Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Wandering Minds » Vince Watch

Vince Watch

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20 ... 36  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 36]

91Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 08:59

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Don't get me started again on the amount of tax Cousin Vinny's doidged.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Thu May 13 2021, 08:58; edited 1 time in total

92Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 09:26

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Can you really not grasp it?

Don't you think that Rashford has PR people behind him whose role is to promote his image and cash in on it or do you think he does it all on his own? They've been really good at it raising the best part of £1.5m p.a. and creating a cash mountain in MUCS Enterprises with the company paying only 19% in tax.

Now if Saint Marcus was as generous and public-spirited as a gullible or prejudiced media would like us to believe he is, he could have used some of that money to support Manchester foodbanks or other local charities. It doesn't look like he has done and that dodging tax on the money he has taken out, whilst accumulating wealth, are a bigger priority.

As for the Guardian's Conn who 'delves beyond the glitzy veneer of modern football to hold the games gilded elite to account', do us all a favour, pal.

Welcome back Bob, just so I fully understand.

You say ‘Rashford pays ‘only 19%’ but that’s the rate of corporation tax set by the gov no? 

So is your issue here that you don’t think individuals should be allowed to earn their money through a limited company and avoid personal tax thresholds?

93Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 10:01

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:You've Been Conned.

The Guardian's David Conn 'delves beyond the glitzy veneer of modern football to hold the games gilded elite to account'. Does he really? I've just been doing a bit of delving of my own and had a quick look at the accounts of the nearest foodbank to Wythenshawe.


Only took a couple of minutes but its the Burnage Foodbank, is supported by the Trussell Trust and had total income in its last financial year of, wait for it,  £15,121.

I couldn't find any mention of Marcus Rashford surprisingly.

Next I think a bit of delving into the interest-free loan in MUCS  Enterprises  wouldn't go amiss. Lets see how much tax has been dodged so far on that. At least twenty-five times £15K at a quick guess.
Do some proper research nine bob eh? 

https://fareshare.org.uk/marcus-rashford/

94Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 10:13

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
March 2020? A bit late on the scene if you ask me but defo a 'not to be missed' PR opportunity.

'the system was not built for families like mine to succeed, regardless of how hard my mum worked, says multi-millionaire Marcus.'


He wouldn't be frustrated because he wants to be Prime Minister, would he?

95Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 11:29

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Why does Bob always avoid TROY's questions?

96Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 11:31

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Fareshare's  been going for ten years with no mention, so far as I know, of Marcus Rashford as a supporter, donor or anything else so it was a bit of a smart move and PR coup for both when they got him signed up as a  sleb supporter in March 2020. Not much to do with Saint Marcus's long-standing commitment and reputation for helping the hungry of Wythenshawe, if you ask me?

Anyway it looks like the poor under-privileged kid's got a new string to his bow, just in case like:

MUCS Developments Ltd hasn't filed any accounts yet but watch this space when it does.

97Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 11:42

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Natasha Whittam wrote:Why does Bob always avoid TROY's questions?

Ignorance is bliss.

98Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 12:01

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
@Natasha Whittam wrote:Why does Bob always avoid TROY's questions?
In case you hadn't noticed Natasha, T.R.O.Y. goes round and round in circles. I have actually answered his most recent circular effort before but, as you admit that you haven't learned anything, you possibly didn't grasp it.

99Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 12:25

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
You haven’t answered it, you’ve made vague accusations about how much tax you think he should pay but given no justification for why you think that. My question is there to help you get to the point and end this constant dancing around the topic where you waste post after post and don’t say anything new.

100Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 13:15

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
I think Bob's point is that Rashford could have quietly supported free school meals in his area without any cost to himself as such from the difference between what his 'image rights' company is 'loaning' to him (based on 19% corporation tax) and the personal tax rate he would (morally should maybe?) of 40% (might even be 45% on his earnings).

All this could have been him giving something back without the need to be publicised or for him seen by many/most even, to be some morally decent human being.

I'm not saying he's not, nor that his intentions aren't noble, I'm sure they are but he's been made out to be some moral crusader against the government whilst all Bob is doing is pointing out that at the same time he is being put on a pedestal he is actively avoiding paying tax - in a not dissimilar fashion that companies like Google, Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, etc, have been doing and although being entirely legal is seen as distasteful and immoral by many such as Hip Priest tried to take me to task over on post 60 of this very thread.

