Oohvonkyvonky
Well-Known Member
waspish said:
He'd probably catch it and sell it back to em the ****
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harry due in court on Monday 23rd January 2012 (merged)
- Thread starter kismet
- Start date
He'd probably catch it and sell it back to em the ****
SWP's back said:PAYE has nothing to do with it and it would be 40% of the total amount on the transactions.sniff said:gaudinho's stolen car said:No, because this was on top of his wage which must have been upwards of £100k, so the 40% would be payable on all of it.
But it wasnt ever part of his salary, ,even declared it would have been a finders fee of some sort....
as such it wouldnt be a PAYE bonus, it was a dividend payout, or sounds like that... that has a maximum tax of about 43% above £150k...
Before you argued 22% now you're saying 43%. why would he pay 43% when he only HAS to pay 40%?
And what did you mean by sliding scale?
Well i was pointing out that because you earn over £150k you do not pay 50% tax on all of it..... you will only pay 50% on the ammount over £150k, the other poster said he would pay £75k in tax as 50% of £150. The reason i mentioned PAYE is because you said his wage was abouve £100k, if thats the case then ypu linked it to his wage, and PAYE is how you are taxed on his wage.
The 43% is the max you can pay on extra payments that are not related to you're salary... and the sliding scale covers the fact that on £190k you would pay 10% on the first £35k then 35% until £150k then 42% on the ammount above that.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,774
Yes sniff, I have my tax advice qualifications but he is going to pay top rate on all of the amount as he was already over the threshold. Be they salary or bonus payments. You don't "reset" back to basic rate for each different job or payment and he'd have been closer to £100 per month than £100 per annum as his basic salary.
Also 50% wasn't around then so the scale was 10, 22 and 40%, why would he elect to pay 43% which is 3% more than he needed to pay?
Also 50% wasn't around then so the scale was 10, 22 and 40%, why would he elect to pay 43% which is 3% more than he needed to pay?
SWP's back said:Yes sniff, I have my tax advice qualifications but he is going to pay top rate on all of the amount as he was already over the threshold. Be they salary or bonus payments. You don't "reset" back to basic rate for each different job or payment and he'd have been closet to £100 per month than as his basic salary.
Also 50% wasn't around then so the scale was 10, 22 and 40%, why would he elect to pay 43% which is 3% more than he needed to pay?
Ahh right, i didnt think that another seperate payment would be counted....
I think thats what they have tried to do anyway, by Mandric setting up that fake company, i assumed that it was a dividend and thats what he is arguning.
That's why i thought a seperate payment would not count his Income tax from Pay.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 88,774
Yep, imagine it like a test tube filling up with 10, 22 & 40 written on the side of it. Each job or income goes in and fills it up, anything above the 40 is taxed as such.sniff said:SWP's back said:Yes sniff, I have my tax advice qualifications but he is going to pay top rate on all of the amount as he was already over the threshold. Be they salary or bonus payments. You don't "reset" back to basic rate for each different job or payment and he'd have been closet to £100 per month than as his basic salary.
Also 50% wasn't around then so the scale was 10, 22 and 40%, why would he elect to pay 43% which is 3% more than he needed to pay?
Ahh right, i didnt think that another seperate payment would be counted....
I think thats what they have tried to do anyway, by Mandric setting up that fake company, i assumed that it was a dividend and thats what he is arguning.
That's why i thought a seperate payment would not count his Income tax from Pay.
He's tried to avoid paying any tax on those payments which is pure greed given his wealth and hopefully it costs him his liberty. He could have paid it very easily but wanted to avoid it. Like doing a big shop but trying to hide a bottle of bubbly inside your jacket.
law74
Well-Known Member
But Arry didnt get the money, his pooch did, and the only reason why Arry went to open the account is that his pooch would have had to spend too long in quarantine.
Surely no one wants the poor pup locked in the kennels?
Surely no one wants the poor pup locked in the kennels?
DTeacher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Nov 2009
- Messages
- 4,515
- Location
- Bolton
- Team supported
- The best team in the land and all the WORLD
It's probably been posted already, but for those who have missed it, especially our Tottingham visitors:
<a class="postlink" href="http://cupwinkcook.net/trout/arry.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://cupwinkcook.net/trout/arry.gif</a>
<a class="postlink" href="http://cupwinkcook.net/trout/arry.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://cupwinkcook.net/trout/arry.gif</a>
barryo
Well-Known Member
No income tax, no VAT,
No premier points off Man City,
In the dock, face so pale,
Harry Redknapps goin to jail....
(only fools and horses tune)
No premier points off Man City,
In the dock, face so pale,
Harry Redknapps goin to jail....
(only fools and horses tune)
laserblue
Well-Known Member
barryo said:No income tax, no VAT,
No premier points off Man City,
In the dock, face so pale,
Harry Redknapps goin to jail....
(only fools and horses tune)
good effort
BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
Edited for added comedy effect.barryo said:No income tax, no VAT,
No premier points off Man City,
In the dock, face so pale,
Harry Redknapps goin to jail....
(only dogs and twitchers tune)