Mmmm not so sure Hugh Grant and Prince Harry post on here or fall into the right wing nut job category.
It's possible, I suppose.
Mmmm not so sure Hugh Grant and Prince Harry post on here or fall into the right wing nut job category.
Good post tiger.tiger76 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:45 pmI certainly don't claim to be that clued up in these matters, however although in principle I agree about ideally wanting to cut people's tax bills, that move doesn't come without consequences for the masses regarding lacking the money to run vital public services such as the NHS which we all rely upon in times of need.
The reality is there is no one simple solution, although it does appear that someone like Lineker who can no doubt afford the top accountants and lawyers will have much more chance of winning this kind of case than the average person or small business would.
Not comparing anything. I’m saying many people in that industry (and many other industries) set themselves up as consultants or contractors. It’s the same thing.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:29 pmComparing Consultancies to contractors is erroneous because the Consultancy employs the consultants who pay PAYE. It's quite possible the Consultancies are then employing consultants but most I know pay PAYE albeit I guess some will be self-employed.
Morally and ethically, Lineker is an employee of the BBC.
As I state above. Loads of people on very ordinary wages who work for different organisations are forced to pay PAYE. Even agency workers have to pay PAYE when working for lots of companies.
It's one law for ordinary workers and another for the well paid or those who are prepared to do it.
And yes lots of people get into hot water over their tax status. The HMRC is not a frivolous organisation it collects the money that pays for the schools and social care. If it takes legal action it will do so with some intent to win.
And if it loses then we are all poorer as a community...!
What would you expect a wealthy person like Lineker to do tiger ? Employ a cheap lawyer or accountant with no expertise ?tiger76 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:45 pmI certainly don't claim to be that clued up in these matters, however although in principle I agree about ideally wanting to cut people's tax bills, that move doesn't come without consequences for the masses regarding lacking the money to run vital public services such as the NHS which we all rely upon in times of need.
The reality is there is no one simple solution, although it does appear that someone like Lineker who can no doubt afford the top accountants and lawyers will have much more chance of winning this kind of case than the average person or small business would.
This is a nicer link https://www.accountancyage.com/2023/03/ ... after-all/ (and has also made me wonder why I no longer get sent copies of Accountancy Age).StuffyClaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:31 pmTurns out that this had nothing to do with IR35...
https://www-accountancyage-com.cdn.ampp ... all/?amp=1
The response to this is that nobody is obliged to pay more tax than the legal minimum. Lineker can pay the legal minimum and campaign for higher taxes for rich people like himself.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:40 pmIn terms of Gary Lineker the key for me around these kind of subjects is not whether the take advantage of the poor tax laws that exist but are the willing to vote against their interests for a party willing to change these laws and make them individually worse off for the better of the wider society. This seems to be something the right wing of politics fail to understand is that you can be progressive and on the left and still make money and be rich and take advantage of whats available but that you are willing to vote against your best interests for the better of society.
The rich may be paying a larger % but they can afford to pay more and its investment that the country needs desparatelyRowls wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:10 pmHi Devil's Advocate
Steady on with posting genuine opinions - you've got a persona to maintain!
In response to your points:
The rich are paying a larger percentage of the exchequer than ever before.
This has been all one-way traffic since the Conservatives came to power in 2009. The highest earners paying larger percentage of our national tax revenue and also larger net amounts.
It's super if people are willing to vote against their own personal interest (that certainly shows a good degree on principle) but it doesn't follow that people who do vote for things that are in their own personal interest are voting without principle.
To specifically address this point:
The response to this is that nobody is obliged to pay more tax than the legal minimum. Lineker can pay the legal minimum and campaign for higher taxes for rich people like himself.
That's what the likes of Richard Curtis, Simon Pegg and a number of US celebrities are campaigning for:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/b ... 42091.html
The flaw in this "please tax me more" argument is that any of these people are free to post a cheque to the exchequer at any time. It will cost them the price of a postage stamp + piece of paper and it should take around 10 minutes of their time.
To put it frankly, it's something that rings hollow to me in the UK. I'm not sure if you can give money to the government in the US but I'm confident you can. If for some reason the US government refuses donations then the US celebrities might have a point (I doubt it, but prepared to review this).
So let's make a comparison: When people on the right challenged Lineker to take in an immigrant to demonstrate his commitment to his principles and he did so it's only fair to congratulate him for going beyond mere words and actually undertaking a charitable action. You might argue that he could have vetted the immigrant and that in that sense it's not quite a parallel to the uncontrolled nature of immigration but IMO that's unfair on Lineker's charity. He deserves genuine credit for that and sniping would be petty.
