Martin Freeman's partner 'declared bankrupt'..

2456

Comments

  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    Opaque wrote: »
    Asked the government to get rid of the bankrupcy laws then?
    Although of course if you did that it would affect lots of people who no fault of their own get into those situations.
    No easy answer.
    No point really is there? No government (labour or conservative) listens to the little man. As I said in an earlier post - a relative in-law was made bankrupt - but he was one of these little men (sadly for him - he wasn't hitched up to a millionairess) - I have every sympathy for these people. Its just the Katonas, the McCutcheons, and this Mr Selfridge actress that get on my wick. To them - bankruptcy seems to be a fashion accessory!
  • AdelaideGirlAdelaideGirl Posts: 3,498
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Although, I have to say, if my partner was saying "ya know, despite my millions, maybe you should learn to manage your money better", I'd be seriously peeved :D:o

    Yeah but if you think of shopping/spending money as an adiction like alcohol or gambling etc then not further enabling a problem is the right thing to do. Not that it's clear she has a problem like this but there are instances that could explain his actions.
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Piece here by Alison Phillips. Totally agree with her.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alison-phillips-rich-tax-avoiders-1759478

    OK, Martin Freeman has no obligation to pay her tax bill, but it looks odd that he wouldn't help her out.

    I totally agree as well. It is shocking that he hasn't forked out the money when he can obviously afford it and is as good as being her husband. I'm sick of hearing about actors and celebs declaring themselves bankrupt to get out of paying their bills when they are living in luxury compared to the rest of us.
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yeah but if you think of shopping/spending money as an adiction like alcohol or gambling etc then not further enabling a problem is the right thing to do. Not that it's clear she has a problem like this but there are instances that could explain his actions.

    Its more likely that she worked for a while and then had a period of 'resting' and then the tax bill arrived a year late. Of course her accountant should have advised her to put the taxable amount away somewhere so she could pay it when the bill arrived.

    I guess she probably thought her multi millionaire partner would help out. What a tight wad!! I would be quite upset about this treatment if I were her.
  • kidspudkidspud Posts: 18,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    I totally agree as well. It is shocking that he hasn't forked out the money when he can obviously afford it and is as good as being her husband. I'm sick of hearing about actors and celebs declaring themselves bankrupt to get out of paying their bills when they are living in luxury compared to the rest of us.

    Ever thought that she may not want him too. She may be happy to live an independent life and deal with her own problems.
  • muntamunta Posts: 18,285
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    I totally agree as well. It is shocking that he hasn't forked out the money when he can obviously afford it and is as good as being her husband. I'm sick of hearing about actors and celebs declaring themselves bankrupt to get out of paying their bills when they are living in luxury compared to the rest of us.

    Why should he pay. As an unmarried couple they get none of the financial benefits to being married such as the removal of CGT between each other. So why should he cover her debts?

    In fact, since they are unmarried, any gift he gave her to pay off her tax bill would probably be subject to CGT meaning he would be paying an additional 28% to clear her debt.
  • Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    munta wrote: »
    Why should he pay. As an unmarried couple they get none of the financial benefits to being married such as the removal of CGT between each other. So why should he cover her debts?

    In fact, since they are unmarried, any gift he gave her to pay off her tax bill would probably be subject to CGT meaning he would be paying an additional 28% to clear her debt.

    Oh boo-hoo.

    He's worth 10 million and wouldn't have missed it. Not even with an extra 28%.
  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    Oh boo-hoo.

    He's worth 10 million and wouldn't have missed it. Not even with an extra 28%.
    Maybe he's just not that fond of her!
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm surprised there are people on here defending the fact that he didn't stump up the money for his common law wife (and mother of his children) to pay her tax bill. Good grief obviously living together and having kids means that you are not in a partnership these days. Well you learn something new everyday!
  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    haphash wrote: »
    I'm surprised there are people on here defending the fact that he didn't stump up the money for his common law wife (and mother of his children) to pay her tax bill. Good grief obviously living together and having kids means that you are not in a partnership these days. Well you learn something new everyday!

