Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

General News Discussion


Guest Atlanteanlost

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin
Like I said my reasoning has nothing to do with avoiding tax. Your point only goes to show Neil was even more wrong to jump at the first opportunity to call someone a c**t...
so you don't think it's a c**tish thing to do to make others carry the costs of your old age care even tho you have the resopurces to pay for it yourself? :lol:

So I'll call you a c**t again. I wonder what bollox argument you'll now present for why that's not c**tish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people assume their kids should get their house? It rarely happens that way in reality at the moment, as by the time your parents die you have your own home and are unlikely to relocate. My Grandmother always banged on about my having my Dad's house when he died, it was only when he died I realised i didn't actually want it. (Not that I'd have got it anyway).

although having said that I guess these days the kids never move out (they can't afford it) so in the future they will end up inheriting the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Do you miss the part where I said I plan on using my assets to pay for my costs.

that's not what you said you said (wrongly, but it shows what you wish could happen)...

The other alternative is to not sell the house, keep hold of it, let the state pay for my care...

If thats being a c**t then fine. I am a c**t :)

Then please factor that truth in your posts from now on, rather than pretending otherwise.

Oh, sorry, you won't do that, will you? You're a c**t, so you'd rather give the false impression that you care about the fate of others. ;)

Never met one person who wrote a cheque for more than is due to the tax man and I doubt you have either.
Not all of us are c**ts. I meet someone like that each time I look in the mirror.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people assume their kids should get their house? It rarely happens that way in reality at the moment, as by the time your parents die you have your own home and are unlikely to relocate. My Grandmother always banged on about my having my Dad's house when he died, it was only when he died I realised i didn't actually want it. (Not that I'd have got it anyway).

although having said that I guess these days the kids never move out (they can't afford it) so in the future they will end up inheriting the house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they aren't going to do it but it should surely be a policy of the opposition. Labour are so fucking cowardly when it comes to this sort of thing. They won't even back the trade unions that fund them half the time, it makes you wonder if half of them know anything about the origins of their party at all.
Edited by 5co77ie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So you voluntary send money to the HMRC :)

You too have posted things which show that not to be true. Or do you not take dividends from your business ?

I overpay the taxes that are due from me.

I take dividends from my company, but nothing of that is done as a tax avoiding measure. It avoids me no tax anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slightly related (but not really) did anyone see Bo Jo's draft budget for London?

comical really

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20891593

The document, released earlier, proposes that the Greater London Authority's share of the council tax bill be reduced by 1.2%.

Police and the fire brigade would get £262m and £14m less respectively, meaning some buildings would be sold.

The mayor said there would be no loss of public access to police counters and no hit on response times to fires.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) said the council tax cut would mean the bill for a Band D property would fall from £306.72 to £303.

Edited by lharris92
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
If you take dividends I fail to see how it does not avoid tax compared to the available solution of paying yourself a higher salary.

I don't think you are wrong to pay yourself a dividend. Its fine, legal and right to do. But it DOES avoid tax. I can't think of any numbers which results in no tax loss ?

Could you show how it doesn't avoid tax ? Clearly I am missing something here?

It would avoid income tax and employers national insurance ? and if you don't (some how which is beyond me not being a tax expert) then what would be the point in not just paying yourself a higher salary and reduce the paper work ?

Confused....

it ultimately avoids nothing of income taxes (because of the corp-tax that is paid on the divis, which would otherwise be paid as income taxes). It avoids a little in NI (both personal and employer contributions). I make up that difference.

The only reason I don't do it up-front by paying myself a higher salary is because of how I work the company finances (by 'loaning' myself the dividends before the end of the tax year), which means I simply cannot finish a tax year with the company in debt (which would mean that it's wrong in tax law to make those 'loans'). Because I can't be sure of what company turnover will be, I keep the salary lowish and give myself the wriggle-room to ensure the company accounts show a profit.

With salary and dividend added together I'm earning less than my full time employee, less than 75% of the average wage, and less than minimum wage on a per-hour basis - so there's no room in the finances for corp taxes on top of salary taxes.

There's no saving in any paperwork. I'd have to submit all the same paperwork no matter how the payments are made to me.

On top of paying every penny that I'd pay via getting everything thru PAYE, 1% of the company turnover (turnover, not profit) is given to charities each year.

I don't work to enrich myself. I work to pay the costs of living.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you also volunteer the employers national insurance they miss out on by working in such a manner ? or do you pay that as well ?

Presuming you are officially registered as self employed with HMRC dont you pay much reduced NI payments anyway... Having to pay Class 2 and 4... instead of class 1 which people operating PAYE have to pay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Unfortunately you can't "avoid" the point that tax is being avoided in your employment. If you are working for someone and they are paying you in this manner employers national insurance is being avoided. That company could employee someone on PAYE, and pay everything that goes with that. Instead they employee you as a freelancer, avoid the employers national insurance. Which could result in you either being paid more due to that saving (a win win situation) or them keeping their tax profile low.

I think you're confusing two different things.

Some people present what is really their everyday employment as freelance, and via that avoid taxes and NI.

That's something entirely different to someone doing genuine temporary freelance work on an occasional basis as Bob is doing, and where the temporary nature of the work (typically just a week or so) makes it unrealistic and impractical for the festival to have those people working as PAYE employees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Im not judging you but you clearly said above some NI is avoided, which is what I presumed....
what part of "I make up the difference" passed you by? :rolleyes:
The interesting part is where you say you make this up but don't explain how.
by sending HMRC a bigger cheque than I need to.

I don't see how you can paint yourself as someone who doesn't avoid tax.
Because I don't avoid tax or NI or anything else. I clearly understand the tax laws much much MUCH better than you do yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

None of its lost on me...

