You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
...is newt fan Red Ken.
Congratulations man of the people Kenneth 😈
Red Ken, ker-ching, ker-ching, ker-ching to paraphrase Elfin 😉
Not quite as black and white as you'd like...short on details also...
Surely if his co pays him then that is taxed as income? So HMRC gets 40%?
Quite different to the scams he has attacked, no?
People set these companies up so they can extract £££ as dividends at a much lower tax rate than a salary would attract. Otherwise why do it ? Just put the income down on your tax return as additional income and pay the tax.
Hypocritical.
hmm, an article attacking ken livingstone written by andrew gilligan, why am I not surprised? I imagine he's "sexed up" some of the details of this.
Sexed up, well read for yourself and decide.
Where has he attacked this particular practice?
It's utterly commonplace AFAIK.
OP are you saying you wouldn't pay half your tax if you could?
Sorry that should have been: "would you pay twice your tax voluntarily?"
That's his reputation shot. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke either.
Read the transcript. Odd that anyone might think it adds to the article.
Weak anti left story...I guess that's the Torygraph for you.
That's his reputation shot.
Not really.
I would think he was an idiot if he chose to pay tax twice when he didn't have to.
But he hasn't.
I would think he was an idiot if he chose to pay tax twice when he didn't have to.
How about he pay tax once, at 40% or 50% (depending on how much he earns per year) rather than a lower amount (corporation tax level) by using a company ?
After all he's a politician who's been vocal about tax avoiders previously.
Because it's commonplace, accepted by HMRC, and not what he has criticised?
Unless you can show otherwise?
Where has he attacked this particular practice?
Well he said in his Sun column
everybody should pay tax at the same rate on their earnings and all other income.
He then arranges to have his income paid through his company as dividends so it gets taxed at a lower rate.
Hypocrite.
He's self-employed and therefore is quite correct in his approach, probably the only HMRC interest is if he is paying his 'partner' an amount over/above her 'value'.
Hands up all who'd pay more tax/NI than is required?
[i]Not mine[/i], they'll only pi55 it away.
Link to the Sun column quote please, is it in context?
Boris Johnson stands for a privileged minority. He says anger over bankers’ bonuses is “whingeing”. He campaigns to cut the top rate of tax. He is the leading Tory in the country demanding a cut in the top rate of tax for the one per cent earning more than £150,000 a year. Not surprising really...I will put ordinary Londoners first by backing Ed Balls’ plan for a cut in VAT not Boris Johnson’s tax cuts for the richest. Unlike Boris Johnson I am in it for London, not for myself.
http://www.labour.org.uk/ken-livingstones-speech-to-labour-party-conference
The Mayor should have an income tax so you can redistribute wealth?...? I think it would at least be a 60 per cent rate for everybody over £200,000. "
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23880546-ken-make-bankers-pay-80-percent-tax.do
😆
How about he pay tax once, at 40% or 50% (depending on how much he earns per year) rather than a lower amount (corporation tax level) by using a company ?
Why should anyone pay More Tax than they are legally required to ??
That's just stupid.
It's like choosing to pay 80% tax instead of the rate you are actually supposed to pay. Nobody with any sense would do it.
He may (or may not be) hypocritical, but that's a different issue.
He is Tax Efficient, and he is not doing anything remotely illegal. (unless his partner is getting more than her worth to the business ??)
everybody [b]should[/b] pay tax at the same rate on their earnings and all other income.
And when it becomes the law, I'm sure he will pay it until then...
It's like choosing to pay 80% tax instead of the rate you are actually supposed to pay. Nobody with any sense would do it.
Surely the only hipocrisy in this thread is the OP not offering to pay over and above his legal obligation.
Personal companies like this should be reformed so the income they earn is taxed on their owners as if it were part of their own income. That way, tax, and National Insurance if appropriate, could not be avoided by putting a company between a person and their income.”
this is the solution
Is he a hypocrite
Yes
you cannot really go on about how everyone should be their fair share of tax* then actively do something to make sure your "fair share" is the least [ or less than if it was just paid as wages rather than paid via dividends] it can possibly be under the current legislative structure as that is [partly] what he has attacked.
