The Spectator - Rashford

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.
All I would say is the reality is very different to the perception in my experience.
 
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.
It wasn't PAYE employees moaning about getting furlough payments slashed and not being representative of their earnings. All those cash in hand payments came back and bit plenty.
 
It wasn't PAYE employees moaning about getting furlough payments slashed and not being representative of their earnings. All those cash in hand payments came back and bit plenty.
So someone earning £200K per annum and on PAYE would have thought £2500 was representative of their previous earnings?
 
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%
I think there is an upper limit on NI of around 50k per annum so the benefit would be significantly less
 
I disown this century, someone else have it, it's turned in to an accountancy seminar.
My advice to you is to stop being so avant garde and get into the run scoring mainstream. You have a style and people like it, but by simply ditching one or two core principals and whoring yourself with any old mindless threads, you could be this years crossover smash. Like Cornershop with Fatboy Slim or Ben Elton with Queen.

The choice is yours...
 
My advice to you is to stop being so avant garde and get into the run scoring mainstream. You have a style and people like it, but by simply ditching one or two core principals and whoring yourself with any old mindless threads, you could be this years crossover smash. Like Cornershop with Fatboy Slim or Ben Elton with Queen.

The choice is yours...
So he needs to speed up his posting and add a few special effects or invent a new phrase like Bo Rap! in a Smashie and Nicey stylee?
Revolutionary.
 
So he needs to speed up his posting and add a few special effects or invent a new phrase like Bo Rap! in a Smashie and Nicey stylee?
Revolutionary.
These are just some of the options available to him. Other options might include disagreeing with everything anyone says, leaving 'post farts' that linger and eventually smell so bad that someone has to comment violently, which in turn leads to a cavalcade of replies or taking on a second username that looks like it's a troll account against the original poster - 'FY8tus' or something...

I've got some tips for you too, but I need to start with the bigger hitters who've got the most scoring potential. The Robson and Jerome's of this world before the Sinitta's you might say 👍
 
These are just some of the options available to him. Other options might include disagreeing with everything anyone says, leaving 'post farts' that linger and eventually smell so bad that someone has to comment violently, which in turn leads to a cavalcade of replies or taking on a second username that looks like it's a troll account against the original poster - 'FY8tus' or something...

I've got some tips for you too, but I need to start with the bigger hitters who've got the most scoring potential. The Robson and Jerome's of this world before the Sinitta's you might say 👍
I'll never sell out man, a true artist, like Lydon or Iggy Pop.

Would an ongoing feud help?
 
Premier League footballers are seen as role models to young kids and some get flak when they let the side down with some idiotic behaviour.
However, along comes a high profile (and bloody good) footballer who genuinely wants to make a real difference to society and actually achieves something.
It is a sad reflection on modern society that he faces hostile media, spiteful comments on social media etc etc.
FFS, let's celebrate the fact he has made a positive impact and is a great role model. Well done Marcus Rashford 👍

However, I wish he had just leathered that penalty........
 
Only just seen this thread.
I can't believe that anyone should question Marcus Rashfords' integrity.
This young man is doing what he thinks is right, and trying to make young kids lives better.
What sort of idiot would even try to start a campaign against what he is doing?
I am not a fan of Man Utd, but I sincerely think that what Rashford is doing is a very worthy cause.
 
Only just seen this thread.
I can't believe that anyone should question Marcus Rashfords' integrity.
This young man is doing what he thinks is right, and trying to make young kids lives better.
What sort of idiot would even try to start a campaign against what he is doing?
I am not a fan of Man Utd, but I sincerely think that what Rashford is doing is a very worthy cause.
The current Government because it makes them look foolish.
 
What sort of idiot would even try to start a campaign against what he is doing?

No article has been published and we don't even know for sure there was one in the works, if there was then we don't know precisely what it was about and why it might be of interest.

The suggestion I've seen from other sources is that the whole Rashford anti-poverty campaign has been co-ordinated by his PR agency in a cynical attempt to raise his profile and commercial value, the article could well have been more to do with the PR agency and the way they use social media to manipulate the public rather than Rashford himself.

The fact that it seems to be verboten to even question his motives or what is going on ought to give us pause for thought.
 
The suggestion I've seen from other sources is that the whole Rashford anti-poverty campaign has been co-ordinated by his PR agency in a cynical attempt to raise his profile and commercial value,
Name your sources then, and tell us why you believe this whispering campaign about his possible motives. That's as opposed to just giving the lad credit for things that he had demonstrably done.
 
Yep, read that :

a) Footballer and his advisors use his fame and their contacts to do good works. How dare they?

b) footballer gets more popular as a result and uses it to exert influence over people in power. How dare he?

You almost sound like you'd rather he was doing blow and romping with call girls, instead of helping other people less fortunate.
 
I’d prefer to read an article entitled “Who is behind Unherd?”

Is it multi millionaire (circa £600m?) Paul Marshall? It must really get his goat that someone with a sense of social justice has the wherewithal to afford PR advisers and play on a level playing field. How unfair 😂
He also invested in GB News.

