Terry Wogan

[wykikitoon 17335]

So fucking what, why is Gordan Brown bigging up a Radio Presenter?

 

GET A LIFE MAN!

 

So what he plays music etc, what about people who do good man!

[Guest alex]

Henry Sellers tbh.

[Meenzer 14181]

He makes a lot more people happier than your average charity worker has ever managed. </stir>

[The Fish 9340]

Tbh you're just sounding a little contrary wyki, the man's been a fine example of how "celebrities" should act and has been a bit of an institution. Don't see any harm in people celebrating him. So behave yourself you big tart

[PaddockLad 15016]

Tbh you're just sounding a little contrary wyki, the man's been a fine example of how "celebrities" should act and has been a bit of an institution. Don't see any harm in people celebrating him. So behave yourself you big tart

 

He's a fuckin hypocrite. Trousered thousands for himself whilst emotionally blackmailing the public in general into giving the cash to him. What a complete cunt. All brushed under the table though..."legend" "institution" "good old Terry" etc etc.....

[Barney 0]

[wykikitoon 17335]

Tbh you're just sounding a little contrary wyki, the man's been a fine example of how "celebrities" should act and has been a bit of an institution. Don't see any harm in people celebrating him. So behave yourself you big tart

 

Sorry Fish

 

However, I dont see why we should wank over him leaving a fucking show, hell be back on in the afternoon wont he? I mean, get a fucking grip, its not like hes dead!

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

How long has he done the Radio 2 breakfast show for? Seems like forever.

[Happy Face 29]

 

 

Terry Trousersnake

[Rob W 0]

thank God he's gone............

[Craig 6368]

thank God he's gone............

 

.....on the other hand, you're still around

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

thank God he's gone............

What difference does it make to a committed Radio 1 cool kid such as yourself?

[NJS 4030]

I used to work for a company that wrote software for Financial Advisers and I used to have a good knowledge of the IFA industry as a result. In the late 80s the Tories introduced a classic deliberate tax evasion fiddle involving inheritance tax which was for people to invest in "sustainable forests" (just to make it sound green and wholesome) which would mean that the investment could be passed on tax free.

 

The first high profile person to take advantage of this fiddle was Wogan - I've hated the twat ever since.

[Craig 6368]

I used to work for a company that wrote software for Financial Advisers and I used to have a good knowledge of the IFA industry as a result. In the late 80s the Tories introduced a classic deliberate tax evasion fiddle involving inheritance tax which was for people to invest in "sustainable forests" (just to make it sound green and wholesome) which would mean that the investment could be passed on tax free.

 

The first high profile person to take advantage of this fiddle was Wogan - I've hated the twat ever since.

 

tbh how is that his fault? The government of the time introduced the scheme - the only thing Wogan can be blamed for is taking advantage of what he had available to him. I think you'll find that given the same situation, most of the people posting on this forum would have done the same. If your vitriol should be aimed at anyone, it should be at the government.

[NJS 4030]

I used to work for a company that wrote software for Financial Advisers and I used to have a good knowledge of the IFA industry as a result. In the late 80s the Tories introduced a classic deliberate tax evasion fiddle involving inheritance tax which was for people to invest in "sustainable forests" (just to make it sound green and wholesome) which would mean that the investment could be passed on tax free.

 

The first high profile person to take advantage of this fiddle was Wogan - I've hated the twat ever since.

 

tbh how is that his fault? The government of the time introduced the scheme - the only thing Wogan can be blamed for is taking advantage of what he had available to him. I think you'll find that given the same situation, most of the people posting on this forum would have done the same. If your vitriol should be aimed at anyone, it should be at the government.

 

Of course its aimed at the government - but tax fiddles are setup by the establishment by and for the rich - and I don't care who it is who "takes advantage" of such things - they're all fucking scum.

 

 

And before you say he's earned his money by being such a cherished entertainer it's his kids who benefit who've done fuck all.

[Guest alex]

So what? I'd rather my kids (if I had any) got as much of my money as possible rather than the taxman. So would most people.

[NJS 4030]

So what? I'd rather my kids (if I had any) got as much of my money as possible rather than the taxman. So would most people.