If you object to tax avoidance you cannot then avoid tax and not look hypocritical
If I were a socialist politician with a record of hit-the-rich type rhetoric then I would indeed be a hypocrite.
Are you guys OK with the legal tax avoidance tactics used by Vodafone et al also ?
Are you guys OK with the legal tax avoidance tactics used by Vodafone et al also ?
Yes, as long as it's legal.
DS i think people are focusing on the morals of this
No one thinks it is illegal but is it immoral?
Has ken said it was immoral previously?
I was just answering allthepies' question. 😉
He then arranges to have his income paid through his company as dividends so it gets taxed at a lower rate.Hypocrite.
Wait, there's more, according to the article :
[i]"Mr Livingstone, who has called for a top tax rate of 80 per cent"[/i]
Has Livingstone been paying 80% tax ? No ! ..................what a hypocrite !!!
I think Livingstone could fairly be called a "hypocrite" if he was expecting to be personally excluded from any changes which he is calling for.
As for his tax status as alleged by the Daily Telegraph, I'm no expert on tax avoidance, although I'm sure the Daily Telegraph has no lack of access to people who are; but I do know that the there is a mayoral election looming and not only is one of the Daily Telegraph's own columnists standing but the Daily Telegraph has a very definite political agenda concerning it.
I also note that whilst the Daily Telegraph obviously can't deny in the article that Johnson is one of their columnists, they conveniently omit to mention that they pay Johnson more per year than they allege are Livingstone company's total earnings.
See this article for what it is - a shot fired at by a newspaper with a political agenda in a forthcoming election. Livingstone's Tory opponents have always relied heavily on mudslinging, a strategy which quite reasonable argues that no matter how baseless the allegations are, some mud will always stick. The Evening Standard were particularly successful with this strategy against Livingstone last election. And it's a strategy which is central to US politics, although the UK does not have a simular tradition of negative politics.
I very likely won't be voting for Livingstone next election, unless I feel that I have heard a reasonable explanation for his apparent endorsement of Ed Balls economic policies, but it certainly won't be because of the Tories constant and invariably baseless accusations of his alleged hypocrisy. As politicians go Livingstone is one of the most honest, genuine, and straight talking ones. Certainly more so than the present incumbent clown.
Livingstone's Tory opponents have always relied heavily on mudslinging, a strategy which quite reasonable argues that no matter how baseless the allegations are, some mud will always stick.
I know Ernie - Just imagine how difficult it would be to get anything concrete on the anti-semitic, terrorist-supporting, tax-avoiding, anti-gay, philandering drunkard and general all round nasty piece of work that Ken is?
I very likely won't be voting for Livingstone next election
Said that before haven't you...
[i]everybody should pay tax at the same rate on their earnings and all other income.[/i]
and when someone pays me holiday/sick/no-income pay then maybe I'll look at paying PAYE tax/NI rates on my income too...
I get a bit bored with people who slag off people who dont pay a whopping huge 40/50% when they earn good money. Sanctimonious bull. If you think you would, if you earned their money youre suffering from delusions. If not, fab, you work out how much money it is betwwen what you earn now and 40% and give it to the tax man. What? Wont do it? Shocker.
Although I can't say I am a ken fan either! 😉 arsh!
So, in summary,
Legal tax avoidance by the left = OK
Legal tax avoidance by anyone else = kitten-raping nazis.
❓
that is another one of you impartial and fair minded interpretation of a thread that makes it clear your education was money well spent
the anti-semitic, terrorist-supporting, tax-avoiding, anti-gay, philandering drunkard and general all round nasty piece of work that Ken is
Is a classic example of someone who wants to take British politics into the gutter, and just how devoid they are of any meaningful political argument.
As if British politics wasn't already at an all time low and discredited in the eyes of the electorate.
