X

The Spectator - Rashford

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
It’s not a bit rich at all 2020….For starters, you have no insight into the tax affairs of Rashford and so any inference is assumptive.

Businesses and high earners throughout all sectors will plan taxation payments to ensure they are as efficient as possible…

Even being paid in a Ltd company further taxation becomes payable on draw down.

Er, they are by their clubs.

It's a few years back but John Arne Riise ended up with his payslip in the press: https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/yo...s-stolen-wageslip-is-made-public-7258263.html


Agreement for image rights payments have been in place with HMRC for some time… To be paid entirely in PAYE would make no sense…..
 

traffordtang

Well-known member
Mex

Why are you getting so excited ?

I was just suggesting to young Marcus that although I have absolutely no problem with his huge wealth or any tax avoidance schemes that he may use, it might be an idea to consider a different tax scheme, one that could perhaps result in the Government receiving more money that they could use to fund free school dinners.

If my figures were not exactly correct then it doesn't change anything.

I may have said MUFC when it should be MUSC but I'm not sure what difference that makes.

I have no problem with any footballer earning a fortune or with them doing whatever they can to pay as little tax as possible, just about all footballers will do just the same as what Rashford does except they won't spend so much time telling the Government what to do with tax revenues.

There was a recent investigation and only Kante at Chelsea was daft enough to pay the full PAYE and NI.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t the government change the laws around taxation so that loopholes enabling people to avoid tax in the first place don’t exist. Or maybe too many of their supporters/cronies would suffer. If Marcus Rashfords accountant (and it’s a very big if as I have no clue) have used the laws in place to reduce his tax bill they have done nothing wrong. If they had broken any rules then HMRC will be down on them like a ton of bricks.
Do you really believe that the money would have gone to pay for free school meals. It’s a bit like saying the money saved from leaving the EU would go to the NHS. Well other than to pay for dodgy track and trace systems run by mates anyway
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
It’s not a bit rich at all 2020….For starters, you have no insight into the tax affairs of Rashford and so any inference is assumptive.

Businesses and high earners throughout all sectors will plan taxation payments to ensure they are as efficient as possible…

Even being paid in a Ltd company further taxation becomes payable on draw down.




Agreement for image rights payments have been in place with HMRC for some time… To be paid entirely in PAYE would make no sense…..

Okey doke x3.

I'm not alone in thinking that Rashford has some front advising the Government on the distribution of tax revenues when he doesn't pay as much tax as he could do.

You say that I have no insight into his tax affairs, I can't be @rsed cutting and pasting but you won't have to look too far to see a loan of approx £400k that he did not pay 40% tax on.

I appreciate that you and many others won't have any problem with Marcus Rashford advising the Government on the distribution of tax revenues regardless of his contributions and as I have already said time and time again, I have no problem with his huge earnings or his tax avoidance.

We are not going to agree on this one.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Here’s an idea. Why don’t the government change the laws around taxation so that loopholes enabling people to avoid tax in the first place don’t exist. Or maybe too many of their supporters/cronies would suffer. If Marcus Rashfords accountant (and it’s a very big if as I have no clue) have used the laws in place to reduce his tax bill they have done nothing wrong. If they had broken any rules then HMRC will be down on them like a ton of bricks.
Do you really believe that the money would have gone to pay for free school meals. It’s a bit like saying the money saved from leaving the EU would go to the NHS. Well other than to pay for dodgy track and trace systems run by mates anyway

Tang

I have already said it but I will say it yet again:

I have absolutely no problem with the amount of money Marcus Rashford earns or the amount of tax he does or does not pay.

I have also already said that I would do exactly the same as Rashford does if I was in the same position.

I have no reason to believe that Rashford has done anything illegal and have never suggested that he has done.

I did say that I felt it was a bit rich of him to advise the Government on the distribution of tax revenues while using tax avoidance schemes to pay less PAYE.

You might very well disagree with me on that one but that's fair enough, there will be plenty who disagree with me but I won't be on my own with my thinking on it and I am a little surprised why folk are so annoyed at my fairly tame suggestion.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Okey doke x3.

