Rolling Stones...

[Matt42]

I personally believe that they are holding off festivals to see if it works in the tour schedule not because of a band member being ill.

They must of held off coachella because it was too early to sort out the rest of the USA tour, and I can understand that they held off hard rock calling because it wasn't going to work with glastonbury.

Then again, that's my wishful thinking...

[Big Vern]

if they do play I think their own rendition of Moves Like Jagger with a cheeky wink would be good fun.

[Matt42]

if they do play I think their own rendition of Moves Like Jagger with a cheeky wink would be good fun.

Maroon 5 could well be there, they have a glasto slot in their tour!

[wilko8]

All charitable donations are (ultimately) tax deductible, whether paid by a company or individual.

But guessing at what you're getting at, it's not something done to lessen tax liabilities elsewhere and to actually increase the amount of money in the company's (or my) pocket.

The only tax 'avoided' is the tax which would otherwise be paid on that charity donation if it were instead company profit - and that 'avoided' tax gets to go straight to WaterAid.

There's no financial benefit to eFestivals* in making this charity donation. It's a financial loss, by giving away money that would otherwise (ultimately) end up in my pocket.

(* there could be deemed to be a financial benefit via the good public relations that the donation causes, but that's not anything measurable, and it's certainly nothing of why the donation is made. The donation is made out of a sense of social responsibility).

You're not forced to deduct them though, right?

If you wanted to you could pay your full tax liability on your company profits and donate to charity as well?

[Amy Lawn]

Maroon 5 could well be there, they have a glasto slot in their tour!

A thousand times no

[Vanderlyle]

You're not forced to deduct them though, right?

If you wanted to you could pay your full tax liability on your company profits and donate to charity as well?

Are being purposefully stupid?

[wilko8]

Are being purposefully stupid?

No, why do you ask?

[eFestivals]

You're not forced to deduct them though, right?

If you wanted to you could pay your full tax liability on your company profits and donate to charity as well?

yes, I could. But that would mean that the charity donation was about 20% less than it is, with that 20% going to the taxman instead.

Personally, I prefer that 20% to go towards stopping 2,000 kids dying each day than I do towards helping fund a 5% cut in taxes for millionaires but that's just my stupidity.

[wilko8]

yes, I could. But that would mean that the charity donation was about 20% less than it is, with that 20% going to the taxman instead.

Personally, I prefer that 20% to go towards stopping 2,000 kids dying each day than I do towards helping fund a 5% cut in taxes for millionaires but that's just my stupidity.

Technically that's not true. If the company making the donation deducts it from their tax it means that the charity can't claim gift aid. So the charity would be in an almost identical situation either way.

But I do agree, who in their right mind would pay more tax than the rules say they need to??

[eFestivals]

Technically that's not true. If the company making the donation deducts it from their tax it means that the charity can't claim gift aid. So the charity would be in an almost identical situation either way.

you're not understanding the mechanics of this, are you?

Gift Aid applies only to donations where tax has already been paid, so the charity gets the full amount without the taxman grabbing any.

The company donation I make is tax-free - so the charity gets the full amount without the taxman grabbing any.

In both cases the taxman loses the tax, and the charity gets the full amount.

In both cases me (as the alternative ultimate recipient of the money, whether by taxable 'income' or 'company dividend') saves nothing by using one method over the other.

There's ultimately no difference for the charity or the taxman in the money paid over to each - but me doing things this way does remove the small amount of admin from the process, which is an extra gain.

But I do agree, who in their right mind would pay more tax than the rules say they need to??

you're not agreeing with me. I pay more tax than the rules say I need to.

[wilko8]

What you said for your first point is exactly the same as I said, just using more words.

Not deducted + gift aid or deducted with no gift aid, the charity gets the same cash. So your "if I didn't deduct the charity would get 20% less" isn't correct. Because if you didn't deduct they'd get the shortfall made up by gift aid.

Why would you pay more tax than you need to to fund the millionaires tax cut??

[eFestivals]

Not deducted + gift aid or deducted with no gift aid, the charity gets the same cash. So your "if I didn't deduct the charity would get 20% less" isn't correct. Because if you didn't deduct they'd get the shortfall made up by gift aid.

Nope. Gift Aid is only for personal donations.

Why would you pay more tax than you need to to fund the millionaires tax cut??

I don't.

I pay more tax than I need to so I'm not a tax avoiding c**t who is manipulating the rules to pay less tax.

A person is either a deliberate c**t who expects others to pick up what they should be paying, or not.

[lucyginger]

And I'm thinking that I really hope we get an announcement of any sort soon ... I had a dream about some you efesters last night and I've never (knowingly) met any of you lovely people. Thearg and Lucyginger - you were really sweet (you were a couple). Neil - you were the voice of God! Others were involved ....

I need help!!!!

Awww thanks!! I am nice really!

[Vanderlyle]

What you said for your first point is exactly the same as I said, just using more words.

