The Annexed Goodwillie Thread

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I've mentioned it on the other thread, but while we're on tax implications, HMRC will probably be asking some fairly stern questions about any lump sum considering they bankrupted him over unpaid tax and I highly doubt they got it all back. 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Day of the Lords

[Hammerafc]

Yes, I corrected todays money for the decreased purchasing capacity of the same sums over nearly two and a half years with 5% inflation. In short, you would rather have £100 today than £100 in two and a half years. The concept of Time Value of Money calculates the delta and shows what a stream of payments is equivalent to in todays money. That’s how they pay lottery winners less than the jackpot if they select cash value option. They give them the cash amount it would take to purchase an annuity contract that paid the jackpot over 20 years or so.
The tax implications are exactly 5%. He would be paying 40% income tax until £150,000, and then pays 45% above that. So the marginal change is 5%…he would always pay at least 40% income tax on the money.

Remember though that every tax year you get a tax free allowance then so much income taxed at starter rate 19% then basic rate 20% then intermediate rate 21% then higher rate 41%. If you get all the money in the same tax year you will be paying a lot more at higher rate and only the benefit of 1 years personal allowance. That's way more than 5% if that's your only income stream.

[HoBNob]

I'd heard that he was on 1.4k a week, considering he was on 1k at Clyde and had a part time job that seems about right. 

 

 

There's just so much of this that I find utterly baffling, but even Raith Rovers defence of it being a purely footballing decision (Anyone remember that statement? DG is the Rovers family etc) it's still fucking stupid, the wages and the fee they've spent on him, and there'll be agents fees aswell would've been a fortune, and there's absolutely no guarantee he would've been any good at this level. 

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, Hammerafc said:

6 hours ago, TxRover said:

Yes, I corrected todays money for the decreased purchasing capacity of the same sums over nearly two and a half years with 5% inflation. In short, you would rather have £100 today than £100 in two and a half years. The concept of Time Value of Money calculates the delta and shows what a stream of payments is equivalent to in todays money. That’s how they pay lottery winners less than the jackpot if they select cash value option. They give them the cash amount it would take to purchase an annuity contract that paid the jackpot over 20 years or so.
The tax implications are exactly 5%. He would be paying 40% income tax until £150,000, and then pays 45% above that. So the marginal change is 5%…he would always pay at least 40% income tax on the money.

Remember though that every tax year you get a tax free allowance then so much income taxed at starter rate 19% then basic rate 20% then intermediate rate 21% then higher rate 41%. If you get all the money in the same tax year you will be paying a lot more at higher rate and only the benefit of 1 years personal allowance. That's way more than 5% if that's your only income stream.

Yes, hence “marginal tax rate”, or the rate at which a new £ of income is taxed.

First, apologies I used the English versus Scottish chart, so 41% and 46% are the applicable key rates. As it stands, DG is likely paying a marginal rate of 41%, that is every pound he earns, until his taxable income tops £149,999, is taxed at 41%. Then, if he has income above that, the marginal tax rate is 46%, a 5% increase. It may seem counter intuitive, but his only net loss would be paying a 5% higher rate on some income this year versus the next couple of years at 41%…and he gets the money NOW versus in the future, when it’s purchasing power has fallen.

[pandarilla]

Accountant porn on a rapist thread. How very pie & bovril.

[stevoraith]

Yes, hence “marginal tax rate”, or the rate at which a new £ of income is taxed.
First, apologies I used the English versus Scottish chart, so 41% and 46% are the applicable key rates. As it stands, DG is likely paying a marginal rate of 41%, that is every pound he earns, until his taxable income tops £149,999, is taxed at 41%. Then, if he has income above that, the marginal tax rate is 46%, a 5% increase. It may seem counter intuitive, but his only net loss would be paying a 5% higher rate on some income this year versus the next couple of years at 41%…and he gets the money NOW versus in the future, when it’s purchasing power has fallen.

Sorry Tx but this is still off.
You’re forgetting that in the second year he would benefit from an additional tax free allowance, additional starter and intermediate allowances before paying the higher rate again.

So as a rough calculation, ignoring any pensions or anything like that, and assuming he earns £75k per year;
If he takes the salary monthly spread over two years he’d take home around £50k each year, for a total of £100k in his pocket.

If he takes a lump sum of £150k he’s going to end up with about £87k in his pocket.

That’s quite a big difference and a big incentive for him to want to be paid monthly as per his contract.

[baba douche]

4 minutes ago, stevoraith said:

Sorry Tx but this is still off.
You’re forgetting that in the second year he would benefit from an additional tax free allowance, additional starter and intermediate allowances before paying the higher rate again.

So as a rough calculation, ignoring any pensions or anything like that, and assuming he earns £75k per year;
If he takes the salary monthly spread over two years he’d take home around £50k each year, for a total of £100k in his pocket.

If he takes a lump sum of £150k he’s going to end up with about £87k in his pocket.

That’s quite a big difference and a big incentive for him to want to be paid monthly as per his contract.

Are football salaries not usually presented after tax? It's the way it's done for the top players, but don't know how far down the pyramid it goes...

[DA Baracus]

Stevoraith has alluded to this, but do Raith have to contribute a sum to his pension? Do Raith match contributions up to a certain amount? What if Goodwillie Willie was chucking in a load to his pension and Raith had to match it? Costs more and more for them.

[San Starko Rover]

9 hours ago, Grant228 said:

I'd heard that he was on 1.4k a week, considering he was on 1k at Clyde and had a part time job that seems about right. 

 

 

There's just so much of this that I find utterly baffling, but even Raith Rovers defence of it being a purely footballing decision (Anyone remember that statement? DG is the Rovers family etc) it's still fucking stupid, the wages and the fee they've spent on him, and there'll be agents fees aswell would've been a fortune, and there's absolutely no guarantee he would've been any good at this level. 

Ah yes I remember that great statement, I also recall every man and their dug telling the morons who run our club that this was a stupid idea and not to do it but here we are. They knew better than the rest of us the Captain’s of their Brain Ships we’re clearly drunk at the wheel. 

Edited March 5, 2022 by San Starko Rover

[DA Baracus]

2 minutes ago, San Starko Rover said:

They knew better than the rest of us the Captain’s of their Brain Ships we’re clearly drunk at the wheel. 

....

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

....

Surely you've heard of a drunken brain ship captain?

[DA Baracus]

6 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Surely you've heard of a drunken brain ship captain?

Must be a Kirkcaldy thing.

[Broken Algorithms]

18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Stevoraith has alluded to this, but do Raith have to contribute a sum to his pension? Do Raith match contributions up to a certain amount? What if Goodwillie Willie was chucking in a load to his pension and Raith had to match it? Costs more and more for them.

He'll at least be auto-enrolled which would mean a minimum earning of 9% (4% from us and 5% from him). I'm really not sure on the logistics of it. It really depends if he opted in or opted out of our scheme. If we are I think it's covered up to his minimum retirement age which is usually set by the scheme unless the individual says so. I'm not sure on how compensation would work for any agreement between two parties and how pensions would factor in. 

[Scary Bear]

The next chapter: Rapist tax dilemma.

[Jacksgranda]

17 hours ago, TxRover said:

The whole situation is a mess, so let’s look at some data:

1) DG is toxic across the UK.

2)I understand DG was training for a job outside football.

3) This little detour into idiocy has likely rendered DG incapable of securing any job, let alone footballing at any business in Scotland…and probably the UK.

4) DG has a family.

So, this leaves us with the question, would DG leave the UK, and likely Europe, to find another job in football?

A) Money. If he has no real job prospect in the UK, he may need to travel and work because even some £200k is not nearly enough to last his lifetime.

B) Family. Are they willing to travel/move?

C) Risk. With his high profile, where would hire him?

So, given that, if he elects to find another job in football in some far locale, it behoves him to do it quickly. To do that, he would want a release from RRFC, and would possibly be willing to accept a partial payout immediately versus installments over the whole contract life that would leave him unable to play elsewhere.

The other option is to ask RRFC for a premium to have him walk quick and quietly.

Unless his contract has a shall play stipulation, highly unlikely, DG has no claim on his possible bonuses, as the team could easily have never played him anyway.

If he is currently working outside football, it has been kept very low profile, but I wouldn’t expect that to continue. I’d also expect this controversy to dog any company that hires DG because his bankruptcy and non-payment of the court judgement leaves a bad taste in many mouths, especially when combined with his denials.

I thought he did pay it, only for the lawyers to snaffle the compensation.

[Jacksgranda]

12 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

I've mentioned it on the other thread, but while we're on tax implications, HMRC will probably be asking some fairly stern questions about any lump sum considering they bankrupted him over unpaid tax and I highly doubt they got it all back. 

Now that he's discharged from bankruptcy I don't think they've any claim on future earnings (apart from what he has to legally pay, of course).

Please note "I think".

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Now that he's discharged from bankruptcy I don't think they've any claim on future earnings (apart from what he has to legally pay, of course).
Please note "I think".

Under Acquirenda rules the Trustee can take any lump sum (if they find out about it) and distribute it amongst any remaining creditors. Unless of course he was paying high enough monthly contributions to clear it all. I doubt it though, on the Register of Insolvencies he was due HMRC well over 60k

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

13 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Now that he's discharged from bankruptcy I don't think they've any claim on future earnings (apart from what he has to legally pay, of course).
Please note "I think".

Under Acquirenda rules the Trustee can take any lump sum (if they find out about it) and distribute it amongst any remaining creditors. Unless of course he was paying high enough monthly contributions to clear it all. I doubt it though, on the Register of Insolvencies he was due HMRC well over 60k

O.K., I'm wrong. Quelle surprise! 

[BFTD]

This has taken an unexpected turn; can't say I entirely disapprove.

We've long been missing taxation face-offs. What's the financial equivalent of Ruel Street?

[pub car king]

This is by far the most reasoned high brow debate on p&b, probably ever. 

P60 bring yer maw.