# Jimmy Carr you are a tax avoiding twat



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Now I like some of Jimmy Carr's work but this is taking the piss big time.  :evil:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18521468


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

jamman said:


> Now I like some of Jimmy Carr's work but this is taking the piss big time.  :evil:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18521468


now james come on be fair bud..........at least he entertains you while knowing he is getting one over on HMRC. the big wigs of business's in the uk that cheat on millions get away scott free and always will. party donations don't you know


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

He's using the law to his advantage. The politicians keep going on about how morally wrong it is, because that's all they've got to condemn him. Since when have taxes been a moral issue? Maybe the government tax us because it's the morally right thing to do, not because they need the money?

If you got a parking ticket then someone told you the road markings weren't correct and you could get out of it on a technicality, you would. It wouldn't trouble your morals, and why should it?

The government should just close the loophole instead of wasting time trying to demonise the people who use it.


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

If they didn't use one loophole or another themselves then they would. How many self employed people on here don't use the odd loophole to their advantage?


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

My friend is a member of K2 and is being investigated been going on for over two years


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Spandex said:


> He's using the law to his advantage. The politicians keep going on about how morally wrong it is, because that's all they've got to condemn him. Since when have taxes been a moral issue? Maybe the government tax us because it's the morally right thing to do, not because they need the money?
> 
> If you got a parking ticket then someone told you the road markings weren't correct and you could get out of it on a technicality, you would. It wouldn't trouble your morals, and why should it?
> 
> The government should just close the loophole instead of wasting time trying to demonise the people who use it.


this hurts but +1 have to agree with spandy in every way on this.

smeds......i am self employed and if you had my accountant then you would retract that statement bud. which is good for me as i know i will never get an audit as the accounts are clean in all aspects......much to my dismay [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## IC_HOTT (May 29, 2010)

avoidance is not illegal,

eg an ISA is a tax avoidance scheme but is actually worth bugger all which is why its there as a pretend benefit to allow people to feel they are getting over on the taxman

evasion is illegal

K2 is an avoidance scheme

I dont like JC but I dont blame him for this - what I want to know is how can I join K2 8)


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

grasmere said:


> I dont like JC but I dont blame him for this - what I want to know is how can I join K2 8)


Employ accounting firm Peak Performance Accountants. Of course I would imagine you would have to earn in excess of £1 or £2 million a year.


----------



## VSeager (Dec 8, 2010)

Who 'likes' paying tax? If it can be legitimately avoided then fair play. The fact is that if it was easy to do 90% of us probably would be doing it too.

Anyway, half the politicians that are on 3 figure salaries anyway and are moaning about this have probably just about got away with buying their fully furnished second homes using tax money even though they live 30 miles from them... Is that not morally wrong then?

JC might be avoiding tax, but at least he pays his way and puts back into the system with his own money.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

I think morals do matter in this. 
There is a difference I think in seeing your personal tax burden reduce from the 45% top end rate to say 25% (which I think is fair enough for anyone to pay) to what J Carr has done. 1% tax? if he or his family suffered an illness, would they expect 1% service from the NHS? If he had a mad axeman in his house would he expect 1% service from the Police? Would he be outraged if a terrorist planted a bomb in his garden to find that only a 1% response came from the armed forces? Dead right he would on all counts. When he appeared in front of the nation in the jubilee celebrations, was he laughing his cock off at the rest of us, who earn a fraction of what he earns and do pay our full wack? To me it is on a scale with the scum who defraud the benefits system, an attitude that says fuck the rest of you I am alright jack. The fact he has admitted this himself, says everything. Not funny Jimmy, not funny!


----------



## Leebo310 (Sep 22, 2011)

VSeager said:


> Who 'likes' paying tax? If it can be legitimately avoided then fair play. The fact is that if it was easy to do 90% of us probably would be doing it too.
> 
> Anyway, half the politicians that are on 3 figure salaries anyway and are moaning about this have probably just about got away with buying their fully furnished second homes using tax money even though they live 30 miles from them... Is that not morally wrong then?
> 
> JC might be avoiding tax, but at least he pays his way and puts back into the system with his own money.


+1 to this.
We don't pay tax because "it's moral", we pay it because we have to! I guarantee no-one would turn down an offer to pay the government less tax if they could!
Good on him I say. It's his money and he wants as much of it as possible, rather than having to pay it to the government. That's all anyone wants, bit harsh to call him a [email protected] because he's found a way that allows him to do that!


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

I don't mind paying tax, we get a lot more back than we put in. Those HMRC people are so nice they paid for half my TT and half of the Mini . :wink:


----------



## Gforce (May 10, 2011)

I don't think he dose his tax return he will have a legal advisor or something like that to do it all for him and in all honesty if the guy came to me with a legal way to pay less tax I don't think I'd think twice


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> I think morals do matter in this.
> There is a difference I think in seeing your personal tax burden reduce from the 45% top end rate to say 25% (which I think is fair enough for anyone to pay) to what J Carr has done. 1% tax? if he or his family suffered an illness, would they expect 1% service from the NHS? If he had a mad axeman in his house would he expect 1% service from the Police? Would he be outraged if a terrorist planted a bomb in his garden to find that only a 1% response came from the armed forces? Dead right he would on all counts. When he appeared in front of the nation in the jubilee celebrations, was he laughing his cock off at the rest of us, who earn a fraction of what he earns and do pay our full wack? To me it is on a scale with the scum who defraud the benefits system, an attitude that says fuck the rest of you I am alright jack. The fact he has admitted this himself, says everything. Not funny Jimmy, not funny!


Firstly, I didn't think anyone had confirmed the amount of tax he paid. They've just said that the scheme could result in as little as 1%.

Based on your argument, having not had to use the NHS or the Police for the last 10 years, am I owed any kind of rebate? Are we also saying that rich people who *do* pay huge amounts of tax should expect a better service from the Police or the Hospitals than poor people? The point is, tax is paid into a huge pot and is available for those who need it. The whole concept is founded on the idea that the amount you pay in doesn't affect the service you receive and vice versa. If the laws allow some people to pay less tax then the only thing that's 'wrong' is the law.

I think the only reason people find this distasteful is that it's mainly available to the rich (something I'm also not happy about, because I'm not one of them). If there were a similar 'legal but not moral' loophole that only worked for people earning less than £15k, would there be outrage?


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18531008


----------



## Leebo310 (Sep 22, 2011)

Spandex said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> > I think morals do matter in this.
> ...


Hit + Nail + Head  Everyone would pay less tax if they could.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Wallsendmag said:


> I don't mind paying tax, we get a lot more back than we put in. Those HMRC people are so nice they paid for half my TT and half of the Mini . :wink:


Do you get more than you pay in, though?

There was a recent BBC series about where your taxes go and to go with that they had a calculator on their website. You put in some basic details about your household and your income and from that they provided a rough calculation of your total tax contribution and an estimate of the value of the services you are receiving.

There's just my wife and I in our house - we have no children. We're not in high-powered, highly paid jobs. In fact we both work in the public sector and not at a particularly high grade level; as you know I'm a police constable and my wife is a junior nursing sister in the A&E department of a children's hospital. Neither of us are higher rate tax payers but we're paid reasonably well and live comfortably. We would have thought we were just average.

So, I was quite surprised by this calculator that estimated we were amongst the top 10% of tax contributors in the economy! It estimated that in terms of income tax, national insurance, VAT, duties and all other taxes we contribute something around £28,000 to the treasury every year! And the total value of the services we were estimated to be using? Well, calculated by estimating the specific services we'd be getting direct use from (such as health care) and then adding a per-capita value for indirect services (such as defence) our household usage was calculated at just £6800.

We are net contributors to this economy to the tune of over £21,000 per year - that's well over a quarter of what we earn supporting other people.

And Jimmy Carr, paying just 1% of what he earns through this scheme could be earning £2m a year, keeping the vast majority of it and living considerably better than we do - and making a smaller contribution to society than we do. Does that make him a twat? Yes, it does.

The salaried, working people of this country who have no choice but to pay their taxes via the PAYE system are the ones supporting this country, while those who are free to arrange their own tax affairs are able to minimise their contribution. In many cases those are people self-employed on a low scale who may find it easy to justify a bit of clever accounting to knock a grand or two off their tax bill, but it many cases it is people who are very highly paid, right at the top of the earnings scale. But I don't think either case is justifiable. Where two people are earning the same money, regardless of whether they are salaried or self-employed, they should be paying roughly the same level of tax. And people who earn considerably more should certainly not be paying less!

So yes, it is a moral matter. It's a matter of shame that people earning very high sums should sit back and allow the middle-income workers of our society to be the ones paying all the bills. I can guarantee Jimmy Carr won't ever be getting any of my hard-earned to help support his lifestyle - I'm supporting enough people as it is! And by the back-pedalling he's doing today it seems he's starting to realise his error - his fancy tax schemes are not going to do him much good when his fans desert him in disgust and he's playing to empty auditoriums.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

JC is still being taxed on something like £100k a year, so he's also a net contributer to the economy. Plus, I imagine he has private health, so he won't trouble the NHS for much other than emergencies.

Do you actually believe his backpedaling means he thinks he's in the wrong??? You probably think his agent and PR people had nothing to do with it too... :lol:


----------



## Leebo310 (Sep 22, 2011)

Mark Davies said:


> Wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind paying tax, we get a lot more back than we put in. Those HMRC people are so nice they paid for half my TT and half of the Mini . :wink:
> ...


Mark I can see your point and I'm in the same "average" payscale position as you are!
But... the point is that we are contributing more yes, but how does that make what he is doing wrong?! Hell yep it's riducluosly unfair that the average tax paying person does pay so much more! The gripe of most people is at the amount they pay compared to how much you get out of it though. If he was contributing the same rate as you/us then it may technically be fairer, but it still makes no difference to how much we pay. 
People generally begrudged paying tax full stop and if you were offered a way to pay less, then you would take it, as would anyone else! The "moral" issue seems to be that he can do something that you can't, because he earns more money than most of us.
I'm not sticking up for the rich, I just think that it's unfair to have a go at someone doing something that the rest of the population would also do if they could!

Finally, not sure on what his actual tax figure is but even if he's only paying 1%, on two million a year he's technically contributing almost 50% more than the average person, based on your figures above...

It's the system having a loophole that is the twatty thing! (or rather the system having a loophole that the average person cannot use...)


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Mark Davies said:


> Wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mind paying tax, we get a lot more back than we put in. Those HMRC people are so nice they paid for half my TT and half of the Mini . :wink:
> ...


I don't, someone close does though .


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Leebo310 said:


> People generally begrudged paying tax full stop and if you were offered a way to pay less, then you would take it, as would anyone else!


Actually, I'm not sure I would - not if I was in the position he is.

I did a degree in economics, back in the late '80s and the Thatcher era of free market economics. I was at the time convinced of the laisez-faire theories that put forward the idea that if the state left people alone they would create more wealth. And it's true - they do. But my experiences have since shown me how all that great creation of wealth just stays in the pockets of the elite. Sure, it creates jobs - these people need the labour off the backs of which they can generate their fabulous personal wealth - but the benefits are severely limited. Here in the UK we have the widest gap between the rich and the poor in Europe (and its is widening, not closing) and the lowest levels of social mobility anywhere in the developed world. The inequalities within our society are staggering.

I witness this first hand more or less every day - I see the misery of poverty and the social issues it creates. Consequently my political and economic views are considerably modified from what I believed 25 years ago - from their capitalist beginnings to socialism bordering on communist! In any civilised, democratic society there has to be some element of managed economy and re-distribution of wealth. The people at the top have far more money than anybody can justifiably claim to need to live comfortably and well - to the point of obscene wealth. In contrast those at the bottom of the scale - and not even the lifetime unemployed surviving on benefits, but those in employment scraping a living on minimum wage - are unable to get by with any kind of human dignity at all. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, yet we allow these inequalities to not only continue but to steadily get wider and wider.

I believe those who do find themselves in a position of earning considerable incomes should have a little more conscience. They should appreciate they're in a fortunate position and would be living considerably better than the vast majority of the population regardless of how much tax they paid. Ultimately you only need a certain amount of money to live well and in the general scheme of things it actually isn't that much. Once your earnings are beyond that level I think you have a social and moral obligation to your fellow humanity to share it out. I don't agree with the 90% tax rates of the '70s, which do stifle growth, but we are in a position where the incremental tax rates of the very rich are actually insignificant compared with those nearer to average incomes. That's not right.

No, I like to think of myself as someone of principle and I would hope that if I ever found myself in the fortunate position of earning significantly more than I do now I would appreciate my good fortune and the fact that I was already living quite well, and I wouldn't be ducking and diving and grasping to try and keep more of the wealth that I had because I'd understand that comparatively I could easily do without it. But that's not an attitude shared by our super rich, and I think that's mainly because they have no experience or concept of what life is like for those at the bottom.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

So, if there was a loophole that only worked if you earned less than £15k, would you be more forgiving of the people who used it?


