pay cuts for top premiership players

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Again, said it elsewhere but absolutely blowing my mind the amount of people calling for footballers to pay for people out of their own pocket, who are self-pronounced Corbyn haters, anti-socialist, Tory voters. So utterly lack any self-awareness.

Look forward to you all supporting closing corporation tax loop-holes in the next election in order to help people who are poor eat 7 meals a week, or increase a nurses wage so that CEOs and Directors can take out of their pocket to help the people in their companies on minimum wage.

You are so bitter but presume you have facts, rather than fiction, about corporation tax loop holes. Also , hand on heart, have you never under declared income from all sources or paid cash to anyone for goods services etc without declaring such payments?
Fact is most tax income comes from the top 5% of those who pay tax. Why should they, or indeed anyone else, subsidise wealthy football clubs?

Bitter? Where’d that come from?

Anyway, back on topic.

My point, which you have totally missed is that I haven’t seen any public outpouring of outrage that McDonald’s are using tax payers money to subsidies their staff? Or Nissan? Or topshop? Or any of the other huge companies with wealthy owners.

Seems strange that football clubs fall into a different position.

So are you for wealthy companies, football related or otherwise, gaining from tax payers money or not? And whilst we are here, are you saying Joe Bloggs paying his cleanser cash in hand is the same as Starbucks dodging millions of pounds in tax? As it sounds like you are advocating companies not paying their way?

[Thor]

See that's the strange part in McD's and such like giant corporations furlouging staff. They have massive cash reserves so why would they need to take government cash?

My wife's company is well known and has cash reserves of approx £300m they are not furloughing anyone, no one has lost their job and all staff have been assured that no one will as their financial strength allows them to support the workers at times like this as they supported the business in the past. That's a proper company.

I see fatcat Green has done it as well, yet how much has his wife taken out of the business in dividend payments over the years? Morally that's wrong.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

See that's the strange part in McD's and such like giant corporations furlouging staff. They have massive cash reserves so why would they need to take government cash?

My wife's company is well known and has cash reserves of approx £300m they are not furloughing anyone, no one has lost their job and all staff have been assured that no one will as their financial strength allows them to support the workers at times like this as they supported the business in the past. That's a proper company.

I see fatcat Green has done it as well, yet how much has his wife taken out of the business in dividend payments over the years? Morally that's wrong.

Which company is that?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

There should have been some rules around which companies could do it, but depressingly they would have found a way just to sack staff.

My company have kept every single person on (talking around 5000 members of staff) at 100% pay when they could have used government money to gain more profit.

[StillSpike]

There should have been some rules around which companies could do it

Maybe the government could introduce a special tax of 100% on any profits made, up to the value of any job retention monies these companies have claimed.

Not holding my breath mind.

[Thor]

I'm guessing that the government sees it as easier to give the money than try and work out who is genuine and who is not.

[LittleMate]

Corporation tax represents about 8% of all tax collected. About 25% of all tax collected is Income Tax (followed by VAT 22% and National Insurance 20%). Sure close the loopholes that exist around internet and foreign based business' but if you really want more tax collected there's far more scope in making sure everybody pays their income tax. Ignore its rate, there are plenty of loopholes in that system - starting with all individuals declaring their incomes correctly and paying tax accordingly.

Assuming your figures are correct, seems like there’s lots of scope to increase the level of corporation tax taken. Given the top rate of corporation tax is 17%, whilst the top rate of income tax is 45%, that’s pretty obvious.

Different types of taxes. You assume every company always makes a profit and never invests those back into the business. One of the biggest issues facing large manufacturing - and its part of the reason for its demise - was the changes to capital allowance rules 20 - 30 years ago.

[Thor]

[BuckinghamO]

https://www.football365.com/news/featur ... tt-hancock
Read this article

[greyhound]

been reported this morning Liverpool FC who have made £42 million pounds profit
and splashed out £43 million to agents are out with the begging bowl
for us taxpayers to pick up 80% of there staffs wages.

[Disoriented]

been reported this morning Liverpool FC who have made £42 million pounds profit
and splashed out £43 million to agents are out with the begging bowl
for us taxpayers to pick up 80% of there staffs wages.

You taken a paycut on your pension then?

Every little bit helps fella.

[Thor]

According to the sun the players are not going to take any pay cuts to help the billionaire owners. They are happy to direct their money into good causes, but not to the betterment of people who have furloughed staff and could afford to pay those staff properly.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Corporation tax represents about 8% of all tax collected. About 25% of all tax collected is Income Tax (followed by VAT 22% and National Insurance 20%). Sure close the loopholes that exist around internet and foreign based business' but if you really want more tax collected there's far more scope in making sure everybody pays their income tax. Ignore its rate, there are plenty of loopholes in that system - starting with all individuals declaring their incomes correctly and paying tax accordingly.

Assuming your figures are correct, seems like there’s lots of scope to increase the level of corporation tax taken. Given the top rate of corporation tax is 17%, whilst the top rate of income tax is 45%, that’s pretty obvious.

Different types of taxes. You assume every company always makes a profit and never invests those back into the business. One of the biggest issues facing large manufacturing - and its part of the reason for its demise - was the changes to capital allowance rules 20 - 30 years ago.

Of course they’re different types of taxes. What has that got to do with the ridiculous discrepancy in levels at which they’re set?

[LittleMate]

Assuming your figures are correct, seems like there’s lots of scope to increase the level of corporation tax taken. Given the top rate of corporation tax is 17%, whilst the top rate of income tax is 45%, that’s pretty obvious.