Unherd (I JUST LOVE WHAT THEY DID THERE!) is edited by an ex Daily Telegraph editor.
 
Last edited:
He also invested in GB News.
Yes. £10m wasn’t it?

I believe he also funded Gove in the Tory leadership contest.

So another right wing sugar daddy throwing money at a few right wing journalists, so he has the satisfaction of seeing his point of view being put out there.

That’s fine according to some. Just so long as a footballer from working class roots and with a social conscience doesn’t use a PR company. “One has to draw a line somewhere old chap”.
 
Name your sources then, and tell us why you believe this whispering campaign about his possible motives. That's as opposed to just giving the lad credit for things that he had demonstrably done.

Coppice

To be fair, that's a very good point and well made.

I used to enjoy reading this site and hear of the millions contributed to charity by Donald Trump.

I seem to remember that he was consistently praised on here for giving up his salary while president.

Lost Seasider - please play the game and kindly spare us your agenda driven hypocritical nonsense.
 
Yes. £10m wasn’t it?

I believe he also funded Gove in the Tory leadership contest.

So another right wing sugar daddy throwing money at a few right wing journalists, so he has the satisfaction of seeing his point of view being put out there.

That’s fine according to some. Just so long as a footballer from working class roots and with a social conscience doesn’t use a PR company. “One has to draw a line somewhere old chap”.
It's bloody desperate as well, if the only 'dirt' you can find on someone as high profile as Rashford is that they use a PR company it's probably best to give up the little witch hunt.
 
Coppice

To be fair, that's a very good point and well made.

I used to enjoy reading this site and hear of the millions contributed to charity by Donald Trump.

I seem to remember that he was consistently praised on here for giving up his salary while president.

Lost Seasider - please play the game and kindly spare us your agenda driven hypocritical nonsense.
You're seriously comparing Rashford with Donald Trump?

Give it up man, it's just silly now.
 
Coppice

To be fair, that's a very good point and well made.

I used to enjoy reading this site and hear of the millions contributed to charity by Donald Trump.

I seem to remember that he was consistently praised on here for giving up his salary while president.

Lost Seasider - please play the game and kindly spare us your agenda driven hypocritical nonsense.
Turns out Donald wasn't as generous as claimed. A Washington Post analysis found that the bulk of the donations were actually free rounds of golf, given away by Trump's courses for local charity auctions and raffles, rather than individual bequests.

It's all there on the internet.
 
You're seriously comparing Rashford with Donald Trump?

Give it up man, it's just silly now.

I couldn't give a chite about Rashford or Trump to be honest.

It's just that on here everything is about political views and not the person/people concerned.

Please don't get me wrong, I think that you are perfectly entitled to question Trump if you so wish but we are advised by the clique on this thread that you should really be giving him credit for the things that he has demonstrably done.
 
I couldn't give a chite about Rashford or Trump to be honest.

It's just that on here everything is about political views and not the person/people concerned.

Please don't get me wrong, I think that you are perfectly entitled to question Trump if you so wish but we are advised by the clique on this thread that you should really be giving him credit for the things that he has demonstrably done.
All Donald did was carry on evading tax, claimed credit for everything, helped the spread of covid and fomented revolution against the democratic process.

Think that's a fair, apolitical critique of his time in office.
 
Turns out Donald wasn't as generous as claimed. A Washington Post analysis found that the bulk of the donations were actually free rounds of golf, given away by Trump's courses for local charity auctions and raffles, rather than individual bequests.

It's all there on the internet.

Wiz

Not for a second, do I have a problem with you questionning the Donald.

I also don't have a problem with Lost Seasider questionning Marcus Rashford yet it would appear that he needs to make confession signed in blood for having the audacity to do so.

As per the advice afforded to Lost Seasider, it would appear that before all else people should be given credit for all the things that they have demonstrably done.

Does this rule only apply to Rashford ?
 
All Donald did was carry on evading tax, claimed credit for everything, helped the spread of covid and fomented revolution against the democratic process.

Think that's a fair, apolitical critique of his time in office.

Wiz

As I've already made it perfectly clear, I have no problem with you expressing views on the Donald.

It's just that others on the thread have expressed an opinion that you should perhaps give folk credit for what they have demonstrably done - in this case make massive contributions to charity.

Perhaps this rule only applies to Marcus Rashford ?
 
I couldn't give a chite about Rashford or Trump to be honest.

It's just that on here everything is about political views and not the person/people concerned.

Please don't get me wrong, I think that you are perfectly entitled to question Trump if you so wish but we are advised by the clique on this thread that you should really be giving him credit for the things that he has demonstrably done.
No.

The cascading tidal wave of utter shit in Trump's negative column completely overwhelms giving a quarter of his salary away while still caning in the cash from his 'investments'.

If Rashford suddenly becomes a racist, misogynist, bankrupt, traitorous, cowardly probable sex offender we'll likely talk more about that than his work with charities.
 
Wiz

Not for a second, do I have a problem with you questionning the Donald.

I also don't have a problem with Lost Seasider questionning Marcus Rashford yet it would appear that he needs to make confession signed in blood for having the audacity to do so.

