seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Interesting point from that article is the high divorce rate once pro footballers retire from the game presumably as a lifestyle adjustment is made.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Many footballers facing financial ruin by HMRC
- Thread starter Uncle C
- Start date
I wonder if the people who rush to defend millionaires who avoid their taxes (by fair means or foul) are the same people who cheer to the rafters when governments announce yet another crackdown on social security fraud?
The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.
We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.
Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.
Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?
The principle seems to be: Fiddle £2,000,000 in tax, and we should turn a blind eye or sympathise that your being victimised.
Fiddle £15 (working cash-in-hand in a pub two nights week, for example) while claiming social security - because you can't
manage on the paltry amount you get in Income Support - and you'll be hounded from all sides as a dishonest piece of trash.
We kow-tow to the super-rich and sympathise with their 'suffering', yet kick the poor and love seeing them suffer.
Incidentally, as to the claim that this is unfair because it is 'retrospective' - the 'bedroom tax' on the unemployed was 'retrospective - they didn't say 'we'll impose this new limit on any new welfare claimant', it was applied to everyone on benefits who was judged to have more rooms than they needed.
Where were the bleeding-hearts then, saying, 'ooh, this isn't fair, it's being applied retrospectively, people are going to experience severe financial hardship'?
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
Tax avoidance is morally illegal.
drew
Drew
You're talking a load of garbage. The problem is where a scheme has been approved by HMRC and people have put money into that scheme only to find that they have changed their mind and now trying to recoup whatever tax relief was gained retrospectively. If they change their mind then surely it is just that they should only be able to reclaim tax relief from when they changed their minds.
As I said in an earlier post, how many ordinary people would be mightily pissed off if ISAs were declared an unacceptable tax avoidance vehicle and HMRC decided to claim back the relief people had received on the earnings from those.
I'm all for tax avoidance schemes being closed down but I don't agree that you can do it retrospectively.
In the flavour of your opening line, I wonder how many of those attacking 'overpaid' footballers are the very same ones that subscribe to Sky Sports for their Sunday football fix?
Doh. Can the mods delete my similar thread please.
I assume you voluntarily offer to pay tax on your contributions to your pension then ? Or have never brought something in duty free ?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I'd better donate my ISA to the MPs retirement fund instead then.
Tax isn't always black and white though; it can't be. And this is why issues like this one occur. And sometimes people stretch the definitions too far , or their interpretation of the law is fanciful, and it comes down to the judiciary to decide if the person is taking the piss or not. It's the same for all of us, not just people in schemes like this one.
I think ISAs are a bit different to the artificial, fancifully interpreted, schemes which these footballers seem to have paid into.
Digging a hole here Davey
This.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I agree. Let the judiary decide, but don't bankrupt people whilst the legal process is still ongoing.
And you seem to be presuming that footballers are totally and absolutely unemployable once they finish playing. They can always get a job on civvy street like me and you have to.
Surely there needs to be some cut off point time wise. How can the tax man go back 5/6 years and retrospectively punish someone. That's morally wrong.
There should be a 2 year challenge period. Then people can budget accordingly.
I also agree with the latter point. That's wrong.
Totally this.
I disagree. If you are proven to have be fiddling taxes then time shouldn't come into it.
I agree but I go back to my previous point that this would apply to people who were signed up to legitamite hmrc approved schemes.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That's a poor example as you are allowed to earn £20 per week before losing Income Support.
http://www.welfarerights.net/benefits-guides/Income-Support
But if a court proves you have fiddled the system then you should pay it back. I imagine HMRC only go after the real piss-takers so I have little sympathy and I speak as someone who has been self-employed for almost 2 decades.