Moral authority and of RTE Current Affairs "Stars"

Cody Pomeray · 08-04-2013 5:05pm

Zulu wrote: »

You mean like every other contractor in the country? This isn't a "tax avoidance scheme", it's exactly how honest taxpayers pay their taxes when they are self employed contractors.

The companies legislation was not introduced to allow one-man-bands avoid tax.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and i would have no hesitation in calling these companies special-purpose vehicles expressly instigated for the purposes of tax avoidance.

There is no other credible reason as to why 7 of RTE's 10 best paid presenters would, in the course of their ongoing employment almost exclusively with RTE, choose to establish "media companies" with practically the sole purpose being their "broadcasting appearances".

ShowMeTheCash · 10-04-2013 1:20pm

Zulu wrote: »

You mean like every other contractor in the country? This isn't a "tax avoidance scheme", it's exactly how honest taxpayers pay their taxes when they are self employed contractors.

...but don't let that little fact get in the way of tabloidesque mob mentality. :rolleyes:

Look it's a loop hole that is simply not fair, in most circumstances where a company can turn a profit one year and perhaps a loss the following year it makes sense... But this is not the case with these individuals! Anyone paid a large amount of money for a project may essentially do the same, pay themselves a wage for the next 10 years to AVOID paying a higher % of the full amount. But it is effectively a legal way to cheat the system!

A Primal Nut · 10-04-2013 1:21pm

The sooner RTE is privatised the better.

Zulu · 10-04-2013 1:33pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look it's a loop hole that is simply not fair,

You say that, but you overlook the negatives. No sick leave, no annual holidays, no pension contributions, far less social welfare when you loose your job, and ultimately no job security.

Anyone paid a large amount of money for a project may essentially do the same, pay themselves a wage for the next 10 years to AVOID paying a higher % of the full amount.

Not really, you'd need to be invoicing for that project across the next 10 years in order to do that. Which wouldn't be legal I suggest. Yeah I suppose, but you'd only be able to draw down the lower salary for the next 10 years, and you wouldn't have access to the funds in the company account. Which sound fair to me - essentially, you'd be providing for your future. You'd still be paying tax across those future years. You'd only be avoiding the upper tax band by living a very modest and conservative lifestyle (in your example).

But it is effectively a legal way to cheat the system!

You can't legally cheat the system.

pragmatic1 · 10-04-2013 8:53pm

In no way, shape, or form, is Ryan Tubrity worth that type of money. He's one of the worst interviewers I've ever seen.

Zulu · 10-04-2013 9:23pm

pragmatic1 wrote: »

In no way, shape, or form, is Ryan Tubrity worth that type of money. He's one of the worst interviewers I've ever seen.

True.

VinLieger · 12-04-2013 11:32am

Well it would seem they are all due for another paycut anyway http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/overpaid-rte-stars-will-have-40pc-slashed-from-their-wages-29191202.html

Huzzah

Zombrex · 12-04-2013 12:39pm

pragmatic1 wrote: »

In no way, shape, or form, is Ryan Tubrity worth that type of money. He's one of the worst interviewers I've ever seen.

He is inexplicably popular. But then when has popular and good ever been tied to each other. Sure Scary Movie V is just out, and no doubt will make a shed ton of money.

mike65 · 12-04-2013 1:13pm

Tubriddy is not popular on his own account, he is simply in a timeslot/household name programme which attracts plenty of viewers. The proof of this is looking at his radio slot ratings - they stack up very poorly against Gerry Ryan in the same slot before his death and against Today FMs Ray D'Arcy.

Give Tubs his own chat show on a Sunday at 10 pm for example and it would get half the LLS viewership.

ShowMeTheCash · 12-04-2013 1:24pm

Zulu wrote: »

You say that, but you overlook the negatives. No sick leave, no annual holidays, no pension contributions, far less social welfare when you loose your job, and ultimately no job security.

Not really, you'd need to be invoicing for that project across the next 10 years in order to do that. Which wouldn't be legal I suggest. Yeah I suppose, but you'd only be able to draw down the lower salary for the next 10 years, and you wouldn't have access to the funds in the company account. Which sound fair to me - essentially, you'd be providing for your future. You'd still be paying tax across those future years. You'd only be avoiding the upper tax band by living a very modest and conservative lifestyle (in your example).

You can't legally cheat the system.

OK I have not over looked the negatives, I have been on both sides of this myself, I was a private contractor in Dublin for a time (Self-employed) as well as being employed.

I can assure you for essentially doing the same job the benefits to being self employed far outweigh the negatives.

Job security... No such thing, unless perhaps you are a civil servant.

You cannot draw down the dole as soon as you become unemployed true! But really that is a risk you need to factor into any business plan you make when going it alone! You essentially have to pay for your own holidays, pension etc.. etc.. But I was also essentially my own boss and was being paid 3 times more had I been doing the same job for a company.

The RTE golden boys mentioned on here are not in any risk!

Also you say "You'd only be avoiding the upper tax band by living a very modest and conservative lifestyle (in your example)".

Really, I think we get the first 18K free then is it 32K a year at 20%...
You can essentially pay yourself above the national average salary and still pay very little tax, not to mention essentially paying members of your family etc.. etc..

They do it not to ensure their business, they do it to pay the minimum amount of tax they can get away with!

Zulu · 12-04-2013 1:35pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

They do it not to ensure their business, they do it to pay the minimum amount of tax they can get away with!

:rolleyes: Give me a break. Rabble rabble rabble.

Do you pay extra tax to the revenue? Say, pay for a 2.2lr car instead of a 1.8? Are you claiming your house is in a tax band higher than it is??
No??? So you are trying to get away with paying the minimum amount of tax you can get away with. You have no moral authority either.

This perception that they are wrong to pay their taxes as a contractor is so stupid it beggars belief. EVERYONE tries to pay the minimum.

They have plenty of things to be castigated over, but working as a contractor is not one.

ShowMeTheCash · 12-04-2013 1:46pm

Zulu wrote: »

:rolleyes: Give me a break. Rabble rabble rabble.

Do you pay extra tax to the revenue? Say, pay for a 2.2lr car instead of a 1.8? Are you claiming your house is in a tax band higher than it is??
No??? So you are trying to get away with paying the minimum amount of tax you can get away with. You have no moral authority either.

This perception that they are wrong to pay their taxes as a contractor is so stupid it beggars belief. EVERYONE tries to pay the minimum.

They have plenty of things to be castigated over, but working as a contractor is not one.

Look agreed, this is not the main issue, I was imply making a point being you seem to jump to their defense arguing the down sides to being self-employed where in their case I see none!

ShowMeTheCash · 12-04-2013 1:47pm

And just another point, like most people, I do not choose how I pay tax!

oscarBravo · 12-04-2013 5:27pm

Zulu wrote: »

They have plenty of things to be castigated over, but working as a contractor is not one.

I've always understood that the measure being described here is not one that Revenue will accept. If the relationship between a person and a company is objectively and self-evidently one of employment, then the person is an employee, end of story.

I think it's pretty hard to argue against the assertion that Tubridy et al are, objectively, employed by RTE.

Kinski · 13-04-2013 11:03am

Zulu wrote: »

This perception that they are wrong to pay their taxes as a contractor is so stupid it beggars belief. EVERYONE tries to pay the minimum.

Van Morrison never claimed the artist's exemption, despite being fully-entitled to do so.

Zulu · 13-04-2013 11:19am

Kinski wrote: »

Van Morrison never claimed the artist's exemption, despite being fully-entitled to do so.

So? Because he chooses to pay additional tax, everyone else is wrong not to?

Do you pay additional tax that you don't need to? Or do you only hold such lofty ideals for "celebrities" and the like?

Kinski · 13-04-2013 11:35am

Zulu wrote: »

So? Because he chooses to pay additional tax, everyone else is wrong not to?

Do you pay additional tax that you don't need to? Or do you only hold such lofty ideals for "celebrities" and the like?

Paying tax is not a "lofty ideal," and this is not about "choosing" to pay additional tax. Elaborate tax avoidance schemes are, imo, wrong, regardless of whether a person is on TV or not (though it really grates to see people who owe their entire careers to a semi-state body - a body which now admits it has payed them far too much - using them.)

The Van Morrison reference I threw out there as an example of someone who chose to pay tax in much the same way as everyone else, even though he didn't even need to resort to calling in an accountant to figure out how he could avoid it. And despite his undoubtedly large tax bill, he's still not short of a few quid (and can say that he has contributed to the country he makes his home in a far more tangible way than Ryan Tubridy ever has.)

Zulu · 13-04-2013 11:43am

Kinski wrote: »

Paying tax is not a "lofty ideal,"

Yawn, paying additional unwarranted tax is.

and this is not about "choosing" to pay additional tax.

Sure it is; I'm discussing the differences between permanent PAYE employees and temporary contract staff. The later apparently causing moral outrage because they are paying their tax in a different manner.

For the record, I'm a contractor. So I'm taking any negative comments about how I pay all the tax I owe each year as somehow making me less of a citizen personally.

Kinski · 13-04-2013 12:11pm

Zulu wrote: »

Yawn, paying additional unwarranted tax is.
Sure it is; I'm discussing the differences between permanent PAYE employees and temporary contract staff. The later apparently causing moral outrage because they are paying their tax in a different manner.

For the record, I'm a contractor. So I'm taking any negative comments about how I pay all the tax I owe each year as somehow making me less of a citizen personally.

Your position seems to boil down to "tax avoidance is not a practice than can ever be questioned."

Your own circumstances are not relevant or interesting to me, unless you happen to be one of these people, which I'm sure you're not.

The top stars at RTE are effectively in full-time employment with the national broadcaster, yet they work on a contract basis, thus avoiding much larger tax liabilities. And while legal, this is a questionable practice.

Zulu · 13-04-2013 12:18pm

Kinski wrote: »

Your position seems to boil down to "tax avoidance is not a practice than can ever be questioned."

No. May postion is, if someone is tax compliant, then they shouldn't be castigated for somehow "dodging" tax. If someone pays their tax then they should be respected for as much.

Now, if they we claiming expenses incorrectly to lower their tax liability, then fair enough but that hasn't been suggested here.

The top stars at RTE are effectively in full-time employment with the national broadcaster, yet they work on a contract basis, thus avoiding much larger tax liabilities

No they are contractors. Unless you have evidence to the contrary? Are they PAYE?

And while legal, this is a questionable practice.

Your position seems to be "legally paying ones tax is a questionable practice if you are a contractor".

oscarBravo · 13-04-2013 4:24pm

Zulu wrote: »

No they are contractors. Unless you have evidence to the contrary? Are they PAYE?

To my earlier point, the question isn't so much "are they PAYE" as "should they be PAYE"?

Again, objectively, it's hard to argue that the relationship isn't one of employment. I'm fairly certain that if I told Revenue I was an independent contractor providing a service to my employer and therefore not subject to employment law, I'd be told in no uncertain terms where to get off - so why can RTE presenters get away with it?

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/code-of-practice-on-employment-status.pdf

Zulu · 13-04-2013 6:45pm

It's not even close to being exclusive to Rte

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 11:40am

Zulu wrote: »

It's not even close to being exclusive to Rte

"If someone is tax compliant, then they shouldn't be castigated for somehow "dodging" tax."

Look you can argue this point if you wish. There are a whole host of questionable laws and tax regulations to purely benefit the top earners in this country... Just because it is legal does not make it just!

Social justice Ireland reckons there are around 700,000 people living in poverty in this country 200,000 of which children...

The amount of money the RTE big hitters make in light of this is arguably immoral working the system to pay less tax at the same time in my opinion renders them void of any social responsibility therefore need to be rooted out!

Zulu · 15-04-2013 11:50am

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

... in my opinion renders them void of any social responsibility therefore need to be rooted out!

Oh right, I get you now. It's because they are rich that they need to be rooted out. Nice.

Lets just take all the wealth from the wealthy and spread it out across everyone. Then everyone can be the exact same. Poverty solved.

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 12:35pm

Zulu wrote: »

Oh right, I get you now. It's because they are rich that they need to be rooted out. Nice.

Lets just take all the wealth from the wealthy and spread it out across everyone. Then everyone can be the exact same. Poverty solved.

That is not a bad idea....

Zulu · 15-04-2013 1:23pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That is not a bad idea....

Interesting considering your username.

...its a terrible idea, but there will always be people who think it's a good one.

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 1:37pm

Zulu wrote: »

Interesting considering your username.

...its a terrible idea, but there will always be people who think it's a good one.

Why is it a terrible idea?
As a nation or even as people we are lead to believe that the world works a certain way.... In order for a very very small % of people to be excessively wealthy a very large % of people have to be extremely poor...

I am a hypocrite, I work for organizations that effectively do this, make the rich richer which albeit indirectly making the poverty divide that much greater!!!

But I am not disillusioned to what I am doing nor am I ignorant to how it works... Idealistically as a people we can be compassionate and engineer a much better solution for the grater good but the system in which we live is to benefit the top...

But like most of the brainwashed masses you will think it is terrible idea!

Zulu · 15-04-2013 1:40pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But like most of the brainwashed masses you will think it is terrible idea!

Yes, I'm brainwashed because I don't agree with you.

VinLieger · 15-04-2013 1:41pm

Zulu wrote: »

Oh right, I get you now. It's because they are rich that they need to be rooted out. Nice.

Lets just take all the wealth from the wealthy and spread it out across everyone. Then everyone can be the exact same. Poverty solved.

No but because they are rich they are able to afford to pay for these tax avoidcance schemes. How is it fair someone who is richer can pay money to a clever accountant or lawyer so overall they pay less tax?

Zulu · 15-04-2013 1:44pm

VinLieger wrote: »

How is it fair someone who is richer can pay money to a clever accountant or lawyer so overall they pay less tax?

So long as they are paying the tax they are liable for, I've no problem.

I've a massive problem with people not paying the tax that they owe, or social welfare fraud - for example

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 1:48pm

Zulu wrote: »

Yes, I'm brainwashed because I don't agree with you.

OK why is it a terrible idea? Convince me why someone should earn 700K and do all they can to avoid paying higher tax brackets when 200,000 kids live on next to nothing?

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 1:52pm

Zulu wrote: »

So long as they are paying the tax they are liable for, I've no problem.

I've a massive problem with people not paying the tax that they owe, or social welfare fraud - for example

LOL - You know they spend more money trying to catch people committing welfare fraud than the fraud that is actually being extracted from the state!

Mathematically it does not make sense to even peruse it, I think again a government ploy to bamboozle people as back door deals are being done with government, banks and big business!

But it is easy to target the lower ends of society they usually cannot fight back!

VinLieger · 15-04-2013 1:56pm

Zulu wrote: »

So long as they are paying the tax they are liable for, I've no problem.

I've a massive problem with people not paying the tax that they owe, or social welfare fraud - for example

But thats just it they ARENT paying the tax they are liable for they are using a loophole that is available to them simply because of how much money they make.

Zulu · 15-04-2013 2:01pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK why is it a terrible idea? Convince me...

How can I? I'm one of the "brainwashed" masses. :rolleyes: I can't see the real truth, right?

VinLieger wrote: »

But thats just it they ARENT paying the tax they are liable for ...

Oh, they aren't? Well if they aren't paying the tax they are liable for, then they are evading tax - which is illegal.

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 2:08pm

Zulu wrote: »

How can I? I'm one of the "brainwashed" masses. :rolleyes: I can't see the real truth, right?

Oh, they aren't? Well if they aren't paying the tax they are liable for, then they are evading tax - which is illegal.

You say it is a terrible idea... But you do not say why it is a terrible idea so you appear to have no argument?

People who are brainwashed usually have no argument as the idea they hold is not their own... So I don't know are you brainwashed?

K-9 · 15-04-2013 2:21pm

Mod:

Cut out the sniping please, particularly the brainwashed stuff and keep it civil.

oscarBravo · 15-04-2013 2:27pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

That is not a bad idea....

It really is.

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 2:36pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It really is.

Why?

In it's simplistic terms, if someone had enough to feed 10 people and 9 people where starving would that not seem a little unfair?

oscarBravo · 15-04-2013 3:32pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Why?

In it's simplistic terms, if someone had enough to feed 10 people and 9 people where starving would that not seem a little unfair?

Yes, that's unfair. We're not talking about simplistic examples of unfairness, however; we're talking about whether it's a good idea to redistribute wealth so that everyone gets the same amount. Which it isn't.

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 4:34pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, that's unfair. We're not talking about simplistic examples of unfairness, however; we're talking about whether it's a good idea to redistribute wealth so that everyone gets the same amount. Which it isn't.

OK - I know it is not that simple and too be honest I am not really suggesting that, I am suggesting that people should not be allowed to earn extortionate amounts of money or own extortionate amounts of money whilst poverty is rife in this country or even globally...

Morally it is wrong - But people buy into the dream of getting rich!! Mathematically an impossibility but we tend not to worry too much about the reality of how our economy works...

The point I am making here is, we are actually led to believe that this is the only way our economy can work, but this is a nonsense essentially to keep people chasing the carrot! While a small few benefit!

BluntGuy · 15-04-2013 4:40pm

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK - I know it is not that simple and too be honest I am not really suggesting that, I am suggesting that people should not be allowed to earn extortionate amounts of money or own extortionate amounts of money whilst poverty is rife in this country or even globally...

By which mechanism would this be achieved? What constitutes "extortionate"?

That said, re:thread I don't have much time for RTÉ nor its "stars".

ShowMeTheCash · 15-04-2013 4:50pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

By which mechanism would this be achieved? What constitutes "extortionate"?

That said, re:thread I don't have much time for RTÉ nor its "stars".

I think extortionate needs to be put into context.
So what is the gap between those at the bottom vrs those at the top.

A report on poverty in Ireland said on average the bottom 10% in Ireland had a disposable income of around 210 euro a week, the top 10% is in around 2276 euro....

But the RTE's Tubs or Kenny are more like the top 2% probably closer to 7000 if they paid 40% taxation which I am sure they don't...

I think this is extortionate!

Moral authority and of RTE Current Affairs "Stars"

Comments