Paula Radcliffe fit for NY Marathon! Again.

[Norm]

Getting back on topic, the thread title is...

Paula Radcliffe fit...

I agree, she is.

 

[Crankarm]

But their families have, an example is a couple who have worked their whole lives to pay off their 250k house, they die and leave the house to their child, that money is, in my opinion the families, not the governments.
If it's still like this when i pop my clogs i'll sell up and give the money to my imediate family there and then, so the fat cats can't spend it on duck ponds or the like.

Perhaps you should go visit an accountant or tax lawyer as you seem to want to give the impression you are loaded or is it just an out of focus rant from some one who doesn't know what they are talking about?

There are number of ways of limiting/avoiding inheritance tax if you feel your assets on death will attract it. Do you know what these are?

The very rich either live as non-doms in the UK and as already stated Monaco. To avoid or limit one's exposure to tax I believe the well heeled set up companies into which their earnings are paid from which they then take dividends and on which profits are taxed at 21% as corporation tax as opposed to 50% as part of PAYE.

For a married couple or civil partnership inheritance tax would not kick in until greater than £650,000 worth of assets had been reached. Spouses can elect to pass their £325k share on death to a surviving spouse I believe. Alternatively you could give it all away or enough to fall beneath the inheritance tax thresh hold of £325k per person, but you have to survive the date of disposal by 7 years or more. If you died within 7 years of the making the disposal then the sum or asset would be considered as part of your estate on death. Also you can use trusts, discretionary trusts to try to beat tax but these come with charges and management fees which might negate the financial benefit of setting them up. Trusts are a good idea though if you have a large amount of money which you want to benefit an individual who may be very young, children, the feckless or those who through no fault of their own do not possess full mental capacity and require constant care and assistance.

I might be wrong with the fine detail but I think this is essentially how a few things are done. This is not supposed to constitute formal advice so DON'T rely on it.

 

[Norm]

However off-topic this thread has gone, that looks good to me, Cranky, with a few addendums.

...I believe the well heeled set up companies into which their earnings are paid from which they then take dividends and on which profits are taxed at 21% as corporation tax as opposed to 50% as part of PAYE.

Not limited to the well-heeled, it was so prolific in the construction industry that the government introduced all sorts of shackles (CIS) to try and stop in.

but you have to survive the date of disposal by 7 years or more. If you died within 7 years of the making the disposal then the sum or asset would be considered as part of your estate on death.

The proportion of the "gift" which is considered part of the estate drops depending on how long between the disposal and the death.

 

[Crankarm]

Getting back on topic, the thread title is...
I agree, she is.

I like Paula R. She's done admirably well.

But I only have to words to say to her.

Jessica Ennis.

 

[Crankarm]

However off-topic this thread has gone, that looks good to me, Cranky, with a few addendums.

Not limited to the well-heeled, it was so prolific in the construction industry that the government introduced all sorts of shackles (CIS) to try and stop in.

The proportion of the "gift" which is considered part of the estate drops depending on how long between the disposal and the death.

You are getting technical now. Showing off? Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Tapering or is it Indexation I think may be the term I believe you are looking for.

 

[Norm]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to you.

But, whilst we're at it, Taper Relief to be completely pedantic. Indexation is, sadly, no more. I think it only applies to assets purchased between 31 March 1982 and.... no, now I am just showing off.

 

[pubrunner]

She lives in Monaco so is hardly a 'local' girl anymore - her decisions will naturally be money orientated. Her talent though is beyond compare and she is drug free. Envy is understandable if a little misdirected.

She also lives in the Pyrenees and in the USA - for the purposes of getting in the appropriate training; it ain't high enough in this country to get the benefits of altitude training.

 

[Crankarm]

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to you.

But, whilst we're at it, Taper Relief to be completely pedantic. Indexation is, sadly, no more. I think it only applies to assets purchased between 31 March 1982 and.... no, now I am just showing off.

Why not eh Norm.......

I had a feeling Indexation might have gone but wasn't sure.
Doh! Taper Relief - you are indeed a pedant .

 

[darkstar]

Perhaps you should go visit an accountant or tax lawyer as you seem to want to give the impression you are loaded or is it just an out of focus rant from some one who doesn't know what they are talking about?.

I said nothing of my own wealth nor do i intend to, thats not the point!
Yes i don't really know what i am talking about regarding the subject, not afraid to admit that, the inheritance comment was mearly a small part of a post which was taken and blown up, i didn't mean it to. My concerns were with the taxation as a whole, and the reason wealthy people flee this country.
I was just continuing from the previous post

 

[Crankarm]

She also lives in the Pyrenees and in the USA - for the purposes of getting in the appropriate training; it ain't high enough in this country to get the benefits of altitude training.

France is renowned for it's draconian tax system. Assets I think over about £750k a year attract a wealth tax, how much I know not.

Still a small price to pay for living in such a beautiful country.

I suspect Paula could run up the Tourmalet quicker than most on here could cycle up it .

 

[User482]

Yes, how dare she earn money!

Of course, the fact that she competed in New York despite an injury doesn't make any difference to your view.

 

[PaulB]

Yes, how dare she earn money!

Of course, the fact that she competed in New York despite an injury doesn't make any difference to your view.

No, it makes it worse. If she's injured, she doesn't run and if she does run, then she certainly doesn't deserve sympathy as she was clearly only doing it for the money. And as mentioned, I've nothing at all against her earning money; it's that she wants her cake an to eat it by chasing the money yet still claiming to be loyal to the British team despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So loyal in fact that she refuses to even pay tax here.

 

[User482]

She ran in the NY marathon when she was injured. She ran in the olympics when she was injured.

Anyway - you're changing tack. You claimed that she ducked out of certain events so she would be fit for the NY marathon. Clearly, this wasn't the case.

If she wasn't loyal to the team then she wouldn't have turned up for the olympics.

I have to say you're coming across as rather bitter and cynical.

 

[PaulB]

Anyway - you're changing tack. You claimed that she ducked out of certain events so she would be fit for the NY marathon. Clearly, this wasn't the case.

If she wasn't loyal to the team then she wouldn't have turned up for the olympics.

I'm absolutely not changing tack. She ducked out of wearing a British vest only last month in the Half Marathon championships in Birmingham claiming she had tonsilitis yet gets better for NY! That's entirely consistent with what I'm writing about her. It must be a co-incidence that there was no money on offer in Brum but £250,000 appearance money in the big apple?

And let's hear your views about her claiming lottery funding from British Athletics while telling the world (as she did recently) "I'm glad I'm not paying tax at 50% in Britain" while denying the British treasury almost £2,000,000.

 

[User482]

Err, that's what happens with tonsilitis - you get better. And quite clearly, she still wasn't fully fit, just as she wasn't at the last olympics. There's no reason to disbelieve her story.

I would prefer that she paid UK tax, but she's hardly unique in that respect.

Edited to add: you claimed earlier that she is always uninjured and well-prepared for the NY marathon. This is untrue.