Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] BBC List of Wages



Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,689
The Fatherland
Sophie Raworth - £325,000 - £329,999

BBC News at Six, BBC News at Ten

Worth every penny :love:
 




rippleman

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2011
4,988
You can't just take money out of a Ltd company without paying tax on it - if only you could!

They'll pay dividend tax of 39.35% on any money drawn from the company. When you consider that profits have already suffered corp tax at 25%, they'll actually get about 46p in their pockets for every £1 earned as freelance.
Or they retain the monies in the company. Enter into a Members Voluntary Liquidation at some point down the line and get the retained profits paid out as a capital dividend, claim Business Asset Disposal Relief and pay CGT at 10%.

Or they have partner / kids join as shareholders and pay them dividends at 8.75% up to the basic rate band (up to 50K if no other taxable income)

ETA See Wozza #40
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,463
Hove
We don't pay for any of those other salaries unless WE CHOOSE TO, but they are all over paid. I am struggling with your double tier approach to wages, please explain why you feel so in favour of these super rich "personalities" ?
You need to ask yourself some bigger questions, such as why we have lost so much of our sport from free-to-air to subscription broadcasting?

Our terrestrial TV simply outbid in the marketplace. MotD is sold around the world, so Lineker & Co bring in a revenue stream to the BBC. If viewing figures drop, that revenue reduces and the PL decide they have better offers - goodbye MotD.

At present we are clinging on to things like MotD, Wimbledon, Olympics, World Cups and Euros to terrestrial broadcasters, but we've lost cricket, F1 and others along the way. The FA Cup is being devalued before our eyes, only reason that is still BBC is because no one else wants it.

Careful what you wish for. There is more than just salaries to consider.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,915


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
14,533
Manchester
To counter that a little, they will likely be putting a lot of expenses through the business (before tax) which an 'employee' would not be able to do, but are effectively paying for some things with untaxed money that they otherwise would have bought with the own 'personal' money (after tax).

People typically still end up better off as a result, but the amount of take-home gained has reduced a bit over the years.
Why would an employee not be able to claim legitimate work-related expenses?
 






Right Brain Ronnie

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2023
635
North of North
This guy?



PS Just wait until you her how much footballers earn for kicking a bit of leather about!

Why does the BBC keep on this slippery snake? Because he promotes cycling and Chelsea at every opportunity?
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,538
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Unless I was hand in hand with Gary and Co, who could have this figure? We all know it goes on.
So do you feel Lineker is worth 1.3m ?
Why don't the BBC get a unemployed or homeless person doing the job?
What would you recommend is the going rate for one of the high profile presenters at a major broadcaster? And what experience in the sector do you have to reach the conclusion you do (I don't need specific, a general precis would suffice)?
 






Stato

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2011
7,367
To me all those salaries are nuts, does the guardian also compare Gary's hour rate as they do Rees-Mogg?
The Guardian article is from February and you didn't start a thread asking whether we thought the Tory MPs were worth it. Mind you, giving the subsequent election results and the viewing figures for GB News maybe its a question that didn't need asking.

The government insisted in 2017 that the BBC publish the salaries of their top earners. They didn't really explain why. Luckily they also didn't insist that the rest of us should care. To me, it was obviously a political move that hoped for people to ask the exact question that you are asking, so that those who want the BBC gone could use it as a stick to beat it.

It amuses me that the market forces ideologs completely ignore market forces arguments when it comes to the public sector. 'Linker's not worth that!' they cry, whilst also arguing that company director salaries in the seven figures are entirely fair because of the market. Lineker's self employed. He has an agent and his agent's job is to maximise his salary. That's capitalism. You don't get to opt out when it doesn't suit your argument.

I don't pay a License to ITV or GB news and so am really not bothered

There were 24,400,000 licence fees sold in the UK last year, bringing in a total revenue of £4.135 billion. The BBC got £3.74 billion of that. Maybe you'd be more comfortable imagining that your £169.50 was either part of the £395 million that the BBC didn't get, or formed part of the £60 million that the BBC pays to the EPL for its share of domestic football rights.

