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

  • Replies 633
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Legal to a point - if people are doing this regularly (as was implied), someone is getting ripped off somewhere a long the line.

Well, yeah - other taxpayers. As is the case with all the options outside of the PAYE regime. But they exist, and they only came to exist exactly for them to be exploited.

From HMRC (a pdf) - there are an estimated 30.6million income taxpayers in the UK for 2010-11. The link above from the Office of National Statistics stated 2.1million businesses registered for either PAYE or VAT. If it is true that there are more registered businesses in the UK than taxpayers (your original point), there must be at least 28million or so registered businesses that are neither registered for PAYE no VAT

Just seems a lot, is all!

Well, you're making me question it now, but I'm pretty sure I've read on several occasions that companies house has about 30M registered companies.

Gotcha. So, at the simplest level, we're talking dividends.

in my very simple tax affairs (they don't get simpler, I assure you), then yep. And of course the saved employers NI, which makes it worth an extra 12.8% above whatever the amount saved before corp-tax is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I'm pretty certain you've made a typo-type mistake there, but dividends received are very much subject to income tax.

Although the rules for "dividend income" are indeed different to "earned income".

You had me scared for a moment then. After a quick google, I've relaxed. :lol:

I'd never thought of it in those terms, but perhaps your right, in that it's technically classed as income tax because it uses the income tax bandings as the lines between the different rates of its own rules.

As I'm basic rate I've been looking at it as a single rate thing, when I've known in reality that it uses the income tax bandings.

(apols for what is probably bad jargon to you, a pro. Hopefully it's understandable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

WTF ? :lol: 30 million ?? :lol:

I guess somehow I made a figure of 3 million I saw into 30 million.

Companies house website says: There are more than 2 million limited companies registered in Great Britain, and more than 300,000 new companies are incorporated each year.

However, that is only the limited companies. The sole trader/partnerships/etc non-limited companies will exceed that quite significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Please tell me you are not suggesting there is 27 million sole trader/partnerships/etc non-limited companies :lol::lol::lol:

You total kipper :D

No I'm not. I've already admitted my error must have come from confusion somehow over the numbers registered at companies house.

But they'll certainly exceed the 3M at companies house - by possibly as much as double.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Couple of interesting things coming out here:

  • Neil loses all credability when it comes to issues of morality involving paying taxes

  • Neil thinks he knows more than two accountants

  • Neil is obviously wrong on so many issues I don't know where to start myself :lol:

1. I pay all the tax that's due.

2. I want the loophole that I and millions of others exploit to be closed.

3. You don't want to go starting yourself. You'll just make a fool of yourself as you always do. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

While it is possible to pay less tax proportionally by having a company etc... Someone who owns a company, is a sole trader or whatever is taking higher risks and has less protection than the average employee...

So what if the tax system gives people a break who are working in this way... Its horses for courses and there are many different horses out there.

As Neil said himself (Mr Morality), he pays less and it keeps his business going by doing so (his words)

And as you've said often enough in the past, you do no different.

And as you show with your first words here, you think it's right while giving no meaningful justification for it, as any extra possible risks (which don't actually exist in reality anyway) come with an exact balance of extra possible rewards - and so not deserving of a tax break on top.

While I don't, which is precisely why I raised it.

So which one of us has the morals here you mindless arsehole? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You can cover up for your bullshit all you like Neil, but unless I am presented with facts, and not your inflated opinion, I will continue to doubt what is given to me.

Yeah, and of course the most respected (till a couple of days ago, anyway ;)) financial politician in the country talks out of his arse when he says the same thing, eh? :rolleyes:

And says the same thing not only in the mail (:rolleyes:) but in every other paper, on TV, in the HoC, when giving lectures, and at other times.

As do politicians of other parties, and his party too.

Yeah, they're all bullshitters, I've just made it up, and you're not thick as pigshit living with your head in shit so these things pass you by, oh no. :)

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and of course the most respected (till a couple of days ago, anyway ;)) financial politician in the country talks out of his arse when he says the same thing, eh? :rolleyes:

And says the same thing not only in the mail (:rolleyes:) but in every other paper, on TV, in the HoC, when giving lectures, and at other times.

As do politicians of other parties, and his party too.

Yeah, they're all bullshitters, I've just made it up, and you're not thick as pigshit living with your head in shit, oh no. :)

Edited by dakyras
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Care to give a recorded example of all these people supporting your opinion? That's all I'm asking.

You're the one failing to comprehend what I'm saying, and resorting to insults.

I've got you entirely thanks. :)

Because you know f**k all, you've decided that's good grounds to call me a liar. :lol:

Go ahead. I correctly know that you're only in that position because these things have passed you by. I'm quite happy to let you carry on with your delusions, it makes no odds to me.

People who do notice the world going past their window will know which of us is right and which of us is thick as pig shit without me providing any evidence at all. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got you entirely thanks. :)

Because you know f**k all, you've decided that's good grounds to call me a liar. :lol:

Go ahead. I correctly know that you're only in that position because these things have passed you by. I'm quite happy to let you carry on with your delusions, it makes no odds to me.

People who do notice the world going past their window will know which of us is right and which of us is thick as pig shit without me providing any evidence at all. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I don't... But then again I don't bang on about how it wrong every day...

bullshit. You've posted that you do on occasions when I've also said that I do. :rolleyes:

If I do fixed price work then I can lose substantial income if things go wrong..

And if I do fixed price work then I can make substantial income if things go right.. :rolleyes:

If I charge on a hourly basis the contract always have a zero notice period meaning I could lose the work at any point.

And that's different to normal paid employment that others have how exactly (aside from the much greater wages for you of course)? :rolleyes:

If I f**k up I can be sued to the tune of millions...

And that's different to normal paid employment that others have how exactly (aside from the much greater wages for you of course)? :rolleyes:

There won't be many normal employees working like this...

you don't know you're born, do you? ;)

There are many more risks associated with this type of working. Any "rate" will include many factors, including, after tax profits.

Yep, exactly.

You don't work for £10 an hour do you? Cos that's the average equivalent (with that factored in, plus holidays & sickness) for the rest of the population.

I honestly think you could not command a decent rate, and if you could, you would...

No idea what you're on about.

I raise this tax loophole because I want it closed (unlike you). I want it closed because it's grossly unfair.

But in the meantime, I'd be foolish to ignore the fact that it's there and that all others exploit it, because to do so would disadvantage my business against others.

All the same, I exploit it to the least extent realistically possible and vary what I do put thru as PAYE wages as company profitability dictates.

CLEARLY not you... You are no better or worse than any other business owner. Just because you are a shit business owner and you struggle to make more than NMW isn't our problem.

Wrong. You have already stated that you think it's right that rules like these enable people like you to pay a lower proportion of your wages in tax than the lowly paid.

Which makes me completely unlike you and other business owners. :rolleyes:

Thank f**k. :)

Edited by eFestivals
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...