Jimmy Carr

[trousers]

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

 

Almost as boring as those jumping on the "hypocritical Tory rich gits" bandwagon.... ;-)

[trousers]

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.

 

Yeah, I know....sorry, just getting caught up in the usual heady SWF banter.... :-)

[trousers]

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.

 

I agree with pap :-)

[pap]

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.......

 

Her attitude sums up politicians perfectly, if my mostly daily experience of the Today programme is anything to go by.

 

Most of this crop of politicians, at least the ones important enough to command airtime, are complete scoundrels when it comes to answering a simple question. They all use the trick of presenting one stat as if it is the totality of the situation. Great recent example: "the biggest raise in pensions from any recent government". Yes. That's because pensions are linked to inflation, which is currently out of control.

 

Few do anything more than repeat the prepared statements of their party ad nauseum.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Almost as boring as those jumping on the "hypocritical Tory rich gits" bandwagon.... ;-)

 

Quite, but I'm not on it and I'm not sure many on this thread are. Even so, more "whatabouttery" from Trousers.

 

I suppose the reason that Carr has been singled out is his recent sketch on that Channel 4 weeknight show where he ripped into Barclays for tax evas I mean tax advoidance. Also not quite sure why the BBC should take that much flak on this particular issue. Carr makes huge amounts from appearances, tours and DVD sales let alone being more of a Channel 4 face than a BBC one.

[Thedelldays]

Her attitude sums up politicians perfectly, if my mostly daily experience of the Today programme is anything to go by.

 

Most of this crop of politicians, at least the ones important enough to command airtime, are complete scoundrels when it comes to answering a simple question. They all use the trick of presenting one stat as if it is the totality of the situation. Great recent example: "the biggest raise in pensions from any recent government". Yes. That's because pensions are linked to inflation, which is currently out of control.

 

Few do anything more than repeat the prepared statements of their party ad nauseum.

 

It is because labour would be doing very much the same things now. All they do is point score without doing anything

 

 

And they know it

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

It is because labour would be doing very much the same things now. All they do is point score without doing anything

 

 

And they know it

 

Does that mean we shouldn't hope that the current Government do better?

[solentstars]

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?

 

Because they are part of the same elite group of our society all those tax avoiders have shafted this country for years at the top end of society and think its only the little people who should pay taxation.

A culture which his gos back decades and now hopefullis now is back on political agenda to make the system fairer and they pay their fair share .we are all in this together:)

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[solentstars]

It is because labour would be doing very much the same things now. All they do is point score without doing anything

 

 

And they know it

 

Agree Blair was thatchers son and another Tory .infact I would say the current government is more leftwing than labour

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Thedelldays]

Does that mean we shouldn't hope that the current Government do better?

 

I honestly believe that this is the course of action no matter who is in power. Just the opposition will sit there and disagree with nearly everything. Knowing full well that they would be doing 95% of the same thing

 

Do you really think milliband and balls would be any better? No way

[Hatch]

Wouldn't surprise me if most footballers get paid to offshore companies, including a lot of our team.

[Thedelldays]

Wouldn't surprise me if most footballers get paid to offshore companies, including a lot of our team.

 

If I could do it. I would

[Verbal]

"whatabouttery".

 

A very good new word. I must remember that.

[trousers]

A very good new word. I must remember that.

 

Do what I did and get a t-shirt printed with it on.

[um pahars]

I suppose the reason that Carr has been singled out is his recent sketch on that Channel 4 weeknight show where he ripped into Barclays for tax evas I mean tax advoidance.

 

Thats where Carr lost it for me!! You can't go round slaughtering Barclays for paying 1% tax (or whatever it was) and the. Do exactly the same thing yourself.

 

But hasn't Cameron done himself up like a kipper as well with his faux moral outrage over tax avoidance????

 

His parents "tax efficient" trust fund is already out there and it won't be long before someone digs up something else on him, his family, his colleagues or his supporters.

 

It's his equivalent of Major's Back To Basics which spectacularly backfired on him (and Edwina)

[trousers]

Yeah, but what about Labour?

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Yeah, but what about Labour?

 

 

 

Yes, Blair and Mandleson's tax affairs would make interesting reading.

 

And who has just come top of their NEC vote, held just 2 days ago? It's our old friend Ken "21% corporation tax" Livingstone.

 

Rich Tory families, bankers and entertainers are bad people for avioding tax. Whereas champagne socialist Tax avioders get voted onto to Labour's NEC.

[Petersfield Saint]

Thats where Carr lost it for me!! You can't go round slaughtering Barclays for paying 1% tax (or whatever it was) and the. Do exactly the same thing yourself.

 

But hasn't Cameron done himself up like a kipper as well with his faux moral outrage over tax avoidance????

 

His parents "tax efficient" trust fund is already out there and it won't be long before someone digs up something else on him, his family, his colleagues or his supporters.

 

It's his equivalent of Major's Back To Basics which spectacularly backfired on him (and Edwina)

 

I heard on the radio this morning that there's a big piece in today's Mirror criticizing Cameron's family and Lord Ashcroft amongst others for doing exactly the same.

[Petersfield Saint]

400 posts in nearly 6 years; I'm awesome!

[Petersfield Saint]

Here it is; not sure if anything in any other rags:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-carr-tax-row-turns-905663

[trousers]

Here it is; not sure if anything in any other rags:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-carr-tax-row-turns-905663

 

Yeah, but what about Labour?

[Petersfield Saint]

Exactly!

[um pahars]

Yeah, but what about Labour?

 

Couldn't take Ken Livingstone seriously (didn't take him that serious before TBF) when he launched in to Boris for avoiding tax, when he was also playing the tax avoidance game.

 

As with Carr and Cameron, I'm not overly fussed about someone attempting to legally avoid tax, for me it's the deed of slaughtering Barclays or claiming to be morally outraged whilst benefitting from a similar scheme.

[hamster]

Why can't we scrap income tax and just tax all purchases at a fixed (say) 35%?

 

Anyway, I'm gonna repeat my tax mantra, cash is king.

[hamster]

Wtfiln?

[Golden Balls]

Having a good laugh about it on 8 out of 10 cats right now

[Jonnyboy]

If I could do it. I would

 

I wouldn't.

 

It's a massve conspiracy between the rich of this world to f*ck over everyone else.

 

Why argue about 40%, 45% or 50%? None of them will pay it anyway!

 

Then they take to stand and sl*g off the unemployed, and put in cuts to disability benefits.

 

Rich always f8ckin with the poor, always have, always will.

 

The skate mentality runs this planet.

[Wade Garrett]

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.

 

Rather than the present system, where PAYE workers like me, earning less than 50k, are paying more than treble the tax that multi-millionaire comedians and pop stars (who get honoured by the Queen) do.

[trousers]

Has anyone worked out yet what all these rich gits actually do with all this tax that they don't pay?

[Whitey Grandad]

It's simple really. 1% is way too low and %50 is way too high. Make it flat with no allowances, and anything over 20% is too much.

 

The difference between benefit cheats and tax avoiders is that one takes money but the other just doesn't give it. And one is illegal, the other isn't.

[Whitey Grandad]

Rather than the present system, where PAYE workers like me, earning less than 50k, are paying more than treble the tax that multi-millionaire comedians and pop stars (who get honoured by the Queen) do.

No you're not. You're thinking in percentage terms, not absolute amounts. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html (Daily Mail but still valid)

[buctootim]

No you're not. You're thinking in percentage terms, not absolute amounts. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html (Daily Mail but still valid)

 

That article is about the total amount of tax paid by people on the 50% band. It says nothing about the people paying artifically low rates by use of employment benefit trusts, loan backs or some other scheme / scam.

 

I'm surprised you aren't angry about avoidance Whitey. Its you and me - the middle - who are paying more tax because the wealthy and immoral are avoiding it - and it is immoral. Paying 1% on earnings of £1m pa equals £10,000pa - less than somebody trying to raise a family on £35,000pa

Edited 22 June, 2012 by buctootim

[buctootim]

Bummer

 

Wealthy investors including Sir Alex Ferguson, Sven-Göran Eriksson and a host of sports stars and City figures could be liable for huge individual tax bills after an attempt to reduce their liabilities backfired.

 

The 289 investors in Eclipse 35, a film partnership ruled to be an “aggressive” tax avoidance scheme by a tax tribunal in April, could end up paying several times more than the total of £117m tax they sought to avoid as the Revenue & Customs examines the large bank loans they took on to participate in the scheme. The investors put £50m of their own capital into the scheme, conceived by Future Capital Partners, and borrowed £790m from Barclays Bank to buy the film distribution rights to two Disney films, offsetting the interest charged against income tax. Disney agreed to lease the rights back from investors in return for an annual payment spread over 20 years. However, the Revenue told the Financial Times this week that it was treating the “sub-licensing” payments as income and liable for tax, meaning investors stand to receive tax bills far greater than the income tax they originally tried to avoid. The Revenue confirmed that it was in the process of sending tax demands to UK-based Eclipse partners, levied on the millions of pounds of income earned and backdated to 2007 when it began operating.

 

“They will be receiving tax bills for the income from the partnership, backdated. It is as if the scheme never existed,” it said. One law firm said some investors could face “financial ruin”. At least three investors have already contacted lawyers to see if they can sue financial advisers for negligence over Eclipse 35. Future Capital Partners, which conceived the scheme, has filed an appeal, but said it was up to investors to decide whether to pursue it.

 

Thousands of participants in similar film investments could also be affected, as the Revenue assesses them in the wake of its victory. Baljinder Boparan, an investor in Eclipse 35 and wife of Ranjit Boparan, the owner of the Two Sisters food group, said she would end up paying more tax than she had invested. Her spokesman said she was consulting lawyers. “It has gone horribly wrong,” said Kit Sorrell, senior professional negligence partner at Pannone, the Manchester law firm. “Investors will be required to pay income tax on ‘income’ they have never received.

 

He is acting for two people who claim that they were not advised that if the Revenue challenged the scheme they could be liable for tax on its income. “For many investors, this enormous liability will come as an absolute shock and could lead to financial ruin. Many aren’t yet aware that this might happen to them,” Mr Sorrell said. Other investors in Eclipse 35 included Lance Uggla, chief executive of Markit, the research company; David Casterton, chief executive for London and Emea of ICAP, the interdealer broker; Richard Baker, the chairman of DFS, the furniture retailer; Philippa Rose, founder of a City headhunter; and dozens of middle-ranking City bankers. All declined to comment.

 

Sir Alex Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, declined to comment and Mr Eriksson, the former England football manager, could not be reached for comment. Several firms of wealth advisers marketed the scheme, and clients paid them fees of up to £50,000 a time, Mr Sorrell said. Future Capital said it stood behind the investment. “We now have a situation where because of the current economic environment, HMRC [the Revenue] and latterly the government are challenging what are both legally structured and commercial investments,” it said.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Couldn't take Ken Livingstone seriously (didn't take him that serious before TBF) when he launched in to Boris for avoiding tax, when he was also playing the tax avoidance game.

 

As with Carr and Cameron, I'm not overly fussed about someone attempting to legally avoid tax, for me it's the deed of slaughtering Barclays or claiming to be morally outraged whilst benefitting from a similar scheme.

 

Agreed,

 

And the fake moral outrage from Labour Politicans makes me sick. One of the most notorious tax avioders is Phillip Green, who saved £285 million worth of tax in 2002, by buying Arcadia in his Monaco based wife's name.Fast forward 4 years and he gets awarded a knighthood by the Labour Govt.

 

We have a fat cat business tax avioder knighted, a hypocrite champagne socilaist tax avioder coming top of their NEC vote, yet they still bang on about "sticking up for the right people".

[saintfully]

Has anyone worked out yet what all these rich gits actually do with all this tax that they don't pay?

 

If thats an attempt to suggest that the money not given in tax is being spent in the UK economy & thereby generating growth I would humbly suggest that your suggestion is ******.

 

High-end goods and services don't tend to be UK-produced/owned - with the notable exception of property in London, which surprise-surprise has managed to maintain and increase its value throughout the recession. I suggest that is, in general terms, not a good thing.

[saintfully]

Agreed,

 

And the fake moral outrage from Labour Politicans makes me sick. One of the most notorious tax avioders is Phillip Green, who saved £285 million worth of tax in 2002, by buying Arcadia in his Monaco based wife's name.Fast forward 4 years and he gets awarded a knighthood by the Labour Govt.

 

We have a fat cat business tax avioder knighted, a hypocrite champagne socilaist tax avioder coming top of their NEC vote, yet they still bang on about "sticking up for the right people".

 

Absolutely - can't stand all these hypocrites with their fake moral outrage. Now real moral outrage, thats something I'm completely happy to be associated with.

[Whitey Grandad]

That article is about the total amount of tax paid by people on the 50% band. It says nothing about the people paying artifically low rates by use of employment benefit trusts, loan backs or some other scheme / scam.

 

I'm surprised you aren't angry about avoidance Whitey. Its you and me - the middle - who are paying more tax because the wealthy and immoral are avoiding it - and it is immoral. Paying 1% on earnings of £1m pa equals £10,000pa - less than somebody trying to raise a family on £35,000pa

 

In this case 1% is too low, but I do think that the principle of a percentage is wrong. Once you've paid some threshold, say £50,000, then the rate should reduce to around 10%. As I once said in a private meeting with Nigel Lawson (ooh, get him!) the intention is to get these people to stay and pay the tax rather than avoiding it, and he readily agreed.

[miserableoldgit]

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Is that the same Philip Green knighted by the Labour Govt?

[Saintandy666]

It's not right, and I'm glad he has admitted the error of his ways and he got a proper bashing on 8 out of 10 cats yesterday Angus Deayton style.

 

Although I would say that concentrating on him why perhaps satisfying for some, won't help the bigger picture. We need law change to change these ridiculous loop holes. Tax shouldn't be optional.

[Saintandy666]

Is that the same Philip Green knighted by the Labour Govt?

 

Your point? Is MOG a Labour politician? Even if he was, it wouldn't detract from Cameron's selective rage.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Although I would say that concentrating on him why perhaps satisfying for some, won't help the bigger picture. We need law change to change these ridiculous loop holes. Tax shouldn't be optional.

 

The HMRC conducted a study into tax aviodence, and The study said the use of tax reliefs on charitable donations was among the top three tax loopholes used to legally reduce income tax bills. Osbourne closed that down, then came the howls of anger and attacks on the Tory party for being out of touch. The vehicle that Carr used was set up by Gordon Brown to help film funding . Had that been closed you would have had luvvies and their leftie mates whinning on about the Govt being "out of touch". It's the same with the so called pasty tax. Why is it right for massive Companys like Gregs to not charge VAT on a hot pasty, but the local family chippie has to? As soon as the Govt tries to do something about tax a special interest group will hit the airwaves and the BBC will lap it up.

 

There are only so many loopholes, because there are so many tax breaks here and there for various pet projects, but also because the tax rate is so high in this country.

[Saintandy666]

The HMRC conducted a study into tax aviodence, and The study said the use of tax reliefs on charitable donations was among the top three tax loopholes used to legally reduce income tax bills. Osbourne closed that down, then came the howls of anger and attacks on the Tory party for being out of touch. The vehicle that Carr used was set up by Gordon Brown to help film funding . Had that been closed you would have had luvvies and their leftie mates whinning on about the Govt being "out of touch". It's the same with the so called pasty tax. Why is it right for massive Companys like Gregs to not charge VAT on a hot pasty, but the local family chippie has to? As soon as the Govt tries to do something about tax a special interest group will hit the airwaves and the BBC will lap it up.

 

There are only so many loopholes, because there are so many tax breaks here and there for various pet projects, but also because the tax rate is so high in this country.

 

 

Well, I agreed with the proposed charity tax relief changes which were still very generous. Tax should not be optional.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Well, I agreed with the proposed charity tax relief changes which were still very generous. Tax should not be optional.

 

 

Agreed, it should not be optional.

 

But people who do consider it optional should not be Knighted . And when someone who feels it's optional comes top of a political parties election for their NEC, that party really should STFU about tax dodgers.

[bridge too far]

.....

 

There are only so many loopholes, because there are so many tax breaks here and there for various pet projects, but also because the tax rate is so high in this country.

 

I think you might find this interesting and informative

 

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/individual-income-tax-social-security-rate-survey-September-2011.pdf

 

It puts our tax rates into perspective

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think you might find this interesting and informative

 

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/individual-income-tax-social-security-rate-survey-September-2011.pdf

 

It puts our tax rates into perspective

 

I didn't know that only one country outside of Europe has 50% or higher tax rate, so thanks for that.

 

My view is pretty much that a % is a %, and can't quite understand why the richest have to pay an even higher %. Particulary when you bare in mind that they pay for an NHS they proberly dont use, schools for their children when most go private, and public transport which I doubt they ever go on. All in all we get a good deal out of the richest in society and they pay a lot more in terms of % into the revenue than they did in the 70's. I'm just under the 40%, will never get anywhere near the 45%/50% but still feel the richest do pay their fair share, it's just the ones that dodge it who give the rest a bad name.

[miserableoldgit]

Is that the same Philip Green knighted by the Labour Govt?

Totally irrelevant. Is tax avoidance right or wrong? It should a level playing field for everyone regardless of political leanings.

[Verbal]

My view is pretty much that a % is a %.

 

Better to think of this with real money. Suppose you're one of those CEO's of an outsourcing company. You've just been awarded a contract by a government department and your first thoughts naturally turn to your fee, the going-rate for which now seems to be about £3m per annum. Assuming no Jimmy-Carrisms, you're take-home will still be some way north of £1.5m. Your second thought will have turned to how you can depress your workers' wages to pay for this within the terms of the contract. Even generous outsourcing employment contracts run to about £11-14,000 pa, from which the take-home will be about £7-8,000 pa.

 

So: £1.5m free spending money, no matter how useless or corrupt you are (see the recent scandals for example concerning employment outsourcing), as against £8,000 a year no matter how hard you work.

[solentstars]

Better to think of this with real money. Suppose you're one of those CEO's of an outsourcing company. You've just been awarded a contract by a government department and your first thoughts naturally turn to your fee, the going-rate for which now seems to be about £3m per annum. Assuming no Jimmy-Carrisms, you're take-home will still be some way north of £1.5m. Your second thought will have turned to how you can depress your workers' wages to pay for this within the terms of the contract. Even generous outsourcing employment contracts run to about £11-14,000 pa, from which the take-home will be about £7-8,000 pa.

 

So: £1.5m free spending money, no matter how useless or corrupt you are (see the recent scandals for example concerning employment outsourcing), as against £8,000 a year no matter how hard you work.

you think by now the trickle down ecnomics still being preached by the thatcher reagan lovers to make the super richer would realise it does not work and worse as t:hatchers son blair carried on this nonsence.i think the general public are wakingfor up to the fact that the tax avoiders are linlng their pockets at our expense.lets hope cameron takes us away from the 1980s gorden geck generation and rewards real work and not the flyby merchants who lined their pockets

[Saintandy666]

Agreed, it should not be optional.

 

But people who do consider it optional should not be Knighted . And when someone who feels it's optional comes top of a political parties election for their NEC, that party really should STFU about tax dodgers.

 

Yea, but this Ad Hominem(and Cameron has opened up a whole barrel of these to be used against him) argument gets us absolutely nowhere. The fact is we have Labour and the Conservatives, and frankly I don't care who does it, but someone needs to close down these loopholes. Attacking Labour because they knighted Phillip Green won't get us anywhere. The real issue is what are we going to do about it? If Labour push for the closing down of these loopholes and because of that pressure the law is changed I frankly don't care/can forgive the fact they knighted a massive tax dodger.

 

Singling out Jimmy Carr(who was of course wrong in what he did) doesn't help much if Cameron isn't willing to be consistent with his attacks and close down these loopholes.