beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,012
i think now might be a good time to point out 40% of footballer's earnings goes to the government coffers to pay for services provided.
i think now might be a good time to point out 40% of footballer's earnings goes to the government coffers to pay for services provided.
I am not. I am genuinely amazed at the amount of people on here who defend the under-funding and woeful pay of the NHS and workers. To suggest footballers are more important, add more value money wise, and are more highly skilled is utter nonsense and just not backed up by fact!
I am sickened by the tory sycophants who refuse to lay any blame on the deaths and woeful health conditions on their beloved paty.
I am not. I am genuinely amazed at the amount of people on here who defend the under-funding and woeful pay of the NHS and workers. To suggest footballers are more important, add more value money wise, and are more highly skilled is utter nonsense and just not backed up by fact!
Two things.
1). Has that image rights thing been shut down?
2) 40% - ish goes to the taxman as PAYE on the wages from their playing contract. This probably isn’t the case on any endorsements they have.
Exactly. So to get 287k nurses is bloody hard work as we don't let any old person in to do the job. If we did, unlike simply crap football, we would all die.
Two things.
1). Has that image rights thing been shut down?
2) 40% - ish goes to the taxman as PAYE on the wages from their playing contract. This probably isn’t the case on any endorsements they have.
Yes. We CHOOSE the market value of NHS workers. So lets actually do something and pay them properly. It is within our POWER!
Not at all. All I have seen people put is:
"footballers are more skilled" - false
"there are more people wanting to be nurses" - false
"footballers contribute to more profits" - false
"there are more foreigners wanting to be nurses" - false
Just admit it. We underpay them because we have CHOSEN to vote in party that CHOOSES to pay them badly. We CHOSE their low wages and funding. It is not some other thing external to us.
The pay issue is about the obscenity linked to private businesses. Those who work for a government organisation have a standardised wage across the board for the level or grade you are at and very few will be outside of that structure.
CEO's and managing directors of private companies often earn bucket loads of cash because someone decided they should. Look at the recent situation with Virgin, Richard Branson earns millions every year and has recently made plenty of people jobless.
Nurses, teachers, police officers should all get a better wage but that doesn't link to business shouldn't pay anyone lots more than nurses so they don't feel bad
i think now might be a good time to point out 40% of footballer's earnings goes to the government coffers to pay for services provided.
Two things.
1). Has that image rights thing been shut down?
2) 40% - ish goes to the taxman as PAYE on the wages from their playing contract. This probably isn’t the case on any endorsements they have.
They would still pay tax on any other earnings, but agree, due to creativity of their accountants, probably less than 40%!!!
i know someone who i used to work with in tech. Left our company to go contracting. In his first year his wages TREBLED compared to mine but due to a clever accountant was only paying about 10% tax...you can guarantee many of these footballers are the same......Pay their wages into trust funds for example. I'm sure i read of people setting themselves up as a business and having there gross salary paid direct to the business. They then pay themselves a nominal wage, pay a dividend which attracts basic rate tax only and the remaining profit they pay corporation tax on instead, this saving thousands (and in footballers cases tens of thousands)
Yes! Am I the only one who finds it weird that the jobs marked as essential at the moment are some of the worst paid!? WTF is that!?
He lied about the 10% tax btw. Exaggerating to boast?
It was very advantageous, BUT corp tax for starters takes a 1/5 and used to be more (post negligible expenses in his profession as tax deductible and the nominal tax/NI free salary which would’ve been lower at that time).
Was his turnover very high? Into higher rate tax, his wife and him would also paid significant sums in personal tax on dividends.
Your layman’s summary of how it works for tax now, is wrong in several ways.
well being self employed (as contractors are) they get loads of allowances - room in the home for business means they can claim back some personal gas/electric/water etc, pension contributions are tax free so that would be a big chunk of it, employing his girlfriend as his part time secretary i seem to recall so he could use her tax allowance (despite her only real "duty" being to stay at home and feed him when he came in!) the list goes on...
also i cant remember the exact details -it was 5 years ago - but he reckoned that even if he wasn't employed all the time, he likely had enough "allowances" or "offset" (i.e tax avoidances) not to pay anything other than national insurance contributions until he was earning 80k+
If we stick to the numbers and tax, give me a rough estimate of his IT turnover once he was minting it and whether his girlfriend had outside employment, and I’ll tell the true tax that Porkie was paying.
You are right, he had several tax advantages.