bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

hurfdurf said:
Tell me you don’t understand tax write offs without telling me 101 right there.
Click to expand...

You don't get to use donations to write off tax on a different £ of income that you haven't donated.

An SA100 form is pretty easy to understand.

Whatever marginal tax rate is, say 20% for the sake of argument, if I donate £100 i would get back £20 (net cost of £80). That does not leave me better off than not donating where I get to keep the net of tax money. It is simply the tax going to the charity instead.
 
Last edited:
hurfdurf said:
Tell me you don’t understand tax write offs without telling me 101 right there.
Click to expand...

That's just a non-answer...

hurfdurf said:
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/sto...his-workers-minimum-pay-to-70-000-11614033587

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17664893.amp
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17664893.amp
https://amp.ft.com/content/5127854d-1bb5-3521-adc4-cdcf224b64d8
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17664893.amp
https://theapeiron.co.uk/are-the-ri...-they-donate-billions-to-charity-fc414c654607

Time and time again we will hear about how wealthy people are giving their children very little inheritance, or loads of money to a charity or foundation… only to learn the foundation is ran by their children. It’s a scam.
Click to expand...

So you've posted a US link, irrelevant. Then there is a link from the BBC did you read that article?

BBC said:
And John Low, chief executive of the Charities Aid Foundation, said: "Whoever is advising the chancellor is quite wrong to equate tax relief on major donations to charity with tax avoidance.

"This is not a ploy to save tax. Philanthropists who make large donations give away far, far more than they could ever claim in tax relief. That money goes to fund projects for the public good, such as medical research and help for the most vulnerable in society."
Click to expand...

Rather than just rushing to google and spamming in the first articles you can find try putting forth an argument here because it seems like you know nothing.

This a woman who is paying herself via a regular salary! Where is the "scam" here when she makes charity donations? Instead of bluffing and dumping in some google links try to put forth some sort of argument.
 
dowie said:
That's just a non-answer...
Click to expand...

Doesn't even understand tax 101. The BBC article even says

When higher rate taxpayers donate money to charity, some of the tax can be reclaimed. Effectively they could pay no tax at all, if they choose to give away their income to charities.
Click to expand...

The amount I save in tax is simply the tax I already paid on the money I donated.

If I earn £100k before taxes. Donate 50K. Then the government will give the 40% on that £50K back as a rebate because I never actually kept it. So I get back 20K.

However the net result is less income than if I didnt donate. The charity simply benefits.

The result for me is as if I had been paid only 50K before taxes to begin with.

With a self assessment form this can sometimes be clearer as you don't always pay taxes upfront.
 
Last edited:
muon said:
Doesn't even understand tax 101. The BBC article even says

The amount I save in tax is simply the tax I already paid on the money I donated.
Click to expand...

Indeed, this should be obvious and was even explained to him before he replied but here we are... :D
 
Its usually an ideology thing, individual doesnt like how government spends money, so they donate instead to something they consider more deserving. Plus there seems to be a mindset amongst some people that paying tax is like throwing money down the drain, I have seen people lose more money just so they can avoid paying tax and they happy with it.

The problem with this is of course many people dont know the realities of what money is spent on, some e.g. refuse to believe poverty exists in the UK, charities themselves can be very wasteful as well, there is people who work for charities on a full time salary, with lots of money been funnelled on other costs as well so can still be the case very little of money donated to a charity actually goes to the cause. What the solution to all this is I dont know, but its a reason I prefer people to pay full tax vs putting in a charity.
 
If the tax top up encourages people to donate even larger sums of money than tax could ever collect (short of 100% tax rate) I think it is a good idea. It certainly encourages me. Should perhaps be more careful if the money goes to a foreign charity which isn't regulated by the charities commission (I don't know if that is already a rule).
 
muon said:
If the tax top up encourages people to donate even larger sums of money than tax could ever collect (short of 100% tax rate) I think it is a good idea. It certainly encourages me. Should perhaps be more careful if the money goes to a foreign charity which isn't regulated by the charities commission (I don't know if that is already a rule).
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the problem is ultimately the state gets poorer, and the less fashionable needs suffer from it.
 
These gambling adverts seems so surreal when if they did an advert for the merits of crystal meth the puritanical whingers would be apoplectic.
 
non-sequitur

for those addicted to gambling that kind of add (like Marlborough man) would be like an advert for crystal meth.
 
jpaul said:
(not bet365 but) Anyone not think the new ladbrokes advert glorifies gambling euphoric experience, how the hell do ofcom allow that, that's up there with the dead Marlborough man.

youtu.be

Ladbrokes "Rocky" by Neverland

youtu.be youtu.be
Click to expand...
Ofcom only deals with political advertising. Clearcast is the clearance body for television commercials and if you have a complaint about a non-political advert you make it to the Advertising Standards Authority.
 
nitcpicking aside lol - they upheld a similar complaint against coral aug this month

Upheld

The BCAP Code stated that ads must not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm. CAP’s Advertising Guidance “Gambling advertising: responsibility and problem gambling”, relating to both broadcast and non-broadcast advertising, stated that certain marketing approaches were likely to have a disproportionate impact on problem gamblers. As such, marketers must take all reasonable steps to protect problem gamblers, and those at risk from such behaviours, from being harmed or exploited by advertising that featured or promoted gambling. Marketers should take care to avoid encouraging people to gamble more than they otherwise would or including an implication of problem gambling behaviours or other behavioural indicators linked to problem gambling. Such behaviours included preoccupation with gambling, mood swings (including highs and lows, irritability and shortness of temper), and detachment from surroundings.
 
jpaul said:
nitcpicking aside lol - they upheld a similar complaint against coral aug this month

Upheld

The BCAP Code stated that ads must not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that was socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm. CAP’s Advertising Guidance “Gambling advertising: responsibility and problem gambling”, relating to both broadcast and non-broadcast advertising, stated that certain marketing approaches were likely to have a disproportionate impact on problem gamblers. As such, marketers must take all reasonable steps to protect problem gamblers, and those at risk from such behaviours, from being harmed or exploited by advertising that featured or promoted gambling. Marketers should take care to avoid encouraging people to gamble more than they otherwise would or including an implication of problem gambling behaviours or other behavioural indicators linked to problem gambling. Such behaviours included preoccupation with gambling, mood swings (including highs and lows, irritability and shortness of temper), and detachment from surroundings.Seems you're not that bothered about making a complaint to the correct body.
Click to expand...

Nitpicking but you used the information to find a ruling from the correct body :rolleyes: Anyway, a similar complaint (to the one you're making) but if you read the ruling in the Coral complaint the elements present in which the the ASA found against Coral aren't present in the Ladbroke's advert.
 
Global Gambling Market to Reach $876 Billion by 2026

"With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic.

Games Market's overall growth toward 2025: Nearly 3.2 billion people will play games in 2022, spending a combined total of $196.8 billion

..don't know what profit margin is though .
 
jpaul said:
Global Gambling Market to Reach $876 Billion by 2026

"With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic.

Games Market's overall growth toward 2025: Nearly 3.2 billion people will play games in 2022, spending a combined total of $196.8 billion

..don't know what profit margin is though .
Click to expand...

For gambling? It varies wildly depending on what is being gambled on, how greedy the house is and where the gambling is located (in a legal sense, not necessarily a physical sense). I've seen profit margins between <0% (i.e. a deliberate loss leader or a mistake in setting odds) and 65% (gross, not net), but I'd guess that the average margin is small. Maybe not online, where larger margins can be more easily hidden from gamblers and regulation can be more easily avoided. Costs would also be far, far lower. I've little doubt that profits are higher in the illegal drug trade even if the overall size of the market is less than half. But the risks are far higher too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom