Jimmy Carr

[Lord Duckhunter]

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.

 

.

 

I'm also attacking Labour rank and file that voted Tax avioder ken Livingstone onto their NEC.

 

In fact Livingstone topped the poll, that's how serious they are about tax aviodence in the Labour party.

 

We expect our politians to be hypocrites, but when it trickles down to the grass roots, it's a bit worrying.

[saintfully]

I'm also attacking Labour rank and file that voted Tax avioder ken Livingstone onto their NEC.

 

In fact Livingstone topped the poll, that's how serious they are about tax aviodence in the Labour party.

 

We expect our politians to be hypocrites, but when it trickles down to the grass roots, it's a bit worrying.

 

So 'down wiv Labour' cause they voted for Ken and all his tax-dodging ways, but 'up wiv the blues' cause their grass roots don't pretend to care about tax-avoidance????

 

Sorry, but are you saying that your support is dependent upon which party has the most hypocritical grass roots supporters???

[Saintandy666]

I'm also attacking Labour rank and file that voted Tax avioder ken Livingstone onto their NEC.

 

In fact Livingstone topped the poll, that's how serious they are about tax aviodence in the Labour party.

 

We expect our politians to be hypocrites, but when it trickles down to the grass roots, it's a bit worrying.

 

I didn't think Ken Livingstone's tax arrangements were known at large when voting took place for the candidate, and even then they are nowhere near as aggressive as that seen by people mentioned in the press in recent days.

 

Why are you so defensive on this issue? This won't help anything. I don't think anyone on here is saying that tax avoidence has been limited to only those who associate with the conservative party. From your posts, I think I can infer that you are against this sort of practice, but how is just going 'this labour guy did it too' going to help the debate! It just boils it down to tribal blue vs. red politics when it should be cross-party consensus to make sure everyone who pays tax pays the amount of tax they are meant to.

[Whitey Grandad]

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

 

there not lining their pockets at our expense. We are not actually putting money in their pockets. 'Not paying their fair share' maybe. It wouldn't matter if the government didn't spend so much. Cut government spending by half, slash tax rates and nobody would bother trying to avoid it.

[Whitey Grandad]

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

 

Tax avoidance is not wrong, by definition. The right to minimise one's tax is enshrined in law.

[Verbal]

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

 

Ages since I've heard that phrase: 'trickle down'. The truth is that in the last thirty or more years since that phrase emerge out of the Chicago School, there have been VAST increases in wealth hoarded by spectacularly corrupt plutocrats, bailed-out billionaire bankers, hedge funders, Ponzi scammers like Stanford and Madoff, and others. When you combine it with their almost universal 'talent' for tax evasion that reduces their ACTUAL tax bills in many cases to almost zero, it's not so much 'trickle down' as 'flood up'.

[Whitey Grandad]

Ages since I've heard that phrase: 'trickle down'. The truth is that in the last thirty or more years since that phrase emerge out of the Chicago School, there have been VAST increases in wealth hoarded by spectacularly corrupt plutocrats, bailed-out billionaire bankers, hedge funders, Ponzi scammers like Stanford and Madoff, and others. When you combine it with their almost universal 'talent' for tax evasion that reduces their ACTUAL tax bills in many cases to almost zero, it's not so much 'trickle down' as 'flood up'.

 

It all depends on whether you think that the government spends the money more wisely than the earner. You could make an argument that leaving the money in the bank would do more good for the health of the economy.

[Saintandy666]

Tax avoidance is not wrong, by definition. The right to minimise one's tax is enshrined in law.

 

Do you agree though that everyone should pay at least a certain threshold of tax. For example, under the so called 'Tycoon tax' proposed in the recent budget, everyone would have to pay at least 25% on their income however they arrange it, which would stop aggressive schemes like the K2 one employed by Mr. Carr overnight.

[Saintandy666]

Ages since I've heard that phrase: 'trickle down'. The truth is that in the last thirty or more years since that phrase emerge out of the Chicago School, there have been VAST increases in wealth hoarded by spectacularly corrupt plutocrats, bailed-out billionaire bankers, hedge funders, Ponzi scammers like Stanford and Madoff, and others. When you combine it with their almost universal 'talent' for tax evasion that reduces their ACTUAL tax bills in many cases to almost zero, it's not so much 'trickle down' as 'flood up'.

 

The idea of trickle down was at the basis of modern socialism, and cornerstone of New Labour. The whole reason why Mandelson was so relaxed about people becoming 'filthy rich' was based on the idea that this wealth would be fairly taxed to fund decent public services and a good level of redistribution to those less fortunate. Whether this happened in reality is another question. Perhaps a failure of this new socialism is too much faith in people not to go down the tax avoidance route.

 

The solution I think is something like the Tycoon Tax proposed recently combined with a shutting down of the main tax loopholes.

[Verbal]

The idea of trickle down was at the basis of modern socialism, and cornerstone of New Labour. The whole reason why Mandelson was so relaxed about people becoming 'filthy rich' was based on the idea that this wealth would be fairly taxed to fund decent public services and a good level of redistribution to those less fortunate. Whether this happened in reality is another question. Perhaps a failure of this new socialism is too much faith in people not to go down the tax avoidance route.

 

The solution I think is something like the Tycoon Tax proposed recently combined with a shutting down of the main tax loopholes.

 

I assure you they didn't call it trickle down Andy. And no, the basis of modern socialism is many things - but not something dreamed up by right-wing economists.

[Saintandy666]

I assure you they didn't call it trickle down Andy. And no, the basis of modern socialism is many things - but not something dreamed up by right-wing economists.

 

No, they didn't call it trickle down, but that was the theory. And New Labour is meant to be 'Modern Socialism', though some like you would of course argue that it is soft neoliberalism. In reality it's probably a mixture of two. Blairs government wasn't Thatcher, but neither was it Atlee.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The very concept of tax is to pay what you have to. What I find unsavoury with people like Jimmy Carr, Alan Sugar, Alex Ferguson and countless other lefties is their vulgar hypocrisy.

[Saintandy666]

The very concept of tax is to pay what you have to. What I find unsavoury with people like Jimmy Carr, Alan Sugar, Alex Ferguson and countless other lefties is their vulgar hypocrisy.

 

Why do people think that Jimmy Carr is a left winger?! And when has Alan Sugar been a hypocrite to the left?!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Why do people think that Jimmy Carr is a left winger?! And when has Alan Sugar been a hypocrite to the left?!

 

So you didn't see the Barclays impersonation? Alan Sugar is a Labour peer.

[Saintandy666]

So you didn't see the Barclays impersonation? Alan Sugar is a Labour peer.

 

How does that make Alan Sugar a hypocrite to the left? I know traditional labour opposed the HoL, but you can hardly say that is important to the left in this country anymore.

 

And I did see it, but you don't have to be left wing to make a gag about banks in the middle of a recession largely caused by banks. Tbh, from watching Carr on 8/10 cats and 10 O'Clock live etc etc I'd actually say he is probably a bit right wing, not that that matters. You notice it especially on the 10 O'Clock show where Mitchell, Brooker and Laverne are so obviously left wing.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

How does that make Alan Sugar a hypocrite to the left? I know traditional labour opposed the HoL, but you can hardly say that is important to the left in this country anymore.

 

And I did see it, but you don't have to be left wing to make a gag about banks in the middle of a recession largely caused by banks. Tbh, from watching Carr on 8/10 cats and 10 O'Clock live etc etc I'd actually say he is probably a bit right wing, not that that matters. You notice it especially on the 10 O'Clock show where Mitchell, Brooker and Laverne are so obviously left wing.

 

10 O CLOCK show positions itself as left leaning humour; as the Barclays clip illustrates. Do you feel that Alan Sugar's performance's on the Apprentice contradict the principles of the left. I am more right than left and I am often offended by his approach to modern workplace etiquette.

[Hockey_saint]

I wonder if anyone has had a look at where that famous billionaire British-American family, The Astors (of whom Cameron is part of thanks to the wife being one) accounts are held. I would place serious money that they have some rather large accounts in the Cayman islands.

 

So in essence, I'd shut the hell up if I was Cam-moron.

[Verbal]

No, they didn't call it trickle down, but that was the theory. And New Labour is meant to be 'Modern Socialism', though some like you would of course argue that it is soft neoliberalism. In reality it's probably a mixture of two. Blairs government wasn't Thatcher, but neither was it Atlee.

 

Good grief Andy - where to start? No it wasn't 'the theory'. Trickle down is part of the hard-right, supply-side economics adopted by Reagan and Thatcher. You really think New Lab is Reaganite?! And as for the claim that 'New Labour is meant to be "Modern Socialism", I imagine Blair is spinning in multi-storey London palace.

 

And who, exactly, are 'some like me'? There was nothing 'soft' about Blair's or this coalition's neoliberalism. The marketisation of everything has ruined lives far too numerous to count.

[Saintandy666]

10 O CLOCK show positions itself as left leaning humour; as the Barclays clip illustrates. Do you feel that Alan Sugar's performance's on the Apprentice contradict the principles of the left. I am more right than left and I am often offended by his approach to modern workplace etiquette.

 

 

Oh yes, 10 O'Clock live on the whole tries to emulate the Daily Show in the US, but I'd still argue that Jimmy Carr is hard to place on it, and doesn't come across as strongly left wing like the other 3 hosts.

 

On Sugar, I think it depends on what you believe the 'left' actually is these days. It's certainly come a long way from its Marxist routes, to Bernstein's revisionary socialism and gradualism and today its settled on something totally different, the so called third way which many argue is hardly socialism at all.

 

I don't think modern socialism bans people from being wealthy or creating business separate of the state. I think it is more concerned with the ethics, regulation and taxation of the private sector. In short, Alan Sugar can get massively wealthy if he wants as long as he does it in a fair manner and pays a fair and progressive amount of tax which then can contribute to society as a whole.

 

As long as Alan Sugar pays his taxes, and runs his business in an ethical manner I wouldn't say he has abandoned the left at all.

 

As for his etiquette, I tend not to look too much into it as I believe it is all for show. It wouldn't be good TV without his rants. But I don't believe that certain personalities dictate where you are on the political scale, for example a rude approach meaning you are right wing as you seem to infer!

[Saintandy666]

Good grief Andy - where to start? No it wasn't 'the theory'. Trickle down is part of the hard-right, supply-side economics adopted by Reagan and Thatcher. You really think New Lab is Reaganite?! And as for the claim that 'New Labour is meant to be "Modern Socialism", I imagine Blair is spinning in multi-storey London palace.

 

And who, exactly, are 'some like me'? There was nothing 'soft' about Blair's or this coalition's neoliberalism. The marketisation of everything has ruined lives far too numerous to count.

 

Left me redefine what I meant by trickle down. I didn't mean trickle down in the sense that the rich would gradually pass on their wealth voluntarily.

 

I meant trickle down in the sense they paid a higher rate of taxation and contributed more to the public sector because of their broader shoulders. It was the only way when old socialism was faced with the reality of globalised capitalism.

[Verbal]

Left me redefine what I meant by trickle down. I didn't mean trickle down in the sense that the rich would gradually pass on their wealth voluntarily.

 

I meant trickle down in the sense they paid a higher rate of taxation and contributed more to the public sector because of their broader shoulders. It was the only way when old socialism was faced with the reality of globalised capitalism.

 

Okay, you've got to stop doing this. Calling social democratic principles like redistribution 'trickle down' is like calling the Red Cross the Final Solution.

[Saintandy666]

Okay, you've got to stop doing this. Calling social democratic principles like redistribution 'trickle down' is like calling the Red Cross the Final Solution.

 

I'll admit I was a bit light with my terminology for which I apologise!

[Verbal]

I'll admit I was a bit light with my terminology for which I apologise!

 

That's okay Andy. If I were a liberal I'd be confused too.

[Saintandy666]

That's okay Andy. If I were a liberal I'd be confused too.

 

Ouch. I would describe my politics as 'Social Liberalism', so we are probably closer than you realise in ideas. I expect we agree on most the problems, even if we differ on some of the solutions.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Oh yes, 10 O'Clock live on the whole tries to emulate the Daily Show in the US, but I'd still argue that Jimmy Carr is hard to place on it, and doesn't come across as strongly left wing like the other 3 hosts.

 

On Sugar, I think it depends on what you believe the 'left' actually is these days. It's certainly come a long way from its Marxist routes, to Bernstein's revisionary socialism and gradualism and today its settled on something totally different, the so called third way which many argue is hardly socialism at all.

 

I don't think modern socialism bans people from being wealthy or creating business separate of the state. I think it is more concerned with the ethics, regulation and taxation of the private sector. In short, Alan Sugar can get massively wealthy if he wants as long as he does it in a fair manner and pays a fair and progressive amount of tax which then can contribute to society as a whole.

 

As long as Alan Sugar pays his taxes, and runs his business in an ethical manner I wouldn't say he has abandoned the left at all.

 

As for his etiquette, I tend not to look too much into it as I believe it is all for show. It wouldn't be good TV without his rants. But I don't believe that certain personalities dictate where you are on the political scale, for example a rude approach meaning you are right wing as you seem to infer!

 

As the Barclays clip highlights Jimmy Carr is a hypocrite and plays the role of lefty. I can only base my perception on this clip because I do not watch the show. I am however surprised that you think it does no flush out his hypocrisy.

 

As regards Sugar, I think his rudeness to candidates is not in tune with workplace practices on bullying and his approach to women has been proven to be at the least controversial. I also find the and the 'and this week winners will be going to my friends five star restaurant to do some champagne tasting' pretty inappropriate to a Labour peer. What do you think.

[Saintandy666]

As the Barclays clip highlights Jimmy Carr is a hypocrite and plays the role of lefty. I can only base my perception on this clip because I do not watch the show. I am however surprised that you think it does no flush out his hypocrisy.

 

As regards Sugar, I think his rudeness to candidates is not in tune with workplace practices on bullying and his approach to women has been proven to be at the least controversial. I also find the and the 'and this week winners will be going to my friends five star restaurant to do some champagne tasting' pretty inappropriate to a Labour peer. What do you think.

 

I agree with you that he comes across as a bit of a **** at times, but I don't think it reflects him. It's just built to be good tv and he doesn't profit from it. He donates his fee to Great Ormond Street Hospital if my memory is correct.

 

On the Barclays clip, I don't think you have to be left wing to mock the banks and their behaviour. However, he is a big hypocrite for that little skit given his own arrangements. However, on the show as a whole he is only political ambiguous one often offering a different view to the other three in discussions.

Edited 23 June, 2012 by Saintandy666

[colehillsaint]

I've watched the 10 O'clock show and Tbf the only position Carr has taken is taking the p155. It's not hypocrisy. He should just appreciate how lucky he is and give something back ffs.

[bridge too far]

I didn't realise that drinking champagne was reserved for those of a right wing persuasion and was not for the likes of socialists.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I agree with you that he comes across as a bit of a **** at times, but I don't think it reflects him. It's just built to be good tv and he doesn't profit from it. He donates his fee to Great Ormond Street Hospital if my memory is correct.

 

On the Barclays clip, I don't think you have to be left wing to mock the banks and their behaviour. However, he is a big hypocrite for that little skit given his own arrangements. However, on the show as a whole he is only political ambiguous one often offering a different view to the other three in discussions.

 

On Carr again

 

 

Watch the Barclys clip again and tell me he is not a hypocrite.

 

Do some research on Sugar's attitude to women in the workplace - how would Harriet Harperson think of him?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I didn't realise that drinking champagne was reserved for those of a right wing persuasion and was not for the likes of socialists.

 

Its more the symbolism

[Saintandy666]

Watch the Barclys clip again and tell me he is not a hypocrite.

 

Do some research on Sugar's attitude to women in the workplace - how would Harriet Harperson think of him?

 

I don't think Sugar's attitude on women leaving the workplace after pregnancy is necessarily hypocracy even if I disagree with him(if that is what you are referring to). He has a habit of opening his big mouth and saying stupid things in the moment.

 

Liberalism isn't just left wing. Rights for women in the workplace can span all the ideologies thanks to liberalisms infectious ways! And I'm glad it does.

[Saintandy666]

Its more the symbolism

 

I do think too much can be made of things like drinking Champagne though or eating at a fancy restaurant. Politicians should be judged by their actions in parliament and government/how they affect everyone's lives. It can distract from good work to concentrate on their drink of choice on a night out.

[scotty]

....Wayne Carr in the afternoon.........

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I don't think Sugar's attitude on women leaving the workplace after pregnancy is necessarily hypocracy even if I disagree with him(if that is what you are referring to). He has a habit of opening his big mouth and saying stupid things in the moment.

 

Liberalism isn't just left wing. Rights for women in the workplace can span all the ideologies thanks to liberalisms infectious ways! And I'm glad it does.

 

Not sure what I can do to express why I think Sugar is a hypocrite. Taking a group of young professionals and encouraging them to slag each off so they can be employed on a 'six figure salary' represents the worst of the capatalist model let alone that of the caring left. Given that Sugar employs the winner and fronts the programme makes him a hypocrite.

 

Jimmy Carr's Barclays clip makes him a hypocrite. I am startled that you do not recognise this.

 

Liberalism is not the preserve of the left, generally trhe right are more passionate about it. This was certainly proven by 13 years of Blair and Brown.

Edited 23 June, 2012 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Tax avoidance is not wrong, by definition. The right to minimise one's tax is enshrined in law.

 

True but the trouble is that schemes like those emplyed by Carr are definitely against the spirit of law if not technically illegal.

[pedg]

True but the trouble is that schemes like those emplyed by Carr are definitely against the spirit of law if not technically illegal.

 

As this article in the guardian quotes about a previous scheme Carr (and a major tory doner) was involved in:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/24/tory-donor-tax-avoidance

 

The scheme was thought to be legitimate when it was set up. However, the then treasury secretary, Stephen Timms, told parliament that the strategy was a "highly abusive, completely contrived arrangement" that "was set up with the sole aim of avoiding paying the tax due to the Exchequer".

[pedg]

I think we need to add a dividing line between schemes that use the law in the way it was intended, e.g. people saving in tax free ISA's which as the saying goes "does what it says at the side of the tin" and the schemes derived by people who look at legislation that is not intended as a way of avoiding tax and saying how can I bend these rules to use this as part of a tax dodging scheme.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Not sure what I can do to express why I think Sugar is a hypocrite. Taking a group of young professionals and encouraging them to slag each off so they can be employed on a 'six figure salary' represents the worst of the capatalist model let alone that of the caring left. Given that Sugar employs the winner and fronts the programme makes him a hypocrite.

 

Jimmy Carr's Barclays clip makes him a hypocrite. I am startled that you do not recognise this.

 

Liberalism is not the preserve of the left, generally trhe right are more passionate about it. This was certainly proven by 13 years of Blair and Brown.

 

Think you're being a bit rigid in your concept of "right" and "left". Are no right wingers caring? Are no right wingers outraged by Barclays?

 

As for Sugar surely no one could possibly suggest that he isn't a big fan of capitalism. How is fronting a programme which promotes entreprenuership and capitalism (albeit in a sensational exaggerated manner) making him hypocritical? In any case Labour has shown itself to a big fan of big business and the City so Sugar isn't being hypocritical. If you said that Blair, Brown et al were hypocritical for pretending to be of the left then I'd agree with that.

[Saintandy666]

Not sure what I can do to express why I think Sugar is a hypocrite. Taking a group of young professionals and encouraging them to slag each off so they can be employed on a 'six figure salary' represents the worst of the capatalist model let alone that of the caring left. Given that Sugar employs the winner and fronts the programme makes him a hypocrite.

 

Jimmy Carr's Barclays clip makes him a hypocrite. I am startled that you do not recognise this.

 

Liberalism is not the preserve of the left, generally trhe right are more passionate about it. This was certainly proven by 13 years of Blair and Brown.

 

Already said Carr is a hypocrite in an earlier post. And I wouldn't say Liberalism is the preserve of the right or left. Both can be equally passionate about it in different ways. Ideologies don't occupy in vacuums either(as my politics teacher used to say!) so it can mean different things to different people.

[Johnny Bognor]

I often find these discussions laughable. OK, time for some honesty.

 

How many of you have paid tradesmen cash to get a better rate for a job and help them avoid tax?

How many of you are tradesmen who take cash to avoid the "dreaded"?

How many of you have bought duty free? (A legal way of avoiding duty. Surely on the moral high ground, you would obviously wait until you get home to pay the correct duty?)

 

He who is without sin, cast the first stone and all that.

Edited 24 June, 2012 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

I often find these discussions laughable. OK, time for some honesty.

 

How many of you have paid tradesmen cash to get a better rate for a job and help them avoid tax?

How many of you are tradesmen who take cash to avoid the "dreaded"?

How many of you have bought duty free? (A legal way of avoiding duty. Surely on the moral high ground, you would obviously wait until you get home to pay the correct duty?)

 

He who is without sin, cast the first stone and all that.

 

Look out Johnny!

[saintfully]

I often find these discussions laughable. OK, time for some honesty.

 

How many of you have paid tradesmen cash to get a better rate for a job and help them avoid tax?

How many of you are tradesmen who take cash to avoid the "dreaded"?

How many of you have bought duty free? (A legal way of avoiding duty. Surely on the moral high ground, you would obviously wait until you get home to pay the correct duty?)

 

He who is without sin, cast the first stone and all that.

 

A useful point - but I suspect that all of us can see that there is a difference between getting an ISA and saving ~£150 a year in tax on interest and the offshore 1% tax scam.

 

Do we all agree that tax is necessary? Personally I don't want to have to pay for and select my own private emergency health care provider, my own private security company and my own road maintenance firm - to name but three tax-funded services.

[Thedelldays]

I paid cash to some irish chaps to lay a bit of tarmac once...they assured me they paid their taxes

[solentstars]

there not lining their pockets at our expense. We are not actually putting money in their pockets. 'Not paying their fair share' maybe. It wouldn't matter if the government didn't spend so much. Cut government spending by half, slash tax rates and nobody would bother trying to avoid it.

they have slashed tax for the super rich for the last few decades and they still try not to pay any tax apart from a few who play by the rules.trickle down ecnomics is just pie in the sky nonsence.

[Johnny Bognor]

Look out Johnny!

 

The point has to be made.

 

We pretty much all have avoided tax at some point (whether through legal vehicles or illegal cash payments), it just isn't to the same extent as the super rich. So people can point fingers at Cameron and call him a hypocrite, but I guess it takes one to know one.

 

On the morality of tax avoidance versus benefit fraud, I remember the commandment that states though shalt not steal. I don't remember the one that states you have to hand over as much of your cash to the incompetent politicians as possible.

[Johnny Bognor]

A useful point - but I suspect that all of us can see that there is a difference between getting an ISA and saving ~£150 a year in tax on interest and the offshore 1% tax scam.

 

Do we all agree that tax is necessary? Personally I don't want to have to pay for and select my own private emergency health care provider, my own private security company and my own road maintenance firm - to name but three tax-funded services.

 

 

Have you ever paid 'cash' to a builder, mechanic or any other person that implies that the VAT won't be paid in order to get a lower bill?

 

It is, at the end of the day, tax evasion (which is worse than tax avoidance BTW)

 

If you can honestly (hand on heart) say no, then fair play and you make a valid point.

Edited 24 June, 2012 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

The point has to be made.

 

We pretty much all have avoided tax at some point (whether through legal vehicles or illegal cash payments), it just isn't to the same extent as the super rich. So people can point fingers at Cameron and call him a hypocrite, but I guess it takes one to know one.

 

On the morality of tax avoidance versus benefit fraud, I remember the commandment that states though shalt not steal. I don't remember the one that states you have to hand over as much of your cash to the incompetent politicians as possible.

 

And what would you say of the comparison between Carr's (and many others', of course) payment of tax at a rate of around 1% of millions, as against 20% of precious little for someone on, say, £15,000 a year. We are - are we not? - 'all in this together'.

 

The same applies to companies of course, including (ironically) the famously 'tax-avoiding' News International, publishers of The Times.

[Whitey Grandad]

they have slashed tax for the super rich for the last few decades and they still try not to pay any tax apart from a few who play by the rules.trickle down ecnomics is just pie in the sky nonsence.

 

'slashed' to far higher rates than most people pay.

[Whitey Grandad]

This 1% business. Surely it's only delaying the tax, not avoiding it. If you don't repay the loan promptly then the Revenue jump on you.

[saintfully]

Have you ever paid 'cash' to a builder, mechanic or any other person that implies that the VAT won't be paid in order to get a lower bill?

 

It is, at the end of the day, tax evasion (which is worse than tax avoidance BTW)

 

If you can honestly (hand on heart) say no, then fair play and you make a valid point.

 

It is certainly true that hypocrisy is present in both cases. However, I would argue that it is possible to make a distinction between massive pi.ss-taking hypocrisy and the smalltime example you offer.

 

I think you agree unless you really believe that paying a builder in cash is the moral equivalent of a multi-millionaire paying 1% income tax? Whilst its true that you can't have unimportant or inconsequential murders, that does not apply to tax evasion. For example, I assume you wouldn't apply the same punishment to someone who avoided 10p tax vs someone who avoided £300,000 whilst earning a million???

 

Or would you? Shariah law anyone??? Is relativism a thing of the past now???