Bristol Bears Today

Does he? Any proof aside from him buying a single place in Barbados? The bias is insane. Criticised Andrew Neil yet? Thought not.

A right-wing capitalist - don't make me laugh.

 

Ever heard of the paradise papers?

What proof on Andrew Neil?

Question show us a country where the sort of Marxist/left wing that has not failed?

Gary Lineker net worth 27mil

BCFCRob net worth?

It's very easy to have marxist views when you are worth 27mil, sadly a lot of that would be taken away had labour under Corbyn won the election (although I am sure Saint Gary will have made provision for that eventuality) and come the revolution the red fascists will take the lot.

 

Another poster has answered.

Mr Neil a political commentator was employed as a political commentator. The BBC's impartiality rules allowed this to occur. I have already posted a criticism of BBC rules.

Mr Lineker is employed as an expert in sport.

He is clearly a capitalist with lucrative employment roles. His actions indicate favour of the free market. Centre right economics.

 

….. a bottle of vimto and a packet of crisps ..salt and vinegar, of course

 

Yes. I just mentioned the place he bought in Barbados. That was in the paradise papers. Even the both of you don't know what you're talking about.

So back to my original point, any evidence of him dodging tax aside from this instance? And in addition, can you link me to a quote of Lineker's that could be considered 'Marxism'.

Classy to mention my net worth of course. For my age I do okay for myself thanks, particularly given our generation are the first in history to have it harder than the previous . Clearly that capitalism thing is going well. Clearly that capitalism thing is going well.

 

Harder than the previous generation ?
How and what do you compare ?

If it's a pissing contest.

I'll start with Polio in my generation. I'll bet you'll need Google with this.
Cancer treatment was virtually non existant, smoking was viewed as a benefit.
Teachers exerted punishment that the snowflake generation (because that's what you are) would not believe.
I could go on and on but would only prove further your level of selfish ignorance.
Open your eyes, play the cards your dealt with and forget looking inward.
And thank the Lord your, nor my, generation endured the genuine pain and real suffering that my parents experienced.

 

It was an offshore tax avoidance scheme, how do you think Jimmy Carr got caught out? and luckily loads of them lost a lot of money because of their greed, my understanding is it was bought through an offshore agent, thus when he sold avoiding UK stamp duty of 5%, he knew exactly what he was doing, just loads of greedy rich people investing in an off shore tax avoidance scheme.

I suggest it's you yet again not knowing what you are talking about, just like your BLM posts.

 

I see the Lineker's ego yet again got the better of him, when HE announced (before the BBC officially announced) that Alex Scott was taking over question of sport and even then added a bit seemingly deliberately to get a reaction from the racists and HE succeeded.

 

Well seeing as on this very page, I mentioned him buying a property in Barbados, and your answer was to say 'ever heard of the paradise papers?', it's most likely you who didn't know that that was exactly where it is called out. Well played.

Gary Lineker avoided paying stamp duty on a single property, probably on someone else's advice, and paid with money already taxed at top rate by the government. You're most likely looking at £75k avoided maximum.

Jimmy Carr actively pushed his earnings through a Jersey-based scheme and paid as little as 1% on earnings. That could run into millions of pounds of avoidance.

There is absolutely no comparison between the amount of money Lineker avoided paying and Carr avoided paying. No tax avoidance is 'good', but there is a clear distinction between the two.

 

Ah right so he did avoid tax?, how many years would it take for you to have to pay 75k in tax on what you earn?, most of us have no choice because our tax is governed by PAYE.

There are roughly 2.5 million millionaires in the UK if they all avoided 75k in tax, that is one hell of a lot of tax billions.

 

And as it happens I absolutely agree with you. The government would do well to go after those who dodge the most tax, i.e. the corporations and the super rich. Instead they come after you and me for £100 here and there.

Unfortunately we all know a Tory government never will.

 

And any labour government go about it the wrong way, by increasing taxation of the super rich by far too much, who in turn bugger off abroad and don't pay any tax at all. Some of us can remember when Harold Wilson's labour government taxed the rich at 93% and most of them buggered off.

Which sort of drills down into the heart of this discussion, what do you honestly think that Lineker would have done labour won the last election with their 75% + taxation of the rich?, do you think he would not have protected his assets and would happily work for 25% or less of his 1.75mil wage packet?

I lived in France for 16 years and the last socialist president the useless Hollande put a 75% tax on everybody earning 1 mil euros or more, most of them fled to the UK, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Portugal and even Russia and worked from home, most earners of that wage do not need to be hands on and they lost that taxation and had to abandon it.

Also with corporations and big companies, there is always the risk, that for increased taxation they would claw that back by sacking workers.

 

Their manifesto was to tax those earning over £100k at 50%, so no idea where you got 75% from. Considering it's 45% for £150k+ at the moment, it's not really that radical, if we're going to actually stop the poor getting poorer as they are at the moment. 50% is still also far less than historical income taxes in Europe and the USA.

It's irrelevant really anyways. And to your questions regarding Lineker, I have no idea, I don't know the bloke, how on earth would I know how he'd react. Thing is though, I also don't have a pre-conceived agenda against him, all I can do is deal with the facts of what he's done already, which I've explained to you above.

You're absolutely right that too-high a taxation will scare people away and no one wants that. But there's no doubt about it, the rich should be paying more to balance the inequality gap. There is just so much money out there, not necessarily earned either, that only a portion of which could be redistributed to incredible effect. And in reality it should begin with the corporations.

 

In the grand scale of things 100k per year or 150k per year are not huge wages, certainly not in the millionaire bracket.

In real terms many of those you have mentioned, would actually have paid 67% because labour was also going to remove their personal allowances on top of the 45% and 50%.

Of course a limit was set at 80k so that MP's were not taxed at this rate and of course the average expenses claim for an MP is 146k which is non taxable, strange that?, I'm alright Jack.

If you think Lineker would not protect his assets and earnings from even 67% tax, you are truly naive, most people would. I have always found it strange that all of these woke 'celebs' stating they would be willing to pay more tax, there is a simple answer whilst tax is at the levels that they are, pay the other 30% or so you would be taxed under a socialist government to charity and then we will believe you.

 

You introduced "Nothing boils middle-aged p**s more than someone famous having the sheer check to have an opinion different to the right-wing".

Piss boiling? Check you posts. Anger and insults. Middle aged? Yes. Prick? Possibly. Right wing? Never.

Mr Lineker. He is one of the wealthy elite. He invests capital abroad. He had interest in a multitude of UK companies that sought to utilise tax breaks. He owns multiple homes.Don't know what you are talking about? Mr Lineker is obviously a capitalist. His actions indicate favour of the free market. It is centre right economics.

Classy. You habitually insult others in your posts.

Harder? A poster has mentioned the pissing contest. Check the unemployment figures in 82/83 v now or the average life expectancy of males in the seventies. You will live longer and you are living through times of far higher employment.

 

calling people middle aged pricks is not being open minded!!!

kids where i grew up often went in the army not university!!! so did their parents and grand parents to fight in wars,

 

So the good old Colston Hall is to be renamed the Bristol Beacon. Sounds more like a newspaper or a nightclub to me !

And now the National Trust are putting up signage at 93 of its 300 odd properties advising where there were any links to colonialism or to slavery. Sounds like they want to put themselves on the edge of the precipice of going out of business for those people who won't want to visit any such properties on principal if they know about it. Again it sounds like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 

All we need now is for the sainted Guardian newspaper to acknowledge it's slave trade past and maybe we are getting somewhere.

But don't hold your breath the red fascist revisionists haven't for some mysterious reason gone after them yet, I can't imagine why, surely not hypocrisy?

 

When I heard this I pissed myself laughing!! What a loads of bollox!!!

 

Well quite
The 'do-gooders/liberals' win again as per usual