or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Adele is not pleased with U.K. taxes...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adele is not pleased with U.K. taxes... - Page 5

post #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
This is going to depend on how your derive your income, no?
Again, I don't know how the nuances will work in the 'states. Here, just the fact that any of my employment income that would otherwise be taxed at the top marginal rate (i.e. up to 45% depending on province) is sent into a corp allows for the deferral of the difference between that top rate and the general corporate rate (~28% depending on province) as a personal services business. Consequently you see people diverting income into a prof corp which either runs a side business or invests in real estate (if the latter, often on a basis where they pay rent to their own corp at market rates to avoid shareholder benefits, or something like that).
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six View Post
Again, I don't know how the nuances will work in the 'states. Here, just the fact that any of my employment income that would otherwise be taxed at the top marginal rate (i.e. up to 45% depending on province) is sent into a corp allows for the deferral of the difference between that top rate and the general corporate rate (~28% depending on province) as a personal services business. Consequently you see people diverting income into a prof corp which either runs a side business or invests in real estate (if the latter, often on a basis where they pay rent to their own corp at market rates to avoid shareholder benefits, or something like that).

Thanks for the reply. Part of the problem I will come into, or anyone like me probably, is that employment contracts of this nature usually stipulate something to effect of no moonlighting and 100% of all work efforts will be for the organization. So basically I can't even on paper run a side business. Probably people with other employment arrangements could maybe do something like this, so I would be wrong in that case, but every employment attorney I've ever talked to about this area say that "no moonlighting" is in about 99% of all executive employment contracts.
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Thanks for the reply. Part of the problem I will come into, or anyone like me probably, is that employment contracts of this nature usually stipulate something to effect of no moonlighting and 100% of all work efforts will be for the organization. So basically I can't even on paper run a side business. Probably people with other employment arrangements could maybe do something like this, so I would be wrong in that case, but every employment attorney I've ever talked to about this area say that "no moonlighting" is in about 99% of all executive employment contracts.

This would apply to the vast majority of people in the UK as well. They are employees on the payroll and have very little wiggle room when it comes to payroll taxes (PAYE in the UK) personal income tax, expenses etc.

One of the reasons I went self-employed and then director of my own Ltd...
post #64 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Thanks for the reply. Part of the problem I will come into, or anyone like me probably, is that employment contracts of this nature usually stipulate something to effect of no moonlighting and 100% of all work efforts will be for the organization. So basically I can't even on paper run a side business. Probably people with other employment arrangements could maybe do something like this, so I would be wrong in that case, but every employment attorney I've ever talked to about this area say that "no moonlighting" is in about 99% of all executive employment contracts.
Why would this be a problem? In the hypothetical just outlined (which is really just an example), you aren't running the side business, your corporation is. It's a separate legal person and isn't bound by your employment contract. The issue would be getting your employer to pay a part of your salary to your corporation and not withhold on it which I imagine many employers would balk at purely on the basis of administrative inconvenience. Also, what constitutes "moonlighting" isn't terribly clear; obviously your employer doesn't want you competing with it, but it has no reason to give a damn if you're running a completely unrelated side-business, i.e. renting out a couple of properties or financing a corner store.
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post
I would just like to point out that she is very fat.

yes but her voice more than makes up for it.
post #66 of 67
ya that's nice but im pretty sure she's a huge ... lib
post #67 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infrasonic View Post
This would apply to the vast majority of people in the UK as well. They are employees on the payroll and have very little wiggle room when it comes to payroll taxes (PAYE in the UK) personal income tax, expenses etc.

One of the reasons I went self-employed and then director of my own Ltd...

Snap.

In the UK once you control your own company there are a heap of options. Any halfway competent accountant can outline them (if they cannot then they are probably a book-keeper rather than accountant). The most popular is minimum salary/quarterly dividends which virtually kills the employers NI.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Adele is not pleased with U.K. taxes...