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Based on your argument, having not had to use the NHS or the Police for the last 10 years, am I owed any kind of rebate? Are we also saying that rich people who *do* pay huge amounts of tax should expect a better service from the Police or the Hospitals than poor people? The point is, tax is paid into a huge pot and is available for those who need it. The whole concept is founded on the idea that the amount you pay in doesn't affect the service you receive and vice versa. If the laws allow some people to pay less tax then the only thing that's 'wrong' is the law.

I think the only reason people find this distasteful is that it's mainly available to the rich (something I'm also not happy about, because I'm not one of them). If there were a similar 'legal but not moral' loophole that only worked for people earning less than £15k, would there be outrage?[/quote]

Maybe we should all stop paying then? F#ck the underprivilleged, the ill, the old, the infirm, defence, as long as its legal who cares. I don't like it, but I like it less when someone who can more thn afford to pay, takes the piss out of those just getting by. Fact is we live in a democracy and in my book if you want to be in the GB club, paying tax at an adequate amount is a requirement (law or not). As least other tax dodgers do us a favour and fuck off out of the country and become donors to the Tory party, and we don't have to look at them, Jimmy old joke wants his cake and wants to eat it too. Currently he is choking on it and long may that be the case. Cant believe he had the gall to do the jubilee performance too, what a complete tw't.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

But this still comes back to my point that tax is a legal and financial requirement, not a moral one. Of course we need to look after people who aren't able to look after themselves, and anyone living in this country should contribute to that - but, the *amount* each person contributes is defined by law, not morals, and that law is what needs to be changed here.

Why, as individuals, do we pay the amount of tax that we pay? I mean, most 'middle earners' could afford to pay more than they're asked to, so should their morals demand that they send HMRC a cheque with anything they have left over at the end of the month? No, you pay the amount you pay because thats what you're required to do by law and if the government suddenly said you could pay less, you'd do exactly that - Because it's not a moral obligation that defines how much you pay.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> He's using the law to his advantage. The politicians keep going on about how morally wrong it is, because that's all they've got to condemn him. Since when have taxes been a moral issue? Maybe the government tax us because it's the morally right thing to do, not because they need the money?
> 
> If you got a parking ticket then someone told you the road markings weren't correct and you could get out of it on a technicality, you would. It wouldn't trouble your morals, and why should it?
> 
> The government should just close the loophole instead of wasting time trying to demonise the people who use it.


That's the most appropriate response I've read about this episode. DC getting on his high horse is a bit rich. Get your own house in order before highlighting the case of an individual who has actually done nothing illegal.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

just out of interest.......can anyone point me in the direction of the rule in law that states i must pay tax please? in page or webby will be fine.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Spandex said:


> But this still comes back to my point that tax is a legal and financial requirement, not a moral one. Of course we need to look after people who aren't able to look after themselves, and anyone living in this country should contribute to that - but, the *amount* each person contributes is defined by law, not morals, and that law is what needs to be changed here.
> 
> Why, as individuals, do we pay the amount of tax that we pay? I mean, most 'middle earners' could afford to pay more than they're asked to, so should their morals demand that they send HMRC a cheque with anything they have left over at the end of the month? No, you pay the amount you pay because thats what you're required to do by law and if the government suddenly said you could pay less, you'd do exactly that - Because it's not a moral obligation that defines how much you pay.


I can see your point and its a fair one. We differ in the fact that I think it is a moral responsibility that the haves, help to support the have nots (I dont mean malingering gits screwing the system),I mean the groups I mentioned in my earlier mail, because there but for the grace of god go I. in the same way that there is a moral responsibility not to claim benefits when working. I was in a shop recently, gave £10 for an item that cost about £3 and was given £17 change. The mistake was theirs, they should have been more careful, if they want to give me money then why should I complain, no requirement for me to tell them and give it back, I could just pretend I didnt notice and noone would be the wiser. The values I was given mean that I dont want to screw anyone, I dont want to pay any less than anyone else and am happy to pay my share, as long as those around me do the same. The vast majority of us do and just because its not lillegal and there is no moral obligation to do so doesnt make it right when JC who has massive wealth didn't.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Spandex said:


> No, you pay the amount you pay because thats what you're required to do by law and if the government suddenly said you could pay less, you'd do exactly that - Because it's not a moral obligation that defines how much you pay.


