[Closed] No Wiggo Tax thread then?

Tricky one - he obviously wants to hang on to as much of his money as possible without breaking the law, but it is morally wrong.

Still, if I succeed at the assessment to be a HMRC Compliance Officer next Friday, he'll be further down my list than Starbucks!

Meh. The Torys are happy with it or they'd do more about this and less about making the poor poorer. That means, by default, I have to be happy with it.

He does have only a short window to make as much as he can, though- mid 30's already, going to be retiring in 5 years or so, no more wins in the tour to look forward to now Contador is back. 5 years of making a mint and saving as much tax as possible before a ten year break followed by twenty years providing five minutes of fluff for Eurosport every July does not a rich man make in the long term.

when he's up there with starbucks and vodafone, i'll get on his back.

Look at the chair - typical Toff!

[img] [/img]

Wrong is wrong, innit?

Not having seen the details I will make this comment; surely he earns the majority of his income abroad? I'm surprised he's even resident in the UK for tax purposes.

I also note the furore over Chris Hoy's arrangements which turned out to be entirely legal and more importantly entirely morally defensible (once the Guardian had been corrected by someone with a rudimentary knowledge of tax).

Yes he could have done a Hamilton/Button/Coulthard and buggered off abroad.
Having said that what do most of the high earning footballers do??

Just because it's Wiggo it doesn't make it any more right than when Jimmy Carr or Starbucks do it. Actually quite surprised about that if it's true.

I'd probably do something fairly similar to him if I were in the same situation.
Someone's got to pay for George Osbourne's first class upgrade, and I'm quite happy if it's not me.

is not paying your taxes immoral?
it might be just plain wrong, but I'm not sure that that tax is an issue or morality.

It would be possible to do something about Starbucks - all it would need would be for enough of their customers to 'deduct the tax at source' by underpaying for their lattes and muffins etc. I never go there and don't have the organisational ability to start such a movement, but it would be good to see.

Typical champagne socialist.

It would be possible to do something about Starbucks - all it would need would be for enough of their customers to 'deduct the tax at source' by [s]underpaying for their lattes and muffins etc[/s] taking their custom elsewhere

FTFY

Sounds like The Mail (which the link in the OP refers to) is just trying to do a bit of Wiggo-bashing:

"The 32-year-old cycling hero who climbed to the top of his sport partly thanks to Lottery funding"

what, so his talent has naff all to do with climbing to the top of his sport then?
Muppets.

I notice how the government has pledged to close the loophole rather than actually doing so. I presume it means too many of their mates are using it.

is not paying your taxes immoral?

he pays his taxes, he is doing nothing illegal.

what, so his talent has naff all to do with climbing to the top of his sport then?

Well, if the lottery funded his training regime, fancy aero bike, the team and managers around him etc. etc. then yes, it probabky did contribute.

I know plenty of talented people who ended up dropping out of sports because they needed to pay the bills. Protentially better than Wiggins, but never know.

If this is morally wrong then I guess I'll have to cash in my ISA.

All those who'd happily pay more tax than they need to, please send it to me.

No different to ISA's and the like, just taking advantage of the laws that already exist.

Bit disappointed that he's chosen this route.

Rather at odds with his 'ordinary bloke' persona.

Prog on world service last night suggested that $3 trillion in tax is avoided worldwide each year by people using tax havens.

Will only chang when the rest of the tax payers say 'enough' and stop it happening.

Not sure why so many folk think it is ok
Tax avoidance - ISA and Pensions are more about encouraging folk to save than avoid tax. Avoidance is a continuum line that would start with that , pass through cash in hand, cycle to work scheme all the way to very aggressive tax avoidance schemes that are barely legal with artificially set up accounts simply to avoid tax/exploit tax rules. Bit like clampers can charge huge release fees - it is not illegal but i would struggle to defend it

I view it like not paying your bill by making your bill as small as possible them passing the rest of the bill to someone else who would be other tax payers.
If you think this is fine then I dont see much point debating it.

[quote=Daily Mail]his spokesman insisted it involved only a ‘small percentage’ of his income and the ‘vast majority’ of his earnings were taxed at the higher rate of 50 per cent. Sources say the cyclist paid more than £1?million in tax last year.

If what his spokesman said is true, WTF did he think he was doing? Is it worth saving a few quid if you're paying almost all you should if the chances are you end up looking like a dick?

Selfish, greedy twit.

