Income tax- Burnam

[Niftywigglesheep899]

Does anyone know if Andy Burnam is planning to raise income tax , so we have less money coming in each month?

Im quite concerned - stretched as it is and can’t cope with anymore.

Because Lineker has past form for avoiding tax. Trying to play the 'excuse' card is silly nonsense.

If you believe in a wealth tax, get out and campaign. Posting on MN won't achieve anything.

Well it isn't nonsense when you keep banging on about Lineker

I mean, he’s been asked about it quite a few times and has his responses have been well reported. Unless you think he or John Healy are on Mumsnet and can give inside information, I’m not sure what you expect to get from this post.

I’d happily see my income tax go up of it helps us get out of the current state of the economy.

BTW, welcome to MN 3wordsandnumbers.

Highlighting tax avoidance is a good thing. I'm amazed that you or anyone else can excuse that.

It wasn’t tax avoidance. Did you even bother to read the link?

I am amazed that that is how you are reading my posts

I am also surprised at the many 'they can already pay extra if they want' replies.

This is about people with £10m and more.

Compare it to threads about benefits.

He avoided paying tax in Barbados. Did you bother to read my post? You also failed to engage with my question about why he chose not to be paid via PAYE - why was that do you think?

He did not choose to avoid tax. He did not actively exploit tax rules to avoid paying tax. He was self employed, contracted to the BBC (as many presenters are) providing a service and he paid the appropriate amount of tax according to the rules at the time. Latterly, HMRC tried to claim that under IR35, he should be classed as an employee and pay income tax as if he were employed directly by them. This meant that, despite already paying the top rate of tax on income he earned, having paid self employed NI contributions, and any corporation taxes his company paid, HMRC 5 years later knocked on his door and said “give us another £4.5m” He was not the only high profile case this happened to, and he not only won the tribunal, but HMRC settled the appeal. This led to a large number of not high profile cases where HMRC were wrongly applying IR35 being withdrawn. He essentially took one for the team.

If anyone here would be happy with HMRC doing this to them, please do let them know. They could do with the money. There is a massive difference between saying “I’d happily see my tax rate go up” and “I’m ok with HMRC coming after me to raid my finances whoever they feel like it”

He avoided paying tax in Barbados as I previously stated.

You’ve got to look at outcomes though, there’s quite a few examples in countries where it has been tried and not worked.

Lineker isn’t the best person for this but him aside it does put the spotlight on Burnham. Perhaps Burnham and Healy will look at it and see it’s tough to make work, but voters will think hang on now the celebs / millionaires are writing letters why not?

There’s still a voluntary scheme that Lineker could head up, he could lead by example and each person posting they’re happy for income tax to go up could contribute.

Don’t just do letters, show how keen he and other millionaires are by paying voluntarily.

It would appear that the Barbados property was bought in such a way as to allow the sale proceeds to be taken out of the country. He didn’t pay tax via PAYE because he wasn’t employed by the BBC and wasn’t on its payroll. That benefited the BBC as it meant they had no on costs or obligations under an employment contract.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/09/revealed-scheme-gary-lineker-tax-barbados-home#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20British%20celebrities,property%2C%20the%20Paradise%20Papers%20reveal.

I know how the property was bought - it's a well known tax avoidance scheme used by many people, which you're obviously not familiar with. Funnily enough, when we sell overseas property, we're perfectly able to pay tax in the relevant country and transfer the proceeds of the sale overseas without using such schemes. If he'd wanted to pay more tax, he could have requested he was paid via PAYE by the BBC. Both parties benefitted by not doing so.

He might already lead by example, we don't know.

Why such a negative reaction to asking people on £10m + for a 2% levy? Why should that be optional for them?

I have seen the cons and pros. It depends on how it would be implemented. I just don't get why people are so against a proposal like this. Why is the first reaction ' you can already pay the extra'?

Wealth inequality is real.

Leading by example is letting people know.

And these countries have tried and repealed: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Iceland, two are clamping down but losing start ups and one is ok but very different system.

I think the issue isn’t taxing millionaires, it’s taxing people on incomes that might seem high but don’t last long in today’s world. Most people want higher tax on a salary higher than theirs which is a problem. 50k think 100k is ripe for picking. 100k think 150k sounds reasonable to tax more, etc. I think we should tax companies like Amazon more, we should tax those earning millions and we should definitely stop paying benefits to those able to work.

And if he let's people know, do you think people will have a more positive view of his proposal?

A wealth tax might not be the right course to take, it's one proposal that can be looked at.

Considering different options is a far better reaction than ' you can already pay extra'

There’s nothing wrong with extra, why not?

As you say more than Lineker signed the letter. They could all contribute and get those keen to join in.

If as you say the wealth tax might not be the right course to take why say no to millionaires voluntarily paying more?

No, he paid the appropriate amount of tax within the rules in Barbados.

I haven't said no that, have I?

I have said that I find that response silly. I doesn't make for a serious discussion.

It’s fine, if it’s the best outcome then why not

Best outcome for whom? The ones who don't want to pay extra tax?

It's very much like the people complaining about the £2 bus fare because they don't use the bus.

It's vox pop not a serious discussion about the growing wealth inequality.

No, he used a tax avoidance scheme by putting the property in the ownership of a company. Do you know the difference between 'evasion' and 'avoidance'?

Well not the best outcome for Lineker and co, but they’re very keen apparently so maybe it is in their mind good for them too.

The best outcome in terms of tax receipts.

If he'd wanted to pay more tax, he could have requested he was paid via PAYE by the BBC.

The BBC wouldn’t have agreed. I worked as a contractor for years. None of my clients would have entertained putting contractors on the payroll, the flexibility of not having permanent staff is the entire point of using contract staff. The BBC employs all its talent the same way.

He could either have been paid through his own company - as he was - or via an umbrella company - which is crass stupidity because you have to pay them a fee and both parts of NI contributions, both employee and employer. Nobody with more than half a brain cell does that.

Are you saying you believe tax is altruistic and nobody should work within the rules to reduce their tax bill? None of us should be using salary sacrifice to bolster our pensions, planning for reducing inheritance tax, submitting tax returns to reduce our bill? The “scheme” was not illegal. It was specifically set up to allow people to do this. Their economy tanked because nobody looked at unintended consequences of letting some people do this so they changed the rules. How is any of the Lineker’s fault? (Or the dozens of others who did it?) If you pay more in a country when their own rules allow you not to, more fool you. That doesn’t make you superior to those who don’t.

Choosing to be on BBC’s payroll isn’t as simple as that. They may not have wanted to employ him directly. It’s easier to end a fixed term contract than it is to fire someone because your programming needs have changed. In the entertainment business, contracts are the norm. Even if they did want to, the terms and conditions of employment may not have suited him. He wouldn’t be free to do other work, set his own schedules, choose his projects etc.

It seems in your desperation to rubbish this letter, which has nothing but benefit for the vast majority of the country, you are ignoring logistics of real life by picking on one of those who signed it. Which leads me to ask, why are you against millionaires paying more tax, when a whole bunch of them are telling is they really want to?