I'm not alone in thinking that Rashford has some front advising the Government on the distribution of tax revenues when he doesn't pay as much tax as he could do.

You say that I have no insight into his tax affairs, I can't be @rsed cutting and pasting but you won't have to look too far to see a loan of approx £400k that he did not pay 40% tax on.

I appreciate that you and many others won't have any problem with Marcus Rashford advising the Government on the distribution of tax revenues regardless of his contributions and as I have already said time and time again, I have no problem with his huge earnings or his tax avoidance.

We are not going to agree on this one.

A loan is a loan 2020… It also depends exactly what the source of the loan is to appreciate what tax will be due and payable by whom…

To my mind it’s tax deferral as opposed to avoidance, if you are talking about a loan, plus annual interest is payable.

None of that conflicts with him seeking to influence government policy in a positive way.

I mean it makes a chance because most of the high earners tend to be seeking to make changes for self interest reasons as opposed to helping young kids…
 

L’étranger

Well-known member
Okey doke x3.

I'm not alone in thinking that Rashford has some front advising the Government on the distribution of tax revenues when he doesn't pay as much tax as he could do.

You say that I have no insight into his tax affairs, I can't be @rsed cutting and pasting but you won't have to look too far to see a loan of approx £400k that he did not pay 40% tax on.

I appreciate that you and many others won't have any problem with Marcus Rashford advising the Government on the distribution of tax revenues regardless of his contributions and as I have already said time and time again, I have no problem with his huge earnings or his tax avoidance.

We are not going to agree on this one.
So the loan has come down from £900k to £400k in a few hours. At this rate his company will owe him a fortune by next week 😁.
If you are referring to a loan of £395k taken out in 2018, the accounts state that this loan was repaid in the same year and would have been subject to the normal company tax rules for short term director’s loans.
 
Last edited:

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
A loan is a loan 2020… It also depends exactly what the source of the loan is to appreciate what tax will be due and payable by whom…

To my mind it’s tax deferral as opposed to avoidance, if you are talking about a loan, plus annual interest is payable.

Okey doke x3.

No interest is payable on an interest free loan but I'm not going down that route.

I am of the opinion that Marcus Rashford pays tax on his earnings in a way which is a beneficial as possible to Marcus Rashford, I don't think he is overly concerned about the Treasury when his tax return is being completed.

I know that he won't be on his own in doing this, I don't have any problem with him doing this but I think that it's possibly a bit rich - certainly not illegal - for him to advise the Government on tax revenues when not paying as much PAYE as he could do.

I appreciate that you and others don't share my opinion on this matter but I won't be on my own in the way that I think either.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
Okey doke x3.

No interest is payable on an interest free loan but I'm not going down that route.

I am of the opinion that Marcus Rashford pays tax on his earnings in a way which is a beneficial as possible to Marcus Rashford, I don't think he is overly concerned about the Treasury when his tax return is being completed.

I know that he won't be on his own in doing this, I don't have any problem with him doing this but I think that it's possibly a bit rich - certainly not illegal - for him to advise the Government on tax revenues when not paying as much PAYE as he could do.

I appreciate that you and others don't share my opinion on this matter but I won't be on my own in the way that I think either.

If interest free then the loan tax would be due on the benefit and as I said, it’s deferred taxation as the loan would be paid back out of taxable earnings.

Like I said most high earners are focused on the tax they must pay as opposed to gifting the HMRC more than is required.

The fact that someone opts not to overpay their tax, is not a reason to preclude them from influencing government policy.

Let’s face it, It doesn’t stop Branson, Ratcliffe, Dyson etc…
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
If interest free then the loan tax would be due on the benefit and as I said, it’s deferred taxation as the loan would be paid back out of taxable earnings.

Like I said most high earners are focused on the tax they must pay as opposed to gifting the HMRC more than is required.

The fact that someone opts not to overpay their tax, is not a reason to preclude them from influencing government policy.

Let’s face it, It doesn’t stop Branson, Ratcliffe, Dyson etc…

This is my last post 100%.

I didn't say that Marcus Rashford couldn't advise the Government, I said I felt that it was a bit rich given his tax avoidance although some may disagree.

What you say about anybody else may or may not be correct but the only reason I raised the tax affairs of Marcus Rashford is because the thread was about Marcus Rashford.

I'm finished on this one, I have no doubt that you have a far better knowledge of tax laws than me but this was never about exact fiugures, Marcus Rashford uses tax avoidance scheme to avoid paying as much tax as he could and good luck to him.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
So the loan has come down from £900k to £400k in a few hours. At this rate he’ll owe his company a fortune by next week 😁.
If you are referring to a loan of £395k taken out in 2018, the accounts state that this loan was repaid in the same year and would have been subject to the normal company tax rules for short term director’s loans.

L'etranger

No problem, I don't care exactly how much the loan was/is.

Marcus Rashford uses tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying as much tax as he could do.

I appreciate that you will have a far better knowledge of tax laws than me.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I just find it an odd thing to pick out… I mean we’ve had this taxation discussion on here before in relation to big business I seem to recall quite different opinions being expressed.

It seems to me that we ought to judge any attempt to influence government policy based on the value or not of the proposed policy change, rather than our own prejudice.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
L'etranger

No problem, I don't care exactly how much the loan was/is.

Marcus Rashford uses tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying as much tax as he could do.

I appreciate that you will have a far better knowledge of tax laws than me.
I thought we’d established a loan to a director was taxable? So where’s the tax avoidance?
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
That's the way I see it too. I'm not sure why the black footballer Marcus Rashford is being singled out, to be honest.

Good morning coppiceman,

The thread was/is about Marcus Rashford, a footballer who has advised the Government on the distribution of tax revenues despite using tax avoidance schemes.

Why are you trying to introduce a race angle when there isn't one ?

It's almost as if you are being deliberately divisive and trying to create problems.

It's surprising that the moderator allows you to make such posts unchecked and for you to continue posting with your multiple identities.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
I thought we’d established a loan to a director was taxable? So where’s the tax avoidance?

Mex

If Rashford paid PAYE, the vast majority of his income would be taxed at 40%.

I have made it perfectly clear that I have no problem with the huge amounts that Rashford earns, I also have no problem with his tax avoidance and have clearly stated that I would do exactly the same as Rashford myself if I was in the same position myself.

If you are satisfied that Rashford doesn't use tax avoidance schemes then that's perfectly fine.

I did say that I felt it was a bit rich that Rashford should advise the Government on the distribution of tax revenues despite using tax avoidance schemes to lower his own contributions.

I fully appreciate that Marcus Rashford is not acting illegally either with his tax avoidance or on advising the Government but I also think it's fair to say that I am far from alone in suggesting that it was a "bit rich".

I have no problem if you don't agree with me Mex.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
I think some of the country’s biggest tax avoiders spend an unacceptably large amount of time telling the government how to spend money.

Straighters

I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case, although I'd imagine they won't all be as loud/open as Marcus Rashford.

Tax avoiders have been discussed on this forum before, I think it's fair to say that they don't appear to be very popular on here and certainly not as popular as Rashford.

Nevermind Straighters, you pay your dues so nobody will be coming for you.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Is this your last, last , last post on the matter as in “final” as you keep promising us?

Morning Layton,

You make a good and fair point.

I have said very little on this thread but have wasted so much time.

I didn't mean to spend so much time discussing so very little but found myself feeling that I should reply to those had offer polite responses or defend myself against the usual nonsense.

I can't remember discussing anything with you on this thread but I apologise if I was short in any of my responses and I appreciate that you may hold different views to me on the matter.

I won't be discussing this matter today and will concentrating on more serious issues like Covid, Brexit and what's the best chippy in Blackpool.
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Mex

If Rashford paid PAYE, the vast majority of his income would be taxed at 40%.

I have made it perfectly clear that I have no problem with the huge amounts that Rashford earns, I also have no problem with his tax avoidance and have clearly stated that I would do exactly the same as Rashford myself if I was in the same position myself.

If you are satisfied that Rashford doesn't use tax avoidance schemes then that's perfectly fine.

I did say that I felt it was a bit rich that Rashford should advise the Government on the distribution of tax revenues despite using tax avoidance schemes to lower his own contributions.

I fully appreciate that Marcus Rashford is not acting illegally either with his tax avoidance or on advising the Government but I also think it's fair to say that I am far from alone in suggesting that it was a "bit rich".

I have no problem if you don't agree with me Mex.
So your argument is that, unique amongst high earners in the U.K., Rashford should take the route that maximises his tax bill. And because he doesn’t, that tarnishes all his charitable efforts and disqualifies him from being able to comment on government policy.

Your posts just come across as an attempt to smear the reputation of a fine young man.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
So your argument is that, unique amongst high earners in the U.K., Rashford should take the route that maximises his tax bill. And because he doesn’t, that tarnishes all his charitable efforts and disqualifies him from being able to comment on government policy.

Your posts just come across as an attempt to smear the reputation of a fine young man.

Mex

Not at all and I feel your post is very unfair.

I have made it perfectly clear that I have absolutely no problem with Rashford earning huge amounts and using tax avoidance schemes, how many times do you want me to say that ?

As you say, Rashford is a fine young man and I am not doubting that for a second.

All I said was that I felt it was a bit rich that he should be offering the Government advice on the distribution of tax revenues while using tax avoidance schemes to reduce his own contribution but at no point did I suggest that he was breaking the law with either his tax affairs or in offering advice to the Government.

Perhaps I am now being unfair myself now Mex but I think that most of your posts on this thread have been more about belittling me than anything else.
 
Last edited:

poolseasider

Well-known member
Good morning coppiceman,

The thread was/is about Marcus Rashford, a footballer who has advised the Government on the distribution of tax revenues despite using tax avoidance schemes.

Why are you trying to introduce a race angle when there isn't one ?

It's almost as if you are being deliberately divisive and trying to create problems.

It's surprising that the moderator allows you to make such posts unchecked and for you to continue posting with your multiple identities.
A lot of the stuff on here is self moderated that's why there is a report button on the bottom left corner and it works very quick if you use it and Avftt agree.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
A lot of the stuff on here is self moderated that's why there is a report button on the bottom left corner and it works very quick if you use it and Avftt agree.

Poolseasider

Thanks for the advice.

I have already reported that post to the moderator but I appreciate that they will not be on hand 24/7.


Thank you
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
Mex

Not at all and I feel your post is very unfair.

I have made it perfectly clear that I have absolutely no problem with Rashford earning huge amounts and using tax avoidance schemes, how many times do you want me to say that ?

As you say, Rashford is a fine young man and I am not doubting that for a second.

All I said was that I felt it was a bit rich that he should be offering the Government advice on the distribution of tax revenues while using tax avoidance schemes to reduce his own contribution but at no point did I suggest that he was breaking the law with either his tax affairs or in offering advice to the Government.

Perhaps I am now being unfair myself now Mex but I think that most of your posts on this thread have been more about belittling me than anything else.
That’s what he does, he ignores the content that your trying to make a point about and instead tries to twist the facts to suit HIS narrative. Mr twisty at his finest.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
Straighters

I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case, although I'd imagine they won't all be as loud/open as Marcus Rashford.

Tax avoiders have been discussed on this forum before, I think it's fair to say that they don't appear to be very popular on here and certainly not as popular as Rashford.

Nevermind Straighters, you pay your dues so nobody will be coming for you.
20,

the openness of any lobbyist usually depends on what they’re after. Just as the response of certain parts of the media will depend on who’s doing the lobbying.
But when this all comes down to it, you have to ask why The Spectator felt this was a good feature to put before its readers when there’s plenty of other targets that the same ‘rules’ would apply to?
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
Mex

Not at all and I feel your post is very unfair.

I have made it perfectly clear that I have absolutely no problem with Rashford earning huge amounts and using tax avoidance schemes, how many times do you want me to say that ?

As you say, Rashford is a fine young man and I am not doubting that for a second.

All I said was that I felt it was a bit rich that he should be offering the Government advice on the distribution of tax revenues while using tax avoidance schemes to reduce his own contribution but at no point did I suggest that he was breaking the law with either with his tax affairs or in his advice to the Government.

