Jeremy Paxman Slags Off The Boomers

[DeepLurker]

Just posted a comment on the DM article. Wonder how many red flags I will manage to get?

[Si1]

And something they have no blame for.

true

a little understanding would help tho'

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

And something they have no blame for.

No blame for the situation or no blame for never thinking about it?

[sbn]

Whenever i start a boomer war of words with my dad, he simply points to all the banlers of my generation.

Lucky phuqers... Theve even been handed the ultimate defence on a plate!!!

[corevalue]

No blame for the situation or no blame for never thinking about it?

No blame for the situation.

The fact that the MSM has painted house price rises as a good thing for decades is going to take a lot of work to overturn. If it's explained to people, most understand, trouble is, it is not being explained.

Witness the Daily Express/Daily Mail/ BBC headlines when house prices rise, and the lack of the same when they fall.

[Democorruptcy]

Paxman in the mail:

Oct 2009

Many of the BBC's best-paid presenters are classing themselves as freelancers to avoid tens of thousands of pounds in tax.

Big-name stars such as Jeremy Paxman, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis have set up companies to channel their earnings, which will save them from having to pay the new 50 per cent income tax rate on salaries over £150,000.

The BBC is accused of encouraging the arrangement, which saves it millions of pounds a year in employer's national insurance payments, levied at 12.8 per cent of any salary.

More than 20 BBC presenters who are classed as freelance have set up service companies for their earnings

They include Newsnight hosts Paxman, Miss Maitlis and Gavin Esler; One O'clock News presenter Sophie Raworth; Sarah Montague, who presents Radio 4's Today programme; and Radio 2 host Jeremy Vine.

Service companies pay a corporation tax of as little as 21 per cent on their profits, which can then be paid to the presenter as a dividend - again taxed at a lower rate.

Presenters using a service company can also defer tax and make use of large expenses allowances.

Hundreds of other regular presenters are on freelance deals without their own companies, including John Humphrys, who has presented the Today programme since 1987.

Few BBC news and current affairs presenters do enough outside work to justify their freelance status. Contract restrictions bar many from working for other broadcasters, or from being paid for speeches in case they compromise their impartiality

Mr Paxman founded his Out in the Dark firm in May this year. If his estimated annual pay of £1million were a staff salary he would have to pay £627,000 in tax on it when the new 50 per cent rate comes in next April.

But if he were to channel his pay through his firm, then pay out the entire fee as a dividend, he could cut his costs to £520,100 in corporation and dividend tax - a £106,900 saving.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218131/How-BBCs-stars-dodge-50-tax.html

[Traktion]

That's a good article. However, the idea that the greys will get it all their own way in the coming decades is untrue. The young may have abandoned the vote, but that only means their rage will come out elsewhere and the government will lose its relevance even more.

[efdemin]

So using a company for minimising tax if you're a highly paid contractor is ok, but if you're a highly paid BBC presenter it's not ok? Got it.

[Bloo Loo]

So using a company for minimising tax if you're a highly paid contractor is ok, but if you're a highly paid BBC presenter it's not ok? Got it.

Id say that a presenter that works for one firm would be an employee.

They probably do...their own, in which case, salary figures are misleading and what we are looking at is a fee for a production by a firm of people.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Bloo Loo

[Saberu]

I don't even believe the 50 vs 60% example. i think it's more like 50% as a normal employee and 10% when you use the tax avoidance/ dividend route.

http://www.contracteye.co.uk/dividends_tax_pay.shtml

As you can see, it's 10% under 35,000 pounds but then that's magically cancelled out by a 10% tax break (see how purposely complex and obtuse this is).

So to sum up-

http://www.contracteye.co.uk/corporation_tax_guide.shtml

There are two rates of corporation tax according to the level of profits you make. In the 2011/12 tax year, you pay 20% on profits of up to £300,000. This is known as small profits rate and will apply to almost all IT contractor companies.

And

"For higher rate taxpayers, your dividend tax liability will effectively be 25% (see calculation below)."

So effectively he pays 20% tax overall on income up to 300,000 pounds. Then add on 25% for income over 35,000 as a dividend. However if the dividend is earned by his wife/ girlfriend/ other overseas shareholder secretly earning the money FOR him in a tax-haven HE EFFECTIVELY ONLY PAYS 20% TAX OVERALL (up to 300,000 pounds).