I don't think you should safely presume that everyone thinks that way. I'm sure I don't.

My position is that there's an amount of income at which someone can live a decent and comfortable life. Ideally everyone on the planet could live that way but that's not realistic. However, for those fortunate enough to have incomes that exceed that level there should be some acceptance that where there are those trying to survive at well below that lifestyle then they themselves are enjoying a bonus. Even if I kept only 50% of that extra money then I'm still living well and can't really complain.

To be frank I think I'm pretty much at that level of income where I can live comfortably but certainly not extravagantly - it really doesn't take that much. I know I could pay less tax by claiming various allowances and professional expenses. It wouldn't be much but it's there, but I don't bother because I can manage without it. And where people are earning hundreds of thousands of pounds (if not millions) then they can certainly manage without it too - and the taxes that they avoid with their schemes is money that would otherwise be funding vital public services for people with nothing. Who needs it more? When people are avoiding tax they're clearly expressing the opinion they need that money more than those surviving on benefits or the minimum wage in comparative squallor. Well, to me that's just the very definition of greed.

I'd pay whatever taxes are required of me, just as I do now. Of course I wouldn't volunteer any extra, but I certainly wouldn't be going to any efforts to shift money abroad or getting involved in complex accounting dodges to make my income look like something altogether different in order to avoid paying my due share. It may be legal but it's unquestionably immoral.


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

BrianR said:


> I was in a shop recently, gave £10 for an item that cost about £3 and was given £17 change. The mistake was theirs, they should have been more careful, if they want to give me money then why should I complain, no requirement for me to tell them and give it back, I could just pretend I didnt notice and noone would be the wiser.


 Actually I think that is theft.

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Spandex said:


> So, if there was a loophole that only worked if you earned less than £15k, would you be more forgiving of the people who used it?


Yes. The difference is those people can legitimately claim they need it. I'd expect them to be claiming every allowance they were entitled to, and rightly so, because at £15k getting by is still far from easy. It's a different matter though once you've crossed that threshold of being able to live comfortably. Looking at Carr's big house and flash Range Rover on the news today, I'm pretty sure he's there.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > No, you pay the amount you pay because thats what you're required to do by law and if the government suddenly said you could pay less, you'd do exactly that - Because it's not a moral obligation that defines how much you pay.
> ...


Is it just a coincidence then, that the amount of money you feel morally obliged to pay is also exactly the amount the government wants from you??


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

As a nation, we have given the government the responsibility of managing the funding of most aspects of health and social welfare, and as part of that, we accept that we'll be asked to give money in taxes to fund it. It's up to the government to ensure that the methods for determining how much people pay meets our definitions of fairness, whilst generating sufficient funds to cover the costs - if they have left massive holes in those laws, then why are we not condemning the people we charged with running the country, instead of the people who benefit from their mistakes?

I live near enough a tube station that I'd never be able to park on my road if it wasn't covered in residents parking bays. Now, if it became common knowledge that the council had screwed up the road markings, so you could park there without worrying about getting a ticket, would it make any sense for me to blame all the drivers who made the most of the situation? Of course not... I'd blame the council for cocking up in the first place.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Spandex said:


> As a nation, we have given the government the responsibility of managing the funding of most aspects of health and social welfare, and as part of that, we accept that we'll be asked to give money in taxes to fund it. It's up to the government to ensure that the methods for determining how much people pay meets our definitions of fairness, whilst generating sufficient funds to cover the costs - if they have left massive holes in those laws, then why are we not condemning the people we charged with running the country, instead of the people who benefit from their mistakes?
> 
> I live near enough a tube station that I'd never be able to park on my road if it wasn't covered in residents parking bays. Now, if it became common knowledge that the council had screwed up the road markings, so you could park there without worrying about getting a ticket, would it make any sense for me to blame all the drivers who made the most of the situation? Of course not... I'd blame the council for cocking up in the first place.


+1 i have to agree again with spandy 2nd night in a row (god i need to start drinking again)
seriously though, mp's expenses.......they robbed us blind for years and years and as no one yelled thief they were allowed to continue as part of the old boys network. same with this topic i think the old boys network was all great as long as they paid the dues in party donations to whoever was in allegience to at the time. along come some jumped up pop or comic artists taking advantage of the same rule bending and whooooa you can't do that its morally wrong!!!


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Smeds said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> > I was in a shop recently, gave £10 for an item that cost about £3 and was given £17 change. The mistake was theirs, they should have been more careful, if they want to give me money then why should I complain, no requirement for me to tell them and give it back, I could just pretend I didnt notice and noone would be the wiser.
> ...


Yes of course it is and I hope you are aware that I DID NOT take it. I was making a point about moral responsibility, in that just because something presents itself on a plate, legal or illegal, doesn't always make it right. Having decent morals means being able to know the difference. J Carr now says he has seen the error of his ways so who are we to argue )


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> J Carr now says he has seen the error of his ways so who are we to argue )


I'm not sure you can assume he's seen the error of anything. It was inevitable that he'd have to pull out of the scheme and make an apology, purely from a PR point of view - he may or may not genuinely think he did something wrong, and I doubt we'll ever know.

There was a debate about this on Newsnight yesterday and the economist they had on made an interesting point - whenever we come home from holiday and buy a load of **** or perfume duty free, we are exploiting a legal loophole in order to avoid tax. If there's a moral issue with taking an 'unfair advantage' (in this case exploiting the fact that you can travel abroad) then why is this morality so selectively applied?

Also, why is the government who publicly accused JC of being immoral, actively encouraging corporate tax avoidance (even to the point of relaxing laws to make them easier)?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> There was a debate about this on Newsnight yesterday and the economist they had on made an interesting point - whenever we come home from holiday and buy a load of **** or perfume duty free, we are exploiting a legal loophole in order to avoid tax.


The other side of the coin to that is they tax us for spending tax-paid income on flights to take hard-earned holidays abroad.

If the tax system was honest and fair then I don't think anyone would take issue with paying their fair share. It's just riddled with double standards and when these 'avoidance' schemes are highlighted, those struggling to pay bills and who aren't privy to tax avoidance schemes get all indignant about it. The only answer is for the government to to plug ALL the loopholes.

If you watched that programme last night then you will have learnt that Philip Green paid zero tax on his Arcadia and Top Shop interests because the companies are registered to his wife who is domiciled in Monaco. In that case what is he doing running the companies - why does he have a say? If he's employed then why isn't he on PAYE?

It's okay for the 'clever' businessmen, accountants, tax lawyers and corporations to bend the rules, but if you or I were to bring in extra duty-frees and get caught, it would be regarded as a criminal act.

And how about the bankers, footballers and other high earners who get their tax paid by those also paying their salaries? How the hell does that work? :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

rustyintegrale said:


> The other side of the coin to that is they tax us for spending tax-paid income on flights to take hard-earned holidays abroad.


That's a separate tax... It's not there to cover any **** you might buy on the way back (for a start, you pay it on one way and internal flights).



rustyintegrale said:


> If the tax system was honest and fair then I don't think anyone would take issue with paying their fair share. It's just riddled with double standards and when these 'avoidance' schemes are highlighted, those struggling to pay bills and who aren't privy to tax avoidance schemes get all indignant about it. The only answer is for the government to to plug ALL the loopholes.
> 
> If you watched that programme last night then you will have learnt that Philip Green paid zero tax on his Arcadia and Top Shop interests because the companies are registered to his wife who is domiciled in Monaco. In that case what is he doing running the companies - why does he have a say? If he's employed then why isn't he on PAYE?
> 
> ...


This is the problem though... Just because people are 'indignant' about someones behaviour doesn't mean that person is doing something wrong. All I'm saying is that the people we should blame are the people who make these laws, not the people who follow them.

The only reason Cameron made an example of JC is because he wanted to divert that indignation towards someone other than his government. Cameron doesn't really think it's immoral. He knows full well that most of his party's private donors will be making use of tax avoidance schemes (like Gary Barlow, who he refused to condemn). All the people moaning about JC's morals have just fallen for Cameron's spin, hook line and sinker.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > The other side of the coin to that is they tax us for spending tax-paid income on flights to take hard-earned holidays abroad.
> ...


I know mate. I agree with you! Just pointing out that people *are* being indignant! :wink:


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

Also, why is the government who publicly accused JC of being immoral, actively encouraging corporate tax avoidance (even to the point of relaxing laws to make them easier)?[/quote]

I don't make my points because DC has come out and bemoaned the problem (I am totally aware of the double standards in that, and if you new me you could never accuse me of being a Tory  . If the system is wrong then it needs fixing, but the system is being manipulated by the 'individuals' to make a fast buck, regardless of its legality. That (just my opinion and dont expect it to be anyone elses) is as morally wrong as someone claiming for a neck injury in a shunt (uk highest rates in Europe); or someone claiming disability benefit when they dont need to (in a lot of cases it can't be proven they do deserve it), or someone avoiding work because legally they are entitled to a bug pay out on the social, earning £20k a year above the average a working person brings home. It is repugnant bec ause those of us who do pay and create the wealth in the country are in effect paying to keep them all - J Carr included (never know when he may need an NHS bed; or a policeman. or a fire engine etc, he wont have paid his share for those things. I could have faith in his sincerity if he offers to repay what he avoided; anything else and I hope he never earns another penny (certainly via the BBC; he probably has a ruse to avoid the t.v license too :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> I don't make my points because DC has come out and bemoaned the problem (I am totally aware of the double standards in that, and if you new me you could never accuse me of being a Tory  . If the system is wrong then it needs fixing, but the system is being manipulated by the 'individuals' to make a fast buck, regardless of its legality. That (just my opinion and dont expect it to be anyone elses) is as morally wrong as someone claiming for a neck injury in a shunt (uk highest rates in Europe); or someone claiming disability benefit when they dont need to (in a lot of cases it can't be proven they do deserve it), or someone avoiding work because legally they are entitled to a bug pay out on the social, earning £20k a year above the average a working person brings home. It is repugnant bec ause those of us who do pay and create the wealth in the country are in effect paying to keep them all - J Carr included (never know when he may need an NHS bed; or a policeman. or a fire engine etc, he wont have paid his share for those things. I could have faith in his sincerity if he offers to repay what he avoided; anything else and I hope he never earns another penny (certainly via the BBC; he probably has a ruse to avoid the t.v license too :lol:


I don't think your examples are even remotely applicable. They all involve fraud, as you would have to lie in order to get the compensation or benefits in the scenarios you mention. That is also why they're immoral, not just illegal.

In the case of the K2 scheme, there's no deception going on. It's not even remotely underhand, as not only do the government know these schemes exist, it also knows everyone who's using one because they have to declare it to HMRC (who have provisions in place for dealing with them). The only way you seem to be able to claim a lack of morals is based on this notion of a 'fair' amount, despite that amount being decided by government and laws, not fairness. If you could define what a 'fair amount' meant, maybe I could understand how JC has done something wrong.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Apparently this is a good read...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099541726/

One interesting fact...
In 2006 the world's three biggest banana companies did nearly £400 million worth of business in Britain but paid just £128,000 in tax between them.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

In the case of the K2 scheme, there's no deception going on. It's not even remotely underhand, as not only do the government know these schemes exist, it also knows everyone who's using one because they have to declare it to HMRC (who have provisions in place for dealing with them). The only way you seem to be able to claim a lack of morals is based on this notion of a 'fair' amount, despite that amount being decided by government and laws, not fairness. If you could define what a 'fair amount' meant, maybe I could understand how JC has done something wrong.[/quote]

Fair to me is the 40% I pay within my bracket, determined by the law. In my opinion its also fair that anyone earning below £10k doesnt pay anything. So fairness is on a sliding scale that relates to a persons total income. And that is what we are supposed to have here - its what most of us adhere to, without bending and manipulating it. By those standards and in my opinion JC is immoral for knowingly paying 1% on £3million earnings (you cant tell me he thought that was right? if so why didnt he tell everyone about it? At the same time continuing to take the benefits that living here brings (no wonder he is squirming like a fish on a hook). I think he is dispicable for doing it, but am not in the least suprised that he will have support too, because the very society we live in today appears to thrive on greed, excess, selfishness and contempt for anyone not looking out for number one. How would it be if we all acted like JC? Would you like to live in this country as it grinds to a halt? we havent got enough as it is as a result of the greed of other similar selfish minded folk (the banks) and look at the hardship that is causing. How long before we have soup kitchens here? But I guess Jimmy and those shrewd enough to pay the bear minimum will be ok .

Spandy I am not going to convince you mate purely because we appear to have a different sets of values and hopefully we are both entitled to them.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

But that 40% is just a number decided by the government. Some people in your bracket pay less because of other perfectly legal tax breaks (i.e. they *avoid* tax using legal schemes). Does it meet your definition of fairness that someone at the top of the 40% bracket pays the same as someone at the bottom? I've asked a couple of times in this thread, but do you think there would be the same outrage if there was a tax avoidance scheme that was only available to people earning less than £15k?