Perhaps I am now being unfair myself now Mex but I think that most of your posts on this thread have been more about belittling me than anything else.
I’m sorry if you feel that challenges to your posts are attempts to “belittle” you. That isn’t my intention but there isn’t much I can do about how you perceive challenges, and if you decide to look at them as attacks on the messenger rather than attacks on the message that’s unfortunate.

Alternatively of course it might be that you don’t actually perceive challenges in that way at all, and that in fact you’re just cynically playing the victim card in order to distort and distract.

I might be wrong but my perception is that your posts are frequently designed with that opt out in mind. As on this thread, you usually open with a “He clearly loves his mother…… but….” and after the “but” comes the smear. And when you’re challenged on the smear then comes the wide eyed innocence and you ask “But what’s the problem? I clearly said he loves his mother”.

I expect you’ll now tell me that my perception is completely wrong and you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion. However that doesn’t change the fact that I’m perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that I do, based as it is on many years of observing your posting style.

Anyway. Enjoy the rest of your day and the glorious weather while it lasts.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
That’s what he does, he ignores the content that your trying to make a point about and instead tries to twist the facts to suit HIS narrative. Mr twisty at his finest.

Scara

Yes, I wouldn't want to be overly critical but it's there for everybody to see.

Did I denigrate Rashford's charity work at any point ?

Of course I didn't but it would appear that I should not be allowed to refer to his (Rashford's not Mex's) tax avoidance.

I trust that he is not suggesting that no reference should be made to Rashford's tax avoidance because of his charity work ?
 

poolseasider

Well-known member
20,

the openness of any lobbyist usually depends on what they’re after. Just as the response of certain parts of the media will depend on who’s doing the lobbying.
But when this all comes down to it, you have to ask why The Spectator felt this was a good feature to put before its readers when there’s plenty of other targets that the same ‘rules’ would apply to?
To sell more copies and subscriptions?
Putting Rashford on the front cover is big news over politicians where the public would just shrug their shoulders.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
I’m sorry if you feel that challenges to your posts are attempts to “belittle” you. That isn’t my intention but there isn’t much I can do about how you perceive challenges, and if you decide to look at them as attacks on the messenger rather than attacks on the message that’s unfortunate.

Alternatively of course it might be that you don’t actually perceive challenges in that way at all, and that in fact you’re just cynically playing the victim card in order to distort and distract.

I might be wrong but my perception is that your posts are frequently designed with that opt out in mind. As on this thread, you usually open with a “He clearly loves his mother…… but….” and after the “but” comes the smear. And when you’re challenged on the smear then comes the wide eyed innocence and you ask “But what’s the problem? I clearly said he loves his mother”.

I expect you’ll now tell me that my perception is completely wrong and you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion. However that doesn’t change the fact that I’m perfectly entitled to hold the opinion that I do, based as it is on many years of observing your posting style.

Anyway. Enjoy the rest of your day and the glorious weather while it lasts.

Mex

Maybe an idea to focus on what I actually say/write and comment on that rather than tell me all about what you believe are my opinions.

I'm not sure that the perceptions one is as simple as you suggest ?

OK, you are perfectly entitled to express your opinions on me, I trust you'd have no problem with me saying, "I perceive that Mex is a..................

I certainly agree that I'd be better spending my time elsewhere rather than arguing over minor details with your good self during the hot spell.

Have a good day yourself.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
20,

the openness of any lobbyist usually depends on what they’re after. Just as the response of certain parts of the media will depend on who’s doing the lobbying.
But when this all comes down to it, you have to ask why The Spectator felt this was a good feature to put before its readers when there’s plenty of other targets that the same ‘rules’ would apply to?

Straighters

Yes, I agree and it's certainly not just The Spectator or other areas of the media whose consistency can be questioned.

I would imagine that at some point in the future, the topic of tax avoidance in general will be discussed on this very forum.

I don't have any big problem with tax avoidance myself but I am not bothered whether that might be Marcus Rashford or Lord Snooty from Snootyville.