    I'm not. It never surprises me the number of support celebrity ne'er-do-well get on here. Such is the power of celebrity I suppose. Some people are supremely impressed with it. Doubtless in days gone by they would have doffed their caps at them.
  • whatever54whatever54 Posts: 6,456
    Forum Member
    haphash wrote: »
    I'm surprised there are people on here defending the fact that he didn't stump up the money for his common law wife (and mother of his children) to pay her tax bill. Good grief obviously living together and having kids means that you are not in a partnership these days. Well you learn something new everyday!

    I know, I understand the whole legally done nothing wrong thing but defending it :confused:
    They are both morally bankrupt in my eyes. I am a big fan of Mr Freeman but this makes me think he's a bit of a swine
  • kidspudkidspud Posts: 18,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    I'm surprised there are people on here defending the fact that he didn't stump up the money for his common law wife (and mother of his children) to pay her tax bill. Good grief obviously living together and having kids means that you are not in a partnership these days. Well you learn something new everyday!
    I'm not. It never surprises me the number of support celebrity ne'er-do-well get on here. Such is the power of celebrity I suppose. Some people are supremely impressed with it. Doubtless in days gone by they would have doffed their caps at them.

    I have absoluting no interest in "celebrity".

    Maybe I should ask why you think that someone should not be responsible for their own actions and be allowed to sort out their own problems.

    She was the person who ran up the tax bill, she is the one who needed to deal with it.
  • whatever54whatever54 Posts: 6,456
    Forum Member
    kidspud wrote: »
    I have absoluting no interest in "celebrity".

    Maybe I should ask why you think that someone should not be responsible for their own actions and be allowed to sort out their own problems.


    She was the person who ran up the tax bill, she is the one who needed to deal with it.

    that's all well and good but not being able to get a credit card probably won't bother her, I doubt she'll now be going without designer frocks etc. So where will be the lesson to her?
  • haphashhaphash Posts: 21,448
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    kidspud wrote: »
    I have absoluting no interest in "celebrity".

    Maybe I should ask why you think that someone should not be responsible for their own actions and be allowed to sort out their own problems.

    She was the person who ran up the tax bill, she is the one who needed to deal with it.

    Because being declared bankrupt is not going to have any impact on her life (unless she splits up with Hobbit man). There is no punishment, all that has happened is that she has weaseled her way out of paying a lot of money to the tax office. She won't be having sleepless nights worrying about whether she will lose her home or be able to pay her bills.

    Morally bankrupt is spot on !
  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    kidspud wrote: »
    Maybe I should ask why you think that someone should not be responsible for their own actions and be allowed to sort out their own problems.
    How exactly has she sorted out her own problems? She's merely passed the buck to other taxpayers! Do you think that is right?
  • kidspudkidspud Posts: 18,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How exactly has she sorted out her own problems? She's merely passed the buck to other taxpayers! Do you think that is right?

    She has taken one of the options available to her (which would also be available to you or I). It is also the court that issues the bankruptcy so they had to be satisfied.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,888
    Forum Member
    They shouldn't have to be married to have the benefits. Are people really suggesting because they don't have a fancy bit of paper and a huge ceremony that they aren't a partnership? Do those people have the same attitudes to same sex couples?

    Maybe they don't want to get married? It's not for everyone.
  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    kidspud wrote: »
    She has taken one of the options available to her (which would also be available to you or I). It is also the court that issues the bankruptcy so they had to be satisfied.

    Well maybe she should have got her affairs in order beforehand. As someone has already posted - these tax bills don't just suddenly come out of the blue. If she's too stupid to work out her own taxes - surely she should have hired someone who knows what to do - she was obviously earning enough money to. But then again - she was probably too tight-fisted to do that. Bankruptcy isn't an easy option for the common people but for some people who don't even think taxes are for them - it IS the easy option.

    Why oh why do people keep defending people like this is a true mystery.
  • SloopySloopy Posts: 65,209
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    haphash wrote: »
    I'm surprised there are people on here defending the fact that he didn't stump up the money for his common law wife (and mother of his children) to pay her tax bill. Good grief obviously living together and having kids means that you are not in a partnership these days. Well you learn something new everyday!

