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 😎

"we're all in this together"


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

Give me a more complicated scenario then, I can cope.

My income is X amount.

I pay NI and tax on only a proportion of it (and I'm not using the tax & NI free allowances to achieve that - I'm excluding those parts in what I'm saying).

And I'm not even a higher rate tax payer.

If you don't know how I manage that (I know others here do) then you're in no position to be telling others their statements about tax are wrong, because you don't know even the most basic stuff.

I'm not going to fess up here how I do what I do (even tho it's not illegal or even remotely dodgy). I certainly won't defend it as right, because it's very definitely not right.

It does, however, allow efestivals to keep trading when otherwise it just couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 633
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My income is X amount.

I pay NI and tax on only a proportion of it (and I'm not using the tax & NI free allowances to achieve that - I'm excluding those parts in what I'm saying).

And I'm not even a higher rate tax payer.

If you don't know how I manage that (I know others here do) then you're in no position to be telling others their statements about tax are wrong, because you don't know even the most basic stuff.

I'm not going to fess up here how I do what I do (even tho it's not illegal or even remotely dodgy). I certainly won't defend it as right, because it's very definitely not right.

It does, however, allow efestivals to keep trading when otherwise it just couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I'm genuinely interested at how this 'higher % of income as tax' is worked out... almost no-one earning say £50-£100k regularly pays capital gains tax, so I'll ignore that.

While I'd guess the numbers are relatively small for people exploiting CGT, I'd also guess that your clients aren't average clients. I know a fair few people who lessen the tax they pay using CGT, and most probably don't hit the £100k level.

So what you're looking at is;

- Dividends; basically owners of small companies are paying a lower rate of tax on these, but that's distorted because the company will have paid corporation tax on the profit at some point.

not just small businesses.

And corp tax works out cheaper.

There's more registered businesses in this country than there are people paying tax. That's no coincidence.

- VAT/petrol/alcohol duty etc; Basically the 'rich' must be a smaller %age of their income on VATable etc items than the 'poor'... I wouldn't even know where to start working that one out.

there's almost endless scope around this - while not necessarily legal, stuff around VAT accounts for a huge amount.

BTW, VAT isn't something I take the piss with. I do stick within the rules.

Neil - when you say 'Income' in the above post, do you mean turnover or Profit before/after tax? I'm assuming one of the latter?

by income, I mean all money that is coming to me in one way or another before any of it is taxed.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're evading tax at any level (which I think is what you're implying), that is illegal. We both know that. I would consider editing the post to remove that tacit admission.

Edited by Gre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If you're evading tax at any level (which I think is what you're implying), that is illegal. We both know that. I would consider editing the post to remove that tacit admission.

I'm doing zero that is illegal. All tax that is due from me is paid.

(mind you, I did just get the tax man to write off £7,500 in fines, which made me happy :D).

Saying "you're in no position to be telling others their statements about tax are wrong, because you don't know even the most basic stuff" is nonsense though. I responded directly to a comment you made that suggested "the average % tax paid by those in the higher tax brackets (earning £44k+ a year) actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax than those on the standard tax bracket". This is not true and I backed up my response with some simple maths. There is nothing more "basic" than that.

It is true. :rolleyes:

You don't have a clue about the tax system, that's where your error is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm doing zero that is illegal. All tax that is due from me is paid.

(mind you, I did just get the tax man to write off £7,500 in fines, which made me happy :D).

It is true. :rolleyes:

You don't have a clue about the tax system, that's where your error is.

Edited by paddydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Neil man, read what I say. I very clearly said that you were on about right wing ideology rather than conservative ideology. The conservatives haven't been conservative for eons. Didn't Cameron try on the face of it to change that recently with the whole rejection of the 1922 committee?

the 1922 committee is controlled by the oiks. He didn't want the oiks interfering, nowt more to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I'm prepared to let the facts speak for themselves. I showed that someone earing £20K pays less tax proportionally than someone earning £50K. You said the opposite. By that definition I "have a clue". Your last comment is wrong.

keep on believing that you're correct if you want to. You're not.

Perhaps ask Gre, as he's the accountant around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I'm a qualified accountant. Have been for 12 years.

Gre> are my sums right? I can post the workings if you like? ;)

f**k me, do your clients know how little you know? :blink::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I pay much less tax on my income than I would do if I put all that income thru under the terms where it would be classed as income that's taxable under the income tax and NI regimes. And as I say, I'm not even a higher rate tax payer.

The advantages are much greater for those who are higher rate taxpayers.

PS - I didn't even need to ask an accountant about how to do it. It's such public knowledge to most people (tho perhaps not accountants of 12 years :lol:) that most people who'd need to know do know.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

f**k me, do your clients know how little you know? :blink::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I pay much less tax on my income than I would do if I put all that income thru under the terms where it would be classed as income that's taxable under the income tax and NI regimes. And as I say, I'm not even a higher rate tax payer.