Brighton and Hove Albion made £160 million from the joint rights deal In 2022. Part of that came from the licence fee. I don't know about yours, but my hundred and seventy quid was passed on to the Albion and paid part of the goal bonus that Julio Enciso got for scoring his goal of the season and confirming our qualification for the Europa League - I got that and to use all the BBC services as well! One satisfied customer.
 


Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,915
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

People who obsess over the Licence Fee are the WEIRDEST.
As we all know, the BBC is massively right-wing. Except when it's massively left wing. Depending on who it is and what they want.

I like Auntie Beeb. Odd way to fund stuff in the 21st century. But it is a brilliant service.
 
Last edited:




dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
55,533
Burgess Hill
What’s anyone ‘worth’ ? They get what they can negotiate and what the industry is prepared to pay, like many employees in all walks of life. Good luck to ‘em :shrug:
 


crodonilson

He/Him
Jan 17, 2005
14,062
Lyme Regis
Huw Edwards got a 10% pay rise?

:facepalm:
 


Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,274
Withdean area
Or they retain the monies in the company. Enter into a Members Voluntary Liquidation at some point down the line and get the retained profits paid out as a capital dividend, claim Business Asset Disposal Relief and pay CGT at 10%.

Or they have partner / kids join as shareholders and pay them dividends at 8.75% up to the basic rate band (up to 50K if no other taxable income)

ETA See Wozza #40

Strict rules on BADR, actually policed by HRMC. If the balance sheet contains significant cash, that's an investment activity not qualifying.

Plus the lifetime BADR (formerly ER) limit has fallen like a stone. Was £10m, now £1m, Labour likely to abolish it.

Dividends paid/voted to under 18's are taxed as if the parents.
 




dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,625
Or they retain the monies in the company. Enter into a Members Voluntary Liquidation at some point down the line and get the retained profits paid out as a capital dividend, claim Business Asset Disposal Relief and pay CGT at 10%.

Or they have partner / kids join as shareholders and pay them dividends at 8.75% up to the basic rate band (up to 50K if no other taxable income)

ETA See Wozza #40
Or move to a lower tax regime, if only for a year, and take out all the money as a dividend there.
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,625
Why would an employee not be able to claim legitimate work-related expenses?
Employees can claim expenses which are wholly, exclusively, and necessarily for the purposes of their employment. Self-employed people and companies can claim expenses which are wholly and exclusively for the purposes of their work. "Necessarily" is the difference.

It means a self-employed person can claim for a new computer, new TV, etc if they use it for their work. They can claim their accountants' fees and tax advice. They get motor expenses allowed against tax. If they are feeling aggressive, they can claim a foreign trip is a fact finding mission and claim that. If they are working away, they can take their husband or wife with them and still claim half the cost of the hotel room. They can employ people - whether it is real world jobs (secretary, bookkeeper, etc) or bogus jobs (wife's or child's wage) and get that deducted from taxable income. There's all sorts of dodges.

Of course, they lose out in other ways - sick pay and company pension rights, for example. A lot of the problem with the BBC cases rumbling on is because it was the BBC forcing its employees to go down this route, because it saves them National Insurance payments at 13+%.
 


MJsGhost

Oooh Matron, I'm an
NSC Patron
Jun 26, 2009
5,026
East
Why would an employee not be able to claim legitimate work-related expenses?
They can, but they will be restricted to the company's interpretation of legitimate as set out by their expense policy.

If you are working via your own ltd company, you are going to take a more favourable view on what you allow yourself to claim as an expense* than if you are employed and abiding by the company's policy.

*obviously still in line with what is “wholly, exclusively and necessary” for business purposes. Nobody pushes that envelope, ever.
 


DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
17,353
Who is demanding for Zoe ball?

Yes I wonder, thank god the license payer isn't paying it.
I’m sure there are plenty of nonentities or, perhaps worse, thoroughly objectionable people being paid very well on ITV and other places - GB News and others.

I’d rather have Zoe Ball than anyone you would find on any of the commercial music channels that I have heard.
 








Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here