    Indeed. They've spent twelve years of their lives together and are raising two young children; you'd think they could have put something together to resolve this privately.

    Then again, these individuals don't seem to think it's that much of a big deal to be declared bankrupt these days. Seems to be happening a lot.
  • Saltydog1955Saltydog1955 Posts: 4,134
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sloopy wrote: »
    Indeed. They've spent twelve years of their lives together and are raising two young children; you'd think they could have put something together to resolve this privately.

    Then again, these individuals don't seem to think it's that much of a big deal to be declared bankrupt these days. Seems to be happening a lot.

    After moaning about being 'raped' by taxes in the UK, it turns out Ray Winstone was - twice.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1243131/The-secrets-success-Ray-Winstone.html
  • kidspudkidspud Posts: 18,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well maybe she should have got her affairs in order beforehand. As someone has already posted - these tax bills don't just suddenly come out of the blue. If she's too stupid to work out her own taxes - surely she should have hired someone who knows what to do - she was obviously earning enough money to. But then again - she was probably too tight-fisted to do that. Bankruptcy isn't an easy option for the common people but for some people who don't even think taxes are for them - it IS the easy option.

    Why oh why do people keep defending people like this is a true mystery.

    I am not defending her or her actions. However she has created the problem and used the options available to her to help her solve it. It is, of course, unknown if she took bankruptcy voluntarily or if it was forced upon her.

    However, why anyone would think that someone else should sort her problem out for her is a true mystery to me.
  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    kidspud wrote: »
    However, why anyone would think that someone else should sort her problem out for her is a true mystery to me.
    I don't think anyone has suggested that he has an obligation to help her out - just that you'd think it would be the first thing that a loving partner would offer to do. Judas Priest - if I was as rich as Freeman - I'd help a FRIEND out of a tight spot - let along a long-term partner who was mother to my children. I think most people would. I don't know - maybe he HAS offered to help but she's declined his kind offer and possibly said 'no need darling - the taxpayer will pick up the tab'.
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    We just have to get used to footing the bill on their behalf.

    You seem to think Martin Freemen should foot a tax bill that isn't his, though.
  • sheila bligesheila blige Posts: 8,007
    Forum Member
    Helbore wrote: »
    You seem to think Martin Freemen should foot a tax bill that isn't his, though.
    I don't - I just think if he's truly that fond of her he'd help her out - I know that my partner would help me out of financial difficulty and I would him. Maybe people in celebrity land really aren't that fond of each other!

    And to be honest - it seems all of those people defending this woman - seem to think its right that those tax-payers on low incomes SHOULD subsidise the rich and famous.

    Anyway - end of story - she's been dumped by Mr Grove in Mr Selfridge (for a younger far prettier woman) so all's well that ends well!:D
  • HelboreHelbore Posts: 16,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And to be honest - it seems all of those people defending this woman - seem to think its right that those tax-payers on low incomes SHOULD subsidise the rich and famous.

    I don't see that happening. I see people who are defending Martin Freeman for not having to pay someone else's tax bill and I see people who refuse to see being declared bankrupt as an easy get-out card that the rich play in order to keep their money.

    Poor people often get declared bankrupt because they cannot afford to pay their way anymore. Its not an "out" for the rich. No-one even knows what her financial situation is. He might be very successful, but she's not exactly an A-lister, is she? Acting on TV doesn't mean you are swimming in cash.

    But no-ones actually interested in the details of her financial situation. He's rich. She's (somewhat) famous. What are people expecting her to do if she's been declared bankrupt? Pay out of the money the courts have obviously decided she doesn't have? Have her legs broken like if she'd borrowed from a loan shark? Be forced into indentured servitude like in the good old days of antiquity?

    Nah, people just want him to pay because he's rich and famous. Bugger the law, because he's rich. Law good when it protects the little folk. Law bad when it also protects rich man. Its just reverse snobbery and engineered outrage by the tabloids.
Sign In or Register to comment.