And for his 300,000-500,000 it will be only marginally higher than 20%. So looking overall at around a 22% tax rate on his ENTIRE 500,000 pounds salary. And as it's a private company he setup we probably can't see who the shareholders are and whose taking those dividends.

That's less % tax than people on a very low PAYE salary are paying. He would be paying almost 50% if this was a PAYE income of 500,000.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Saberu

[ccc]

Id sat that a presenter that works for one firm would be an employee.

They probably do...their own, in which case, salary figures are misleading and what we are looking at is a fee for a production by a firm of people.

If they do work for BBC, and some documentaries, and other stuff on Virgin radio - and promotional stuff for comapnies. Then yes I think it is reasonable to class them as being their own 'company'.

If they have worked for the BBC for the last 10 years then no.

[Democorruptcy]

If they do work for BBC, and some documentaries, and other stuff on Virgin radio - and promotional stuff for comapnies. Then yes I think it is reasonable to class them as being their own 'company'.

If they have worked for the BBC for the last 10 years then no.

Noticed how newsreaders now pop-up presenting programs?

e.g. Emily Maitlis fronting one about Donald Trump, Fiona Bruce did Leonardo Da Vinci last night, John Humphrey did The Welfare State, etc.

Prior to service companies wouldn't they be done by less well known faces? So does that mean these programs cost more? Are they BBC funded and produced or bought in from outside production companies - who have a guaranteed buyer at any price i.e. BBC? Let's hope we are getting value for our licence fee....

[Downside]

wow the hate spilling out of the comments on that article is incredible.

[ccc]

Noticed how newsreaders now pop-up presenting programs?

e.g. Emily Maitlis fronting one about Donald Trump, Fiona Bruce did Leonardo Da Vinci last night, John Humphrey did The Welfare State, etc.

Prior to service companies wouldn't they be done by less well known faces? So does that mean these programs cost more? Are they BBC funded and produced or bought in from outside production companies - who have a guaranteed buyer at any price i.e. BBC? Let's hope we are getting value for our licence fee....

We have always had people presenting lots. However it does seem in recent years news presenters are gettting about a bit more. However if it is not for a different company it is not going to help them with any tax investigation or the likes.

On a related note I read this morning that Alan Hansen gets £40k PER show for Match of the Day.

[Dorkins]

Noticed how newsreaders now pop-up presenting programs?

I hate it when newspuppets present documentaries. Unlike an academic who has studied the subject for decades, they have no idea of which points in the script are the important ones, which are controversial etc so you end up getting everything on full dramatic volume. It's like having a hammy actor emote a Wikipedia article at you.

[efdemin]

Noticed how newsreaders now pop-up presenting programs?

e.g. Emily Maitlis fronting one about Donald Trump, Fiona Bruce did Leonardo Da Vinci last night, John Humphrey did The Welfare State, etc.

Prior to service companies wouldn't they be done by less well known faces? So does that mean these programs cost more? Are they BBC funded and produced or bought in from outside production companies - who have a guaranteed buyer at any price i.e. BBC? Let's hope we are getting value for our licence fee....

Or maybe the BBC have already signed them their companies up so they may as well make them work a bit more for their money?

I wouldn't be surprised if the presenters were pushing for these types of programme either. Presenting the watered-down BBC News must be pretty soul-destroying if your ego is based around producing and presenting 'worthwhile' journalism.

[mercsl]

we have somewhere in the region of 250,000 extra population per year in this country, net

say 120,000 homes

the Leeds conurbation has a population of c. 1million+ (taking into account the socially conituguous extension to Cleckhuddersfax, Wakefield, Bradford, Ilkley, maybe Harrogate)

ergo you are a ****ing idiot

but I had worked that out earlier however, you just keep reminding me

do you also post as Hamptoncourt on the DT? He's completely innumerate too, as is my mother in law (bless her) who makes up random numerically insupportable crap stats to bolster non-positions like your own

The reports meant referred to the urban area of leeds, approx 486k acording to census around 2003.True figure for immigration is much more than reported as most hpc'ers agree , bulls and bears.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053652/UK-population-hit-70m-2027.html

These people need to be housed somehow and we have the lowest level of building new homes since the 1920s, even if we accept the lowest figures for immigration the country is up the creek.