But both are tax avoidance... and the both make the person a tax avoider....

There's contriving to avoid tax, and then there's what is the sensible way to work things in regard to tax because of the circumstances of that particular business.

It is not sensible to have an 'occasional business' such as a festival to have to take on every person who does work for them on a PAYE basis. The costs of administrating that PAYE would be astronomical, almost as much as the value of that work to the freelancer.

The 'loophole' that you're seeing here is not a loophole for these genuine cases. That 'loophole' exists for these genuine cases, because it's the sensible way to work things for these particular business circumstances.

It only becomes a real loophole when someone contrives their situation to be a 'freelancer' when that's not what they really are, they're really a full-time employee - and which is why the IR35 rule was brought in to stop that abuse.

You're confusing the genuine use of a rule in the circumstances it was designed for with those people who are the tax avoiding c**ts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
But the HMRC would technically be in the wrong to keep it.
They keep what they're paid, but it's available t5o be claimed back as an over-payment. You know, when someone applies for a tax rebate.

It's not 'wrong' for HMRC to keep it. It's wrong for HMRC to keep it when someone has demanded their overpayment back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
As for the rest... It really just comes to you picking and choosing who is a c**t and nothing hard and steady here.

Nope, I'm simply accepting the tax rules as they've been designed to do (a different thing to how those rules can be abused).

The rules for freelancers exist. They exist in that way because they make practical sense for freelancers.

Those rules can also be abused by people who aren't really freelancers.

Is Bob a genuine freelancer, or is he pretending to be one to avoid tax?

Spot the difference?? :rolleyes:

If your logic is followed thru on, then you should be expecting everyone you work for with your own business to be paying employers NI to the value of the contract they have with you. Presumably you have enough of a brain to realise that's just ridiculous?

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So at the end of the tax year... You take all your incomings and outgoings and work out what is the worse possible tax situation could of applied to you personally and you business and pay it all back ?

One I would suggest that would be a massive undertaking, and extremely complex...

Two, extremely unlikely....

But hey, I don't know you, so.... Good on you :) Tories must love you :) Do you get a certificate at the end of each year thanking you for your contribution to rich boys tax cuts :P LMAO

I can tell you've never once seen an HMRC income tax/NI table, and how bleeding simple they are to use. :rolleyes:

It definitely takes less than 5 minutes. It probably takes me less than one minute.

Stop talking out your arse about things you clearl7y don't have the remotest idea about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
If you are claiming to be freelance and you are not. Then that is tax evasion and not avoidance. Which is illegal.

I think you don't understand that.

I understand it perfectly thanks, because I do nearly everything in regard to my taxes myself (all but the corp tax and yearly company returns).

I'm talking about bob's situation when I've talked about freelancers, where he is a genuine freelancer and so not avoiding tax or doing anything remotely illegal or even immoral towards the tax rules.

Yes, it means that some NI is not paid that might be paid if employed via another means, but it is not a situation he's contrived to avoid that NI, and neither is it a situation his freelance employer has contrived in regard to NI either.

It's when a situation is contrived that the tax avoidance is immoral. The rules are what they are: it's how a person uses those rules which matter towards the morality of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Maybe you should look up IR35... Which is what that is....

No it's fucking not. :rolleyes:

IR35 is when a company takes someone on as freelancer but really they're a full-time employee, and they're using the freelancer thing ONLY to avoid taxes.

If you get a contract from a new company that takes you (say) three weeks to complete before you move onto the next contract at another business, that's a genuine freelancer.

If you get a 'contract' with the same company continually as a way to avoid taxes by pretending to be a freelancer then that's taking the piss and what IR35 is designed to crack down on (and so it should!!).

The difference between the two is one is genuine and the other is faked, contrived.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
Im not saying he is doing it to avoid tax... but tax will be avoided by doing it...
It's true that not the same amount of tax/NI is paid compared to him being PAYE.

But that is all there is to it. It's not done just for the purposes of avoiding tax.

The morality of it is up to each person to tackle themselves.
Nope. If a situation is contrived to avoid taxes then that is illegal in law.

Look it up for yourself; that's existed since IR35 was first announce (before it was implemented, which is why HMRC tax claims can be legally backdated to prior when IR35 actually came into force).

We've been thru this before, when you had a rant about 5 years back about how outrageous it was that a court enforced the tax laws. :rolleyes:

The only thing which matters outside of that is the law.
which any contrived arrangement is.
But for one tax avoider to call another a c**t on the basis they are a tax avoider makes me chuckle :)
1. I avoid NO taxes, either via contrivance or genuine use of the tax laws.

2. I pay every penny of tax and NI on what I receive as my income (both via salary and divi, including the employers part), to the same level as I would if I worked via PAYE for a 3rd party employer.

What part of that are you too stupid to understand, you tax avoiding c**t? :rolleyes:

Your apology is accepted.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You clearly do not understand IR35....

Your first example (in red) could still lead to being caught by IR35 rules.

You second example (in blue) could see you legally being kept outside of the IR35 rules.

bullshit and bullshit. :rolleyes:

If your accountant has been telling you that, he's been telling you that to rip you off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If you ask an accountant for IR35 advice you are probably going to get bad or wrong advice. They are not IR35 excerpts usually.

I say again, you don't understand IR35 fully. Try reading a bit. The concept is to stop disguised employment... A one day engagement can fail an IR35 test.

http://www.freelanceadvisor.co.uk/guide-to-ir35/

from that link:-

the measure is designed as a measure to put a stop to the practise of a freelancer or contractor providing services to a client under their own Limited Company, when they are existing as a de facto employee

Care to tell me how a three week contract to provide a specific service and then leave can ever be a de-facto employee? :rolleyes:

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...