob job, it isn't to me. It's about certain areas of the UK that are not as efficient or productive as they could be. I would like that to improve, for me, for my region, for the UK economy. London is relatively poor! It's not fair!! Something must be done!!! Let's spread the jam out so everyone gets a strawberry seed to suck on.
The image posted earlier showing real poverty and pretend poverty side by side has a more important message than that selective northern Europe sob job.
crankedup said:
Was it really only two years ago that we’ll known ‘A’ list celebs were hauled over the legal coals suffering huge public embarrassment.
The ones that had to repay money because what they were doing was illegal? crankedup said:
I have no idea how they get around the finance/HR .
Don’t these celebs go self employed whilst working as a shadow employee.
Maybe these little loopholes are now closed but I have no seen any evidence to support that.
Change your accountant
Where have you been looking to see such evidence - you seem determined to make judgements based on prejudice, avoiding all evidence that might contradict your previous claims?Don’t these celebs go self employed whilst working as a shadow employee.
Maybe these little loopholes are now closed but I have no seen any evidence to support that.
Change your accountant
None of these were employed through PAYE, so it's yet another claim that doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.
Which accountant does your daughter use to avoid PAYE taxes on her income?
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 24th March 13:56
Derek Smith said:
You use the rolleyes as some form of comment. However, you are turning them away. You do a bit of reading. You do a bit of research.
There's exposés every week yet you feel that this was 1980? Really?
None of this has anything to do with PAYE employees, which was the point under discussion. So perhaps you should do some proper research, not just making yet more nonsense claims, on the basis of something you once read in the (tax avoiding) Guardian.There's exposés every week yet you feel that this was 1980? Really?
Derek Smith said:
We all know one name, one of the richest men in this country, who has had court case after court case, who has been the subject of two EU enquiries, who boasts about it. But, I assume, that was all in 1980 was it? His argument is that everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't he. Perhaps he should have used some emoji or such as an argument.
MPs do it. We know this, that is if one reads up on the matter. There’s a favourite of PH who uses a Russian bank, one where the history is such that you’d need a lot of rolleseyes to come up with a suitable comment. Many feel that corrupt might cover it.
We hear of BBC staff being paid in tax avoiding ways. But that was 1980 I suppose.
None of this has anything to do with PAYE employees which was the topic under discussion. And of course some BBC employees are now being asked to repay tax they've incorrectly avoided. But I guess that doesn't fit your rhetoric?MPs do it. We know this, that is if one reads up on the matter. There’s a favourite of PH who uses a Russian bank, one where the history is such that you’d need a lot of rolleseyes to come up with a suitable comment. Many feel that corrupt might cover it.
We hear of BBC staff being paid in tax avoiding ways. But that was 1980 I suppose.
Derek Smith said:
We are told, by lots of people on here, of how wealth cascades from the top. And you seem to be suggesting that I'm the one talking nonsense.
In the context of the discussion, you certainly were talking nonsense. And the claims about 'tax havens' were likewise.Derek Smith said:
As we see all too frequently, there are many tax dodges. Every now and again some will be hit by HMRC, and then we find they are all at it, yet we have many who say these rich people pay as much tax as the rest of us. It must be only poor people who invest £millions in these tax scams.
High PAYE earners do pay massive amounts of tax, no matter what your anecdotes might claim.Derek Smith said:
Someone suggested that the money going into these tax havens is already taxed. And you suggest that my post was half-baked. There's no way anyone is that naive.
If only you understood the first thing about what you were talking about in this context (and the difference between avoidance and evasion would be a start).
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Was it really only two years ago that we’ll known ‘A’ list celebs were hauled over the legal coals suffering huge public embarrassment.
The ones that had to repay money because what they were doing was illegal? crankedup said:
I have no idea how they get around the finance/HR .
Don’t these celebs go self employed whilst working as a shadow employee.
Maybe these little loopholes are now closed but I have no seen any evidence to support that.
Change your accountant
Where have you been looking to see such evidence - you seem determined to make judgements based on prejudice, avoiding all evidence that might contradict your previous claims?Don’t these celebs go self employed whilst working as a shadow employee.
Maybe these little loopholes are now closed but I have no seen any evidence to support that.
Change your accountant
None of these were employed through PAYE, so it's yet another claim that doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.
Which accountant does your daughter use to avoid PAYE taxes on her income?
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 24th March 13:56
The self employed status then offers attractive option not on offer to PAYE. No rocket science involved.
Edit to add the celebs caught out were not doing anything illegal, public embarrassment was the penalty that prompted them to change their accountant iirc.
Edited by crankedup on Saturday 24th March 14:15
crankedup said:
People working within the entertainment industry were employed on a regular basis by the employer to such an extent that in all intents and purposes they were employees. However, in order to minimise thier tax liabilities they set up thier own business to become self employed.
The self employed status then offers attractive option not on offer to PAYE. No rocket science involved.
Exactly. Some of these have been found not to have been genuinely self-employed and will be forced to pay back any tax due.The self employed status then offers attractive option not on offer to PAYE. No rocket science involved.
However, the issue under discussion was regarding high-earning PAYE employees paying tax on bonuses - I'll ask again, what evidence do you have that these people do not pay the full tax due at the appropriate 45% rate or whatever?
After all, you did claim:
crankedup said:
Indeed, taking this further it’s difficult to imagine that those fortunate / smart enough to receive massive salaries and huge bonus payments do not employ the services of brilliant accountants. On the basis that this is so it’s not to bigger step to consider that thier tax bill is minilmised to the absolute. All legal and fair under the current regulations of course, but it shoots holes in the argument about highly paid executives paying huge tax bills.
Please explain what accountants can do in this regard - a link to some evidence would be useful, as I'm sure a few thousand City workers would love to know about this...
crankedup said:
Edit to add the celebs caught out were not doing anything illegal, public embarrassment was the penalty that prompted them to change their accountant iirc.
Which celebrities are you referring to?The Mad Monk said:
Robertj21a said:
The Mad Monk said:
There is the question of the world's population increasing. it can't go on for ever.
If she chooses to have children, why should I have to pay for them?
Agreed. So what's the answer ?If she chooses to have children, why should I have to pay for them?
Robertj21a said:
Quite - but if they continue to have more children, regardless of whether they can afford them ???
That is why the "cap" on benefits has been introduced.I do think that there is an issue with low paid work being subsidised by the government.
We have become accustomed to very low prices for services. Maybe we should pay more and staff should be paid more for their labour?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff