Jimmy Carr

[Hatch]

Clearly not right or fair, but surely we would all do the same given the opportunity.

 

1% tax or 50% tax ...you choose. No Brainer.

[Katalinic]

Clearly not right or fair, but surely we would all do the same given the opportunity.

 

1% tax or 50% tax ...you choose. No Brainer.

 

I don't see the issue if it's legal. It is all very well Cameron bleating about the morality of it but perhaps he should be criticising HMRC for not closing the loophole in the first place. Frankly after the MP's expenses scandal it is a bit ironic for any politician to moralise over other's financial affairs.

[solentstars]

Clearly not right or fair, but surely we would all do the same given the opportunity.

 

1% tax or 50% tax ...you choose. No Brainer.

 

That's like saying benifit cheats are doing no wrong unless they get caught:beer:

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Thedelldays]

That's like saying benifit cheats are doing no wrong unless they get caught:beer:

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

its not really is it

[Pancake]

That's like saying benifit cheats are doing no wrong unless they get caught:beer:

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

Not really. Benefit cheating is illegal and morally wrong, using a loophole in the tax system is legal but morally wrong.

[trousers]

Clearly not right or fair, but surely we would all do the same given the opportunity.

 

1% tax or 50% tax ...you choose. No Brainer.

 

In a devil's advocate kinda way, anyone on PAYE has "chosen" not to avoid tax in this way. What is there to stop anyone going to their company and saying: "Hey....I want to opt out of this PAYE malarkey....instead of paying me directly, please forward an equivalent sum of money to this trust fund in Jersey and leave the rest to me..."

 

Ok, I know most companies in the country would tell an employee where to stick such a proposal but is there anything LEGALLY or TECHNICALLY stopping an employee and employer 'colluding' in such a way IF they wanted to?

[Minty]

Two separate issues here for me:

 

1 - Is it 'right'? Depends on your morals and your views on tax etc.

2 - Cameron is a hypocrite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

[Hatch]

In a devil's advocate kinda way, anyone on PAYE has "chosen" not to avoid tax in this way. What is there to stop anyone going to their company and saying: "Hey....I want to opt out of this PAYE malarkey....instead of paying me directly, please forward an equivalent sum of money to this trust fund in Jersey and leave the rest to me..."

 

Ok, I know most companies in the country would tell an employee where to stick such a proposal but is there anything LEGALLY or TECHNICALLY stopping an employee and employer 'colluding' in such a way IF they wanted to?

 

no.

[pap]

I've never really liked Jimmy Carr. Even before all this nonsense, the man has made a career of being a corporate whore. No business function too small for Jimmy to appear with.

 

The late great Bill Hicks informs a lot of my views on this:-

Do a commercial, and you're off the artistic roll call forever. You're another whore at the capitalist gang bang … Everything you say is suspect and every word that comes out of your mouth is now like a turd falling into my drink.

 

That said, it's very funny to see Cameron talk about the moral repugnance of tax evasion when his dad made a huge chunk of the family fortune finding tax havens for fellow avoiders.

 

We're all in this together, indeed.

[trousers]

I've never really liked Jimmy Carr. Even before all this nonsense, the man has made a career of being a corporate whore. No business function too small for Jimmy to appear with.

 

The late great Bill Hicks informs a lot of my views on this:-

 

 

That said, it's very funny to see Cameron talk about the moral repugnance of tax evasion when his dad made a huge chunk of the family fortune finding tax havens for fellow avoiders.

 

 

How do we know that Cameron is fully supportive of his Dad's exploits?

 

(two devil's advocate cards played in one thread by Trousers...go me)

[Minty]

I like that Hicks quote. Especially the 'whore at the capitalist gang bang'. Might have to keep that for future reference.

[trousers]

Two separate issues here for me:

 

1 - Is it 'right'? Depends on your morals and your views on tax etc.

2 - Cameron is a hypocrite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

 

All humans are hypocrites.

[Minty]

How do we know that Cameron is fully supportive of his Dad's exploits?

 

(two devil's advocate cards played in one thread by Trousers...go me)

 

We don't, but given that he accepted his inheritance and didn't question it or ask for it to go elsewhere on account of moral uncertainty about accepting it, I think it's safe to assume he was happy with it.

[Minty]

All humans are hypocrites.

 

Yes indeed, we all are to some extent. Just some more than others.

[warsash saint]

AS Frankie Boyle said, 'If you're rich, dont look at it as tax avoidance, look at it as a Children's Hospital buying you a pool table'

[pap]

How do we know that Cameron is fully supportive of his Dad's exploits?

 

(two devil's advocate cards played in one thread by Trousers...go me)

 

I'm sure that publicly, Cameron will not be fully supportive of his Dad's exploits. Really don't think he can afford to be. That said, I can't see him condemning his late father either.

 

The two top stories on the Guardian at the moment are Jimmy Carr and how the Cameron's built their fortune. Fancy that, as Private Eye like to say

[Minty]

The two top stories on the Guardian at the moment are Jimmy Carr and how the Cameron's built their fortune. Fancy that, as Private Eye like to say

Mainly because people talking about the former, are linking to the latter... just like I did!

[pedg]

My simple rules for sorting out tax avoidance:

 

1) No company can be based in a country where it does not have a significant workforce (say at least 20% or in the top 3 country's operated in by workforce if no one country has 20%). Where a company is part of a group of companies the location of the top company must apply these rules to an amalgamation of all the companies underneath it.

 

2) Any entity created purely for the purpose of avoiding tax is illegal unless approved by the government.

 

3) Any scheme not explicitly approved in advance that is judged to have been set up to gain an excessive reduction in taxation will be subject to a retroactive surcharge equal to 150% of the tax that should have been paid had the scheme not been used.

[solentstars]

In a devil's advocate kinda way, anyone on PAYE has "chosen" not to avoid tax in this way. What is there to stop anyone going to their company and saying: "Hey....I want to opt out of this PAYE malarkey....instead of paying me directly, please forward an equivalent sum of money to this trust fund in Jersey and leave the rest to me..."

 

Ok, I know most companies in the country would tell an employee where to stick such a proposal but is there anything LEGALLY or TECHNICALLY stopping an employee and employer 'colluding' in such a way IF they wanted to?

 

I think we would all love that but the tax man would not allow it.

Just imagine no one in the country not paying tax.it stinks that tax avoiders cost the country billions more than all those benifit cheats .some of our biggest companys have not paid any taxation for ages.its about time the governments around the world closed these loopholes for the super rich.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Pancake]

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

Can I just jump in and ask which network your HTC is on?

[thefunkygibbons]

Reality is that our tax code is so complex that it is a cat and mouse game of the tax man trying to close schemes whilst firms are always designing new ones.

 

The only solutions are

1. Flat tax on all income with no exceptions or allowances or reliefs etc etc

2. Every individual has to publish their tax affairs publicly (I believe some Nordic countries do this)

 

And there is no way I can see those steps happening

[solentstars]

Reality is that our tax code is so complex that it is a cat and mouse game of the tax man trying to close schemes whilst firms are always designing new ones.

 

The only solutions are

1. Flat tax on all income with no exceptions or allowances or reliefs etc etc

2. Every individual has to publish their tax affairs publicly (I believe some Nordic countries do this)

 

And there is no way I can see those steps happening

 

I agree that makes a lot of sense

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[pedg]

Reality is that our tax code is so complex that it is a cat and mouse game of the tax man trying to close schemes whilst firms are always designing new ones.

 

The only solutions are

1. Flat tax on all income with no exceptions or allowances or reliefs etc etc

2. Every individual has to publish their tax affairs publicly (I believe some Nordic countries do this)

 

And there is no way I can see those steps happening

 

Problem is most of these tax avoidance schemes involve sending money to another country or in many cases being employed by a company that though a lot of its staff is in the UK say is based in Lichtenstein or similar. How much you can stop without the agreement of other countries, for many of whom being a tax haven is their main income, is a matter for debate.

[iansums]

The real issue here is how do you close the loophole. I caught the tail end of an interview on R5L where some guy said that there are loopholes in the tax system because it was so damn complicated. The whole thing needs to be simplified, starting by doing away with NI and combining it with income tax. The government needs to come up with a plan with cross party support so successive governments don't keep feckin about with it.

[Guy]

1. Flat tax on all income with no exceptions or allowances or reliefs etc etc

 

And, of course, the Lefties don't like that as everyone would pay the same rate and they want 'The Rich' (whoever they are) to pay more.

[pedg]

And, of course, the Lefties don't like that as everyone would pay the same rate and they want 'The Rich' (whoever they are) to pay more.

 

The argument is if you outlaw all the complex schemes then the rich would have to pay the 30% and not the 1% they were paying by using schemes such as K2. no idea what the difference would be comparing the lost higher rate tax against the reduction in avoidance.

[trousers]

I think we would all love that but the tax man would not allow it.

 

Under which law would he not allow it? (that's the crux behind my hypothetical question)

[pap]

And, of course, the Lefties don't like that as everyone would pay the same rate and they want 'The Rich' (whoever they are) to pay more.

 

Don't know how many left-wingers you actually know, but as one myself, believe that the progressive tax system is ultimately counterproductive.

 

I would be happy for everyone to pay the same rate. In practice, a lot of the rich aren't even paying the 33% or so in direct taxes that their less well-heeled counterparts are paying.

[trousers]

Before we start judging people's moral values, Cameron included, does anyone actually know what Carr has done with the tax money he has avoided paying? For all we know he's opened 16 orphanages with it thus benefiting 100s of deprived kids.

 

As usual, we're all assuming that the state spends our money more wisely and morally than we as individuals are capable of...

[Petersfield Saint]

Reality is that our tax code is so complex that it is a cat and mouse game of the tax man trying to close schemes whilst firms are always designing new ones.

 

The only solutions are

1. Flat tax on all income with no exceptions or allowances or reliefs etc etc

2. Every individual has to publish their tax affairs publicly (I believe some Nordic countries do this)

 

And there is no way I can see those steps happening

 

Would agree with point 1 but can't see it happening anytime soon through vested interests getting in the way. Not least from HMRC themselves; can you imagine how many jobs could be done away with if the tax system really was that simple?

 

The real issue here is how do you close the loophole. I caught the tail end of an interview on R5L where some guy said that there are loopholes in the tax system because it was so damn complicated. The whole thing needs to be simplified, starting by doing away with NI and combining it with income tax. The government needs to come up with a plan with cross party support so successive governments don't keep feckin about with it.

 

And, of course, the Lefties don't like that as everyone would pay the same rate and they want 'The Rich' (whoever they are) to pay more.

 

The argument is if you outlaw all the complex schemes then the rich would have to pay the 30% and not the 1% they were paying by using schemes such as K2. no idea what the difference would be comparing the lost higher rate tax against the reduction in avoidance.

Good point; I would be interested to know the answer to that.

 

If we all paid the same percentage then the rich would still be paying more in absolute terms (and as someone on a relatively modest income I would be happy with that); maybe if they were paying say 25% like the rest of us then they wouldn't worry so much about trying to avoid it. Yes, idealistic I know...

[Verbal]

In a devil's advocate kinda way, anyone on PAYE has "chosen" not to avoid tax in this way. What is there to stop anyone going to their company and saying: "Hey....I want to opt out of this PAYE malarkey....instead of paying me directly, please forward an equivalent sum of money to this trust fund in Jersey and leave the rest to me..."

 

Ok, I know most companies in the country would tell an employee where to stick such a proposal but is there anything LEGALLY or TECHNICALLY stopping an employee and employer 'colluding' in such a way IF they wanted to?

 

Yes there is something to stop it. For a company that employs you to do as you suggest, you cannot be an employee, but would have to have a service company into which the money can be paid. You would then be employe by that company and it would lend your services to your de facto employer. In fact, this was the means by which, among other civil servants, the head of student finance was paid. It's only SUPPOSED to work if you have a range of such contracts - ie it's demonstrable that you are not just an employee of one paymaster. The remarkable thing is that some civil servants were able to essentially pull a scam, because they WERE sole employees of the civil service.

[Petersfield Saint]

I see Jimmy Carr's backed down today - fair play to him if so but whilst I don't particularly like the guy I think it's a bit unfair that he's been singled out while loads of others get away with it (and will continue to do so)

[SO16_Saint]

I see Jimmy Carr's backed down today - fair play to him if so but whilst I don't particularly like the guy I think it's a bit unfair that he's been singled out while loads of others get away with it (and will continue to do so)

 

Garry Barlow is the next in line for a public roasting

[Lord Duckhunter]

He has worked for the BBC.

 

An organisation funded by a poll tax, taken from us, normal tax payers.

 

Are BBC "stars" & emplyees all PAYE and if not, why not?

[SO16_Saint]

He has worked for the BBC.

 

An organisation funded by a poll tax, taken from us, normal tax payers.

 

Are BBC "stars" & emplyees all PAYE and if not, why not?

 

arent all, or certainly most, 'entertainers' freelance?

[toofarnorth]

In a devil's advocate kinda way, anyone on PAYE has "chosen" not to avoid tax in this way. What is there to stop anyone going to their company and saying: "Hey....I want to opt out of this PAYE malarkey....instead of paying me directly, please forward an equivalent sum of money to this trust fund in Jersey and leave the rest to me..."

 

Ok, I know most companies in the country would tell an employee where to stick such a proposal but is there anything LEGALLY or TECHNICALLY stopping an employee and employer 'colluding' in such a way IF they wanted to?

 

I'm sure if you are on modest wages, the fees involved would negate any possible tax savings.

[norwaysaint]

2. Every individual has to publish their tax affairs publicly (I believe some Nordic countries do this)

 

They've always been published here, but it's being challenged at the moment and you can't see the new ones so easily. It was very easy to check people's tax here, you just type in their name and you can see what they earned in recent years and what their declared personal wealth (formue)is. We all check up on our neighbours and colleagues.

 

For example:

http://skattelister.no/skatt/profil/jo-stuen-tessem-42531047/

http://skattelister.no/skatt/profil/morten-harket-43109044/

 

It hasn't stopped cheats really though, just made them more visible. For example this is one of the richest men in Norway, yet he has no income (inntekt) at all.

 

http://skattelister.no/skatt/profil/kjell-inge-rokke-42459942/

[Lord Duckhunter]

arent all, or certainly most, 'entertainers' freelance?

 

If that's the case then surely an organsation that is run by a poll tax from the public purse, should ensure that every single person they pay, pays the correct amount on that particulary money. If the "star" doesn't like it, then go and work for someone else.

[Torres]

Don't know how many left-wingers you actually know, but as one myself, believe that the progressive tax system is ultimately counterproductive.

 

I would be happy for everyone to pay the same rate. In practice, a lot of the rich aren't even paying the 33% or so in direct taxes that their less well-heeled counterparts are paying.

 

The squeals of outrage when Osbourne dropped the entirely counter-productive 50% tax rate told most of us all we need to know about the likely reaction to any plans for a flat tax rate.

Edited 21 June, 2012 by Torres

[pap]

I think Carr's problem is that the scheme he chose was so aggressive that it leaves very little room for sympathy.

 

I don't personally have a problem with certain entertainers going the service company route. Many aren't on regular income.

 

I'd have a bigger issue with someone on a regular gig, but a lot of entertainers aren't guaranteed of regular work.

 

If Carr had gone the service company route, he'd pay 20% corporation tax, higher rate tax on dividends above the threshold, and the administrative costs of running a small company. He'd still be coining it in. Still a crapload better than 1% with the money he makes.

 

I think the extent to which he's avoiding is the problem.

[pap]

The squeals of outrage when Osbourne dropped the entirely counter-productive 50% tax rate told most of us all we need to know about the likely reaction to any plans for a flat tax rate.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. The problem with lowering the 50% tax rate was that it was seen to be giving a tax break to those who least needed it at a time when we were all being told we'd need to pay more.

 

Those "squeals" weren't tacit validation of a progressive tax system. More about people saying "eh? why are you giving them more money?".

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Before we start judging people's moral values, Cameron included, does anyone actually know what Carr has done with the tax money he has avoided paying? For all we know he's opened 16 orphanages with it thus benefiting 100s of deprived kids.

 

As usual, we're all assuming that the state spends our money more wisely and morally than we as individuals are capable of...

 

What so everyone should be allowed to choose exactly how their tax gets spent? ----> Chaos.

[trousers]

I wonder if Ken Livingstone approves of what Carr has done?

Edited 21 June, 2012 by trousers

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Oh, and if anyone wants to see what the UK would look like if virtually everyone was fiddling their taxes then go to Greece. No thanks.

[trousers]

What so everyone should be allowed to choose exactly how their tax gets spent? ----> Chaos.

 

I must admit, my master plan, whilst philisophically a thing of beauty, does have a few logistical flaws in it....

[trousers]

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. The problem with lowering the 50% tax rate was that it was seen to be giving a tax break to those who least needed it at a time when we were all being told we'd need to pay more.

 

Those "squeals" weren't tacit validation of a progressive tax system. More about people saying "eh? why are you giving them more money?".

 

And there was me thinking the squeals we all heard was everyone saying: "eh? how come Labour let those rich gits have all that extra money for 12 years".... ;-)

[pap]

What so everyone should be allowed to choose exactly how their tax gets spent? ----> Chaos.

 

To be fair, our current system of clueless career politicians choosing how to spend taxpayer cash hasn't exactly gone swimmingly. At least the general public would be pragmatic.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I wonder if Ken Livingston approves of what Carr has done?

 

Ahh, Trousers' usual 'but what about Labour' argument. Yawn. Who cares? I wonder what Rhodes Boyson thinks of it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

And there was me thinking the squeals we all heard was everyone saying: "eh? how come Labour let those rich gits have all that extra money for 12 years".... ;-)

 

Did you see that chump Angela Eagle on the Dail Politics yesterday.

 

They had some fit Socilaist French bird on, and he was asking about the 75% tax rate. Andrew Neil asked Eagle what she thought of it and she was all bluster and waffle. kept banging on about "we wont announce our tax plans until nearer the election". Neil pressed her 3 times, what do YOU think of the 75% tax rate and she wouldn't answer. Neil said, "what's the point in coming on here if you wont answer my questions", when eagle said "can I just make one point" he said "no, you wont answer a simple question, so you can keep quiet".

 

Her attitude summed Labour up completely. Alan Duncan (who I think is a t wat) said, it's bad uncompetitive and wont bring anymore money in. The Labour bint could not bring herself to even comment on it.......

[pap]

And there was me thinking the squeals we all heard was everyone saying: "eh? how come Labour let those rich gits have all that extra money for 12 years".... ;-)

 

You should know by now that this party political point-scoring nonsense doesn't work on me, trousers. My "support" for the Labour party extends as far as "I dislike them less than the other parties". I don't like the Conservatives because most of them are c***s and not really Conservatives. The Lib Dems are just blatant opportunists. I still wonder whether Miliband means the things he says or is just targeting the squeezed middle with intellectual demagoguery.

 

In short, I'm annoyed with the lot of them. I suspect I'm not alone.