Not deducted + gift aid or deducted with no gift aid, the charity gets the same cash. So your "if I didn't deduct the charity would get 20% less" isn't correct. Because if you didn't deduct they'd get the shortfall made up by gift aid.

Why would you pay more tax than you need to to fund the millionaires tax cut??

You're having an absolute shocker. No idea what axe you're trying to grind, but you're getting it all wrong.

[graham1030]

Who cares how Neil pays his taxes and donates. That's his business not yours!!

At the end of the day he donates some of his money to charity, if more people did the same there wouldn't be as much suffering in the world.

Now stop trying to be a smart arse and get back to the topic of this thread - the rolling stones

[wilko8]

Nope. Gift Aid is only for personal donations.I don't. - which is exactly what your donation would be if you took the profit out of the company and then donated.

I pay more tax than I need to so I'm not a tax avoiding c**t who is manipulating the rules to pay less tax.

A person is either a deliberate c**t who expects others to pick up what they should be paying, or not.

So first of all, please don't take this as a personal attack. I have no axe to grind with anyone. I just think its an interesting discussion, and one that you seem more than happy to enter into.

So it seems like you're saying that you pay more tax than necessary under the rules. Not too much more that you feel you are funding govt policies that you don't agree with. But not so much less that'd make you a c**t.

So where on that scale does someone become a c**t?

Some people do aggressively avoid taxes via charitable donations. I am not saying for one second that you are one of these people. But the govt did look into capping donations, so it is an issue.

Some people play a part in tax avoidance by not querying the bloke at the garage who did their mot cash in hand.

Some people pay many many millions of pounds in tax (more than you, I & most people on these boards will pay in a life time) but it still only equates to 2 or 3%.

If people play by the rules, does that make them the c**t? Or the ones who make the rules??

[LondonTom]

If people play by the rules, does that make them the c**t? Or the ones who make the rules??

Both?

[eFestivals]

So it seems like you're saying that you pay more tax than necessary under the rules. Not too much more that you feel you are funding govt policies that you don't agree with. But not so much less that'd make you a c**t.

So where on that scale does someone become a c**t?

The difference between what I could be paying and what I do pay is the difference between a rich man's cleaner paying a higher rate of tax than the rich man or everyone paying the same rate.

I'm certainly not rich - it's well over a decade since my total income has been more than 75% of the average wage - but I do own a company, and that puts me in the position to essentially make up what rate of tax I want to pay on my income.

Instead of taking the piss, I choose to pay exactly the same as I would if all my income was gained by working for someone else with income taxes paid thru the PAYE system.

Some people do aggressively avoid taxes via charitable donations.

yep, they do - and they actually profit by doing so. There's not a penny of that going on in what I'm doing.

If people play by the rules, does that make them the c**t? Or the ones who make the rules??

no rule changes a person's moral obligations to their fellow man.

[Matt42]

So what are we looking at then... a possible hyde park announcement soon? followed by stones at glastonbury? or do you think we will get the glastonbury announcement first?

[sisco]

So what are we looking at then... a possible hyde park announcement soon? followed by stones at glastonbury? or do you think we will get the glastonbury announcement first?

So they are definatly playing then? That's The Stones and KOL uve given me now, brilliant stuff!

[Matt42]

I think it's very obvious that alot of people believe that it's now a done deal. Doesn't mean it is though,

also let the whole KOL thing down yeah? I just saw how convenient their tour dates where, and that they were rumoured so I connected the dots, turns out I was wrong.

You're not exactly one to judge seeing as you've done similar things before accountable times.

[sisco]

I think it's very obvious that alot of people believe that it's now a done deal. Doesn't mean it is though,

also let the whole KOL thing down yeah? I just saw how convenient their tour dates where, and that they were rumoured so I connected the dots, turns out I was wrong.

You're not exactly one to judge seeing as you've done similar things before accountable times.

But I bought my KOL top! Lol. Anyway it wasn't about u having one of your hunches it was how over the top u were geting about it.

Yep the one which fitted for me was Dizzee Rascal possibly headlining due to various things being said and twitter posts by him. I was wrong, but he is subbing at Glasto so I was hardly that far out now was I?

Anyway, ur posts entertain me, u keep it up fella.

Oh and The Stones, if Mike 99 says its true then surely it must be.

[Matt42]

Oh and The Stones, if Mike 99 says its true then surely it must be.

But he is our ultimate source? Why do you doubt him? When has he ever been wrong?

[LondonTom]

also let the whole KOL thing down yeah? I just saw how convenient their tour dates where, and that they were rumoured so I connected the dots, turns out I was wrong.

You are the third incarnation of Gazza/thewayiam and I claim my 5 pounds!

The Gazza trinity is complete!

[Matt42]

You are the third incarnation of Gazza/thewayiam and I claim my 5 pounds!

The Gazza trinity is complete!

Unfortunately i'm not, but I wish I was.