Anyone else thinking that all these tax scams are a scandal and all this income should be taxed at the same rate as if they were on PAYE?
Tax everything and people could do what they like with the rest - pensions, trusts, charitable donations, whatever. No exemptions!
2 Likes
My understanding he does indeed have a partnership, as well as a number of ltd. companies, I believe his main one/biggest earner being Goalhanger Films Ltd.
If I may say, you seem to have something of a thing about Lineker. As you obviously know, there is a whole industry helping wealthy clients minimise their taxes. Is it not possible to have a social conscience and yet wish to minimise tax within the law? I get an additional £1,200 of tax allowance because Mrs HH is below the tax threshold. My life savings are in premium bonds and ISAs because they are both free of tax. I despair at the state of public services. Am I also a bad person?
There are countless ways of avoiding taxes if you are rich: trusts, non-dom and many others. The answer is to change the rules to clamp down on them, but no government seems to have the bottle.
2 Likes
Not Lineker per se, it’s the hyprocrisy of he, and many others in the public eye who are keen to promote themselves as ‘The Everyman’s’ friend and howl about the state of public finances, yet choose to contribute themselves as little as possible (and it is their personal choice, no accountant or tax adviser is somehow coercing them into these decisions), certainly at an equivalent rate lower than the very people to whom they are successfully appealing to.
If it helps, I hold Lorraine Kelly in equal disdain. And Jon Richardson!
I would hold no truck with any of their tax affairs if they just decided not to then whinge about how not enough funding is being made available from the collection of tax.
Glass houses and all that.
And there are people out there who choose to do the ‘right’ thing too, one of my clients is a wealthy music producer who chooses to pay himself a salary with associated income tax/NI etc. And then we moan about the state of funding together.
7 Likes
I guess all we can do is what feels right for us, and advocate for an improved system at the same time.
Perhaps. Though at least two of the people named above are strong advocates of ‘big business’ paying their fair share of tax. It seems that maybe their own businesses aren’t worthy of the same.
1 Like
For many years now, in Canada, the only people who have company pensions are those who work for the Government. There are a few still, but I don’t know anyone who has one other than Government employees.
It’s all down to what one has put away for retirement, plus the meagre Canada Pension and Old Age Security.
And many Canadians are not very good at saving.
1 Like
My SIPP is much better now that the LTA has been abolished. Will now start crystallizing the funds.
2 Likes
Strictly speaking LTA is still in place for 23/24, there is just no charge…
Indeed, but I will crystallize gradually - some this year but most next year.
I can see a lot of that happening before the next election!
1 Like
If there were any chance of finding the odd £15m down the back of the sofa, I’d be checking most days!
It’s fair to say that by and large ime most of those with larger sums invested look at values far less frequently and are far less concerned by short term volatility than those with lesser sums in the game.
1 Like
OK, looks like the long expected civil war in Russia is about to kick off. May be a bumpy ride…
Or it’s all over by Sunday night!
4 Likes
It’s really difficult to predict how this thing might evolve. All sorts of possibilities. I am sure the Ukrainians are delighted.
3 Likes
From my Pension’s point of view I would love to see Russian retreat from Ukrainian territory but of course it’s not a simple as that. Wish it was
Afraid not. It’s hard to see any likely scenario being an overtly positive one. I guess we can just hope for the least bad. Whatever that is.
This may be useful information for some on here.
There have been various rulings over the last few years in respect of equalisation of GMP benefits.
In short, GMP used to be calculated differently for men and women because the state retirement age differed for both i.e. at 65 or 60 (in the 90’s). Under these fresh rulings viz equalisation however, it’s been determined that this isn’t fair and for some people with GMP built up between 1990 and 1997, these benefits need to be revalued.
I have a case at the moment where they transferred out of their Lloyds scheme some years ago but they are now due a top up amount because the transfer value calculated for their GMP element was based on 65, not 60, thus effectively diluting the GMP TV more than it should have.
This link relates to Lloyds case however I suspect this sets a precedent for others!
https://btuonline.co.uk/btu-secures-top-up-payments-worth-63-million/
FYI, I’ve a female relative who’s just got an ~£8k back-payment (inc. interest) from LCP on behalf of ICI, as they under-paid her pension from 1992 to now(?). I don’t think GMP was cited in the covering letter, it just listed the annual underpayments.
Of course, this is current year taxable for both the back-payment and interest elements (‘unearned income’ - yikes).
Cool. Could they not pay it into pension rather than as an income?