So Zulu-Eleven, I take it you [u]don't[/u] agree with Mr Johnson's opinions of Ken Livingstone then ?
Let me remind you what they are ...... Boris to Ken :
[i]"I think you have been a very considerable public servant and a distinguished leader of this city. You shaped the office of mayor. You gave it national prominence and when London was attacked on July 7 2005 you spoke for London.
And I can tell you that your courage and the sheer exuberant nerve with which you stuck it to your enemies, especially in New Labour, you have thereby earned the thanks of millions of Londoners even if you think that they have a funny way of showing it today.
When we have that drink together, which we both so richly deserve, I hope we can discover a way in which the mayoralty can continue to benefit from your transparent love of London, a city whose energy conquered the world and which now brings the world together in one city"[/i]
Sorry Ernie?
are you telling me he's not? or just trying to call that gutter politics because you know its all true?
I suppose he's some form of flawed genius 😆
Sorry Ernie?
OK, I'll repeat it.
So Zulu-Eleven, I take it you [u]don't[/u] agree with Mr Johnson's opinions of Ken Livingstone then ?
Let me remind you what they are ...... Boris to Ken :
[i]"I think you have been a very considerable public servant and a distinguished leader of this city. You shaped the office of mayor. You gave it national prominence and when London was attacked on July 7 2005 you spoke for London.
And I can tell you that your courage and the sheer exuberant nerve with which you stuck it to your enemies, especially in New Labour, you have thereby earned the thanks of millions of Londoners even if you think that they have a funny way of showing it today.
When we have that drink together, which we both so richly deserve, I hope we can discover a way in which the mayoralty can continue to benefit from your transparent love of London, a city whose energy conquered the world and which now brings the world together in one city" [/i]
Well ?
Why are the opinions of Boris, notably in a "I'll be polite, it's an acceptance speech" if I'm not mistaken,of any relevance here?
Sorry, what's the relevance Ernie?
What has Borises opinion of a limited list of Kens time in office got to do with Ken's blatant tax avoidance and hypocrisy?
Let alone his liturgy of other faults?
Sorry, what's the relevance Ernie?
How about, you slagging him off and Mr Johnson praising him ?
Answer the question.
Sorry - where does Boris say that Ken is [b]not[/b] an:
anti-semitic
terrorist-supporting
tax-avoiding
anti-gay
philandering
drunkard
general all round nasty piece of work
?
So you [i]do[/i] agree with what Boris said about Ken then ?
It would be easier if you just answered the direct question with a direct answer.
But of course you won't.
Why is it relevant, Ernie?
Answer the question.
That article is rubbish. He's doing what the law and taxation system allows. And they allow it because working on your own for a series of different employers, any of whom can throw you out with a day's notice, is a very different deal to working for one employer who has to give you three months notice, a pension plan and who knows what else.
I suspect Andrew Gilligan knows that but is too dishonest to mention it.
He's doing what the law and taxation system allow
Indeed he is. However, he has mouthed off about how evil this is. Hypocrisy? I rather think so.
Answer the question.
Erm, I have. Pay attention.
Do you want me to do it again ? OK : How about, Z-11 slagging him off and Mr Johnson praising him ?
Very relevant indeed in the context of this thread and what Z-11 has said. And even if it [i]isn't[/i] relevant, why the reluctance to answer a direct question with a direct answer ? All this exchange of posts and any uncertainty could have already been cleared up.
Answer the question Z-11
No. Why is the voiced opinion of Boris , a mayoral opponent of your beloved newt fancier, relevant to the opinion of Z11?
No
Are you Z-11's lawyer or something ?
I can't see the problem with answering the question. It's a very straight forward question. Does Z-11 agree with Boris's opinions of Ken as expressed in that quote ? The question is in fact so simple it can be answered with a "yes" or "no".
Well actually I can see a problem.......I reckon Z-11 is too embarrassed to answer the question. So of course he won't.