I don't doubt it is more Rashford's 'advisors' than the youngster himself, who are behind his tax 'schemes' and his nationally high profile image over free school meals but it certainly won't hurt them or Rashford in a lucrative financial way in him becoming a national hero will it?

Sounds to me Rashford is a decent bloke and if so then fair play to him.

Maybe though until the the likes of himself, Vince, Linaker, etc are without 'sin' (maybe by not actively avoiding paying their full tax when they are well able to pay it in the first place?) than perhaps they shouldn't be casting stones at others?

And that is why I believe Bob has issues with these 'celebs' as he calls them.

Fwiw I can see his point.

Can't others?

101Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 13:47

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Slebs I call them Sluffy because I'm not overly impressed with sleb culture. Its not really the individuals, though it is with some, but its the culture that 'don't impress me much'. You only have to look at what happened at BWFC to see how easily folk are Conned.

Rashford might well have many worthy qualities but he does seem to have got carried away on a wave of hype. Fareshare have been going for ten years and have a slick PR machine and I think they are the initiators of it all and that the golden opportunity was not overlooked by Rashford's PR people.
 
Now all of a sudden he's a phenomenon; somebody really special but I doubt it. The special people are the quiet unsung heroes and heroines like M and the folk that volunteer at places like Burnage Foodbank.

You might have noticed that I suggested (slightly tongue in cheek because it won't happen) an Image Rights Tax so that those who are accumulating vast additional wealth for doing sod all pay a fairer share of the tax burden. Lower rates of corporation tax are intended to allow companies to keep more of their profits to invest in the business, not to accumulate cash mountains as Rashford is doing.



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Thu May 13 2021, 08:59; edited 1 time in total

102Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 15:54

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:I think Bob's point is that Rashford could have quietly supported free school meals in his area without any cost to himself as such from the difference between what his 'image rights' company is 'loaning' to him (based on 19% corporation tax) and the personal tax rate he would (morally should maybe?) of 40% (might even be 45% on his earnings).

All this could have been him giving something back without the need to be publicised or for him seen by many/most even, to be some morally decent human being.

I'm not saying he's not, nor that his intentions aren't noble, I'm sure they are but he's been made out to be some moral crusader against the government whilst all Bob is doing is pointing out that at the same time he is being put on a pedestal he is actively avoiding paying tax - in a not dissimilar fashion that companies like Google, Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, etc, have been doing and although being entirely legal is seen as distasteful and immoral by many such as Hip Priest tried to take me to task over on post 60 of this very thread.

I don't doubt it is more Rashford's 'advisors' than the youngster himself, who are behind his tax 'schemes' and his nationally high profile image over free school meals but it certainly won't hurt them or Rashford in a lucrative financial way in him becoming a national hero will it?

Sounds to me Rashford is a decent bloke and if so then fair play to him.

Maybe though until the the likes of himself, Vince, Linaker, etc are without 'sin' (maybe by not actively avoiding paying their full tax when they are well able to pay it in the first place?) than perhaps they shouldn't be casting stones at others?

And that is why I believe Bob has issues with these 'celebs' as he calls them.

Fwiw I can see his point.

Can't others?

You can’t ‘quietly support’ free school meals when you’re trying to lobby the government to change their mind, it needs publicity or theres no chance - so let’s disregard that point please.

I’ve said many times everyone should pay the tax they owe. Ten Bob clearly knows more about tax than any of us, but rather than explaining and trying to get his point across we just get rambling and accusations.

Hence my question. If Rashfords company is paying 19% tax on their profits what’s the issue?

103Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 16:21

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:You can’t ‘quietly support’ free school meals when you’re trying to lobby the government to change their mind, it needs publicity or theres no chance - so let’s disregard that point please.

I’ve said many times everyone should pay the tax they owe. Ten Bob clearly knows more about tax than any of us, but rather than explaining and trying to get his point across we just get rambling and accusations.

Hence my question. If Rashfords company is paying 19% tax on their profits what’s the issue?

When did it become his aim to lobby the government?

My point (and I think Bobs as well) was that he could giving back to his own community without any fan fare and incognito, his reward simply knowing that he is helping out those around him less fortunate than himself now that he has the means to do so.

