|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 4, 2014 21:32:09 GMT
Was more than last week & you did refute it but didn't prove that it wasn't true . But now we are onto an individuals tax affairs do spill the beans on how you know he pays capital gains tax & not income tax? And do remember the relevant bit is his tax affairs when he left for the Channel Islands. Go on any little bit of proof ................... I'd love to see his tax returns I'm sure you can whistle them up as you know so much. Well, for a start, you keep bringing it up, so really the onus is on you. If you just make that sort of statement and then someone challenges you, then you demanding they prove it is ridiculous. You must see that, right? You can't hold the person you're chatting to to a higher level of veracity than to which you're prepared to hold yourself. In any case, your idea that SL is worried about his income tax is so ludicrous. Generally income tax is for salaries; if you have over a billion pounds in assets, salaries don't really come into consideration. Your back flipping quicker than Gandy Urney so he did have income tax to consider. Still just admit you don't what was on Pantsdowns tax return when he decided too leave, there's nothing wrong in admiting you are wrong. But I expect it had every type of tax on it bar inheritance but it's only a guess.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Nov 4, 2014 21:32:58 GMT
Well, for a start, you keep bringing it up, so really the onus is on you. If you just make that sort of statement and then someone challenges you, then you demanding they prove it is ridiculous. You must see that, right? You can't hold the person you're chatting to to a higher level of veracity than to which you're prepared to hold yourself. In any case, your idea that SL is worried about his income tax is so ludicrous. Generally income tax is for salaries; if you have over a billion pounds in assets, salaries don't really come into consideration. Your back flipping quicker than Gandy Urney so he did have income tax to consider. Still just admit you don't what was on Pantsdowns tax return when he decided too leave, there's nothing wrong wrong when you admit you are wrong. But I expect it had every type of tax on it bar inheritance on but it's only a guess. What the f**k is wrong with you?
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 4, 2014 21:34:09 GMT
Your back flipping quicker than Gandy Urney so he did have income tax to consider. Still just admit you don't what was on Pantsdowns tax return when he decided too leave, there's nothing wrong wrong when you admit you are wrong. But I expect it had every type of tax on it bar inheritance on but it's only a guess. What the f is wrong with you? Nothing
|
|
aghast
David Williams
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 395
|
Post by aghast on Nov 4, 2014 21:36:32 GMT
Life is easy for the super-rich. Their company earns £1bn a year and they pay 21% Corporation tax on that. They pay themselves a directors' salary of £500k a year and claim expenses from the company for business matters; expenses which are deducted from the company income and which therefore lower the corporation tax liability.
I would imagine the expenses might include things like a business meeting in the Bahamas to discuss the colour of your team's shirts next season (£200,000 - ker-ching!), a conference in Florida to debate the fillings for next year's pasties (£500,000 - ker-ching!), and - well you get the picture.
I am of course making up the examples but not the principle. The super-rich have devised many ingenious ways to avoid tax which the rest of us poor buggers can only dream about. It's not like they can't afford it - they just do it because they can.
|
|
redoxo
Joined: November 2014
Posts: 11
|
Post by redoxo on Nov 4, 2014 21:38:36 GMT
Without getting to involved on the tax affairs of SL, he will pay a mixture of income and CG tax (if domiciled on the main land)
Income tax will be paid on money he has that is yielding interest and dividend, CG tax will be paid on sales of assets such as shares in Hargreaves Lansdown et al!
How that works out in Guernsey I have no clue but that is the broad division to the best of my knowledge. If I remember correctly he sold a crap load of shares in HL a year or two ago....Thus he would have needed to pay CG on the sale but IT on what the money yielded annually since the sale....Hope that helps and the accountants don't take to much of an issue with the explanation.
As far as not paying his fare share...Well that's a debate that has raged for years. For the record he is a large employer all paying income tax and if HL is registered in the UK the corporation will pay corporation tax. As such the revenue do very nicely and so do the City of London, so his personal affairs are relatively small potatoes next to what the company he founded brings in....That's why the UK government allow so many to live off shore, such as the Berkley Brothers in Sark among others.
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 4, 2014 21:45:02 GMT
Seems redoxo (even if he's from the other side) & Aghast have a far greater grasp of this subject than others on this thread. Agree with what both of you have said (mind you i doubt Peter Hargreaves is letting that billion pound company pay for trips to the Bahamas to chat about Bristol City business but Pantsdown will have another company that does). The reason he moved to Guernsey though remains the same & very well known.
|
|
redoxo
Joined: November 2014
Posts: 11
|
Post by redoxo on Nov 4, 2014 21:48:29 GMT
Thank You Countygroundhotel I do my best!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Nov 4, 2014 21:54:06 GMT
Without getting to involved on the tax affairs of SL, he will pay a mixture of income and CG tax (if domiciled on the main land) Income tax will be paid on money he has that is yielding interest and dividend, CG tax will be paid on sales of assets such as shares in Hargreaves Lansdown et al! How that works out in Guernsey I have no clue but that is the broad division to the best of my knowledge. If I remember correctly he sold a crap load of shares in HL a year or two ago....Thus he would have needed to pay CG on the sale but IT on what the money yielded annually since the sale....Hope that helps and the accountants don't take to much of an issue with the explanation. As far as not paying his fare share...Well that's a debate that has raged for years. For the record he is a large employer all paying income tax and if HL is registered in the UK the corporation will pay corporation tax. As such the revenue do very nicely and so do the City of London, so his personal affairs are relatively small potatoes next to what the company he founded brings in....That's why the UK government allow so many to live off shore, such as the Berkley Brothers in Sark among others. Fair enough. I didn't realise he was landed with a potential income tax bill from a shed load of shares. In that case, he's even greedier then I thought. My apologies to CountyGround, you were right about that and I was wrong. But, honestly, you need to be less of a prck when discussing stuff.
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Nov 4, 2014 22:01:16 GMT
Well he should pay his fair share like the rest of us, then he may not get called names Edit: nothing to do with Labour policy, more naked greed. That's the ridiculously rich for you though Whilst I agree that by moving to the Channel Isles he has avoided paying our tax rates - i am certain he has already paid more tax into the UK purse that anyone reading this (so in a way he has paid his share - not sure if that is 'fair'?)
|
|
|
Post by CountyGroundHotel on Nov 4, 2014 22:08:48 GMT
Without getting to involved on the tax affairs of SL, he will pay a mixture of income and CG tax (if domiciled on the main land) Income tax will be paid on money he has that is yielding interest and dividend, CG tax will be paid on sales of assets such as shares in Hargreaves Lansdown et al! How that works out in Guernsey I have no clue but that is the broad division to the best of my knowledge. If I remember correctly he sold a crap load of shares in HL a year or two ago....Thus he would have needed to pay CG on the sale but IT on what the money yielded annually since the sale....Hope that helps and the accountants don't take to much of an issue with the explanation. As far as not paying his fare share...Well that's a debate that has raged for years. For the record he is a large employer all paying income tax and if HL is registered in the UK the corporation will pay corporation tax. As such the revenue do very nicely and so do the City of London, so his personal affairs are relatively small potatoes next to what the company he founded brings in....That's why the UK government allow so many to live off shore, such as the Berkley Brothers in Sark among others. Fair enough. I didn't realise he was landed with a potential income tax bill from a shed load of shares. In that case, he's even greedier then I thought. My apologies to CountyGround, you were right about that and I was wrong. But, honestly, you need to be less of a prck when discussing stuff. Sorry for understanding more than you. But I'd point out you are the one swearing through this thread not me.
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Nov 4, 2014 22:36:23 GMT
I understand Mr Lansdown has today stated in the 'Current Bun' that he does not miss the local Derby against Rovers and could not careless if we never had one again, due in part to the massive police bill and the huge amount of agro with the FA, the papers, police et al that dogs a game against BRFC for month's after! (Before anyone gets out of control I'm not blaming anyone it is just a fact). My personal opinion is that reading between the lines he is making it clear he has no interest in BRFC in any way shape or form including the football club the Memorial Ground and the UWE and will not be a White Knight if BRFC should fall into greater financial difficulty....So perhaps he has been invited!? Another Leslie Kew moment! The complete arrogance of the custodians of Bristol City never changes. At least when members of the Rovers board slag off City, they do it with tongue in cheek. Kew and now Lansdown genuinely want us to disappear. Policing bill - thousand on the pitch - spitting and racial abuse at Rovers player - negligible prosecutions - you make your mind up! I'm sticking with a belief in what comes around goes around. City will fall and Rovers will rise - just hope it doesn't take as long as the Roman Empire
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Nov 4, 2014 23:03:00 GMT
As stated earlier in this thread and elsewhere, City are really miles ahead of us in marketting and always have been...... Just noticed the number plate - vehicle provided by a gashead perhaps?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2014 0:02:22 GMT
I understand Mr Lansdown has today stated in the 'Current Bun' that he does not miss the local Derby against Rovers and could not careless if we never had one again, due in part to the massive police bill and the huge amount of agro with the FA, the papers, police et al that dogs a game against BRFC for month's after! (Before anyone gets out of control I'm not blaming anyone it is just a fact). My personal opinion is that reading between the lines he is making it clear he has no interest in BRFC in any way shape or form including the football club the Memorial Ground and the UWE and will not be a White Knight if BRFC should fall into greater financial difficulty....So perhaps he has been invited!? I suspect Pantsdown dislike of local derbies is less to with all the associated trouble and more to do with not wanting the embarrassment of another Rickie Lambert moment & the realisation of money down the drain. I'll bet he's gutted, there they are top of L1, stadium being rebuilt including facilities that expose the Mem for what it is, a total mess, and then he looks at The Conference and sees Rovers getting turned over by Forest Green Rovers and Altrincham. He's probably scratching his head right now and wondering how he's got it all so wrong. And it's not as if Rovers' board haven't lost many many millions taking us out of the League, is it. What a total rotter he is, in May he gifted £1,000,000 worth of shares to charity. As for him being a 'tax dodger', as far as I'm aware, he does nothing illegal, his company pays huge amounts of corporation tax and he has created over 700 local jobs. Bristol could probably do with a few more people making a contribution like that to the local economy.
|
|
redoxo
Joined: November 2014
Posts: 11
|
Post by redoxo on Nov 5, 2014 13:19:38 GMT
I suspect Pantsdown dislike of local derbies is less to with all the associated trouble and more to do with not wanting the embarrassment of another Rickie Lambert moment & the realisation of money down the drain. I'll bet he's gutted, there they are top of L1, stadium being rebuilt including facilities that expose the Mem for what it is, a total mess, and then he looks at The Conference and sees Rovers getting turned over by Forest Green Rovers and Altrincham. He's probably scratching his head right now and wondering how he's got it all so wrong. And it's not as if Rovers' board haven't lost many many millions taking us out of the League, is it. What a total rotter he is, in May he gifted £1,000,000 worth of shares to charity. As for him being a 'tax dodger', as far as I'm aware, he does nothing illegal, his company pays huge amounts of corporation tax and he has created over 700 local jobs. Bristol could probably do with a few more people making a contribution like that to the local economy. I pretty much agree (Although I suspect many would say 'well you would') as previously stated. As to the comment above about being greedy, Bristol City have had 45million written off, will have part of AV converted to a new state of the art training facility and he has bought all of the divisions best players!
Not sure greedy is the perfect assessment!
|
|