The equivalent in terms of standing by your principles for the "please tax me more" campaign group would be when they show proof of sending off those cheques voluntarily.
Lineker stepped up on immigration. I'm not aware of the "please taxe me more" campaigners making equivalent demonstrations that they are prepared to go beyond paying the legal minimum requirement in tax. The only thing stopping them is the aforementioned price of a stamp.
You do understand that this is because the pay gap between the rich and everyone else is just getting bigger right?Rowls wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:10 pmHi Devil's Advocate
Steady on with posting genuine opinions - you've got a persona to maintain!
In response to your points:
The rich are paying a larger percentage of the exchequer than ever before.
This has been all one-way traffic since the Conservatives came to power in 2009. The highest earners paying larger percentage of our national tax revenue and also larger net amounts.
This is a bit meaningless without also talking about how the rich also have a greater proportion of wealth than ever before.Rowls wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:10 pm...
The rich are paying a larger percentage of the exchequer than ever before.
This has been all one-way traffic since the Conservatives came to power in 2009. The highest earners paying larger percentage of our national tax revenue and also larger net amounts.
...
Yeah but Gini has increased from 25 in the 60’s to around 36 now. But the jump was in the 90’s it’s been about the same since
I feel terrible after all that effort Rowls went into finding all the stuff online that backed up his position to the hiltBilly Balfour wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:39 pmBeen some real effort put into this thread, at the end of the day, not one person has moved their position. You might as well rant at the clouds. Anyway, as you were. Bye.
It's not the same thing. In any industry if you set yourself up as a sole trader and only work for 1 or 2 companies for a decade or more then you could find yourself in hot water with HMRC. It happens to a lot of people and it happened to Gary Lineker.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:56 pmNot comparing anything. I’m saying many people in that industry (and many other industries) set themselves up as consultants or contractors. It’s the same thing.
Even though you have repeated it Lineker is not an employee of the BBC. Do you think Lineker is on his own here ?
People in this country of a legal choice whether they work for an agency or as an employee or set up their own business. There are more than 4 million businesses in this country and consultancy (or contractors) is one of the biggest sectors. If this was in any way immoral or illegal or cheating the tax system why would HMRC or any government allow it ? Why would the BBC allow most of the people who present their tv or radio programmes to do this on a contract basis rather than as an employee ?
It’s not one rule for the ordinary workers and one for the well paid. It’s the same taxation rule if you set yourself up as consultancy business and earn the equivalent of minimum wage or if you are very successful like Lineker and earn millions a year. Just like it’s the same taxation laws if you are an employee on minimum wage or the CEO earning millions a year.
The taxation laws for Linekers company based on the levels of reported money he earns means he is very likely to be paying around 60% in corporation and personal tax. That also applies to for example a well known local business in Burnley who has had ongoing contracts with the the same local councils for the last 20 years plus. That business earns millions and the owner of that business is subject to the same tax rules as Lineker as owner of his business. What is the difference between someone who has had a contract with the BBC and other companies for more than a decade and someone who has had a contract with the council for decades ?
As for the HMRC not being a frivolous organisation is that a serious comment ? Do you think that HMRC do not spend millions a year on the very contractors and consultants you are talking about ?!!
So is paying 60% tax not a high enough rate for you ?ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 9:42 pmIt's not the same thing. In any industry if you set yourself up as a sole trader and only work for 1 or 2 companies for a decade or more then you could find yourself in hot water with HMRC. It happens to a lot of people and it happened to Gary Lineker.
It is a a grey area open for interpretation but there is clearly a difference between a contractor working for a council who employs people etc. and Gary Lineker. If a local plumber or tradesman worked for a local council over a period of a decade or more substantive on hours with in an identifiable role then they could also get into hot water with HMRC.
Everybody knows this. If you are an agency worker working for lots of companies you will be on PAYE with the agency.
My point is not that Gary Lineker is an employer of the BBC legally but that ethically and morally Gary Lineker is an employee of the BBC. The fact that legislation fails to identify him as such is the issue.
And the fact that he can construct a self employed identity and save himself £4.5 million is another huge problem.
Ultimately, the less Gary Lineker pays the more the poor b*st*rds on minimum wage have to pay if you want decent public services.
It's not rocket science...! It's the ultimate failing of our social democracy and economy because if you can't tax rich people you can't re-distribute and if you can't re-distribute then no one has any money to spend to and you end up with permanent low growth, low productivity stagnant economy: ergo, the UK economy.