The more cynical among us might suggest that many on here who appear to have no problem with Marcus Rashford's tax avoidance will hold differing opinions on the tax avoidance of others.

The even more cynical might suggest that they will have a particular problem with people who use tax avoidance schemes and happen to support the Conservative party.


Edit to add - Straighters, you will see below that we had to wait a full minute for what I said to be perfectly demonstrated.

You couldn't make it up.
 
Last edited:

Wizaard

Well-known member
A loan is a loan 2020… It also depends exactly what the source of the loan is to appreciate what tax will be due and payable by whom…

To my mind it’s tax deferral as opposed to avoidance, if you are talking about a loan, plus annual interest is payable.

None of that conflicts with him seeking to influence government policy in a positive way.

I mean it makes a chance because most of the high earners tend to be seeking to make changes for self interest reasons as opposed to helping young kids…
Meanwhile, I didn't see any posts criticising William Rees Mogg for his tax arrangements involving overseas companies, nor any reference to his charitable efforts in helping the poor get fed.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
To sell more copies and subscriptions?
Putting Rashford on the front cover is big news over politicians where the public would just shrug their shoulders.

poolseasider

That's a good answer but I'm not sure that's the angle Straighters was coming at it from ?
 

Mexboroseasider

Well-known member
To sell more copies and subscriptions?
Putting Rashford on the front cover is big news over politicians where the public would just shrug their shoulders.
Also a pretty transparent way of smearing someone who has been a thorn in the side of the government and forced Johnson into humiliating climb downs.

For anyone who thinks people in the political sphere don’t harbour grudges - see Cummings.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Meanwhile, I didn't see any posts criticising William Rees Mogg for his tax arrangements involving overseas companies, nor any reference to his charitable efforts in helping the poor get fed.

Wiz

Marcus Rashford was being discussed on here and not William Rees Mogg.
 

SEASIDE2020

Well-known member
Analogous.

Wiz

Okey doke

I just feel that while I say good luck to anybody who benefits from tax avoidance and Straighters thinks that it's wrong no matter who does it, many others appear to form their opinions on tax avoidance based on their political leanings.

I know it's me to blame for chunnering Wiz and not your good self but I am bailing now as I don't want to waste any more time on here discussing so very little.

Have a good day.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
2020… The ‘Loan’ was paid back (had it not been, then it would have been subject to the ‘Additional Rate’ Dividend Tax band (38.1%) I may have underquoted at 32.5%

So that would be total tax of 57.1% including the corporation tax already paid.

The rate payable on PAYE would be 45% …

So technically the so called ‘tax avoidance’ scheme requires MR to pay more tax. His employer would benefit by not having to pay employers national insurance contributions (a benefit they presumably pass on to him, given that he incurs the additional tax burden) and employees national insurance would also not be payable. I think employers is 13.8% and Employees 2% …
So tax equivalent on PAYE including NI is 60.8%
 

Junior_BentsPlatformShoes

Well-known member
I don't know what I'm talking about and you are an absolute genius.

It's tax avoidance and has everything to do with it.

Ngolo Kante pays full PAYE and NI on his full salary and has refused to receive part of his salary as image rights.

The same can not be said of Marcus Rashford.

Kante also doesn't spend as much time as Rashford does on advising the Government on the distribution of revenues from taxation.

Thanks for your advice above but you forgot to tell us that tomorrow is Thursday.
Why do you always come across as a bit snide 2020? Just an observation from years of posting on here. Apologies if I’ve got this wrong. 🙄
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
Wiz

Okey doke

I just feel that while I say good luck to anybody who benefits from tax avoidance and Straighters thinks that it's wrong no matter who does it, many others appear to form their opinions on tax avoidance based on their political leanings.

I know it's me to blame for chunnering Wiz and not your good self but I am bailing now as I don't want to waste any more time on here discussing so very little.

Have a good day.