The advantages are much greater for those who are higher rate taxpayers.

PS - I didn't even need to ask an accountant about how to do it. It's such public knowledge to most people (tho perhaps not accountants of 12 years :lol:) that most people who'd need to know do know.

Edited by paddydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'd guess the numbers are relatively small for people exploiting CGT, I'd also guess that your clients aren't average clients. I know a fair few people who lessen the tax they pay using CGT, and most probably don't hit the £100k level.

Edited by Gre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bugger me--I`m out of this... think I`ll pop back to see another Chilean pop out... and I`ve got me Tablet to consider....

den

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Are my sums right or wrong? I said nothing about your personal position.

I've not bothered to look at them. You posted them in response to what I'd said, for which they have zero relevance.

The fact that you posted them irrelevantly, while anyone else who knows how these things are done would have immediately had ideas of how (and know it's nothing to do with paying income tax & NI), very strongly suggests to me that you're no accountant, or if you are you don't ever do individual's tax returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Lessen the tax they pay using CGT... would that be some kind of asset-shifting scheme? Dodgy at best if so.

All completely legal (including passed an IR investigation in at least 2 cases).

By small companies I meant by the legal definition - up to £5.6m turnover etc.

ahhh, my apologies.

But that turnover limit is easily work-aroundable too.

Really? A quick google reveals there were 2.1 million enterprises registered for VAT and/or PAYE in March 2010, and somewhere around 26-30 million taxpayers depending on source. That's an awful lot of businees with either no employees and tiny turnover.

A misunderstanding by you in what I said. I said "There's more registered businesses in this country than there are people paying tax".

Firstly, you have the number of people eligible to pay tax, and not taxpayers.

And it's of course the case that they wouldn't be registered for PAYE when they exist to channel money away from the PAYE regime.

And the number I quoted does include the 'dormant' enterprises too - but they of course came to exist for a good reason, with that reason often being tax avoidance. Incomes aren't always static.

I wouldn't dare accusing you of doing something illegal tax-wise.

and I don't. :)

Are you talking about business owners here? Obviously there's very little employees can do to avoid VAT.

Yup - tho there's plenty of vat avoidance for employees that goes on with the connivance of employers too. It's a win-win.

That doesn't really answer the question... is that they money coming to you personally, or to your company? Obviously the company is going to be able to deduct the company expenses before you get your personal income to be taxed :unsure:

It's money that is coming to me personally (but not all thru the PAYE regime). What ends up in my pocket is all my income.

(just to be clear, the company money is of course all accounted for separately from me as company money, so not mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

No every rich person owns a business Neil, so to say that 'rich people pay a smaller proportion of tax from their income' is really just something out of your own personal experience.

Nope, not all of them do.

But it's feck all to do with my experience, and everything to do with the govts own figures.

So it must clearly be the case that those who are not gaining anything because all of their income goes thru the PAYE regime are more than accounted for by others who have their income come to them via other tax regimes (perhaps as well as the PAYE regime).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not bothered to look at them. You posted them in response to what I'd said, for which they have zero relevance.

The fact that you posted them irrelevantly, while anyone else who knows how these things are done would have immediately had ideas of how (and know it's nothing to do with paying income tax & NI), very strongly suggests to me that you're no accountant, or if you are you don't ever do individual's tax returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, not all of them do.

But it's feck all to do with my experience, and everything to do with the govts own figures.

So it must clearly be the case that those who are not gaining anything because all of their income goes thru the PAYE regime are more than accounted for by others who have their income come to them via other tax regimes (perhaps as well as the PAYE regime).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You made an explicit claim which was wrong. I refuted it and provided evidence. That's all.

there was nothing at all wrong with my claim. Your error is only in how you took it to mean. You took it to mean something that it did not explicitly said.

Most people don't own or operate businesses - even those that pay tax in the highest bands (Gre comments backed up this claim, and you seems prepared to belived him/her). Running a business or oprating as a sole trader will always give rise to the option of offsetting business income with allowable expenses - to reduce taxable profit.

Yes I know. That's no part of anything I've said (tho of course that exact thing comes with its own fiddles which are used to a lesser or greater extent by just about every business).

But When (if) you make a profit, or earn income, you have to pay income tax on it. The more profit you make or income you draw, the proportion of tax you pay grows. It is a failrly simple concept to grasp.

But as I keep saying to you, it's 100% wrong. You're definitely not an accountant, things don't get more basic than this.

Only the income a person receives for (best description I could think of) "work done" is what is taxable under the income tax and NI regime.

Income from other sources - such as (the two most common) company dividends, and capital gains - operate to a completely different set of rules.

It's exceedingly easy for certain people to manipulate things so that what would otherwise come to them as normal income for "work done" to channel that money in other directions so that it's treated as income from something other than "work done", and so taxed differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • 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...