Different types of taxes. You assume every company always makes a profit and never invests those back into the business. One of the biggest issues facing large manufacturing - and its part of the reason for its demise - was the changes to capital allowance rules 20 - 30 years ago.

Of course they’re different types of taxes. What has that got to do with the ridiculous discrepancy in levels at which they’re set?

So you are proposing corporation tax at 45%? You clearly know nothing about managing a business - any business.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Explain to me why it is possible to have a top rate of income tax at 45% but impossible to have a corporation tax rate at the same level?

[StillSpike]

It was 30% only about 10 years ago, wasn't it?

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

It was 30% only about 10 years ago, wasn't it?

IMPOSSIBLE

[StillSpike]

45% around 1984.

33% around 1995

Don't you remember the sky fell in and no-one did any business at all before CTax was under 20% ?

[tuffers#1]

UK income tax has changed over the years. Originally it taxed a person's income regardless of who was beneficially entitled[clarification needed] (that is, regardless of whether they had a legal obligation to pass it on to another person) to that income, but now a person owes tax only on income to which he or she is beneficially entitled. Most companies were taken out of the income tax net in 1965 when corporation tax was introduced. These changes were consolidated by the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. Also the schedules under which tax is levied have changed. Schedule B was abolished in 1988, Schedule C in 1996 and Schedule E in 2003. For income tax purposes, the remaining schedules were superseded by the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, which also repealed Schedule F completely. The Schedular system and Schedules A and D still remain in force for corporation tax. The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%.[17] In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£209,963 as of 2019).[7]

The Government of Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[18] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[19] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets – to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[20] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget. The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

Under the government of John Major the basic rate was reduced in stages to 23% by 1997.


Business rates were introduced in England and Wales in 1990, and are a modernised version of a system of rating that dates back to the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601. As such, business rates retain many previous features from, and follow some case law of, older forms of rating. The Finance Act 2004introduced an income tax regime known as "pre-owned asset tax" which aims to reduce the use of common methods of inheritance tax avoidance.[21]Under Labour chancellor Gordon Brown, the Basic Rate of Income Tax was further reduced in stages to 20% by 2007. As the basic rate stood at 35% in 1976, it has been reduced by 43% since then. However, this reduction has been largely offset by increases in other regressive taxes such as National Insurance contributions and Value Added Tax (VAT).

In 2010, a new top rate of 50% was introduced on income over £150,000 p.a. In the 2012 budget, this rate was cut to 45% with effect from 6 April 2013.

[tuffers#1]

For those who wish to argue over tax
Please read above for all tax laws & changes for top rate in buisness or corporate .

Enjoy

[greyhound]

been reported this morning Liverpool FC who have made £42 million pounds profit
and splashed out £43 million to agents are out with the begging bowl
for us taxpayers to pick up 80% of there staffs wages.

You taken a paycut on your pension then?

Every little bit helps fella.

Ive had a pay cut for years under this government.
there is an old saying Jesus saves not on the f....g pension i get.

[Stamford O]

Can I furlough myself.wouldn't mind 2500 a month.more than I get now.

[Disoriented]

been reported this morning Liverpool FC who have made £42 million pounds profit
and splashed out £43 million to agents are out with the begging bowl
for us taxpayers to pick up 80% of there staffs wages.

You taken a paycut on your pension then?

Every little bit helps fella.

Ive had a pay cut for years under this government.
there is an old saying Jesus saves not on the f....g pension i get.

Then stop voting for that shower.

Labour is the party of the people, especially now we have Keir in charge and Progress instead of Momentum.

Welcome aboard fella.

[greyhound]

You taken a paycut on your pension then?

Every little bit helps fella.

Ive had a pay cut for years under this government.
there is an old saying Jesus saves not on the f....g pension i get.

Then stop voting for that shower.

Labour is the party of the people, especially now we have Keir in charge and Progress instead of Momentum.

Welcome aboard fella.


you remind me of the daily mirror pundit Kevin Maguire.

[Winchesterfan]

Again, said it elsewhere but absolutely blowing my mind the amount of people calling for footballers to pay for people out of their own pocket, who are self-pronounced Corbyn haters, anti-socialist, Tory voters. So utterly lack any self-awareness.

Look forward to you all supporting closing corporation tax loop-holes in the next election in order to help people who are poor eat 7 meals a week, or increase a nurses wage so that CEOs and Directors can take out of their pocket to help the people in their companies on minimum wage.

You are so bitter but presume you have facts, rather than fiction, about corporation tax loop holes. Also , hand on heart, have you never under declared income from all sources or paid cash to anyone for goods services etc without declaring such payments?
Fact is most tax income comes from the top 5% of those who pay tax. Why should they, or indeed anyone else, subsidise wealthy football clubs?

Bitter? Where’d that come from?

Anyway, back on topic.

My point, which you have totally missed is that I haven’t seen any public outpouring of outrage that McDonald’s are using tax payers money to subsidies their staff? Or Nissan? Or topshop? Or any of the other huge companies with wealthy owners.

Seems strange that football clubs fall into a different position.

So are you for wealthy companies, football related or otherwise, gaining from tax payers money or not? And whilst we are here, are you saying Joe Bloggs paying his cleanser cash in hand is the same as Starbucks dodging millions of pounds in tax? As it sounds like you are advocating companies not paying their way?

To answer your point no I do not advocate anyone avoiding tax from multi national companies to every individual. Of course most companies will employ accountants to ensure tax is paid and done legally. Most do exactly that but ones that don’t are assumed to be the majority rather than the minority.
Your self righteousness is impressive though I’d be interested to know if you have given back any of your income to others during this crisis.
Also why don’t you answer my question re paying people cash for work done to avoid tax? Is it because you do?