And this is he issue that has dogged 50 years of post-Thatcherite thinking. You simply cannot grow an economy if the vast majority of people have no money because the rich take it all and avoid tax.
Well played.Rowls wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:21 pmGood news for Gary today - he has won a case that HMRC brought against him. They had claimed he had evaded paying taxes worth a cool £4.9 million.
Gary now gets to keep the cash to spend on whatever he likes. Congratulations to Gary on securing a victory for conservative values and low taxation - hurrah!
I'll be raising a glass to Lineker's healthy bank balance tonight and hoping I can join him in, erm, "minimizing my tax obligations" in the future with Lineker-esque feints, turns, jinks and other measures to avoid the taxman.
I never expected you to charge in defending his virtue Eddie.evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 2:18 pm
Popular, well paid television presenter despises racism, pays his taxes AND hacks off this board's right wing nut jobs.
What's not to like?
HMRC have been going after a lot of media types - some are winning others not. Lineker is a serial tax avoider and set up his affairs through a partnership as opposed to a limited company. The judge ruled that partnerships are subject to IR35 legislation but because Lineker had a contract with the BBC IR35 did not apply to him. The judge himself commented on the seeming contradictions in his judgement.
No offence intended, but I'd recommend using more balanced sources of news than GB News or the Daily Mail to understand the background behind the headlines. Theres nothing wrong with being right wing or left wing, but throwing out buzz words and/or phrases you don't really truly understand doesn't strengthen your arguments in a reasoned debate.
Unfortunately some won't have their own personal views as they aren't interested enough, so will throw out phrases/statements that other people (usually those they would normally have similar views with on other subjects) as it's the lowest risk of being different to their actual views if they had taken the time to research all of the balanced evidence on that particular subject. That then usually results in views that aren't factual or follow an unintended agenda.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 amI do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)
It didn't start in Germany with the death camps
it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong
I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
Or a completely different legal case.
Interesting line from this Telegraph Article from last year:aggi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 4:59 pmThis is a nicer link https://www.accountancyage.com/2023/03/ ... after-all/ (and has also made me wonder why I no longer get sent copies of Accountancy Age).
Full judgement is here for anyone who enjoys that kind of thing.
https://financeandtax.decisions.tribuna ... 008774.pdf
Sounds like HMRC were potentially looking to set a precedent here (and failed). I'm intrigued by where the £5m came from though if taxes were being paid via a partnership (i.e. as income).
You mean through a partnership where he has to pay more tax than through a limited company ?ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:14 amHMRC have been going after a lot of media types - some are winning others not. Lineker is a serial tax avoider and set up his affairs through a partnership as opposed to a limited company.
The argument centres on hypocrisy.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 amI do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)
It didn't start in Germany with the death camps
it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong
I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
Exactly words have consequences, and our elected representatives would do well to remember this and tone down the rhetoric, especially those in senior positions of power.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 amI do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)
It didn't start in Germany with the death camps
it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong
I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
So you are saying that the reason Lineker used the 1930s argument was because Bravermann used the "invasion" argumentClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:10 amThe argument centres on hypocrisy.
If you condemn Braverman's comments about 'invasion' for being cheap, juvenile and provocative then you must surely do the same for Lineker when he invokes Godwin's law.
Of course, you can make points about 'othering people', which is no doubt true but central to the issue is juvenile and provocative points that do not extend the debate but allow it to descend into hyperbole and polemics.
The criticism of those who try to defend Lineker is that they do so on the basis of sympathies with his viewpoint not a rational analysis of what he did.
I think it is a stretch to think that Gary Lineker is so naive that he uses comments about 1930s Germany without some understanding of the consequence of doing so.
And ironically the consequence of using that language is that it 'others' those that don't agree with him to the extent it just entrenches opinion.
In the end, you end up with the Brexit debate, which largely consists of hyperbolic untruths from both sides.
'
But the rhetoric appeals to the voters they are targeting so that's not going to happen.
Which is why its so dangerousTheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 amBut the rhetoric appeals to the voters they are targeting so that's not going to happen.
Sadly that is probably true in the short term at least, and speaks volumes for the nature of political discourse in the UK in recent years.TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 amBut the rhetoric appeals to the voters they are targeting so that's not going to happen.
