mattx Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 BBC News - Chelsea player Ashley Cole sentenced for speeding 'A £15 victim surcharge and £300 costs were added by the panel to "reflect his income". ' That's a joke right ? What's he earning £5 to 10,000 a week ?
Butters Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 More like £120,000 per week. Correct, he's not called Cashley for no reason
dezt Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 was gonna say myself, its more like £100,000 a week. Lampard and Terry are on about £125,000 - £130,000 a week and they are amonth Chelsea's highest earners.
laserblazer Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 What difference does it make how much he earns? It's the points on his licence that will hurt most.
sidewinder Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 What difference does it make how much he earns? It's the points on his licence that will hurt most. Yup, he'd probably rather a £20k fine than be unable to drive his precious cars
sippo Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 What difference does it make how much he earns? It's the points on his licence that will hurt most. Hence why he's appealing and will get off more than likely. Its amazing what money can do...
mattx Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 Hence why he's appealing and will get off more than likely. Its amazing what money can do... Indeed - one rule for 'them' & one for 'us' as they say......
sandeep2504 Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 "A request that Cole be allowed 21 days to pay was greeted with laughter by magistrates, who granted it nonetheless." Thats ridiculous.
Theblacksheep Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) "A request that Cole be allowed 21 days to pay was greeted with laughter by magistrates, who granted it nonetheless." Thats ridiculous. Why should he be forced to pay immediatly? Why does he not get 21 days to pay? Why should he pay more for a noncriminal offence just because he earns more? (he already contributies more than you or I to the "public" coffers each week with 50% tax on 120k). Edited January 29, 2010 by Theblacksheep
mattx Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 Why should he be forced to pay immediatly? Why does he not get 21 days to pay? Why should he pay more for a noncriminal offence just because he earns more? (he already contributies more than you or I to the "public" coffers each week with 50% tax on 120k). Because he plays for Chelsea.
featured_spectre Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 LOL! he deserves to lose his licence, idiots like him knock people over and its a miracle that he didnt!
sandeep2504 Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Why should he be forced to pay immediatly? Why does he not get 21 days to pay? Why should he pay more for a noncriminal offence just because he earns more? (he already contributies more than you or I to the "public" coffers each week with 50% tax on 120k). from the wording of the article, it sounds like the magistrates could have denied the request but chose to grant it; thats why its ridiculous.
petectid Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Why should he be forced to pay immediatly? Why does he not get 21 days to pay? Why should he pay more for a noncriminal offence just because he earns more? (he already contributes more than you or I to the "public" coffers each week with 50% tax on 120k). Like everyone else surely he pays 20% on the first £37400 and then 40% on the rest not 50%, he will also get a tax allowance and have a clever accountant that will keep his tax burden as low as is possible.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now