It's completely different to an isa. An isa is an intentionally tax efficient investment product that doesn't exploit a loophole, and/or doesn't try to manipulate a legal position. You can also start an Isa with a quid and you don't to employ kpmg to manipulate it for you.

A legal way to minimise the tax you pay versus a way to minimise your tax which is legal. Yeah like night and day they are.

ISAs are also open to all, whereas most tax avoidance schemes aren't available to people on PAYE as you're taxed at source. Wiggo's behaviour is morally wrong, but probably legal.

Personally i could not give a sheehite what he does with his cash, he's earned it,.

A legal way to save and invest with limits which [s]minimise[/s]reduces the tax you pay versus a way to minimise your tax which is legal.

The scheme??.??.??.??used artificial transactions to generate tax relief from a property business that owns agricultural land,’ said the Treasury at the time.

Taken for a ride? The seven-time Olympic medallist has joined a partnership that will save him thousands in income tax
‘Although the land itself and the business owning it will exist, the transactions are not part of any genuine agricultural business. They are generated only to create an artificial loss that can be set off by users??.??.??.??to reduce their tax bill.’
In a Twofold-type scheme, an individual could end up paying no tax at all, by investing around £100,000 yet claiming tax relief on £1?million.
This is achieved as each £100,000 is supplemented by a £900,000 loan taken out by the partnership. That money, after being paid to the farmer, is swiftly repaid to the bank.
The accountants find a way to artificially ‘write down’ the investment to become a loss on paper, even though there was no cash loss.
The original £100,000 goes to the advisers and banks in fees, but the partnership members claim they have made a loss of £1?million, which they set against their income

Its just not the same though it is legal

So he's found a way to legal pay less tax and we are blaming him for using it not the government for it being open? Fair play to him, I would do exactly the same.

Edit. And surely he earns most of his money abroad so there is no issues anyway.

Of course it's the same. The point is Its either black or white, legal or illegal. There can be no room for shades of grey. Otherwise where do you draw the line on morality? Some people really push the envelope but stay the right side of legal, but I bet you most people with an accountant are doing something to avoid a high tax bill. Where do you draw the moral immoral line? The problem here is the idiots at HMRC who don't address these loopholes. I'm just really puzzled why someone who does something legal is label immoral.

munrobiker - Member

He does have only a short window to make as much as he can, though- mid 30's already, going to be retiring in 5 years

Same old bull that you hear from footballers, why can't I make my lifetimes earnings in a few years like these guys. And where does it say they have a right to make more in 1 year than I will make in a lifetime.

This whole tax avoidance thing is a ****ing disgrace, may be if the top end paid there way then the general tax rates could all be lower for everyone.

Look at the chair - typical Toff!

It's up for grabs if you''re interested [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/18/bradley-wiggins-olympic-time-trial-throne-up-for-auction?mobile-redirect=false ]clicky[/url]

Edit. And surely he earns most of his money abroad so there is no issues anyway.

Fair point breatheeasy.

The point is Its either black or white, legal or illegal. There can be no room for shades of grey.

Otherwise where do you draw the line on morality?

You are TJ and I claim my £5

I'm just really puzzled why someone who does something legal is label immoral.

Hopefully you can see some shades of grey in there as well

I agree Steve but its nieve to expect people to self elect to pay more tax. Where do you draw that line? The powers that be are the ones that should be criticised.

So he's found a way to legal pay less tax and we are blaming him for using it not the government for it being open? Fair play to him, I would do exactly the same.

+1, don't know why people are getting so pissy about this. I bet most would do it if they could.

Many of these schemes have failed before the courts in recent years so there is quite a high likelihood he will end up paying the tax anyway.

He does have only a short window to make as much as he can, though-

I bet most would do it if they could.

Most people would walk out of Tesco without paying if they could get away with it

What is your point?

You know junkyard you make a good point but I stand by the point that it's those who set the rules that need a kick up the ar*e

I stand by the point that it's those who set the rules that need a kick up the ar*e

It's easy, paye for everyone, footballers, self employed, directors, everyone. Everyone gets a salary and pays tax according to it.

Its a spectrum of activity rather than those who avoid tax and those who don't. I bet you most self employed people with an accountant are doing something within the rules to avoid paying more tax than they have to.

I just think its impractical to leave it up to individuals and their accountants to decide where to draw the line between avoiding it a bit too much and paying the right amount and not a penny more. Or are we suggesting that everyone who doesn't automatically pay the maximum tax possible is immoral? Now that's nieve.