I agree completely about Germany, but how that co relates to illegal immigrants I don't follow.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:26 amI do wish people would spend more time studying 1930s Germany than quoting that we are nothing like that (not aimed at you Pete btw, its just a general observation)
It didn't start in Germany with the death camps
it started with blaming specific types of people for things going wrong
I can see the connection even if loads don't want to
I tend to hold government ministers to higher standards of accountability for the language they use in the HoC, than ex-footballers / TV presenters for the language they use on their personal social media accounts. Maybe that’s just me, though.ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:10 amThe argument centres on hypocrisy.
If you condemn Braverman's comments about 'invasion' for being cheap, juvenile and provocative then you must surely do the same for Lineker when he invokes Godwin's law.
But that is the problem right thereColburn_Claret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:55 amI agree completely about Germany, but how that co relates to illegal immigrants I don't follow.
There are bound to be arseholes that want to see all 'immigrants ' leave these shores, but the mass majority of those who want to stop illegal migrants have no issue with those who are here legally. Many of them 2nd/3rd generation, and whose presence has enriched our lives and culture.
So before you start accusing those who oppose Lineker of being short sighted, you should have a look at yourself.
This idea that everyone who disagrees with you is a right wing, little englander, is rubbish.
If Starmer did say that it would be a landslide victory especially if he then moved on to Rees Mogg and said “what you laughing at you Victorian tw-at ?”Greenmile wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:02 am
As a hypothetical example, I would happily criticise Keir Starmer if he were to say “I love it when Sunak sh1ts himself in public” during PMQs, yet I used very similar language about Rowls on this very thread. Maybe you think that makes me a hypocrite - I would disagree.
She makes a very good point, but I still disagree with her.Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:05 amBut that is the problem right there
You assumed I'm attacking you, rather than dealing with the reality of what is currently being said about refugees
No one wants illegal immigration (I call them refugees btw) but there are ways of dealing with it a hell of a lot better than we are at the moment
- safe and legal routes
- quicker turnaround of asylum applications
- asylum claim centres in other countries
I'm more worried about food inflation being 17.5% last month, than a couple of thousand refugees risking their lives for a better life
This nails it btw
https://twitter.com/ZoeJardiniere/statu ... 5118625792
I don't think I could have been clearerColburn_Claret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:45 pmShe makes a very good point, but I still disagree with her.
I disagree because there is a difference, and always will be, between asylum seekers, and economic migrants.
Individual cases, such as some of the cases she mentioned are very reasonable. People from ex colonies, people who have assisted our armed forces and could face consequences, should always be looked on favourably.
The problem is too many aren't fleeing any conflict, they aren't being persecuted, they don't come from a country that has any historical link with our colonial past.
It makes it harder for the former to resolve the necessary paperwork, if they weren't hidden amongst thousands of the latter.
I would find it easier to agree with you if you accepted that many of these people have no right to be here, but you don't agree with the way the Government are handling it.
Then we might have more common ground.
The problem is we don’t know how many have the right/no right to be here because we’re taking a broad brush ‘send them back’ approach. Taking them in and processing them properly (and quickly) would resolve that.Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:45 pmShe makes a very good point, but I still disagree with her.
I disagree because there is a difference, and always will be, between asylum seekers, and economic migrants.
Individual cases, such as some of the cases she mentioned are very reasonable. People from ex colonies, people who have assisted our armed forces and could face consequences, should always be looked on favourably.
The problem is too many aren't fleeing any conflict, they aren't being persecuted, they don't come from a country that has any historical link with our colonial past.
It makes it harder for the former to resolve the necessary paperwork, if they weren't hidden amongst thousands of the latter.
I would find it easier to agree with you if you accepted that many of these people have no right to be here, but you don't agree with the way the Government are handling it.
Then we might have more common ground.
Which is precisely why I haven’t got involved. My comment was made to someone who I kind of consider to be friend. Made in ironic jest. Nothing more.Jakubclaret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:15 pmIt's refreshing that's what forums should be about people airing different views & debating reasonably without suffocation or people who aren't interested in what's been said trying to shut the thread down. I'm not particularly interested in Gary lineker & his taxing arrangements but it's easy not to get involved & stay on the fringes or completely avoid the thread.
Be funny that especially if he was wearing a Jimmy Saville mask whilst decked out in a gold lame tracksuit.Big Vinny K wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:18 amIf Starmer did say that it would be a landslide victory especially if he then moved on to Rees Mogg and said “what you laughing at you Victorian tw-at ?”
I well aware of that it's a wise policy, you'd only get sucked into something & before you know it anything innocent & harmless will end up becoming enlarged & twisted & distorted into something it really isn't by a few on here baying for blood.
Or, heaven forbid, he was in the wrong and lost the case accordingly.