As per the advice afforded to Lost Seasider, it would appear that before all else people should be given credit for all the things that they have demonstrably done.

Does this rule only apply to Rashford ?
As I understand it, Hitler gave generously to the Boy Scout movement in Germany so that makes it all right.
 
No.

The cascading tidal wave of utter shit in Trump's negative column completely overwhelms giving a quarter of his salary away while still caning in the cash from his 'investments'.

If Rashford suddenly becomes a racist, misogynist, bankrupt, traitorous, cowardly probable sex offender we'll likely talk more about that than his work with charities.

Lytham

I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinions on the Donald and I don't have any problem with Lost Seasider expressing his opinions on Rashford.

I was just wondering if others thought that perhaps you should be concentrating on the things that Donald had demonstrably done - in this case, make massive charitable contributions and help thousands of people less fortunate than himself.
 
As I understand it, Hitler gave generously to the Boy Scout movement in Germany so that makes it all right.

Wiz

Exactly.

It wasn't me that suggested that you weren't allowed to mention anything other than his charity work and that before all else you should give folk credit for what they have demonstrably done.

Personally, I have no problem with people expressing views on Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler or Marcus Rashford.

I also have no problem should people choose to concentrate on their charity work or if they want to refer to anything else.
 
Lytham

I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinions on the Donald and I don't have any problem with Lost Seasider expressing his opinions on Rashford.

I was just wondering if others thought that perhaps you should be concentrating on the things that Donald had demonstrably done - in this case, make massive charitable contributions and help thousands of people less fortunate than himself.
I doubt that you're actually that obtuse.
 
Yep, read that :

a) Footballer and his advisors use his fame and their contacts to do good works. How dare they?

b) footballer gets more popular as a result and uses it to exert influence over people in power. How dare he?

I notice that you're not saying that my source doesn't support my earlier post.

The alternative interpretation is: average PL footballer wants to boost his profile and hence earnings so engages PR consultancy who devise highly successful strategy based around anti-poverty campaigning and recieve widespread congratulations within the PR industry.

I'm not taking a firm postion on this matter BTW, @Davepick asked "why would someone question what he's doing" and the answer is that what's going on might be more complicated that St Marcus of Wythenshawe feeds the worlds poor.

The alternative is to believe that everything that you read in the press is true, often it isn't.
 
I notice that you're not saying that my source doesn't support my earlier post.

The alternative interpretation is: average PL footballer wants to boost his profile and hence earnings so engages PR consultancy who devise highly successful strategy based around anti-poverty campaigning and recieve widespread congratulations within the PR industry.

I'm not taking a firm postion on this matter BTW, @Davepick asked "why would someone question what he's doing" and the answer is that what's going on might be more complicated that St Marcus of Wythenshawe feeds the worlds poor.

The alternative is to believe that everything that you read in the press is true, often it isn't.
I truly would hate to think like you, I'm a cynic but fuck's sake...

Unless of course it's because he's showing the government and their mates up at every turn?
 
I notice that you're not saying that my source doesn't support my earlier post.

The alternative interpretation is: average PL footballer wants to boost his profile and hence earnings so engages PR consultancy who devise highly successful strategy based around anti-poverty campaigning and recieve widespread congratulations within the PR industry.

I'm not taking a firm postion on this matter BTW, @Davepick asked "why would someone question what he's doing" and the answer is that what's going on might be more complicated that St Marcus of Wythenshawe feeds the worlds poor.

The alternative is to believe that everything that you read in the press is true, often it isn't.
Man U won't pay him more, or play him more for his charity work.
 
If there is a serious case that someone in sport can make massive gains in their profile by tackling child hunger/poverty (or, creating the perception of doing so) then surely, what that suggests is that child poverty is quite a big issue...

If Danny Ings suddenly started banging on about, I dunno, wheelie bins in gender neutral colours or something, I doubt he'd see a great boost in his profile.

Whatever Rashford's motives, his popularity highlights a perception of a growing issue. As far as I know, the statistic are fairly stark. Child poverty really blossoms under Thatcherism, slows and reduces a bit for a while under labour and the goes up fairly steadily from 2008ish.

This is a bigger issue really than the finer points of Rashford's motives and the tax system.
 
If there is a serious case that someone in sport can make massive gains in their profile by tackling child hunger/poverty (or, creating the perception of doing so) then surely, what that suggests is that child poverty is quite a big issue...

If Danny Ings suddenly started banging on about, I dunno, wheelie bins in gender neutral colours or something, I doubt he'd see a great boost in his profile.

Whatever Rashford's motives, his popularity highlights a perception of a growing issue. As far as I know, the statistic are fairly stark. Child poverty really blossoms under Thatcherism, slows and reduces a bit for a while under labour and the goes up fairly steadily from 2008ish.

This is a bigger issue really than the finer points of Rashford's motives and the tax system.
While the irony is of course that those paid to address these issues ignore them.
 
Child Poverty. Just dreadful parents in my opinion. With the safety net of the welfare state and generous rates if you have kids I’m not having it that any kids can’t be fed three times a day if the parents gave a toss.
 
Back
Top