Why bitch at him for being immoral, no different to a plumber not putting a cash job through the books, bitch at the bleeding government for allowing it to happen!

Most people would walk out of Tesco without paying if they could get away with it

[i]Do their arms and legs suddenly drop off when they reach 35 making them unable to get a job and earn a living like the millions of (PAYE) others in this country have to? [/i]

What like those 'retiring' from the Police and Armed Forces? 😉

Who believes the government spend our money wisely.......?

What like those 'retiring' from the Police and Armed Forces?

Oh and they retire "early" because their respective pension schemes allow them to.Pension contributions are very tax friendly as most sports stars/well paid people are fully aware.It's the avoiding the regular tax on earnings with these types of schemes that annoys most the ordinary tax payers.

And surely he earns most of his money abroad so there is no issues anyway.

But he uses the facilities provided by us here for his family. You want low tax go and live in your tax haven but don't expect the PAYE tax classes to fund your kids schooling, medical care and the other social stuff our taxes go towards.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[i]Now,now that's more like 55 isn't it? And I think you'll find they are all PAYE.[/i]

Or 43 y/o as per the post on the redundancy in Armed Forces...

And what's PAYE got to do with it?

And what's PAYE got to do with it?

PAYE doesn't afford the opportunity for tax avoidance available to those outside the PAYE system.

Someone famous once said something along the lines of ....it is human nature to pay as little income tax as possible.

And it is, isn't it? The term tax avoidance is being banded about here, but he is paying tax.....a lot of it too. He just doesn't want to pay any more than he has to.

I don't mind well-respected minority sportsmen avoiding tax, provided they've got an Olympic medal ... but if a faceless business that I don't care about (like Starbucks) is avoiding paying, then it's really really bad and they're morally corrupt and generally the most evil thing on the planet

What like those 'retiring' from the Police and Armed Forces?

[i]Now,now that's more like 55 isn't it? And I think you'll find they are all PAYE. And kicking a ball or riding a bike isn't exactly putting your life on the line on a regular basis is it?[/i]

Post olympics, they're doing a big clear out of 50 yr olds, who would like to stay, but earn too much money!

You know junkyard you make a good point but I stand by the point that it's those who set the rules that need a kick up the ar*e

You don't know much about this really, do you?

Here, have a:

[img] [/img]

I agree with JY (!).
Tax evasion is morally indefensible IMHO. The less tax paid by these millionaires, the more has to be picked up by us plebs.

They used to say this about footballers.
Do their arms and legs suddenly drop off when they reach 35 making them unable to get a job and earn a living like the millions of (PAYE) others in this country have to?

What can they do though? They can't kick footballs anymore and you can't make money from sleeping with prostitutes. that is all they have known.

The state should look after them (maintaining their standard fo life) if their savings are not enough to sustain them for the rest of their lives. We owe it to them. 😀

To be honest he's probably done what I would do if I ever came into earning lots of money:

1. Hire expensive accountant
2. Get said accountant to suggest how I can legally keep as much money as possible.
3. Sign on the dotted line.

I have no problem with people who work hard and try to keep their earnings from the tax man. People who don't work and take money from the tax man are the ones we should be looking at if we want to reduce the majority's tax bill.

He's just doing what the vast majority of people in his position would do.

Just out of curosity, has everyone on here banging on about it ever paid a tradesman cash, ever bought anything from outside of the EU and wondered how to avoid import duty, ever bought a car on finance with a 'minimum' trade in amount for their old car - all ways of avoiding paying tax on things you want.

Unless you're completley whiter than white, not one person can say a single thing.

He's just doing what the vast majority of people in his position would do.

Unless you're completley whiter than white, not one person can say a single thing.

Wrecker - why not, tax avoidance is tax avoidance. In the same way that stealing is stealing if you're having a moral debate.

Does said tradesman utlisie the NHS, the Police, the Fire Service, does he send his children to a state school? If not, then all is good in your world.

....and the actions of Starbucks, Amazon and Vodafone are OK in yours?
I take it that you don't believe that the rich should pay more tax than the poor?

Tax is not a moral issue it is an issue of law. If you don't break the law you have done nothing wrong. If the laws are not fit for purpose change them.

If I avoid paying tax then I can decide how I spend that money and I can assure you my morals are far superior to this government's. 🙂

A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.

But there's a fair chance there's a thousand trademen doing the same against one millionaire - the figures get very close then maybe?. What you're saying is it's okay to steal something little, but not something big from the shop.

A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.