You would make your points better if you gave up the angry little man routine ...

Edited October 31, 2011 by mercsl

[ccc]

Or maybe the BBC have already signed them their companies up so they may as well make them work a bit more for their money?

I wouldn't be surprised if the presenters were pushing for these types of programme either. Presenting the watered-down BBC News must be pretty soul-destroying if your ego is based around producing and presenting 'worthwhile' journalism.

I doubt it. Unless they are lunatics their contract will dictate they get paid per show/hour/day or whatever.

[Democorruptcy]

Or maybe the BBC have already signed them their companies up so they may as well make them work a bit more for their money?

I wouldn't be surprised if the presenters were pushing for these types of programme either. Presenting the watered-down BBC News must be pretty soul-destroying if your ego is based around producing and presenting 'worthwhile' journalism.

It's clearly a hard life working for the BBC.

[efdemin]

It's clearly a hard life working for the BBC.

Depends what your job in it is I guess. It can't be as hard as a premiership footballer or an MP though, surely?

Don't really see how much someone gets paid affects the worth of what they're saying though, tbh.

[Si1]

The reports meant referred to the urban area of leeds, approx 486k acording to census around 2003.True figure for immigration is much more than reported as most hpc'ers agree , bulls and bears.

http://www.dailymail...t-70m-2027.html

These people need to be housed somehow and we have the lowest level of building new homes since the 1920s, even if we accept the lowest figures for immigration the country is up the creek.

You would make your points better if you gave up the angry little man routine ...

you said the size of leeds

this is not the same as the urban area which any non-dimwit would realise is arbitrarily defined by political boundaries

numpty

edit to add:

just checked the ONS actual report (took a few minutes, maybe as long as it takes you to understand long words in the daily mail I assume)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2010-based-projections/rep-2010-based-npp.html#tab-Summary-of-long-term-assumptions

yeap, they assume a constant immigration rate based on recent years, exrapolating this forward 25 years with nio change

they are honest about it, but it does not constitute a report that examines likelihood or dynamics of future immigration

basically you, and the daily mail, being stoooopid, have taken a report with a base assumption of high immigration and said it proves we will have high immigration for the next 25 years

hilarious and extremely foolish

Edited October 31, 2011 by Si1

[Maggot_with_halitosis]

Um, perhaps those who are so offended by newsreaders appearing in programs other than news bulletins ought to learn how to switch off the idiot box. Maybe pick up a "book" now and then. Even better - unplug the TV, remove the plug from the power cable and don't renew your TV licence. All TV is tedious utter cr@p these days, and obsolete in the internet age.

[crash2006]

Um, perhaps those who are so offended by newsreaders appearing in programs other than news bulletins ought to learn how to switch off the idiot box. Maybe pick up a "book" now and then. Even better - unplug the TV, remove the plug from the power cable and don't renew your TV licence. All TV is tedious utter cr@p these days, and obsolete in the internet age.

spot on, havent used it years.

[Dorkins]

Um, perhaps those who are so offended by newsreaders appearing in programs other than news bulletins ought to learn how to switch off the idiot box. Maybe pick up a "book" now and then. Even better - unplug the TV, remove the plug from the power cable and don't renew your TV licence. All TV is tedious utter cr@p these days, and obsolete in the internet age.

Good television documentaries are an important connection between the cloistered world of academia and the general public that pays for it. Popular science books are nice too, but there's no reason the two can't complement one another. Television (whether broadcast or streamed online) can show beautiful or interesting images that books would struggle to convey and a skilled lecturer can often hold an audience's attention better than page after page of text. A documentary or lecture can spark interest which the viewer is able to pursue more deeply through reading.

[ccc]

Um, perhaps those who are so offended by newsreaders appearing in programs other than news bulletins ought to learn how to switch off the idiot box. Maybe pick up a "book" now and then. Even better - unplug the TV, remove the plug from the power cable and don't renew your TV licence. All TV is tedious utter cr@p these days, and obsolete in the internet age.

Some TV is excellent. Frozen planet and the Box that changed Britain such examples. There are gems amongst all that dross. And yes there is a hell of a lot of dross about.