I'd say I don't like it, rather than thinking it's 'wrong'. Within the scope of self-assessment, i think we all know that there's certain things that certain people can do that are legally fine, but morally questionable. For the part of his affairs that are under self-assessment, MR is right to ensure his tax commitments are kept as low as is they need to be.
I don't buy your argument, that he could pay more tax to support the public spending he's been lobbying for. You may as well say that anyone who thinks nurses need more than a 3% pay rise, should also commit to a higher band (is possible) to fund it. There's a point where government has to step up and fund things properly. MR has highlighted failings in systems and funding and there's a certain section of people that don't like that. The Spectator story is a response to those sort of people as The Spectator knows it will drive sales.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
Agreement for image rights payments have been in place with HMRC for some time… To be paid entirely in PAYE would make no sense…..

HMRC have been going after this for years and have won some pretty big settlements: https://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/article/image-rights

Although the arrangements still exist the key principle is that it must be a genuine commerical agreement that the club can and does exploit, and not simply disguised remuneration, in the case of most PL players the value of the image rights is likely to be trivial next to the value of the playing rights.

Bringing this back on topic, the FSM/anti-poverty campaigning by Rashford has elevated his profile substantially above that of an otherwise fairly average footballer, thus a case for much higher image rights could be made.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I'd say I don't like it, rather than thinking it's 'wrong'. Within the scope of self-assessment, i think we all know that there's certain things that certain people can do that are legally fine, but morally questionable. For the part of his affairs that are under self-assessment, MR is right to ensure his tax commitments are kept as low as is they need to be.
I don't buy your argument, that he could pay more tax to support the public spending he's been lobbying for. You may as well say that anyone who thinks nurses need more than a 3% pay rise, should also commit to a higher band (is possible) to fund it. There's a point where government has to step up and fund things properly. MR has highlighted failings in systems and funding and there's a certain section of people that don't like that. The Spectator story is a response to those sort of people as The Spectator knows it will drive sales.
I think there's an awful lot of apparent mystery that surrounds the way in which Directors and Business owners might get paid and a whole lot of wild and factually innaccurate speculation on the part of the media and folk on PAYE, who probably seem to be under the impression that there's some huge tax advantage being gained.

The idea that any particular legal tax planning might be 'morally questionable' seems a bit off to me... As I see it, It's no different than ensuring that you take advantage of the married tax allowance when you are married. The only difference is that for higher earners, businesses and business owners, the various tax incentives and options to reduce taxation are more complex. What type of action would you see as morally questionable?

I mean taking a short term loan out of a business isn't morally questionable is it?

As business owners and high earners, people are benefitting the exchequer in a whole host of additional ways in any case.... Ridiculously higher stamp duty rates, taxation and NI contributions for employees, VAT... Plus there is also the risk associated with start ups and investments etc..
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
HMRC have been going after this for years and have won some pretty big settlements: https://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/article/image-rights

Although the arrangements still exist the key principle is that it must be a genuine commerical agreement that the club can and does exploit, and not simply disguised remuneration, in the case of most PL players the value of the image rights is likely to be trivial next to the value of the playing rights.

Bringing this back on topic, the FSM/anti-poverty campaigning by Rashford has elevated his profile substantially above that of an otherwise fairly average footballer, thus a case for much higher image rights could be made.
They may have been 'going after it for years' , but that doesn't change the fact that there are agreed and accepted practices in place.... Defrauding the system is something that is totally different than proper tax planning.

I'm not sure you are necessarily right about the 'image rights' of players.... they are on T.V., they give interviews (both on Sky and via Club TV), they are photgraphed, the subject of sponsorship, used in video games, shirts sold with names printed on backs etc. etc...
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
They may have been 'going after it for years' , but that doesn't change the fact that there are agreed and accepted practices in place.... Defrauding the system is something that is totally different than proper tax planning.

The practices in place have developed over the years as a result of case law, and this was an area that the clubs were trying to exploit hence all the effort by HMRC to clamp down on it.

I'm not blaming the players BTW, it was the clubs trying to benefit from it.


'm not sure you are necessarily right about the 'image rights' of players.... they are on T.V., they give interviews (both on Sky and via Club TV), they are photgraphed, the subject of sponsorship, used in video games, shirts sold with names printed on backs etc. etc...

For the top players yes, but how much are the image rights of a 32 year old centre back playing for a lower/mid table club worth?

Even in Rashford's case, he's reputedly on £300,000/week, how much are the image rights really worth relative to the £15m per year he's paid and to what extent can they be separated from the general rights the club holds over him as an employee?

Sponsorship AFAIK remains with the player, you can print Rashford on the back of a BFC shirt if you like, how much of what EA pays can be directly attributed to him and what is left after that?
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
For the top players yes, but how much are the image rights of a 32 year old centre back playing for a lower/mid table club worth?

Even in Rashford's case, he's reputedly on £300,000/week, how much are the image rights really worth relative to the £15m per year he's paid and to what extent can they be separated from the general rights the club holds over him as an employee?

Sponsorship AFAIK remains with the player, you can print Rashford on the back of a BFC shirt if you like, how much of what EA pays can be directly attributed to him and what is left after that?
The club doesn't hold any rights over the players as an 'employee' as far as their image is concerned...That's the point, the players 'Image Rights' are the sole property of the player. Players (even in lower leagues) are also going to have a range of potential revenue streams, so it's not necessarily just the 'image rights' that might be payable through the club, which might be paid into a Ltd company.

Ads I mentioned above, a player like Rashford will also have costs that will come out of his income as well... So essentially they are operating as a mini business in it's own right... It's a full time job just managing his fan mail for example... Agents and marketing consultants, management of social media interactions, boot deals, product endorsements etc.. etc..

Technically, I suppose the image rights of any player would be worth the balance of what the player wishes to charge for them....And what the market is prepared to pay. In the case of your 32 year old centre back, I'm not sure what your point is....? Surely any 'Image Rights' arrangement would reflect the reasonable and allowable payment and if that was exceeded, then they would be subject to recovery from HMRC. It's inevitable that some will be paid less than others, but they would all wish to manage their affairs in the most efficient way and will probably rely on others (as we all do) to take care of it for them.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
I think there's an awful lot of apparent mystery that surrounds the way in which Directors and Business owners might get paid and a whole lot of wild and factually innaccurate speculation on the part of the media and folk on PAYE, who probably seem to be under the impression that there's some huge tax advantage being gained.

The idea that any particular legal tax planning might be 'morally questionable' seems a bit off to me... As I see it, It's no different than ensuring that you take advantage of the married tax allowance when you are married. The only difference is that for higher earners, businesses and business owners, the various tax incentives and options to reduce taxation are more complex. What type of action would you see as morally questionable?

I mean taking a short term loan out of a business isn't morally questionable is it?

As business owners and high earners, people are benefitting the exchequer in a whole host of additional ways in any case.... Ridiculously higher stamp duty rates, taxation and NI contributions for employees, VAT... Plus there is also the risk associated with start ups and investments etc..
Biffo - I'm no expert in tax planning. Mainly because i don't have the means to be. I also know I pay a lot of tax on my earnings. I don't have an issue with that as I feel that it's my duty as a citizen to allow public services to be funded.

I don't think all tax planning is morally questionable. I don't think it's wrong for an individual to utilize well thought out options that are provided by HMRC and the govt. I would certainly want to avoid paying more than I'm legally obliged to. I understand that businesses (large or small/individual) contribute and also need help to guard against the risks of trying to create jobs.

I've also heard enough first hand comments from self-employed individuals to know that their tax payments relative to their earnings are minimal through some very simple options. Just googling 'ways to cut tax' provides some easy starters that would help, that could easily fall into the grey area of business relevance/operations vs personal, non-business spend (travel costs, household bills, clothing etc.) Appreciate these may not be huge for each individual, but I'm sure there's other solutions that richer people can employ others to provide. I'll throw out a certain family we all know well as a possible example...

And I'll be upfront here too. Part of my position on this is set by being pissed off at having no options but to pay high rates via PAYE. I'm not going to have the brass neck to pretend it's all through my love of the welfare state (although I do support that and would never begrudge paying tax to fund high quality public services.)

You probably have a myriad of answers to debunk my thoughts; presumably through first hand experience. Fair enough if so. But I'm not changing the way I feel about it.
 


Top