Jimmy Carr

[Whitey Grandad]

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???

 

Morally they're the same. 50,000 people saving £20 or one person £1,000,000. More than that, the former is illegal, the second isn't, although perhaps it ought to be. One of the consequences is that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any industrialised country.

[pedg]

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.

 

I don't believe the loans in these cases ever get paid back. One assumes the terms of the 'loan' is so lax that HMRC are not able to jump on them for not repaying it.

[Verbal]

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.

 

No it's not and no they don't. There are a number of ways of ensuring that the loan doesn't become taxable here. The one typically used by the film investment vehicles is to export the company offshore just before any tax becomes due. Perfectly 'legal'. And precious little money ends up in UK film investment - it's more often used to acquire certain (write-offable) rights in mainstream Hollywood junk.

[Johnny Bognor]

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.

 

Well one could say that the former is worse than the latter, due to the scale. Having said that, one is legal, the other illegal. If you want to justify breaking the law, then that's up to you.

 

... but when the word hypocrite is thrown around, it is ironic that the hypocrites are first to cry hypocrite

 

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???

 

Tax evasion is a crime (a criminal offence). Tax avoidance is legal (within the law). It's funny how the lefties can be so supportive of criminal behaviour. May be the law should be changed, but to throw the hypocrite tag around is laughable.

Edited 24 June, 2012 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

Johnny, the old 'tax evasion=illegal/tax avoidance=legal' thing is guff, really. A large number of tax avoidance schemes have not had their legality tested - by definition. Many of them either do in fact turn out to be illegal, or a loophole is closed to ensure that a manifestly unjust means to avoid tax is closed down.

 

And the 'hypocrisy' charge is a red herring - it's really about the morality of one group of people being paid millions and paying all but zero, contrasted with the majority paying 20+% on incomes far, far smaller.

Edited 24 June, 2012 by Verbal

[solentstars]

Well one could say that the former is worse than the latter, due to the scale. Having said that, one is legal, the other illegal. If you want to justify breaking the law, then that's up to you.

 

... but when the word hypocrite is thrown around, it is ironic that the hypocrites are first to cry hypocrite

 

 

 

Tax evasion is a crime (a criminal offence). Tax avoidance is legal (within the law). It's funny how the lefties can be so supportive of criminal behaviour. May be the law should be changed, but to throw the hypocrite tag around is laughable.

 

Oh that's allright then so the likes of pompey are within the law its ok with you .Its morally wrong and is no different from those on the dole who fiddle the system to claim a few extra pounds.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Johnny Bognor]

Oh that's allright then so the likes of pompey are within the law its ok with you .Its morally wrong and is no different from those on the dole who fiddle the system to claim a few extra pounds.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

Pompey is different. Most normal businesses in Pompey's situation would have been put to the sword a long time ago. With Pompey, it is more a case of they have got away with it when they shouldn't.

 

I am not saying that tax avoidance is moral, but it is legal. I am not saying tax avoidance is immoral either, because allowing us to buy Duty Free means that we'll all burn in hell.

 

At the end of the day, all I am doing is highlighting the hypocrisy of the rabid left. The same people who cry foul at Jimmy Carr et al are the same people who will pay cash to avoid tax. It is the same thing really, just on a different scale.

[saintfully]

Morally they're the same. 50,000 people saving £20 or one person £1,000,000. More than that, the former is illegal, the second isn't, although perhaps it ought to be. One of the consequences is that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any industrialised country.

 

Erm I think you'll find if you think hard enough, that 50,000 people isn't the same as 1 person... its 50,000.

 

As for the accountants comment.... oh dear. That is a consequence of having a huge financial services sector, grown up as a consequence of consecutive governments deciding that it could be the goose that lays the golden egg and supplant manufacturing. Our army of accountants are not sitting around analysing the tax-code for hard-pressed tax-avoiding UK citizens, they're managing the tax-code for the city.

[Thedelldays]

So, it's ok if I avoid paying tax as long as it is not that much????

[Johnny Bognor]

So, it's ok if I avoid paying tax as long as it is not that much????

 

Spot on Delldays.

 

So can someone who hangs to the left tell me at what point it becomes unacceptable?

 

£10?

£100?

£1,000?

£10,000?

£100,000?

£1,000,000?

[Thedelldays]

My mate avoids paying tax almost completely. He works for a foreign company offshore (mostly)

 

All he pays is national insurance.

 

He is on about £50k a year and pays almost nout out of that.

[trousers]

My mate avoids paying tax almost completely. He works for a foreign company offshore (mostly)

 

All he pays is national insurance.

 

He is on about £50k a year and pays almost nout out of that.

 

That's a hell of a price to pay for not making use of public services (which I assume he doesn't).... ;-)

[buctootim]

One of the consequences is that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any industrialised country.

 

But fewer doctors. Tax avoidance is a job creation scheme for accountants we could do without.

[trousers]

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/2020tc/2012/06/evidence-high-taxes-hurting-uks-economy.html

 

http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/uk-restrained-one-the-highest-tax-burdens-g8

[Whitey Grandad]

Erm I think you'll find if you think hard enough, that 50,000 people isn't the same as 1 person... its 50,000.

 

As for the accountants comment.... oh dear. That is a consequence of having a huge financial services sector, grown up as a consequence of consecutive governments deciding that it could be the goose that lays the golden egg and supplant manufacturing. Our army of accountants are not sitting around analysing the tax-code for hard-pressed tax-avoiding UK citizens, they're managing the tax-code for the city.

Exactly, which is worse the 50,000 or the one? The 'offence' is the same. There's an old joke: A man asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million pounds. She thinks about it and says yes. He then asks if she will sleep with him for a pound, She says 'of course not, what do you think I am?' He says 'We've established what you are, now we are merely arguing over the price'.

 

The flush of accountants started after Rolls-Royce went bust. Then we got Thatcher and her lot trying to put a price on everything.

[Whitey Grandad]

But fewer doctors. Tax avoidance is a job creation scheme for accountants we could do without.

 

Agreed, although whether the savings should be spent on doctors I'm not so sure about.

[Whitey Grandad]

My mate avoids paying tax almost completely. He works for a foreign company offshore (mostly)

 

All he pays is national insurance.

 

He is on about £50k a year and pays almost nout out of that.

Hence the drive towards higher indirect taxation in recent times.

[Jonnyboy]

O

My mate avoids paying tax almost completely. He works for a foreign company offshore (mostly)

 

All he pays is national insurance.

 

He is on about £50k a year and pays almost nout out of that.

 

He should give up his passport then.

[Jonnyboy]

O

My mate avoids paying tax almost completely. He works for a foreign company offshore (mostly)

 

All he pays is national insurance.

 

He is on about £50k a year and pays almost nout out of that.

 

He should give up his passport then.

[Jonnyboy]

Spot on Delldays. So can someone who hangs to the left tell me at what point it becomes unacceptable?£10? £100? £1,000? £10,000? £100,000? £1,000,000?

How about the point where that £10 is funnelled off into an offshore account rather than immediately spent in the UK on food or bills? Edited 25 June, 2012 by Jonnyboy

[Thedelldays]

O

 

He should give up his passport then.

why....?

surely live and let live and all that

he is a UK citizen and paying into the national health service and working for a foreign company

[Verbal]

why....?

surely live and let live and all that

he is a UK citizen and paying into the national health service and working for a foreign company

 

If he's paying his NI contributions but not tax he's going to get a knock on the door.

[Thedelldays]

If he's paying his NI contributions but not tax he's going to get a knock on the door.

well, has not yet.....as what he is doing is perfectly legal (so his company says) as they all are at it

[Verbal]

well, has not yet.....as what he is doing is perfectly legal (so his company says) as they all are at it

 

The problem is that his NI tells HMRC roughly what his gross salary is, and will wonder where the PAYE has gone - if he's on staff. If the employer is (as it will be) also paying NI contributions, it may also be audited because of discrepancies like this. Whether he's on contract or staff, he'd also have to meet strict limited-residence rules to avoid PAYE or income tax calculated as a sole trader.

[Deano6]

If he's paying his NI contributions but not tax he's going to get a knock on the door.

 

Rubbish. I pay UK National Insurance but my taxes go to the US, where I am resident.

 

If I lived in Bermuda there's 0% personal income tax so I would pay NI to UK and no tax. Perfectly legal.

 

 

Now if this guy is UK resident then fair enough, but TDD said he lived offshore.

[Verbal]

Rubbish. I pay UK National Insurance but my taxes go to the US, where I am resident.

 

If I lived in Bermuda there's 0% personal income tax so I would pay NI to UK and no tax. Perfectly legal.

 

 

Now if this guy is UK resident then fair enough, but TDD said he lived offshore.

 

If you're going to cut off the relevant bit of my post it may sound like rubbish. I made reference to residency, which is crucial here. By the way, I don't want to make you nervous, but the Anglo-US Tax Treaty is one I know well, having had to make extensive use of it, and it's not a given that you don't owe tax in the UK as well, unfair though that might sound. (Again, it depends on residency issues)

[Wade Garrett]

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)

 

I'm not. Jimmy Carr's taxable income was about £10k.

[Wade Garrett]

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.

 

I agree that 50% is way too high.

[hamster]

Try shaking a box I front of the Queen before we start knocking someone simply trying to do his best for his family.

[Johnny Bognor]

How about the point where that £10 is funnelled off into an offshore account rather than immediately spent in the UK on food or bills?

 

OK Johnnyboy, you may be on to something here.

 

So how about 0% tax on the super rich as long as that money is spent in the UK. Same thing, no?

 

It is not as stupid as it sounds. Just think, unlocking the wealth of the super rich, injecting it into the economy....... it would push the economy into growth, create jobs and get this country moving forward again.

[trousers]

OK Johnnyboy, you may be on to something here.

 

So how about 0% tax on the super rich as long as that money is spent in the UK. Same thing, no?

 

It is not as stupid as it sounds. Just think, unlocking the wealth of the super rich, injecting it into the economy....... it would push the economy into growth, create jobs and get this country moving forward again.

 

The very same excellent theory I've been advocating for years (of the donkey variety).

 

But it would require some clever out of box thinking from the 'great' British public.

 

That'll be a non-starter then...

[trousers]

Scrap income tax. Scrap VAT exemptions. People buy stuff. The more you buy the more tax you pay. The more you buy the more jobs you create. Sorted.

Edited 26 June, 2012 by trousers

[CB Fry]

Scrap income tax. Scrap VAT.

 

 

 

Scrap money back, scrap guarantees?

[bridge too far]

Scrap income tax. Scrap VAT exemptions. People buy stuff. The more you buy the more tax you pay. The more you buy the more jobs you create. Sorted.

 

 

Now, now Trousers. You know VAT is a regressive tax

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/

 

So what happens to the poor (quite literally) people who don't currently pay tax because their wages are so low or they're pensioners? They'll go from paying nothing in income tax to paying a big percentage of their income in VAT (domestic fuel tax is currently 5% - so a 15% hike there as one example. Another would be food).

[trousers]

 

Now, now Trousers. You know VAT is a regressive tax

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/

 

So what happens to the poor (quite literally) people who don't currently pay tax because their wages are so low or they're pensioners? They'll go from paying nothing in income tax to paying a big percentage of their income in VAT (domestic fuel tax is currently 5% - so a 15% hike there as one example. Another would be food).

 

You're mistaking me for someone that's thought this through... ;-)

[trousers]

Scrap money back, scrap guarantees?

 

lol

[trousers]

I've just thought it through...

 

Because we'd be raising so much more tax by getting the rich to pay tax through buying loadsa stuff, we could afford to give the poor and pensioners higher benefits to offset the increase in VAT that they would be paying. Ergo their situation remains fiscally neutral.

 

Sorted. Distribution of wealth in a socially moralistic nutshell.

[Johnny Bognor]

The very same excellent theory I've been advocating for years (of the donkey variety).

 

But it would require some clever out of box thinking from the 'great' British public.

 

That'll be a non-starter then...

 

Shame our politicians, of all persuasions, don't do out of the box thinking

 

I've just thought it through...

 

Because we'd be raising so much more tax by getting the rich to pay tax through buying loadsa stuff, we could afford to give the poor and pensioners higher benefits to offset the increase in VAT that they would be paying. Ergo their situation remains fiscally neutral.

 

Sorted. Distribution of wealth in a socially moralistic nutshell.

 

Reduce or zero rate VAT on basic essential items???

[pap]

 

Now, now Trousers. You know VAT is a regressive tax

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01/04/why-vat-is-regressive/

 

So what happens to the poor (quite literally) people who don't currently pay tax because their wages are so low or they're pensioners? They'll go from paying nothing in income tax to paying a big percentage of their income in VAT (domestic fuel tax is currently 5% - so a 15% hike there as one example. Another would be food).

 

Even so, there is something to be said for the "low tax rate, lots paying" approach to taxation. With all the indirect taxation lumped on top of income tax, I reckon the true tax burden is closer to 50%, if not more.

[trousers]

Shame our politicians, of all persuasions, don't do out of the box thinking

 

Reduce or zero rate VAT on basic essential items???

 

Like it. Yes....that would work too. No VAT on pie and chips but loads of VAT on champagne and caviar. Of course, we'd also have to crank up import tax so these rich blighters don't start importing loadsa stuff!

 

Sorted. When do we start?

Edited 26 June, 2012 by trousers

[Whitey Grandad]

OK Johnnyboy, you may be on to something here.

 

So how about 0% tax on the super rich as long as that money is spent in the UK. Same thing, no?

 

It is not as stupid as it sounds. Just think, unlocking the wealth of the super rich, injecting it into the economy....... it would push the economy into growth, create jobs and get this country moving forward again.

 

But only 0% if it is spent, that might work. So might putting in a bank that could then lend it to entrepreneurial entrepreneurs.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm not. Jimmy Carr's taxable income was about £10k.

In fairness (to me) I was referring to the rich in general. Jimmy Carr is obviously a special case.

 

Why is it that everybody loves Ken Dodd and finds his tax arrangements a great laugh whilst Jimmy Carr is a target for vilification? Is it because he's not as funny?

[Verbal]

OK Johnnyboy, you may be on to something here.

 

So how about 0% tax on the super rich as long as that money is spent in the UK. Same thing, no?

 

It is not as stupid as it sounds. Just think, unlocking the wealth of the super rich, injecting it into the economy....... it would push the economy into growth, create jobs and get this country moving forward again.

 

That's basically happened in 'prime' London already. The super-rich swan into One Hyde Park and other ludicrously over-priced areas like Mayfair, buy the lot, avoid even paying the paltry sums in council tax (really would it hurt them?!!!), and decimate the areas. They've become over-decorated ghost towns. The money the super-rich spend has all been spent on the properties themselves, which are kept empty for most of the year. All it's actually injected is a property boom in central London at a time when the world, economically speaking, is on the brink of a depression to rank up there with the 30s. The only businesses in the erea benefitting are the estate agents.