TerryWogan

[Alexam]

Did anyone notice an article in the Press today about the estate of Terry Wogan being declared at just a smigen over £1,000,000 rather than the £20M, or more that he managed to build up over his career.

It made me feel good to hear someone having planned well before his demise using tax planning available to us all with Gifts and Trusts that would not count in his estate.

Smart fellow that Terry!

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

You're not touting for business are you Malc

 

[Alexam]

To bloody old to give any advice now! lol Possibly a few free pointers?

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

 

[bugbear]

Did anyone notice an article in the Press today about the estate of Terry Wogan being declared at just a smigen over £1,000,000 rather than the £20M, or more that he managed to build up over his career.

It made me feel good to hear someone having planned well before his demise using tax planning available to us all with Gifts and Trusts that would not count in his estate.

Smart fellow that Terry!

In other news, the NHS is curtailing some treatments due to lack of funds.

Still, well done Terry. Tip bloke.

BugBear

 

[rafezetter]

I did read it, along with all the comments from the general trash - sorry, population - whining about how "it's the rich not paying their share of taxes again", how it was "immoral" he did this or "if I tried this because I'm poor the HMRC would be all over me and send me to prison" and other such misinformed garbage.

Sir Terry did what he was supposed to do, which was to take advantage of all the LEGAL systems in place to offset his asset liability - almost NONE of which was mentioned in the article, so now he's been tarred as a tax dodging rich ****, instead of the man he really was.

I'm more than a bit annoyed by it.... can you tell?

 

[Lons]

Smart fellow that Terry!

It's the accountants and advisors he employed that were smart rather than Terry :wink: He hasn't done anything illegal (presumably) so the whining jealous tw+ts can scream and shout as much as they like if that's how they get their jollies.

As far as the NHS funding is concerned it's not really relevant as highly unlikely that a multi millionaire would be in an NHS bed. I certainly wouldn't be !

cheers
Bob

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I'd put money on it all his critics have their Isas etc. and have never done a cash job.

 

[Hot stuff]

Well said Phil! There's not a person on the planet who has led a totally blame free life so who are any of us to judge others.
I'd have thought that the good work that man did far, far outweighs any perceived wrong doing.

 

[garethharvey]

Good on Terry, he paid tax when he earned the money, probably 40%, why the hell would his estate want to pay another 40% tax in the event of his death.

The issue with this country is all the lazy ba**ards blame the rich, if the majority got off their arse and worked, the NHS would be thriving.

 

[MrTeroo]

Good on Terry, he paid tax when he earned the money, probably 40%, why the hell would his estate want to pay another 40% tax in the event of his death.

The issue with this country is all the lazy ba**ards blame the rich, if the majority got off their buttocks and worked, the NHS would be thriving.

And the rest
PAYE
NI
VAT
Fuel Duty
Council Tax
Fuel Tax (utilities)
Car Tax
Insurance Tax
Stamp Duty
Tax on Savings & Investments
Airport Tax
TV license

Plus all the stealth taxes, I believe Gordon Brown alone introduced over 150

Mismanagement of our country's finances and population levels by government is the reason the NHS is in disrepair. Not because Terry Wogan did what anyone who loves their family would do.

 

[Claymore]

Good on ya Terry.......ya can`t take it with ya so give it to your loved ones.
Top o' the mornin' to ya !

Brian

 

[DiscoStu]

I think the inheritance tax is wrong. I'm not against tax in general and agree we need to pay our share but inheritance tax feels wrong. You're being taxed on money and assets that have already been taxed. It used to be a tax for the very wealthy but if I recall the limit is about £300k which will affect a large amount of the population, it does make sense to plan and give your house to your kids in good time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hot stuff]

325k is the threshold, or 650k if the first deceased passes their share on to the remaining spouse. I agree totally with you though, it's a tax on money and property which has already been taxed. I've just had a large chunk of money removed from me by HMRC and a slightly less but still hugely grudged amount by a solicitor.
Hey ho, not a lot I can do about it, but you can see why people try to avoid it when they can.

 

[Lons]

I can't agree with tax avoidance unless via a legal method and I don't really care if it's morally wrong. The loopholes shouldn't be there in the first place, that's why we elect and pay MPs and government officials huge salaries to put right. Unfortunately many of those same "public servants" use the same loopholes and more for their own purpose.

I think also that inheritance tax is fundamentally wrong for the reasons already stated as it hits those among us who have been prudent enough to pay into pensions, save, pay mortgages instead of smoking, drinking and wasting our money however it isn't the only tax on already taxed money as most of what we spend or save out of earned income is taxed again, sometimes several times.

Bob

 

[Alexam]

Unfortunately far to many people do not plan early enough and many financial advisers do not know enough about saving and gifting into Trusts. Along with well drawn up Wills, they are the key to saving tax and having more than the £650k for those who are left behind.

The VERY wealthy people have put most of their assets in Trusts with family members. Just like Donald Trump has just done. He can still get money from the Trust as loans, which he will owe back to the Trust when he dies. It's all there and perfectly legal, you just need 'smarts'
Malcolm

 

[bugbear]

There has been much debate in the last 5 years over the difference between legal tax arrangements and moral tax arrangements - see Jimmy Carr, Google, Amazon, Starbucks, Uber etc.

BugBear

 

[monkeybiter]

Conducting you financial affairs on a moral basis [which is an individual and personal judgement] is not the same thing as obeying the tax laws as they relate to your relative wealth/ business status, which seem to be an ongoing hotch-potch of what will benefit certain groups versus what won't lose too many votes, and that's not what I'd call a moral.
Everybody want's the government to give more money to the NHS or the police or defence, but seem to forget where the government's money comes from.

 

[Lons]

Conducting you financial affairs on a moral basis [which is an individual and personal judgement] is not the same thing as obeying the tax laws as they relate to your relative wealth/ business status, which seem to be an ongoing hotch-potch of what will benefit certain groups versus what won't lose too many votes, and that's not what I'd call a moral.
Everybody want's the government to give more money to the NHS or the police or defence, but seem to forget where the government's money comes from.

Completely agree with that Mike but unfortunately there is a huge element of waste and corruption within the vast army who determine our laws and expenditure with many if not most decisions being influenced more by political gain than genuine welfare of the country and it's inhabitants. Those billions could be redirected into exactly the areas you suggest.

Bob

 

[Phil Pascoe]

As regards trusts, have a look at the Vestey family. When QE 2 agreed to pay tax Lord Vestey said there's only only one of us left, now. Iirc one year they paid a couple of million on profits of many billions. At one time the Inland Revenue had something like thirty accountants and tax inspectors working full time to try make them pay more.