You mean by that your morals of course. Other morals are available, the role of the law in this case is to remove such variable things as morals out of the equation.

[i]PAYE doesn't afford the opportunity for tax avoidance available to those outside the PAYE system.

[/i]

Only on income/salary earnt within PAYE, and those of us outside PAYE don't get the 'benefits' available to those within - sick pay, holiday pay etc

Tax is a moral issue.
Wealthy individuals and corporations spend millions getting accountants and lawyers to manufacture loopholes to avoid tax. All governments and authorities struggle to close these loopholes in time. It's not acceptable to say it's the "authorities" fault and they need to change the law - it's never that simple. A very good example is EBTs, which have legitimate uses, but have been badly abused by Football Clubs among others (pay enormous "discretionary loans" to employees with 0% tax) - of course they are neither discretionary nor are they ever paid back! This is clearly immoral (it involves blatant lying) and will hopefully soon be ruled illegal.

On the matter of comparing Starbucks to Wiggins to a self employed worker not declaring £100 - all are equally immoral. Morality doesn't discriminate for scale.

Yes, we all tut at the millionaires avoiding tax, whilst posting on here whether we can avoid paying import duty/VAT if we buy those Bombers from the US, or can I drive to Glentress using the company car and claim it back as 'expenses'/tax deductable.

So if it's too hard too make the law work please explain your simple system for morality alignment. 🙂

You make the excellent point that morality doesn't discriminate for scale but many seem to think it does thus showing they have a different morality to you.

On the matter of comparing Starbucks to Wiggins to a self employed worker not declaring £100 - all are equally immoral. Morality doesn't discriminate for scale.

Or more precisely your Morality doesn't.
If there's one thing that history's taught us is the morality's a very fluid concept.

Only on income/salary earnt within PAYE, and those of us outside PAYE don't get the 'benefits' available to those within - sick pay, holiday pay etc

You do get holiday pay, you just divide your earnings by 52 weeks, rather than the actual weeks worked, just as PAYE employees really only get paid for time worked, but the payment is spread over the whole year. The legal entitlement for sick pay is very limited, that's down to contract negotiations.

"You make the excellent point that morality doesn't discriminate for scale but many seem to think it does thus showing they have a different morality to you."

IMHO they don't have a different morality - they either don't understand morality or they are immoral!

I realise that this will get a strong reaction, but you can't just make up morality to suit yourself so that you are always right and only "other people" are wrong!

HMRC don't make the rules; they only enforce (with limited resources and much reduced staff) those that the current Government make for them.
The type of arrangement that Wiggo is accused of is artificial, not a 'real' set of transactions. The purpose of his participation and the purpose of the transactions in question is artificial and that's where the morality issue arises. The scheme has been created to follow a series of legal steps but in a way not intended bu those who wrote the original legislation. That is tax avoidance in a nutshell. Legal, but where planned like this, wrong.

The UK needs a general 'Anti-Avoidance' provision in our tax law, to effectively say that if you set up a transaction or series of transactions in an artificial manner, this is wrong and fails.
Wiggo is a fool if he thinks that any deliberate tax avoidance is acceptable; he will be tainted by this very special form of cheating. And we don't like cheats on bikes.

but you can't just make up morality to suit yourself so that you are always right and only "other people" are wrong!

Isn't that what you've just done? 😕

wrecker - Member
Nobody's whiter than white but all things are not equal. A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.

Can you elaborate, as I fail to see why not?

Especially how do you reconcile this with the categorical statement that...

Tax evasion is morally indefensible IMHO.

Like breaking any law, its either defensible or not. The £150 day/cash point may explain, but why does it condone?

The less tax paid by these millionaires, the more has to be picked up by us plebs.

I understand the sympathies here, but this is quite a long shot from the way tax revenues are structured and collected in the UK in reality, surely?

"but you can't just make up morality to suit yourself so that you are always right and only "other people" are wrong!"
"Isn't that what you've just done?"

Eh, no!
I rest my case that some people have no understanding of morality at all.

Nobody's whiter than white but all things are not equal. A tradesman earning £150/day cash is not in any way morally comparable with a millionaire minimising his tax exposure.

You are quite right, the former is committing tax evasion which is illegal and the latter is partaking of tax avoidance which is not.

Wealthy individuals and corporations spend millions getting accountants and lawyers to manufacture loopholes to avoid tax.

This. I think there's a distinction between running your business tax efficiently (which anyone can do), and putting a great deal of effort into schemes specifically designed to circumvent the rules (availably only to the already wealthy).