Ken Livingstone the tax dodger

Wookster

The Labour politician, who is hoping to replace Boris Johnson in this year’s election for Mayor of London, has previously attacked tax avoiders as “rich b

---

” who should “not be allowed to vote”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9107253/Ken-Livingstone-I-am-not-a-tax-dodger.html

Rank hypocracy...

chewmylegoff

how is he tax dodging, exactly? seems to have legitimately put income he earns into a company. it's not like this is an IR35 rort...

Graham_Devon

I assume he will just state "It's perfectly legal". Which it is.

But he shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. Another champagne socialist.

Itismehonest

Await a tirade, Wookster.
I found it hypocritical, too, but...........
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3817563

BTW - You don't read the Mail, do you? Apparently, if we spot anything hypocritical, we are meant to be Mail readers

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I assume he will just state "It's perfectly legal". Which it is.

But he shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. Another champagne socialist.

what should he do? should he arrange his tax affairs in the most inefficient way so as to pay the greatest amount of tax possible? is that what all socialists have to do? should a good socialist not claim tax deduction for any legitimate business expenses, for instance?

also, the assertion that he will only be paying 20% tax is nonsense. he will pay 20% CT tax, and then income tax on any distribution of the income (his wife's salary will be taxed, any salary he draws will be taxed, any dividends he receives will be taxed (at 25% as he will be a higher rate tax payer).

so if he received £100 and wanted to pay it to himself, he will pay £20 CT on the profit and £20 income tax on the £80 dividend. effective tax rate 40%.

if he is paying business expenses he would be able to offset these against tax if he was operating as a sole trader.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

what should he do? should he arrange his tax affairs in the most inefficient way so as to pay the greatest amount of tax possible? is that what all socialists have to do? should a good socialist not claim tax deduction for any legitimate business expenses, for instance?

also, the assertion that he will only be paying 20% tax is nonsense. he will pay 20% CT tax, and then income tax on any distribution of the income (his wife's salary will be taxed, any salary he draws will be taxed, any dividends he receives will be taxed (at 25% as he will be a higher rate tax payer).

so if he received £100 and wanted to pay it to himself, he will pay £20 CT on the profit and £20 income tax on the £80 dividend. effective tax rate 40%.

if he is paying business expenses he would be able to offset these against tax if he was operating as a sole trader.

It's not that he's avoiding paying the full rate anyone else would pay. He's lucky enought to be able to afford to have a stay at home wife of whom he can use the tax allowances.

It's the fact he's
A) A socialist
Throwing stones at others for doing as he does.

If he hadn't thrown the stones, he'd just be yet another MP using the tricks available.

As he likes to throw stones from his socialist background, he's a hypocrite.

Fella

chewmylegoff wrote: »

also, the assertion that he will only be paying 20% tax is nonsense. he will pay 20% CT tax, and then income tax on any distribution of the income (his wife's salary will be taxed, any salary he draws will be taxed, any dividends he receives will be taxed (at 25% as he will be a higher rate tax payer).

so if he received £100 and wanted to pay it to himself, he will pay £20 CT on the profit and £20 income tax on the £80 dividend. effective tax rate 40%.

Yes but the fact that his wife will presumably be paying tax as a lower rate taxpayer substantially reduces the overall tax bill.

It's precisely this arrangement that the Labour Govt targeted when they started going after contractors with IR660.

Livingstone is indeed a hypocrite but I doubt anyone is surprised by that.

chewmylegoff

Fella wrote: »

Yes but the fact that his wife will presumably be paying tax as a lower rate taxpayer substantially reduces the overall tax bill.

It's precisely this arrangement that the Labour Govt targeted when they started going after contractors with IR660.

Livingstone is indeed a hypocrite but I doubt anyone is surprised by that.

if she is actually doing work for him, that relates to the income being paid into the company, which he says that she is, then there's nothing wrong with that.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

if she is actually doing work for him, that relates to the income being paid into the company, which he says that she is, then there's nothing wrong with that.

No, there is nothing legally wrong with it.

All she has to do is make him a cup of tea, as most couples would, and she can be classed as his assistant for tax purposes. Apparently she spent 3 years typing his biography up. Not sure how slow a typer she was...

The point which you appear to keep missing is the hypocrisy.

BobQ

There are many thousands of people who pay their income from multiple sources into a company in this way. Its not illegal.

The fact that ordinary people on PAYE are not able to avail themselves of this facility is unfair but the rich and famous have always arranged their affairs to take advantage of such methods.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, there is nothing legally wrong with it.

All she has to do is make him a cup of tea, as most couples would, and she can be classed as his assistant for tax purposes. Apparently she spent 3 years typing his biography up. Not sure how slow a typer she was...

The point which you appear to keep missing is the hypocrisy.

well, i don't really think it is hypocritical. i think it's a bit of a non-story really.