Moral or not

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[Plotloss]

Tax dodge isnt it?

Therefore morally commendable.

[Eric Mc]

Is the MD the founder of the company or does he have a substantial equity stake in the business?

[evolutionvalet]

I would hasten to guess she is down as 'Company Secretary' so a valuable member of the managerial team....as well as driving a 'pool' car....;)

[SystemParanoia]

ill be doing the same thing as soon as my company's big enough.

[Mr POD]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If they take her off the pay roll, he'll want the same cash in his hand after tax, so if you loose her, you'll need to loose another to pay for the extra.

[Eric Mc]

Sounds like it is his company so he is morally entitled to look after his interests (and his family's) first.

As long as he keeps the Arctic Systems case in mind.

[grumbledoak]

If he is founder and owner, it's morally ok- it just amounts to him paying less income tax; it's not unfair on the other staff as such.

ETA - morally. HMRC may disagree.

Edited by grumbledoak on Friday 24th October 16:06

[JustinP1]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Well if he didn't pay his wife, then where would the money go instead?

Straight to him minus a bit more tax.

However, where will the money for the bit of extra tax come from? The salary pot for everyone else.


The owner can pay themselves what they want or what they think they deserve. If they split that through a tax dodge by paying his wife then all the better for the rest of the employees as there is more money to fund their salaries.

What is he supposed to do, not get paid for an indefinite amount of time to fund a business model where due to an economic downturn he has too many staff?

IMHO he is working with the realities of a business owner has to work with.

[skymaster]

When she divorces him she will get more than her fair share......

[Brown and Boris]

I supose the intial moral point is when people are losing their real jobs/livings should the boss continue to pay his wife who makes (I presume) no real cobntriibution to the business? Could he had kept someone else on by getting rid of her?

I think if I was the one being made redundant I would be miffed but again it is the Golden Rule; he who has the gold, makes the rules.

[john_p]

For all you know the boss (and his wife) have taken a salary cut, or will lose out on dividends.

All it is is a way to avoid paying some tax, that's all. It's irrelevant as far as the company goes.

[pgilc1]

Brown and Boris said:

I supose the intial moral point is when people are losing their real jobs/livings should the boss continue to pay his wife who makes (I presume) no real cobntriibution to the business? Could he had kept someone else on by getting rid of her?

I think if I was the one being made redundant I would be miffed but again it is the Golden Rule; he who has the gold, makes the rules.

I guess when you dont really know the full picture its hard to hypothesise.

[the prescotts]

If the employees spent less time bhing about who gets paid what from the company, the downturn in business may not have been as much as 10%. A suggestion would be for all employees to give an extra 10% effort so the company will stand a far greater chance of pulling through what are difficult times for many businesses.

[Golfman]

the prescotts said:

If the employees spent less time bhing about who gets paid what from the company, the downturn in business may not have been as much as 10%. A suggestion would be for all employees to give an extra 10% effort so the company will stand a far greater chance of pulling through what are difficult times for many businesses.

Here here!

[scratch pervert]

the prescotts said:

If the employees spent less time bhing about who gets paid what from the company, the downturn in business may not have been as much as 10%. A suggestion would be for all employees to give an extra 10% effort so the company will stand a far greater chance of pulling through what are difficult times for many businesses.

Well said!