another reason to hate this ****!

Rorschach

Rorschach

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
8,104
3,999
113
NULL
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/dj-moyles-doubled-car-dealer-avoid-tax-192438112.html#C2S19oN





.
DJ Moyles Doubled As Car Dealer To Avoid Tax
.
.
DJ Chris Moyles claimed to be a second-hand car dealer to save £1m in tax, a tribunal has found.

Moyles and two other men joined a scheme called Working Wheels, which allowed them to say they incurred large fees working in the car trade.

These fees could then be set against their tax bill.

Working Wheels counted "450 fund managers, celebrities and other high earners between 2006 and 2008" as members.

Moyles took to Twitter to deny knowingly doing anything illegal - but admitted he had been naive.

The former Radio One Breakfast Show host wrote: "I want to comment about a recent tribunal tax ruling.

"Upon advice, I signed up to a scheme which I was assured was legal. Despite this, my knowledge of the dealings of the scheme were naive.

"I'm not a tax expert and acted on advice I was given. This was a mistake and I accept the ruling without reservation.

"I take full responsibility and have learnt a valuable lesson."


what a total arsehole <ok>
 
How much tax does he pay vs you? If he's such a **** - why don't you pay more than him?

Truth is, he subsidizes you.
 
MalteseMick said:
How much tax does he pay vs you? If he's such a **** - why don't you pay more than him?

Truth is, he subsidizes you.
Click to expand...

Quelle véritable merde!

There's a system in place. We pay what we are required to pay, he, as a high earner, lies in order to avoid same.
 
ncgandy said:
Quelle véritable merde!

There's a system in place. We pay what we are required to pay, he, as a high earner, lies in order to avoid same.
Click to expand...

I kinda agree with this in principle, but the bastards keep changing the actual rules (while placing moral absolutes on their subjects adhering to these whatever-way-the-wind-blows rules) - for example, it was 40% HE a few years back, it went to 50% as a temporary solution to the recession, ConDem reduced it to 45% because 50% actually cost more money with higher earners ****ing off somewhere else - now Labour have pledged to put it back up to 50% if they get in. The line is not being moved because of an optimal tax generating figure, it is being moved because people don't like other people being better off than themselves - and want to collectively piss them off whether or not it is actually beneficial to do so. You can't preach rules-are-rules, whenever populist governments can change them willy nilly.
 
I agree with that wholeheartedly, but that doesn't forgive Moyles, who could care less about all that and just wanted to rip off whatever system was in place.
 
ncgandy said:
I agree with that wholeheartedly, but that doesn't forgive Moyles, who could care less about all that and just wanted to rip off whatever system was in place.
Click to expand...

Do you actually know that Moyles 'could not care less... and just wanted to rip off whatever system was in place'?

I mean if there was no income tax system in place I don't see any evidence that the evil Moyles would wander around looking for some other sort of system to rip off.

What I think is more probable is that he has been looking after his own financial affairs, like most of us should do. If he, or his advisors, have pushed it a bit too far and went beyond what is legal then they should be back charged and punished. This (evidence, as presented in its current form, to me) is not to say he is a dishonest man, he appears to simply looking after himself and made a mistake in pushing it too far (it's obviously a mistake, he pushed it far enough for it to be ruled against him). As I said the government changes the rules of what is acceptable all the time, the borderline is not easy to define all the time - and moral absolutes appear variable.
 
I don't really know, no. I'm sure he really wanted to pay his dues, but was misinformed by his advisors.

Happens to me all the time.
 
Supers ignoring me these days, he's turned into a miserable ****. Preferred him when he was upsetting everyone and getting banned. :grin:
 
MalteseMick said:
I kinda agree with this in principle, but the bastards keep changing the actual rules (while placing moral absolutes on their subjects adhering to these whatever-way-the-wind-blows rules) - for example, it was 40% HE a few years back, it went to 50% as a temporary solution to the recession, ConDem reduced it to 45% ...
Click to expand...

Footnote for daily Mail readers:

So Mr Rooney will give us over 1.6 million pounds in taxes per year to fund our brave men on the front line of immigration, battling to defend us against the hordes of people cheating and sneaking through our borders, diluting the very essence of what it is to be British - including East Europeans*

* wops, Krauts, Deigos ... add other 'johnny foreigners' you have a legitimate right to hate, including expulsion from Our Island from groups undeserving this great nations tolerances, eg- Zoroastrians, gingas, Gypos, tree-huggers's, oirish, Toby, anyone with religious headgear, men who like other men's bottoms, Newcastle, people who play loud music in public places who are not British etc
 
MalteseMick said:
I kinda agree with this in principle, but the bastards keep changing the actual rules (while placing moral absolutes on their subjects adhering to these whatever-way-the-wind-blows rules) - for example, it was 40% HE a few years back, it went to 50% as a temporary solution to the recession, ConDem reduced it to 45% because 50% actually cost more money with higher earners f**king off somewhere else - now Labour have pledged to put it back up to 50% if they get in. The line is not being moved because of an optimal tax generating figure, it is being moved because people don't like other people being better off than themselves - and want to collectively piss them off whether or not it is actually beneficial to do so. You can't preach rules-are-rules, whenever populist governments can change them willy nilly.
Click to expand...

This happens in every tax bracket not just high earners . It also happens with every kind of tax , VAT etc. High earner tax payers have the means to employ someone to help them avoid paying their dues though . Unfortunately Mr Moyles must have paid peanuts and got a monkey .

Oh and as it happens that talentless fat bastard is employed at the BBC and is no doubt on a ridiculous salary that far exceeds his actual worth to the world . As it's us that subsidise the BBC through our licence fees it's us that pay his wages .

So the useless **** has ****ed us over twice .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back