Why make this not only a national issue but also very much a political one as well?

Was that his intention all along or did his good intents get used and exploited by others, possibly to give him more wider recognition of his caring for others, or to be exploited by others with their own agendas?

And I'll attempt again to explain your question to Bob, (as I doubt he intends to answer you directly) that avoiding paying full tax is not a crime but if you are having a moral argument over one issue (the government should fund free school meals outside of school term times) then should you be involved in a moral issue yourself namely avoiding paying your full tax charges (by manipulating the system like Google' Starbucks, Amazon, etc.)?

The government is not breaking any laws by not providing free school meals outside term times and Rashford's company is not breaking any tax laws like Google, etc - but both seem to be morally wrong do they not?

So how can he be championing one moral issue and exploiting another moral issue for his own financial benefit at the same time?

Is that not hypercritical of him to do so?

Seems on the face of it is - but I'm sure he's never intended it to be so.

Hence maybe it was his intention all along just to help his local community and somehow he's been sucked in to become the face of a national campaign which is commendable in it's own right is also being used to attack embarrass the country's government?

Do you think Rashford start out with that in mind because I certainly don't.

104Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 16:31

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
You’re both conflating two separate issues here.

Rashford’s aim to lobby the government came in Easter when he got them to u-turn and extend FSM. This has always been a political issue, I don’t know why you haven’t grasped that - it’s not a new story and he got an MBE for it.

On taxes, it’s the governments responsibilty to maximise their tax revenue. Private companies are concerned with maximising their profits. 

It’s the governments responsibility to close tax loopholes and avoidance schemes. If you both feel limited companies should fail under that bracket you’ll need to explain why.

105Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 17:18

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Don't know if your missing my (and Bob's?) point deliberately or not?

First did Rashford deliberately set out to be a figure head for a national political issue or was his intent to do something for his local community and got 'propelled' forward in someway to be a figurehead on the issue?  I don't actually know myself as I'm really not that interested per se.  I've already explained my position on people sending their children out on to the streets as treating them negligently - which of course they are.

If it was a political move he/his advisors made then good for him/his politics but it also opens up his own life to wider moral scrutiny - in the public interest and all that.

The second point let me ask you a question to establish a starting point for us both, namely do you think it is morally right for Google, Starbucks, Amazon and so on to manipulate the tax system so that they end paying a fraction of what tax they should?

I think most people would answer no to that, I believe you will too.

Then if it is morally wrong for them to do that then isn't it exactly the same for an individual to morally do the same, in which case I expect you to accept that to be so.

Does it not seem somewhat hypocritical then of Rashford to be heading up a public moral issue on one hand whilst taking personal financial benefit on another issue viewed as not being moral?

That's the point I believe is being raised and a fair one too I would suggest.

106Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 17:35

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Sluffy, it’s a horribly simplistic point you’re trying to make. Nobody is missing it.

If you think it’s morally wrong for Rashford to earn from his limited company, then explain why. 

The government set corporation tax levels, if you want it to be higher then use your right to vote.

107Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 17:48

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Rashford is using his profile to boost awareness of child hunger and as far as i can see he's doing it because his own background was poor. He's not doing it to look good it's something he believes in so where's the problem?

Most people in the public eye probably form a company to pay into so they pay less tax. it's a well known tactic. I would rather everyone paid the appropriate amount of tax but what can you do?

As i said before he could quite easily have ignored this issue and carried on counting his cash but he doesn't and should be applauded not quizzed over his intentions and whether he's doing it for his own selfish reasons.

108Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 18:04

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy, it’s a horribly simplistic point you’re trying to make. Nobody is missing it.

If you think it’s morally wrong for Rashford to earn from his limited company, then explain why. 

The government set corporation tax levels, if you want it to be higher then use your right to vote.

You've deliberately avoided my question - is it morally wrong for a company like Google, Starbucks, Amazon, etc to manipulate things (legally) to avoid paying less tax - yes or no?

If it is morally wrong for a company to do that then in must be morally wrong for an individual to set up a company to do exactly the same to (legally) pay less tax for himself.

So how can a person lead a moral crusade on one hand and yet behave immorally in deliberately setting out to avoid paying his own full amount of personal tax on the other?

