It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
we don’t do that here.
Instagram is Rocknrollismyescape -
FOR SALE - Catalinbread Echorec, Sonic Blue classic player strat and a Digitech bad monkey
I noticed he wasn't on many of the Andertons videos, but just assumed he had moved on a bit.
I prefer Petes playing, the guy that plays acoustic is amazing as well, can not remember his name, but I did like Chappers and the Captain the videos could be pretty funny at times in the earlier days.
If someone could sum it up, it would be most appreciated
Instagram is Rocknrollismyescape -
FOR SALE - Catalinbread Echorec, Sonic Blue classic player strat and a Digitech bad monkey
Reacted to an internet pile-on when he probably shouldn't. Giving the whole thing months left of legs.
Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
I know that wasn't the initial complaint, but it's emblematic of the hole he's dug for himself with his response.
Bought a PRS that he said his son was going to have right? Didn't say when. Didn't say what it would be used for in the meantime. No laws broken.
It's emblematic of the sort of thing people will desperately cling to in order to legitimise their hatred of him.
Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
Not sure where this concept of "in the meantime" comes from. There's no evidence for that. It was bought specifically for his son - he's so clear on this he says it twice. Buying stuff explicitly for the personal use of family members and then claiming it against business tax is tax evasion, plain and simple.
This is not hatred, desperate or otherwise. It's a straightforward quote of his own words.
Suddenly everyone is a tax evasion expert FFS.
Been uploading old tracks I recorded ages ago and hopefully some new noodles here.
At a massive stretch, you could attempt to argue the six minutes he talks about it on Youtube are a legitimate business expense (even though he specifically says it's for his son, again), and express that as a proportion of the rest of the lifetime of the guitar spent as personal use. To the nearest whole number, I'd estimate this as 0%.
Then you get to the argument that he could be using it for other non-video purposes which also make money (eg sessions), because he's the owner of it right now, not his son.
"Something you said in a YouTube video" is not equivalent to sworn testimony in court, and certainly not something that HMRC would use to indicate fraud. "I just said that to make the video, so that it would be interesting content, because that's my job" is enough to get around that.
I can just imagine the conversation with the tax man now. "What's this £5k expense?" "Oh, that's a guitar that I bought for my son." "Right... so how is that wholly and exclusively for the use of your business?" "Because I made a six-minute YouTube video about it." "Oh, that's all right then." Hardly.
Whataboutery aside, he's either put it away for his son, like he's specifically said, or he's not. If he's keeping it for himself it's pretty shitty to boast about it being a gift for his son. If it's for his son, it shouldn't be offset against business tax, regardless of a few quid made from a video.
Right, it's nice outside and I've got work to do. Argue amongst yourselves.
Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves.
But in real world terms, whether or not some clever lawyer(or whatever professional would deal with it) can come up with ways to twist all the various things around to avoid it being technically illegal, it's quite obvious to anyone that he's really just exploiting a loophole to get back money that he really should be paying.
I'm sure the idea of tax breaks for businesses expenses was that some people have to buy tools to enable them to do their job but that wouldn't give any pleasure to the person and they wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's unfair to charge them luxury tax on something like that.
Society went on to the point where some people can buy something and video themselves with it on the internet and make loads of money from that. It's not that the government ever decided that if someone does that then it's not a luxury, it's just that lawyers etc. were able to come up with ways to twist the laws to their own advantage.
I expect some people won't think it's immoral to do this and get the tax break - it would tie in with a fairly common belief that people should pay less tax in general. Can't argue against that, it's just a political opinion some people have and can't be wrong in my view.
Just saying that anyone who thinks it's acceptable for someone to do what he did with the tax break on that guitar really has to just be in favour of lower taxes in general - they surely can't believe that videoing a guitar for a few minutes before then using it privately for life legitimately stops it being a personal luxury item.