Boris seems to know how to be polite and say the positive good thing to the guy who has just lost an election, speaks volumes about him. Manners you could perhaps learn from.
Given his laudable stance on many issues I'm a little suprised to see him using dividend payments to get his tax down to 25% on his (so called bonus) earnings and also make sure he does not pay NI. Totally legal and done by many but in his case questionable and devalues his currency as an honest guy.
Boris seems to know how to be polite ......
Is that a suggestion that he didn't really mean it ? Seems to be.
And are you suggesting that Z-11 hasn't got any manners ?
Ernie, stop clutching at straws here. Your beloved Ken has been exposed as the hypocrite that he is. Not to mention his terrorist supprting, hompohbic, anti-semitic ways. Yet you ignore all of this, picking some semantic claptrap argument instead.
Sorry am I missing something here?
In the Telegraph transcript it says.
In terms of the dividends, you haven’t actually taken any dividends out. You’ve got a large cash pile sitting there at the moment. So you haven’t actually paid any income tax on any of that money because you haven’t taken it as dividends.
So if he hasn't taken it as dividends what's the issue?
By retaining the money he has within his company surely he is just ensuring his companies ability to pay him a wage in later years when he may not be earning quite so much, possibly still as a higher rate tax payer. If he doesn't do this and takes the money as a dividend then yes he is a hypocrite, until then......
As an aside I seem to recall from an article in the Standard in the last couple of weeks that his company is heavily financially involved in a number of charities.
Sorry - been out...
Ernie:
Whats your point - that the fact that Boris once said something nice about him demonstrates that he's not all of the things I've said he is, in addition to being a hypocritical, wife employing, tax avoiding tosser?
Pretty much the worst Straw Man argument Ever...
Boris seems to know how to be polite and say the positive good thing to the guy who has just lost an election, speaks volumes about him. Manners you could perhaps learn from.
yes Liverpool he was nice about them
piccaninnies- he used that lovely phrase
he was pretty polite to his wife except for the affairs and getting someone else pregnant
Neither is particularly admirable IMHO
I am sure the Cpt will be off like a flash to publicly vilify the current Tory major for his obvious personal shortcomings he is good with balanced an objectivity like that
Sure Zulu will to
Fairly pointless/standard STW I dont like you or your politics thread with the objectivity we have come to expect
So Flashheart, I take it from your comment that [u]you[/u] don't agree with Boris Johnson's claim that Livingstone was a [i]"a very considerable public servant and a distinguished leader"[/i] who has [i]"courage and the sheer exuberant nerve"[/i] and has [i]"earned the thanks of millions of Londoners"[/i] ?
I think it's a fair question as hypocrisy appears to be the topic here.
And btw some of you Tories appear to be most impolite. So far on this thread you and Z-11 have called Livingstone a hypocrite, homophobic, anti-semitic, and a terrorist supporter. In contrast I have described Boris Johnson only as a clown. Most "unparliamentary" behavour on your part.
You take what you want, I'll stick to the actual point.
No Ernie I'm suggesting that you are getting all defensive about a guy who has let you down with the way he pays his tax. You cannot take it that your hero has been proven to be just like any other politician, taking what they want and crapping on those that support them. Ever felt like you have been used and abused. Hurts I know but thats what we have to put up with as forum warriors. Suck it up, Ken is a profesional politician and using the system for himself and you do not count.
can I have you full and frank view of Boris whilst you are sticking to the point and not just scoring political internet hit points please
ta
[i]yes Liverpool he was nice about them[/i]
And he made an entirely valid point about certain aspects of the Liverpudlian character, as someone born on the Wirral, to a Liverpudlian Father, I'm more than happy to back him on it as well 😀
[i]piccaninnies- he used that lovely phrase[/i]
Boris apologised for any offence caused, He wasn't being racist, it was taken out of context and some people interpreted it maliciously - I think you'll find thats, verbatim, the Diane Abbot defence 😉
Ernie:
"a very considerable public servant and a distinguished leader"
"courage and the sheer exuberant nerve"
"earned the thanks of millions of Londoners"
Erm, does the fact that Boris thinks that make the violent drunkenness, tax avoidance and all the other stuff acceptable then?
ah right so a bigot you like and appreciate....fair enough I suppose
Yes Junky, I do quite like certain aspects of Diane Abbot's character actually.
everyone in direct question avoidance shocka
you are getting all defensive about a guy who has let you down with the way he pays his tax.
I'm not in the least bit bothered how Livingstone pays his tax. Mudslinging by the Tory press at Livingstone has gone on for as long as I can remember. And for that reason the article in the Telegraph is unlikely to very much affect in the level of support which he will receive next election.
It's quite likely that I won't vote for him but that is due to policies, rather that the usual mud-raking by the press. Likewise I suspect the majority of the electorate are a tad more sophisticated than to be taken in by US-style negative politics.
Lefties in diverting point away from unpalatable truth shocka.
Ah, Right wing press conspiracy, I'd forgotten that aspect.
Are you sure you're not a member of the David Icke forums as well Ernie - its all an Illuminati/NWO/Elders of Zion plot innit 😆
The truth is always palatable to me Flashheart. If the truth doesn't fit comfortably with my beliefs then I simply change my beliefs until it does.
dancing on a pin with the Livingstone defence. At least you can take comfort that Boris thinks he's a good public servant, he got it wrong again I presume?
Are you sure you're not a member of the David Icke forums as well Ernie
And there you go again Zulu-Eleven, with your childish and silly comments.
And of course you haven't forgotten to add the laughing emoticon, just to emphasise the point.
Sorry, Yes, I really shouldn't underplay the seriousness of the longstanding right wing plot to undermine Ken Livingstone through a train of long running investigative journalism that reveals his lies, drunkenness and hypocrisy to the sheeple, should I ?
Lefties in diverting point away from unpalatable truth shocka
flash in not reading thread and refusing to comment negatively on any tory
here is me diverting from the issue again just for you
Is he a hypocrite
Yes
you cannot really go on about how everyone should be their fair share of tax* then actively do something to make sure your "fair share" is the least [ or less than if it was just paid as wages rather than paid via dividends] it can possibly be under the current legislative structure as that is [partly] what he has attacked.
If you object to tax avoidance you cannot then avoid tax and not look hypocritical
What would you like me to clarify?
So you did not like ernie not answering the question so then Boris flash you views? Is their a magic number of times to ask before you answer after all you dont want to look like a hyporite now do you
Really all you ever do slag of lefties and never ever say anything about your club o the morals of someone like the racist philandering Boris appointing his mates to jobs etc
Sorry Junky - I thought it was a given that all (Evil) Tories are, by definition, all for tax avoidance for them and their millionaire chums, so its not like you can accuse Boris and his mates of hypocrisy is it ?
Junkyard - Memberyou cannot really go on about how everyone should be their fair share of tax* then actively do something to make sure your "fair share" is the least [ or less than if it was just paid as wages rather than paid via dividends] it can possibly be under the current legislative structure as that is [partly] what he has attacked.
I would not agree. If someone was demanding that tax be cut to 20% would you insist they stop paying 40% tax?
To me, it's simple- you call for change but you deal with the rules as they are. It'd be good politics to practice what you preach of course but is it hypocritical to live with the system that we have now while calling for a better one?
Now if he'd called for other people to stop using existing rules to minimise tax, that would be different- has he done that?
Now if he'd called for other people to stop using existing rules to minimise tax, that would be different- has he done that?
[i]"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super-rich by exploiting every tax fiddle… ” [/i]
its not like you can accuse Boris and his mates of hypocrisy is it
well i can accuse people of hypocritically demanding answers to questions whilst not answering a question themselves whilst the person accuses others of diversion. This is what i have done.
It'd be good politics to practice what you preach of course but is it hypocritical to live with the system that we have now while calling for a better one?
If someone says it is wrong to do something and then do it i dont really see how they are not a hypocrite.
It is crtical here it is voluntary and you can do it or not do it unlike your tax example
[i]everybody should pay tax at the same rate on earnings and other income[/i]
but as said, if that's the case I want the same 'benefits' too - pension, sick pay, holiday pay, not-earning pay etc
Zulu-Eleven - Member"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super-rich by exploiting every tax fiddle… ”
Mmm. I wouldn't say it's the same thing but it's sailing pretty close isn't it.
Junkyard - MemberIf someone says it is wrong to do something and then do it i dont really see how they are not a hypocrite.
Has he specifically said- "You should not minimise your tax, even when entitled to?" Being against laws that allow tax minimisation isn't the same thing.
to be literal, rather than political for a moment, to be [i]hypocritical [/i]is to show: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretence."
And it's hard to see just how he's not being hypocritical here.
It is crtical here it is voluntary and you can do it or not do it unlike your tax example
I have given an example where he has called for a higher tax rate on wealthy people, and yet no one is accusing him of being a hypocrite for not paying this higher rate. I am fairly confident that the inland revenue will accept more than someone needs to give them.
As I said previously, I think Livingstone could fairly be called a hypocrite if he was expecting to be personally excluded from any changes which he is calling for. I agree with Northwind.
Junkyard - MemberIt is crtical here it is voluntary and you can do it or not do it unlike your tax example
Good point- that was a pretty crappy example.
this is not the stw way 😀
That is meant as a joke it would be better if we could all accept that every now again someone makes a point
i may be laying myself open to a hypocrisy charge here 😳
kens obvious and many failings aside id be inclined to dismiss anything written in the telegraph about ken before the next mayoral election as 100% borris electioneering
(their recent article about the ftl neutrinos was so bad I vowed is stop reading it )
allthepies - Member
Sexed up, well read for yourself and decide.
Ignoring all the petty squabbling above( 😉 ), reading the transcript above I'd say Gilligan did "sex up" the article. He accuses Ken of reducing his tax liabilities by taking dividends and then goes on to say in a later question that Ken hasn't taken any dividends! Also it seems that Ken is taking a salary from his company and that salary has been spread over a few years where not a lot has been earned following a brief burst of activity after he lost the election. Someone find me a well run company that doesn't keep reserves so it can keep staff employed during quiet periods.
He also seems to argue that only Ken has been paid for his speaking engagements and makes no allowance for Ken to need a secretary/personal assistant to arrange all of these (his wife). Find me someone who earns over £150k a year who doesn't employ (or have employed for him) a PA. All the article is is another Gilligan piece trying to drag Livingstone through the mud which is pretty much all Gilligan has tried to do since he was sacked by the beeb.
What Ken's situation isn't comparable to is that of senior civil servants who are clearly employed by a single employer for long periods with support etc provided by the employer.
Find me someone who earns over £150k a year who doesn't employ (or have employed for him) a PA.
I know of plenty of people who earn considerably more than this and don't.
Also it seems that Ken is taking a salary from his company and that salary has been spread over a few years where not a lot has been earned following a brief burst of activity after he lost the election.
Tax avoidance then, perfectly legal but tax avoidance none the less. He could have declared that big earnings amount, paid the going rate of income tax on it and shoved the residue in a savings account to live off in the leaner years.
read the rest of my statement - If you think of it as a company rather than an individual. Also he's not taking dividends he's only taking a salary for which he will pay tax on, either now or in the future.
Gilligan is trying to equate this to people who have only one revenue stream who work in a solid job which would normally be full time employment which is what Ken has criticised in the past. they aren't equivalents. In his blog he has also admitted that Ken hasn't taken any dividends out of his company so where is it apparent that Ken has paid less tax?
mefty - Member
Find me someone who earns over £150k a year who doesn't employ (or have employed for him) a PA.I know of plenty of people who earn considerably more than this and don't.
So they never have any secretarial/administration services done by others? wow.