I know why you wish to avoid answering it - we all do - because we all know it to be morally wrong - and that would undermine your position.

Fair play to the lad in doing what he believes to be right, maybe he should also look to the morality of his tax position also?

Maybe he would like to lead a moral crusade on that!

I'd certainly back him - wouldn't you too?

:bomb:

109Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 18:13

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Ive said many times on here everyone should pay the tax they owe, including Rashford, Google and whoever else. It needs government intervention though, I’m actually surprised how naive you are to think that it doesn’t. If you really give a shit about it, pick a political party and vote, that’s the only way you’ll affect it.

For all we know Rashford could be for low taxes, advocating Free School Meals isn’t a partisan position to take. Both sides of the house had members for it. Why not just praise him for doing something good at such a young age; rather than make assumptions and accusations over his tax arrangements? 

Interesting you had nothing to say about Ken Anderson’s tax arrangements, only praise for his business acumen. You’re projecting your own prejudice onto what should be a straightforward issue.

110Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 18:21

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@Norpig wrote:Rashford is using his profile to boost awareness of child hunger and as far as i can see he's doing it because his own background was poor. He's not doing it to look good it's something he believes in so where's the problem?

Most people in the public eye probably form a company to pay into so they pay less tax. it's a well known tactic. I would rather everyone paid the appropriate amount of tax but what can you do?

As i said before he could quite easily have ignored this issue and carried on counting his cash but he doesn't and should be applauded not quizzed over his intentions and whether he's doing it for his own selfish reasons.

Well one thing you can do is to point how hypocritical it is to be seen to be holding the moral high ground in the public eye whilst doing something many would and do regard immoral in him companies manipulating the system (legally) to avoid paying as much tax as they can.

I don't think anybody is doubting the young mans good intentions but just because the likes of Google, Amazon, etc (legally) manipulate the system - and which most people find morally repugnant - that he should do exactly the same thing himself (or probably to be more fair to him, his financial advisors have on his behalf).

Or can you have selected morals when it suits you the best?

111Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 19:03

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ive said many times on here everyone should pay the tax they owe, including Rashford, Google and whoever else. It needs government intervention though, I’m actually surprised how naive you are to think that it doesn’t. If you really give a shit about it, pick a political party and vote, that’s the only way you’ll affect it.

For all we know Rashford could be for low taxes, advocating Free School Meals isn’t a partisan position to take. Both sides of the house had members for it. Why not just praise him for doing something good at such a young age; rather than make assumptions and accusations over his tax arrangements? 

Interesting you had nothing to say about Ken Anderson’s tax arrangements, only praise for his business acumen. You’re projecting your own prejudice onto what should be a straightforward issue.

I thought you might mention dear old Ken!

Unfortunately for you it is a completely different scenario, Anderson was acting to keep an insolvent company alive for as long as he could to sell it on - which to be fair, he managed to do.  For the record he didn't benefit from doing so from the club - the Administrators report even showed he waived his right to a sum of going on for £1m iirc(?) from his security on the clubs assets as part of a third party agreement with EDT.

I didn't comment on Anderson's tax arrangements for the simple reason I don't know about them!  It would seem the Administrators had no issue with KA over his affairs (tax or otherwise) from the club side of things and his company Inner Circle Investments Ltd has since been taken over by Mr Bassini since and I have heard nothing about his tax or anything else, not being in order there too.  

I also note that another distraction you like to throw in is to say I should pick a political party and vote for it - but as I consider them all to be as bad as each other I prefer my impartiality and ability to criticise (or praise!) them without being deemed to have an hidden agenda for doing so.

We've also been around the Maypole once or twice about government reform of the tax system and I remind you that Conservative core values are to achieve as little a tax levy as they are able to on companies and individuals.

As for Rashford I don't believe I've said a single bad word about him have I?

We do know however what he's taken out of his company as a loan and what rate tax he paid on it - so we do know a little about his tax position.  He might well be in favour of low taxes as he's clearly avoiding the current tax rate of 40% by using his company to pay half that (19%) instead!

If I was earning what £150k per week, and had such a strong moral conscience as he then I'd pay my full tax - he's probably earned enough money in his career to date than I've earned in my lifetime already.  How much money can you spend in a lifetime anyway?