 

Inherited wealth is what fucks up this country more than anything else imo. I think parents should be able to do as much as they like to raise their kids and prepare them for life as best they can but the wholesale underwriting of childrens lives makes a mockery of a supposed meritocracy.

 

I've said this before and I know it makes me sound like a miserable, family hating idealist (which I don't think I am) but I just think people should have to pay their fair share in taxes according to the laws of the land but without all of the deliberate get-out clauses only invented for those who don't actually need any help.

 

I was reading something about an interview with Cherie Blair where she said she lies awake at night worrying whether they've got "enough" money despite being multi-millionaires. That's the kind of unashamed avarice that I despise and that's what leads to tax fiddle laws.

[Guest alex]

My view is, you've already paid tax on the earnings once so why the fuck should you have to pay it again? Anyway, don't you work in the city?

[JawD 48]

Completely agree. You earn money you pay tax. You spend that taxed money and guess what? yep, you pay tax again (VAT). Then maybe you buy a house and they sting you for stamp duty. Then the value of the house goes up (as does the one you are now looking at) if you sell "soon" you may get taxed on that increase in value, oh aye plus stamp duty again. Then you die and before you get in the grave and your family are dividing up your estate, the taxman is there again at the front of the queue, just because he feels like part of your family now, afterall, you've given him more money than anyone else.

 

Ish anyway.

[NJS 4030]

My view is, you've already paid tax on the earnings once so why the fuck should you have to pay it again? Anyway, don't you work in the city?

 

It's not the dead person who pays IHT - its the person who gets the "unexpected" windfall. I accept that tax may have been paid on it (but then again not always as non-paye people have other fiddles) but its still unearned income imo for the person who gets it. As I've also said before the arguments over IHT always include too many people who seem to be eagerly anticipating their parents death (whether unspoken or not) as a convenient and modern route into much sought after wealth which I find distasteful.

 

I have a PAYE job at a bank in the city - I don't see what's that got to do with it.

[Craig 6368]

So what? I'd rather my kids (if I had any) got as much of my money as possible rather than the taxman. So would most people.

 

My thoughts exactly.

[Craig 6368]

My view is, you've already paid tax on the earnings once so why the fuck should you have to pay it again? Anyway, don't you work in the city?

 

It's not the dead person who pays IHT - its the person who gets the "unexpected" windfall. I accept that tax may have been paid on it (but then again not always as non-paye people have other fiddles) but its still unearned income imo for the person who gets it. As I've also said before the arguments over IHT always include too many people who seem to be eagerly anticipating their parents death (whether unspoken or not) as a convenient and modern route into much sought after wealth which I find distasteful.

 

I have a PAYE job at a bank in the city - I don't see what's that got to do with it.

 

My Dad's estate is liable for IHT. Not because he necessarily worked his bollocks off all his life (although he did) but more because he lost his Mam and Wife within 4 months of each other. The mortgage on his Mam's place had long been paid up and as the only child, my Dad was sole beneficiary of her house. When my Mam died a couple of months later, he exercised the 'death' trigger in their life assurance policy, paid off the mortgage and was left with 2 properties he owned outright. By the way, my folks never had it easy with money and they struggled to make ends meet for long periods.

 

As our house was a 5 bedroom place and we'd all left home by that point and his Mam's was a 2 bed bungalow, he did the sensible thing of sell the family house and move into his Mam's. Needless to say all the sale proceeds have since sat in a bank account earning interest although we've made damned sure he's done all the things he wanted to do in life and see the places he wants to while he still can rather than hold it back for us.

 

In this instance our family 'wealth' came about because of a set of circumstances I wouldn't wish on anyone. Are you telling me you think it's only right that the government should take a massive chunk of that as tax when it was a life assurance policy my parents were paying into for almost 34 years? Incidentally I hope my Dad lives to 100 rather than me 'eagerly anticipating his death'. Some will remember that this time last year he had a cancer scare which scared the fuck out of me - I don't want his money, I want him for as long as possible. But I don't agree with IHT - no fucking way!

[Kitman 2188]

I used to work for a company that wrote software for Financial Advisers and I used to have a good knowledge of the IFA industry as a result. In the late 80s the Tories introduced a classic deliberate tax evasion fiddle involving inheritance tax which was for people to invest in "sustainable forests" (just to make it sound green and wholesome) which would mean that the investment could be passed on tax free.

 

The first high profile person to take advantage of this fiddle was Wogan - I've hated the twat ever since.

 

tbh how is that his fault? The government of the time introduced the scheme - the only thing Wogan can be blamed for is taking advantage of what he had available to him. I think you'll find that given the same situation, most of the people posting on this forum would have done the same. If your vitriol should be aimed at anyone, it should be at the government.

 

Of course its aimed at the government - but tax fiddles are setup by the establishment by and for the rich - and I don't care who it is who "takes advantage" of such things - they're all fucking scum.

 

 

And before you say he's earned his money by being such a cherished entertainer it's his kids who benefit who've done fuck all.

 

If they're introduced with the blessing of the government, they're not a fiddle. The CGT exemption for example is not a fiddle it's an entitlement.

 

Tax fiddles exist by and large because either tax rates are too high - giving the rich the inventive to pay clever people to find their way round the rules - or because the tax system is broken. Every year new tax rules are bolted on to a tax system which was founded in the 18th century and which has been tinkered with on an annual basis ever since. No wonder loopholes exist - coherent tax policy is impossible when the rules are all a big jumble of different measures usually introduced in a rush and badly drafted. imo the UK needs to rip it all up, sit down and decide what they want to tax as a matter of policy, and start again without undue emphasis on legal interpretation.

 

However before you do that, you have to decide on what is a 'fair share' of tax to pay and what you want as a matter of policy. In the days of income tax at 98%, rich people just went overseas. That might seem attractive with the likes of Rod Stewart leaving the country to live in LA but you gain nothing financially by driving taxpayers out of the tax base. As a matter of fact, inheritance tax and capital gains tax are largely optional taxes these days for the well advised so they're taxes which have technically failed. You might get a better return for example on a flat tax on capital assets which would be a million times easier to collect.

 

The government needs to get a grip basically.

[NJS 4030]

My Dad's estate is liable for IHT. Not because he necessarily worked his bollocks off all his life (although he did) but more because he lost his Mam and Wife within 4 months of each other. The mortgage on his Mam's place had long been paid up and as the only child, my Dad was sole beneficiary of her house. When my Mam died a couple of months later, he exercised the 'death' trigger in their life assurance policy, paid off the mortgage and was left with 2 properties he owned outright. By the way, my folks never had it easy with money and they struggled to make ends meet for long periods.

 

As our house was a 5 bedroom place and we'd all left home by that point and his Mam's was a 2 bed bungalow, he did the sensible thing of sell the family house and move into his Mam's. Needless to say all the sale proceeds have since sat in a bank account earning interest although we've made damned sure he's done all the things he wanted to do in life and see the places he wants to while he still can rather than hold it back for us.

 

In this instance our family 'wealth' came about because of a set of circumstances I wouldn't wish on anyone. Are you telling me you think it's only right that the government should take a massive chunk of that as tax when it was a life assurance policy my parents were paying into for almost 34 years? Incidentally I hope my Dad lives to 100 rather than me 'eagerly anticipating his death'. Some will remember that this time last year he had a cancer scare which scared the fuck out of me - I don't want his money, I want him for as long as possible. But I don't agree with IHT - no fucking way!

 

Of course there are individual stories which are exceptions and there are decent people like you who think the "right way" - My Man spent the last years of her life worrying about having her house taken off her to pay for home care (cancer got there first) to the point where she signed it over to my brother but these stories only apply to the "little people".

 

They don't apply to people like Wogan who get paid far too much (of my fucking money which I also resent) and squirrel it away in all sorts of hidey-holes to stop the government getting at it. They have more than enough money to lead a decent life (and indulge their kids for that matter) but get so wrapped up in the status symbol of how much money they have that they go too far.

 

I know only 6% of people pay IHT (which kills the argument of how it affects everyone) and I also know the real rich avoid it anyway (see the deal the Queen did to avoid it for her mother) but I still feel its a fair contribution to society. Of course I'd also point out that it isn't "all" of the persons estate by a long way.

[NJS 4030]

If they're introduced with the blessing of the government, they're not a fiddle. The CGT exemption for example is not a fiddle it's an entitlement.

 

My whole point is that the tax laws are a conspiracy between the establishment, the upper classes and the rich. They are deliberately defined year after year to keep the rich sweet.