To think Gary Barlow is worse than a benefits cheat?

[Roshbegosh]

People cheating on benefits do at least need the money .... What he has done is hard to excuse IMO

There are areas of tax that are open to interpretation and then there is this kind of scheme. Hmrc were always going to win.

No, salary sacrifice schemes are not designed by the government - they are simply a remuneration agreement between an employer and an employee.

I didn't say that they were - I said instigated. This was to draw the differential between the child care voucher scheme which was essentially a government initiative and pension salary sacrifice schemes which aren't/weren't.

Please don't misquote me - I've worked on enough teams setting them up to know what they are and argued the toss with HMRC about all the fine lines!

Tax avoidance can work for the benefit of various government departments/service providers too - before I went on mat leave, I was working on a scheme which would supply certain types of locum doctors to the NHS/GP partnerships without attracting VAT on the supply of their services.

That, arguably, retained money which would have gone straight to the exchequer and may not have been refunded directly to the NHS etc. it might have gone to some other worthy governmental cause but it could just as easily have gone to fund MP expenses

"It has made me look at him and his bandmates (apart from Jason) in a different light. I am no longer a fan."
The music he makes is the same as it ever was. Surely you listen to music because you like the music not because you like the person, because you've never met the person and really don't know what they're like.

You might be entitled to earn more money, woowoo, but how does that relate to tax? Are you entitled to keep a greater proportion?

"Surely you listen to music because you like the music not because you like the person, because you've never met the person and really don't know what they're like."

I didn't comment on their music. I said I am no longer a fan of three of the members of Take That, whether or not I still enjoy listening to Take That songs is not dependant upon that.

It doesn't relate to tax, because I was responding to a poster that wasn't talking about tax. The post I was responding to was talking about earnings.

In what was can you be a fan of the members of Take That without it being in regards to their music?

You can fancy them?

Like their dancing?

Enjoy their beardage?

Await the next instalment of infidelity?

Ooh, endless opportunities for non-musical fandom.

What Basil said.

Honestly, why do I always attract the idiots, trolls and bored teenagers...?

Well, I think we can all agree that people who earn more, earn more.

And that it why they should pay their taxes!

I know 3 people who have falsely claimed benefits.

They were trying to do their best for themselves/their DCs.

The benefits system is far too complicated and shouldn't disadvantage people trying to improve their lives as it does.

I didn't approve of their actions but I understand it and empathise.

Gary Barlow, on the other hand, has more money than anyone could ever need. He shouldn't be trying to avoid tax. He knows that it goes towards vital public services, saves lives even. If people like him behaved in a civilised manner then we would have enough money for a benefits system which would be fair, thereby avoiding the desire for people to manipulate it.

In my eyes they're about the same morally.

I wish people would read the posts re the difference between tax planning and tax avoidance.

Someone asked whether Company Directors who take dividends are as bad. I think the answer is 'sometimes', if they are essentially a long term contractor who really should be on PAYE. It's a huge wheeze. My friends DH does it, despite lecturing me all the time on why taxes should be increased to solve every policy problem going. What a dick!

And to think....his next accolade was to be a Knighthood/Sainthood or some such. Mind you, it doesn't seem to have done Jimmy Carr any harm, or his career, does it? He's often to be heard "joking" about his being caught red-handed.

I'd lock Saint Gary up. And send his estate a big bill. My DH has been paying off a (small (tiny) amount in comparison) tax amount he owed because the company he was employed by, hadn't had him on the correct tax-code.

Actually, I'd lock Gary up for that shockingly sycophantic programme aired last week, with James Corden, alone. WTF was that all about? I switched off ten mins in.

woowoo Nope! I totally fail to see why something that requires more study and or more unique skills should automatically be more valued and earn more money.

The world stops working if lorry drivers stop working. If I stopped working (with my 4 different degrees and 11 years of training) nobody would notice.

Yet my hourly rate of pay must be about 5 times that of a lorry driver.

Also consider an olympic pole vaulter. There skill set is limited to a handful on the planet and their training is more intensive and long than almost anything else. So what? They should be automatically millionaires? They aren't though because pole vaulting is all but useless to society.

You could reduce the global pay scale range to 20k to 200k for a years work (from the 200 to 20M range we seem to have now), you would not remove the desire of people to strive and reach the top of the scale but you would not have the crazy CRAZY inequalities which exist now.

I'm amazed that posters are seriously suggesting that employees of a company should not get dividends if they own shares.

Should employees not be allowed to own shares? Or shareholders not receive dividends? Or is it just employees who own shares who shouldn't get dividends, and everyone else should ?

What about employee ownership schemes ? Or a management buy outs? Why would anyone buy shares if they didn't get dividends? How would that work?

My DH and I own a business, we built it up ourselves. We own it 50:50 . If we are not allowed to own it , who else should ? Should the government come alone and buy our business from us by compulsory purchase so we can't get dividends from shares?

Why would anyone ever build up a business if they weren't allowed to own it ? If you don't own it, you can't sell it or pass it on. So the business will close when we retire, all the jobs will go and we will have no pension. And the tax payer can pick up the bill for unemployment and other benefits. Excellent plan .

Honestly, some posters need to take 5 mins and think through their suggestions before judging and condemning a large proportion of the small business people in the uk.

There are pros and cons to taking dividends as the director of a company depending on your position.

Salaries for directors who own shares will improve the company's tax position as salaries are deductible for tax. Therefore the taxable profit will be lower and therefore the corporation tax owed lower. The director/shareholders personal tax bill will be higher.

On the flip side dividends to director shareholders are not tax deductible so the taxable profit is higher and corporation tax payable also higher. The director/shareholder personal tax bill will be lower.

But it's often swings and roundabouts as higher taxes will still be paid either by the company or by the director/shareholders

You get a tax credit if you pay yourself a dividend which offsets the tax the company paid on the profit it paid the dividends out of.

Exactly, so taxes are paid either way. The public purse doesn't lose out.

I think the point is that HMRC is fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of varying rates of tax on dividends, corporation tax and income tax and does not have a problem with people choosing a business structure to suit their activities. The government wants people to invest in business and they want to encourage new business, hence various schemes to encourage them to do so.

This is completely different to somebody pretending to invest in a film to get the relevant tax breaks when they are doing no such thing or pretending not to be an employee to pay less tax. (Since IR35 this is no longer possible within the law).

If anybody objects to the dividend tax rate, they should write to their MP and we'll all vote on it at the next election.

Well it does actually KristinaM - corporation tax is 20%

VAT

Which you don't have to register for until your business is turning over more than £81k

Just to be clear - my problem was with someone who is solely working for one place on a long term contract but has set up as a business to avoid tax. He's essentially an employee. That can be a grey area, and whether it is correct in terms of tax paid depends on a judgement made on a number of factors - HMRC has guidance.

I've no problem with it if the business is actually a business!

YANBU - greedy scumbags

Next time he meets some squaddies he can tell them why he doesn't think he should contribute to their salary.

Next time he meets a cancer patient he can tell them why he doesn't think he should contribute to their treatment.

& next time he gets an honour from the queen for organising a state funded event he can tell her why he shouldn't contribute to the funding which helps provide the monarchy.