Good luck to him, you never know if he actually saw this thread or similar he might be the type to say 'you know what, I do wish to pay my full dues and not avoid stuff like my advisors have set up for me'.

If anyone was of a mind to do that then he's probably more likely to do it then anyone else I can think of.

You just never know do you!

112Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 19:15

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
You’ve spent the day comparing Rashford to massive conglomerates like Google and Apple. That is a fair comparison to make in your eyes, but Anderson is a different scenario?

No of course it isn’t. They are different and I also agree you don’t have enough information to comment on KA’s tax arrangements - and the exact same is true for Rashford.
 
So why don’t we drop the speculation you are both intent on dragging this into and focus on the issue at hand.

And yes I’m well aware of the Tories principles on tax (pretty sure I had to educate you on that when we discussed before). 

By not voting you give up your only chance to affect this topic, it’s not a distraction to say if you really give a shit stop moaning and use it.

113Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 19:34

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:You’ve spent the day comparing Rashford to massive conglomerates like Google and Apple. That is a fair comparison to make in your eyes, but Anderson is a different scenario?

No of course it isn’t. They are different and I also agree you don’t have enough information to comment on KA’s tax arrangements - and the exact same is true for Rashford.
 
So why don’t we drop the speculation you are both intent on dragging this into and focus on the issue at hand.

I've stated my position on the issue in hand namely people send their kids out on to the street are neglecting them - I don't believe anyone can say other.

Tax avoidance is tax avoidance whether Google does it or Rashford so yes it is a fair comparison - they are both doing the same thing.

There's no comparison to Anderson running an insolvent business - it wasn't that he was avoiding paying money it was more that the was no money there to pay anyone - as it happens all footballing creditors received 100% of what was owed, all secured creditors 100% also (apart from himself who waived something like £650k I think it was) and all other unsecured creditors will get 35% of what they are owed - which considering - and is confirmed by the Administrators reports - there wasn't any liquidity in the business to pay anyone at the time there bills were due, was quite an achievement.

We DO know the tax that Rashford would have paid on his company loan, it is legally set at 19% and we DO know that Rashford is paid enough to be in the top personal tax bracket of 45% - that's not speculation as you seem to be suggesting it is?

114Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 19:42

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
Who said anything about an insolvent business? You want to criticise Rashford for not paying enough tax based on limited information. Yet never made any comment on Anderson living in Monaco. Not sure how you’ve got confused here it’s not a complicated point.

Thanks for stating your position on FSM, not sure why you felt the need. I think we can all agree it’s a necessary benefit. And unfortunately its only going to be more of an issue with COVID.

115Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 21:14

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:Who said anything about an insolvent business? You want to criticise Rashford for not paying enough tax based on limited information. Yet never made any comment on Anderson living in Monaco. Not sure how you’ve got confused here it’s not a complicated point.

Thanks for stating your position on FSM, not sure why you felt the need. I think we can all agree it’s a necessary benefit. And unfortunately its only going to be more of an issue with COVID.

Anderson is registered as a resident of Switzerland, he owns a property in Monaco.

Either way he's not short of a bob or two and I would suspect his investments (and thus his tax liabilities on them) are off shore, indeed just like a certain Mr Eddie Davies were.  Nothing illegal in that though as such.

The difference between the likes of Anderson and Davies and young Rashford is though that they never went out of their way to front a national campaign on moral grounds and he has - the same to with the likes of Vince and Linaker chirping up on various 'moral' things too.

There's nothing wrong in anyone having an opinion and nothing illegal in having a company deliberately designed to avoid you paying your full rate tax but I find (and Bob too I suspect) a certain amount of hypocrisy of someone being moralistic on the one hand and purposely acting somewhat immorally on the other - I would have thought you would too.

116Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 21:41

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
I honestly don't think Marcus Rashford is quite bright enough to grasp that his self-serving wealth accumulation from MUCS Enterprises doesn't sit well with the ordinary taxpayer.

As for the mainstream media, what can you say, other than useless, hopeless, pathetic, feeble, lamentable etc. etc? But we knew that to start with, didn't we?



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Thu May 13 2021, 09:02; edited 1 time in total

117Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 21:53

BoltonTillIDie

BoltonTillIDie
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
He’s celebrated his tax savings by scoring a 2nd half hat trick after coming on as a sub in the Champions League.  Just a shame he plays for Man Utd.

118Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 22:04

T.R.O.Y.


Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Sluffy wrote:

Anderson is registered as a resident of Switzerland, he owns a property in Monaco.

Either way he's not short of a bob or two and I would suspect his investments (and thus his tax liabilities on them) are off shore, indeed just like a certain Mr Eddie Davies were.  Nothing illegal in that though as such.

The difference between the likes of Anderson and Davies and young Rashford is though that they never went out of their way to front a national campaign on moral grounds and he has - the same to with the likes of Vince and Linaker chirping up on various 'moral' things too.

There's nothing wrong in anyone having an opinion and nothing illegal in having a company deliberately designed to avoid you paying your full rate tax but I find (and Bob too I suspect) a certain amount of hypocrisy of someone being moralistic on the one hand and purposely acting somewhat immorally on the other - I would have thought you would too.

He did the honourable thing of standing up for something he believed in. It’s a minority like yourself and Bob who are more concerned with virtue signalling than the cause itself. 

I’d agree with Bob on one thing though, he’s probably got advisors managing these affairs for him. Who are paid to minimise the amount of tax he pays and maximise profits - same as most of the very wealthy unfortunately. Interesting how you both only seem to go after a certain type though. This happens across the spectrum I’m afraid.

So for the umpteenth time it needs government to regulate if you want to change that. If you’re bothered about it make sure you start voting.

It’s as simple as that.

119Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 23:15

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
@T.R.O.Y. wrote:He did the honourable thing of standing up for something he believed in. It’s a minority like yourself and Bob who are more concerned with virtue signalling than the cause itself. 

I’d agree with Bob on one thing though, he’s probably got advisors managing these affairs for him. Who are paid to minimise the amount of tax he pays and maximise profits - same as most of the very wealthy unfortunately. Interesting how you both only seem to go after a certain type though. This happens across the spectrum I’m afraid.

So for the umpteenth time it needs government to regulate if you want to change that. If you’re bothered about it make sure you start voting.

It’s as simple as that.

How would that achieve anything if my MP was a Conservative with a majority of 20,000 or a Labour MP with a Tory government with a majority of 80 seats?

It wouldn't so your attempt to distract is completely pointless in my real life circumstances.

It certainly isn't that simple for the government (any government Tory, Labour or Monster Raving Loony Party) to legislate to abolish all forms of tax avoidance schemes, you clearly have no idea of such things or you wouldn't be making such fiscally naive remarks if you did.

I keep telling you I don't believe in the cause!

Obviously any hungry child needs to be fed but the issue is why are they leaving home hungry and why have the parents/guardians allowed such neglect to happen - the issue is prevention not endless FSM provision, that only hides the issue of parental neglect and that is the issue that urgently needs to be addressed.

And what type do I (and Bob) go after?  As far as I'm concerned it's morally wrong to avoid paying your tax rate yet still enjoy the provision of what the state provides from 'the cradle to the grave'.

I respect Rashford for being out there doing what he believes to be right I just find it somewhat hypocritical of him to be doing morally at least the right thing in one direction and financially be acting in a morally reprehensible way (imo) in another in respect of acting cynically and deliberately avoiding paying the full tax on his income.

I'm sure his financial advisors were the ones who set up the scheme but surely he most know they set it up for a reason this way and what could the reason be other to pay less tax than you need to?

I don't see how that point of view is hard to understand or is even controversial, as you are either moralistic or you aren't - you can choose to be a bit of both when it suits you to be.

120Vince Watch - Page 4 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed Oct 28 2020, 23:30

Hip Priest

Hip Priest
Tony Kelly
Tony Kelly
@Ten Bobsworth wrote:
Can you really not grasp it?

Don't you think that Rashford has PR people behind him whose role is to promote his image and cash in on it or do you think he does it all on his own? They've been really good at it raising the best part of £1.5m p.a. and creating a cash mountain in MUCS Enterprises with the company paying only 19% in tax.




These PR people behind Rashford, promoting his image and cashing in on it, they must be really really smart and clued up PR people. Dozens of big name PL players have their own PR people whose role is to promote their image and cash in on it, but for some reason NONE of these players have failed to take advantage of this marvellous wealth enhancing / tax dodging wheeze you have uncovered.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 36]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20 ... 36  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum