OT: No Austerity in the BBC!

Oh yeah, focus on the inequality aspect to deflect attention away from the truly eye-wateringly *gigantic* salary packages many of these parasites, leaching off the public tit, draw.

Talent? Ha! I very much doubt any commercial enterprise is looking to poach any of the supercilious cretins on that salary disclosure list. :-D

Hey, the more licence-dodgers the better AFAIC. Be a good idea to get a bandwagon up for refusing to pay these extortionists.

My understanding is that the Court is saying where an employee receives an indirect payment such as via an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) such payment is liable to tax.

The list covers BBC employees and specifically excludes those employed by production companies (notably David Dimbleby). As such, the persons named must be on the BBC payroll and subject to deduction of tax (aka PAYE). The BBC therefore knows how much they earn and Mr Adams' suggestion that it will cost a 'considerable amount of money' to find out is nonsensical. Re freelancers, have you considered IR35?

That's not really relevant. Many of the big names have multiple services contracts with different production companies. Most employment contracts prohibit working for other (particularly competitor) companies. So they are really contractors and, as long as they stick to the rules, legitimately fall outside PAYE.

SteveW

Huw Edwards & Fiona Bruce on £1+ million/year between them for reading the news off an autocue (she also "stars" for 5 minutes per episode on the Antique Roadshow - you know, the bit that you fast-forward...).

Reduce their salaries to £100,000 each and let's see who is going to poach them.

because equating

someone gets paid, PAYE, 150,000

and someone gets 150,000 paid into the personal service company

are not the same thing.

The former costs (approx) 50 grand more (with NI and Pension contributions added)

tim

no

It is true that the list excludes presenters/actors from programs which are wholly made by an external production company and are therefore paid a gross amount to cover a multitude of costs, only some of which is the presenter's salary.

It does include presenters who work through a one man personal service company and are responsible for their own NI/PAYE, but who work on a program directly produced by the BBC.

The BBC have been trying to eliminate this type of working, but it is clear that they haven't completely managed it.

OTOH, presumably for the former type of program, the repeat/foreign sales value sits with the production company, so it is quite possible that the BBC pay less for the program than the salaries paid to the actors.

tim

It's not relevant at all

it isn't the way that BBC talent used company shells to, in tabloid speak, "avoid" tax

EBTs are the way that corporates (try) to avoid tax on PAYE employees

tim

The reverse. They encourage it precisely because it removes the need to say how much these people are paid.

Or to do any hands on directing and producing

Leaving plenty of time to read Das Kapital and brush up on their Trotsky and Lenin.

Quite likely. But not PAYE. That only applies to employees. Which talent usually isn't.

Not all pay their income tax via PAYE. I didn't for much of my working life - as a freelance. Including when working for the BBC.

Pretty well all actors etc are considered freelance.

Really? A large number of technicians are contracted for say a series. Same as actors. They don't need to have a company - merely freelance status. They are then responsible for their own tax and NI arrangements. It would be silly to take them on as staff.

Quite. One of the largest audiences on radio.

Which is why he gets paid what he does.

Well, to me, no footballer is worth more than 20 quid a week. But others seem to think they are.

It's a typical right wing view, though. Pay anyone in a 'state' owned company less than the market rate to make sure you don't attract the best. And when that company doesn't do well, it's because it is state owned.

But does higher salaries actually attract the best or just the most greedy?

they might have done this 10 years ago

in the past 2, they have been backtracking

we're talking about Newsreaders and other presenters of all year shows

I'm surprised about that

Surely the studios are constantly busy and need all the technicians for the next show in the same studio.

Actors are a different breed. They might only work for the BBC for a single

It would indeed, if they aren't need for approx 44 weeks of the year.

tim

Are you implying that I am a licence dodger?

What studios? TV Centre was sold off to be made into luxury flats. Many programme are made in industrial units with contract staff. I had (sadly, since he died in an accident at home) who worked on Casualty in just that way. He had been a staff cameraman.

If you're *not* I shall never speak to you again.