Many footballers facing financial ruin by HMRC

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Interesting point from that article is the high divorce rate once pro footballers retire from the game presumably as a lifestyle adjustment is made.

 

[Peteinblack]

I wonder if the people who rush to defend millionaires who avoid their taxes (by fair means or foul) are the same people who cheer to the rafters when governments announce yet another crackdown on social security fraud?

The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.

We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.

Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.

Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?

 

[Dave the OAP]

Tax avoidance isn't illegal, tax evasion is.

What is a stupid house?

Tax avoidance is morally illegal.

 

[drew]

I wonder if the people who rush to defend millionaires who avoid their taxes (by fair means or foul) are the same people who cheer to the rafters when governments announce yet another crackdown on social security fraud?

The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.

We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.

Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.

Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?

You're talking a load of garbage. The problem is where a scheme has been approved by HMRC and people have put money into that scheme only to find that they have changed their mind and now trying to recoup whatever tax relief was gained retrospectively. If they change their mind then surely it is just that they should only be able to reclaim tax relief from when they changed their minds.

As I said in an earlier post, how many ordinary people would be mightily pissed off if ISAs were declared an unacceptable tax avoidance vehicle and HMRC decided to claim back the relief people had received on the earnings from those.

I'm all for tax avoidance schemes being closed down but I don't agree that you can do it retrospectively.

In the flavour of your opening line, I wonder how many of those attacking 'overpaid' footballers are the very same ones that subscribe to Sky Sports for their Sunday football fix?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Doh. Can the mods delete my similar thread please.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Tax avoidance is morally illegal.

I assume you voluntarily offer to pay tax on your contributions to your pension then ? Or have never brought something in duty free ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Tax avoidance is morally illegal.

I'd better donate my ISA to the MPs retirement fund instead then.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

it is. or the governments. they (Brown in this case) create tax breaks to encourage investment in somthing. people take up the offer, then when its realised later that its been more popular than expected, HMRC decide its going to claw back the tax relief given. if its "avoidance" it was so at the time, so why didnt they do something then?

i dont understand why people think its OK to change the rules like this, everyone avoids tax where they can, but shake their fists when those with more money try to do the same.

Tax isn't always black and white though; it can't be. And this is why issues like this one occur. And sometimes people stretch the definitions too far , or their interpretation of the law is fanciful, and it comes down to the judiciary to decide if the person is taking the piss or not. It's the same for all of us, not just people in schemes like this one.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You're talking a load of garbage. The problem is where a scheme has been approved by HMRC and people have put money into that scheme only to find that they have changed their mind and now trying to recoup whatever tax relief was gained retrospectively. If they change their mind then surely it is just that they should only be able to reclaim tax relief from when they changed their minds.

As I said in an earlier post, how many ordinary people would be mightily pissed off if ISAs were declared an unacceptable tax avoidance vehicle and HMRC decided to claim back the relief people had received on the earnings from those.

I'm all for tax avoidance schemes being closed down but I don't agree that you can do it retrospectively.

In the flavour of your opening line, I wonder how many of those attacking 'overpaid' footballers are the very same ones that subscribe to Sky Sports for their Sunday football fix?

I think ISAs are a bit different to the artificial, fancifully interpreted, schemes which these footballers seem to have paid into.

 

[dwayne]

Tax avoidance is morally illegal.

Digging a hole here Davey

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I wonder if the people who rush to defend millionaires who avoid their taxes (by fair means or foul) are the same people who cheer to the rafters when governments announce yet another crackdown on social security fraud?

The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.

We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.

Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.

Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?

This.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Tax isn't always black and white though; it can't be. And this is why issues like this one occur. And sometimes people stretch the definitions too far , or their interpretation of the law is fanciful, and it comes down to the judiciary to decide if the person is taking the piss or not. It's the same for all of us, not just people in schemes like this one.

I agree. Let the judiary decide, but don't bankrupt people whilst the legal process is still ongoing.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

you seem to be confusing those at the top of the game earning millions with those in the middle and bottom who try to condense a career into two decades.

And you seem to be presuming that footballers are totally and absolutely unemployable once they finish playing. They can always get a job on civvy street like me and you have to.

 

[dwayne]

Tax isn't always black and white though; it can't be. And this is why issues like this one occur. And sometimes people stretch the definitions too far , or their interpretation of the law is fanciful, and it comes down to the judiciary to decide if the person is taking the piss or not. It's the same for all of us, not just people in schemes like this one.

Surely there needs to be some cut off point time wise. How can the tax man go back 5/6 years and retrospectively punish someone. That's morally wrong.

There should be a 2 year challenge period. Then people can budget accordingly.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I agree. Let the judiary decide, but don't bankrupt people whilst the legal process is still ongoing.

I also agree with the latter point. That's wrong.

 

[dwayne]

I agree. Let the judiary decide, but don't bankrupt people whilst the legal process is still ongoing.

Totally this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Surely there needs to be some cut off point time wise. How can the tax man go back 5/6 years and retrospectively punish someone. That's morally wrong.

There should be a 2 year challenge period. Then people can budget accordingly.

I disagree. If you are proven to have be fiddling taxes then time shouldn't come into it.

 

[dwayne]

I disagree. If you are proven to have be fiddling taxes then time shouldn't come into it.

I agree but I go back to my previous point that this would apply to people who were signed up to legitamite hmrc approved schemes.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I wonder if the people who rush to defend millionaires who avoid their taxes (by fair means or foul) are the same people who cheer to the rafters when governments announce yet another crackdown on social security fraud?

The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.

We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.

Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.

Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?

That's a poor example as you are allowed to earn £20 per week before losing Income Support.
http://www.welfarerights.net/benefits-guides/Income-Support

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Its not just multi millionaires that are getting done.

IT contractors that used tax avoidance loan schemes from years ago are now getting massive backdated tax bills.

OK you may say but when these schemes were set up HMRC gave them special reference numbers to state they were recognised and approved. They have since changed legislation and are now retrospectively billing and fining individuals on these schemes.

This is robbery in my eyes and I know of two hardworking people with families that went bankrupt over Christmas.

It's disgusting.

But if a court proves you have fiddled the system then you should pay it back. I imagine HMRC only go after the real piss-takers so I have little sympathy and I speak as someone who has been self-employed for almost 2 decades.