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

+14
MartinBWFC
karlypants
Ten Bobsworth
Sluffy
BoltonTillIDie
Norpig
sunlight
Banks of the Croal
xmiles
wanderlust
Hip Priest
Natasha Whittam
boltonbonce
Cajunboy
18 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 27 ... 50  Next

Go down  Message [Page 5 of 50]

91Vince Watch - Page 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 8:59

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

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



Last edited by Ten Bobsworth on Thu 13 May - 8:58; edited 1 time in total

92Vince Watch - Page 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 9:26

Guest


Guest

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 10:13

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 11:29

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Why does Bob always avoid TROY's questions?

96Vince Watch - Page 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 11:31

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 11:42

Guest


Guest

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

Ignorance is bliss.

98Vince Watch - Page 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 12:01

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 12:25

Guest


Guest

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 13:47

Ten Bobsworth


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

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 13 May - 8:59; edited 1 time in total

102Vince Watch - Page 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 15:54

Guest


Guest

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 16:31

Guest


Guest

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 17:35

Guest


Guest

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 18:13

Guest


Guest

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 6 Empty Re: Vince Watch Wed 28 Oct - 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?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 5 of 50]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 27 ... 50  Next

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