lovely bbc advises stars on avoiding tax
Discussion
honestly the tv tax is starting to become a joke, if they are going to do stuff like this they need to be privatised forthwith.....
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_an...
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_an...
It's been the norm in the entertainment world for decades.Back in the 1990s even the DG of the BBC (John Burt)was found to be "Self Employed".
I bet you will find that the vast bulk of presenters, producers, sound men, lighting men etc who work in TV (both in the BBC and elsewhere) operate on this basis.
I bet you will find that the vast bulk of presenters, producers, sound men, lighting men etc who work in TV (both in the BBC and elsewhere) operate on this basis.
"The tax payable by a star such as Paxman, earning £1m, would be £627,000 from April if he were on staff, compared with £520,100 corporation tax and dividend tax if he used a service company and paid out the entire fee as a dividend"
Christ, I'll never be earning a £1 million salary any time soon but it's no wonder people are so desperate to find tax avoidence loopholes when we have such levels of taxation in this country which hit those at the top of their profession.
I guess the BBC's dilemma is to either cooperate with those trying to pay less tax or otherwise they'd have to pay their 'stars' more to compensate them.
Either way the tax payer is screwed.
Christ, I'll never be earning a £1 million salary any time soon but it's no wonder people are so desperate to find tax avoidence loopholes when we have such levels of taxation in this country which hit those at the top of their profession.
I guess the BBC's dilemma is to either cooperate with those trying to pay less tax or otherwise they'd have to pay their 'stars' more to compensate them.
Either way the tax payer is screwed.
5unny said:
"The tax payable by a star such as Paxman, earning £1m, would be £627,000 from April if he were on staff, compared with £520,100 corporation tax and dividend tax if he used a service company and paid out the entire fee as a dividend"
Am I being a simpleton? Can someone do the maths as to how £1m is taxed for £627k...?I was just about to email the BBC and complain, suggesting what they would do if their viewers set up such a scheme to avoid paying the licence tax. I started filling out their form, mentioned Paxman as a prime example of Labour bias, plus something about the BBC piggies being more equal than others (Animal Farm style quote) tried to go back and edit the text a bit more and their stupid system doesn't even save the text from the previous page.
Unless it was automatically removed and no complaint ever reaches them.
I did add the lines. Cut the Labour bias and cut the MMGW lies maybe their complaints bot picked them up.
Usless BBC.
Unless it was automatically removed and no complaint ever reaches them.
I did add the lines. Cut the Labour bias and cut the MMGW lies maybe their complaints bot picked them up.
Usless BBC.
Silver993tt said:
I thought that to be self employed you needed more than one client otherwise you would fall foul of IR35 which was put in place to stop this kind of set-up taking place?
...these entertainment bods just have to lend their names to newspapers, and so on, to have several sources of self employed income.There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying the right amount of tax. If that's less than the amount of tax you could pay by being a f
kwit and not getting some professional advice and help in setting up your affairs to your best advantage then so be it.
Why would anyone pay more tax than they need to - given that the cost of advice and help is less than the saving that can be made? Only a fkwit.
I don't blame people who work for the BBC for that.
kwit and not getting some professional advice and help in setting up your affairs to your best advantage then so be it.Why would anyone pay more tax than they need to - given that the cost of advice and help is less than the saving that can be made? Only a f
kwit.I don't blame people who work for the BBC for that.
There are pretty clear conditions to decide if someone is employed by a company or self employed and theoretically, one can't just opt for one or the other, as laid down by HMRC.
As a general guide as to whether a worker is an employee or self-employed; if the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, then the worker is probably an employee:
Do they have to do the work themselves?
Can someone tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it?
Can they work a set amount of hours?
Can someone move them from task to task?
Are they paid by the hour, week, or month?
Can they get overtime pay or bonus payment?
If the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, it will usually mean that the worker is self-employed:
Can they hire someone to do the work or engage helpers at their own expense?
Do they risk their own money?
Do they provide the main items of equipment they need to do their job, not just the small tools that many employees provide for themselves?
Do they agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take?
Can they decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and where to provide the services?
Do they regularly work for a number of different people?
Do they have to correct unsatisfactory work in their own time and at their own expense?
Seems to me that most of the people in question are employed, but they can probably afford lawyers to prove otherwise.
As a general guide as to whether a worker is an employee or self-employed; if the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, then the worker is probably an employee:
Do they have to do the work themselves?
Can someone tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it?
Can they work a set amount of hours?
Can someone move them from task to task?
Are they paid by the hour, week, or month?
Can they get overtime pay or bonus payment?
If the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, it will usually mean that the worker is self-employed:
Can they hire someone to do the work or engage helpers at their own expense?
Do they risk their own money?
Do they provide the main items of equipment they need to do their job, not just the small tools that many employees provide for themselves?
Do they agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take?
Can they decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and where to provide the services?
Do they regularly work for a number of different people?
Do they have to correct unsatisfactory work in their own time and at their own expense?
Seems to me that most of the people in question are employed, but they can probably afford lawyers to prove otherwise.
Puggit said:
5unny said:
"The tax payable by a star such as Paxman, earning £1m, would be £627,000 from April if he were on staff, compared with £520,100 corporation tax and dividend tax if he used a service company and paid out the entire fee as a dividend"
Am I being a simpleton? Can someone do the maths as to how £1m is taxed for £627k...?The Times seems to have it wrong.
http://www.taxrefundcalculator.co.uk/
Suggests even after the new 50% rate comes in those earning a million/year in 2010/2011 would pay 477k in income tax and 14k NI so net earnings would be just over 500k.
hornetrider said:
Hmmm, I wonder if these presenters fall foul of IR35?
Most of them do more than one thing and work for more than one organisation. Paxman, for instance, presents "Newsnight" and hosts "University Challenge". "Newsnight" is made by the BBC, "University Challenge" is not. I'm sure he does many other "broadcasting" related activities which he can legitimately put through his own production company.I would say a good proprtion of posters here on PH work on such a basis in their relevant professions.
Eric Mc said:
hornetrider said:
Hmmm, I wonder if these presenters fall foul of IR35?
Most of them do more than one thing and work for more than one organisation. Paxman, for instance, presents "Newsnight" and hosts "University Challenge". "Newsnight" is made by the BBC, "University Challenge" is not. I'm sure he does many other "broadcasting" related activities which he can legitimately put through his own production company.I would say a good proprtion of posters here on PH work on such a basis in their relevant professions.
This is somewhat old news although given fresh impetus by the advent of the 50% tax regime which many of these so-called celebrities (C-grade at most) will assiduously try to avoid. What is truly sickening is that these are the cheerleaders for the cancer of socialism and left-liberalism that is blighting this country, these are the people who popped the champagne corks woth such vigour in May 1997, and have been the chief propagandists for the Labour economy-destruction machine that we're all having to pay for. They show the usual contempt for us all by taking our money in the form of the license-fee, they preach to us the false idolatry of urban leftism but are totally unwilling to pay for the utter mess that their mates in Government have made of the country.
I wonder if there is a technology that could be used to hermetically seal White City, Whitehall, Westminster and a few other choice locations, with all its useless denizens, in their own little bubble, so they can get on with their ste while the rest of us get on with rebuilding this country? The only thing that would go in would be food, no money to feed their insatiable apetite for useless expenditure.
I wonder if there is a technology that could be used to hermetically seal White City, Whitehall, Westminster and a few other choice locations, with all its useless denizens, in their own little bubble, so they can get on with their s
te while the rest of us get on with rebuilding this country? The only thing that would go in would be food, no money to feed their insatiable apetite for useless expenditure.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff