[Closed] No Wiggo Tax thread then?

Tricky one - he obviously wants to hang on to as much of his money as possible without breaking the law, but it is morally wrong.

Still, if I succeed at the assessment to be a HMRC Compliance Officer next Friday, he'll be further down my list than Starbucks!

Meh. The Torys are happy with it or they'd do more about this and less about making the poor poorer. That means, by default, I have to be happy with it.

He does have only a short window to make as much as he can, though- mid 30's already, going to be retiring in 5 years or so, no more wins in the tour to look forward to now Contador is back. 5 years of making a mint and saving as much tax as possible before a ten year break followed by twenty years providing five minutes of fluff for Eurosport every July does not a rich man make in the long term.

when he's up there with starbucks and vodafone, i'll get on his back.

Look at the chair - typical Toff!

[img] [/img]

Wrong is wrong, innit?

Not having seen the details I will make this comment; surely he earns the majority of his income abroad? I'm surprised he's even resident in the UK for tax purposes.

I also note the furore over Chris Hoy's arrangements which turned out to be entirely legal and more importantly entirely morally defensible (once the Guardian had been corrected by someone with a rudimentary knowledge of tax).

Yes he could have done a Hamilton/Button/Coulthard and buggered off abroad.
Having said that what do most of the high earning footballers do??

Just because it's Wiggo it doesn't make it any more right than when Jimmy Carr or Starbucks do it. Actually quite surprised about that if it's true.

I'd probably do something fairly similar to him if I were in the same situation.
Someone's got to pay for George Osbourne's first class upgrade, and I'm quite happy if it's not me.

is not paying your taxes immoral?
it might be just plain wrong, but I'm not sure that that tax is an issue or morality.

It would be possible to do something about Starbucks - all it would need would be for enough of their customers to 'deduct the tax at source' by underpaying for their lattes and muffins etc. I never go there and don't have the organisational ability to start such a movement, but it would be good to see.

Typical champagne socialist.

It would be possible to do something about Starbucks - all it would need would be for enough of their customers to 'deduct the tax at source' by [s]underpaying for their lattes and muffins etc[/s] taking their custom elsewhere

FTFY

Sounds like The Mail (which the link in the OP refers to) is just trying to do a bit of Wiggo-bashing:

"The 32-year-old cycling hero who climbed to the top of his sport partly thanks to Lottery funding"

what, so his talent has naff all to do with climbing to the top of his sport then?
Muppets.

I notice how the government has pledged to close the loophole rather than actually doing so. I presume it means too many of their mates are using it.

is not paying your taxes immoral?

he pays his taxes, he is doing nothing illegal.

what, so his talent has naff all to do with climbing to the top of his sport then?

Well, if the lottery funded his training regime, fancy aero bike, the team and managers around him etc. etc. then yes, it probabky did contribute.

I know plenty of talented people who ended up dropping out of sports because they needed to pay the bills. Protentially better than Wiggins, but never know.

If this is morally wrong then I guess I'll have to cash in my ISA.

All those who'd happily pay more tax than they need to, please send it to me.

No different to ISA's and the like, just taking advantage of the laws that already exist.

Bit disappointed that he's chosen this route.

Rather at odds with his 'ordinary bloke' persona.

Prog on world service last night suggested that $3 trillion in tax is avoided worldwide each year by people using tax havens.

Will only chang when the rest of the tax payers say 'enough' and stop it happening.

Not sure why so many folk think it is ok
Tax avoidance - ISA and Pensions are more about encouraging folk to save than avoid tax. Avoidance is a continuum line that would start with that , pass through cash in hand, cycle to work scheme all the way to very aggressive tax avoidance schemes that are barely legal with artificially set up accounts simply to avoid tax/exploit tax rules. Bit like clampers can charge huge release fees - it is not illegal but i would struggle to defend it

I view it like not paying your bill by making your bill as small as possible them passing the rest of the bill to someone else who would be other tax payers.
If you think this is fine then I dont see much point debating it.

[quote=Daily Mail]his spokesman insisted it involved only a ‘small percentage’ of his income and the ‘vast majority’ of his earnings were taxed at the higher rate of 50 per cent. Sources say the cyclist paid more than £1?million in tax last year.

If what his spokesman said is true, WTF did he think he was doing? Is it worth saving a few quid if you're paying almost all you should if the chances are you end up looking like a dick?

Selfish, greedy twit.

It's completely different to an isa. An isa is an intentionally tax efficient investment product that doesn't exploit a loophole, and/or doesn't try to manipulate a legal position. You can also start an Isa with a quid and you don't to employ kpmg to manipulate it for you.

A legal way to minimise the tax you pay versus a way to minimise your tax which is legal. Yeah like night and day they are.

ISAs are also open to all, whereas most tax avoidance schemes aren't available to people on PAYE as you're taxed at source. Wiggo's behaviour is morally wrong, but probably legal.

Personally i could not give a sheehite what he does with his cash, he's earned it,.

A legal way to save and invest with limits which [s]minimise[/s]reduces the tax you pay versus a way to minimise your tax which is legal.

The scheme??.??.??.??used artificial transactions to generate tax relief from a property business that owns agricultural land,’ said the Treasury at the time.

Taken for a ride? The seven-time Olympic medallist has joined a partnership that will save him thousands in income tax
‘Although the land itself and the business owning it will exist, the transactions are not part of any genuine agricultural business. They are generated only to create an artificial loss that can be set off by users??.??.??.??to reduce their tax bill.’
In a Twofold-type scheme, an individual could end up paying no tax at all, by investing around £100,000 yet claiming tax relief on £1?million.
This is achieved as each £100,000 is supplemented by a £900,000 loan taken out by the partnership. That money, after being paid to the farmer, is swiftly repaid to the bank.
The accountants find a way to artificially ‘write down’ the investment to become a loss on paper, even though there was no cash loss.
The original £100,000 goes to the advisers and banks in fees, but the partnership members claim they have made a loss of £1?million, which they set against their income

Its just not the same though it is legal

So he's found a way to legal pay less tax and we are blaming him for using it not the government for it being open? Fair play to him, I would do exactly the same.

Edit. And surely he earns most of his money abroad so there is no issues anyway.

Of course it's the same. The point is Its either black or white, legal or illegal. There can be no room for shades of grey. Otherwise where do you draw the line on morality? Some people really push the envelope but stay the right side of legal, but I bet you most people with an accountant are doing something to avoid a high tax bill. Where do you draw the moral immoral line? The problem here is the idiots at HMRC who don't address these loopholes. I'm just really puzzled why someone who does something legal is label immoral.

munrobiker - Member

He does have only a short window to make as much as he can, though- mid 30's already, going to be retiring in 5 years

Same old bull that you hear from footballers, why can't I make my lifetimes earnings in a few years like these guys. And where does it say they have a right to make more in 1 year than I will make in a lifetime.

This whole tax avoidance thing is a ****ing disgrace, may be if the top end paid there way then the general tax rates could all be lower for everyone.

Look at the chair - typical Toff!

It's up for grabs if you''re interested [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/18/bradley-wiggins-olympic-time-trial-throne-up-for-auction?mobile-redirect=false ]clicky[/url]

Edit. And surely he earns most of his money abroad so there is no issues anyway.

Fair point breatheeasy.

The point is Its either black or white, legal or illegal. There can be no room for shades of grey.

Otherwise where do you draw the line on morality?

You are TJ and I claim my £5

I'm just really puzzled why someone who does something legal is label immoral.

Hopefully you can see some shades of grey in there as well

I agree Steve but its nieve to expect people to self elect to pay more tax. Where do you draw that line? The powers that be are the ones that should be criticised.

So he's found a way to legal pay less tax and we are blaming him for using it not the government for it being open? Fair play to him, I would do exactly the same.

+1, don't know why people are getting so pissy about this. I bet most would do it if they could.

Many of these schemes have failed before the courts in recent years so there is quite a high likelihood he will end up paying the tax anyway.

He does have only a short window to make as much as he can, though-

I bet most would do it if they could.

Most people would walk out of Tesco without paying if they could get away with it

What is your point?

You know junkyard you make a good point but I stand by the point that it's those who set the rules that need a kick up the ar*e

I stand by the point that it's those who set the rules that need a kick up the ar*e

It's easy, paye for everyone, footballers, self employed, directors, everyone. Everyone gets a salary and pays tax according to it.

Its a spectrum of activity rather than those who avoid tax and those who don't. I bet you most self employed people with an accountant are doing something within the rules to avoid paying more tax than they have to.

I just think its impractical to leave it up to individuals and their accountants to decide where to draw the line between avoiding it a bit too much and paying the right amount and not a penny more. Or are we suggesting that everyone who doesn't automatically pay the maximum tax possible is immoral? Now that's nieve.