JC probably did think he was right - I can't disagree with him, either. Why would he tell everyone about it, regardless of how he managed his finances? He's squirming like a fish on a hook because he's now the centre of a media circus, not because he's having a moral crisis. As for what we'd do if everyone acted like JC - the government would just get off their arse and close the schemes (whilst making sure their super rich pals still had some options open to them). Nothing melodramatic would happen.

I'm not a greedy person and I'm not in that nice super rich wage bracket. I also disagree with the government enabling the rich to become richer while the poor suffer. But, I also think that morals should be based on rational and explainable principles, rather than the concept of "it's just wrong, ok?" that religions thrive on. I can't see any logical reason to condemn people who make money from these schemes, even if I disagree with their existence.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

I've asked a couple of times in this thread, but do you think there would be the same outrage if there was a tax avoidance scheme that was only available to people earning less than £15k? 
.[/quote

He's squirming like a fish on a hook because he's now the centre of a media circus, not because he's having a moral crisis..[/quote

I can't see any logical reason to condemn people who make money from these schemes, even if I disagree with their existence.[/quote]

No I dont think there would be the same outrage, generally because in my opinion £15k isnt enough to pay tax against -completely dif basis than 1% of £3 million dont you think.

If he thinks he is right why is he squirming at all? I wouldnt be. Why doesnt he tough it out and say all of the stuff you have said, because it makes sense even if it is immoral.

If we are going on logic, then it was ok for the banks to risk everything in the pursuit of greed and screw the world; it wasnt illegal what they did - but none the less it was immoral and we are all paying the price


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> No I dont think there would be the same outrage, generally because in my opinion £15k isnt enough to pay tax against -completely dif basis than 1% of £3 million dont you think.


It would obviously be completely different from a financial point of view, but identical from a moral point of view, surely? It just highlights the fact that people are trying to hide their baseless indignation behind ill-thought out and incredibly flexible morals. Rich people 'working' the system = morally wrong, but poor people 'working' the system = Morally acceptable??


BrianR said:


> If he thinks he is right why is he squirming at all? I wouldnt be. Why doesnt he tough it out and say all of the stuff you have said, because it makes sense even if it is immoral.


Because he relies on public opinion for his job, so it makes sense not to risk his career even more than he has by 'sticking it out'. This is classic PR damage limitation, that's all.


BrianR said:


> If we are going on logic, then it was ok for the banks to risk everything in the pursuit of greed and screw the world; it wasnt illegal what they did - but none the less it was immoral and we are all paying the price


Firstly, I don't think morals had anything to do with that either. Secondly, I think it's counter-productive to try to turn it into a moral discussion. There's quite obviously nothing logical about letting banks take such risks, which is why it needs to be addressed.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Rich people 'working' the system = morally wrong, but poor people 'working' the system = Morally acceptable??


If it is at the expense of others, then yes each are equally immoral. About the level of immorality which in my opinion is greater for the rich due to the scales involved.



> Because he relies on public opinion for his job, so it makes sense not to risk his career even more than he has by 'sticking it out'. This is classic PR damage limitation, that's all.


Ah so another example of just what a self centred person he is then. he can apologise to a nation and not mean it. This is obviously a sign of a completely moral guy then?



> Firstly, I don't think morals had anything to do with that either. Secondly, I think it's counter-productive to try to turn it into a moral discussion. There's quite obviously nothing logical about letting banks take such risks, which is why it needs to be addressed.


[/quote]

Why is it counter productive, it feels to me like morality is at the very heart of both issues - immoral selfish greed and who cares about the outcome - except its the ordinary guy who picks up the pieces, the guys who's homes are now worth a lot less, who have to work longer and harder and pay more for a pension, who's public services are cut, etc etc . For what its worth I think JC is like most caught with their trousers down, very very embarrassed.He should be.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

brian i agree to a point bud.......however the only reason jc is doing the embarassed bit is due to his public life and dependancy on it for income. if he was a business owner only i doubt he would give a toss bud as is philip green at present.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> If it is at the expense of others, then yes each are equally immoral. About the level of immorality which in my opinion is greater for the rich due to the scales involved.


I find it very hard to understand a set of morals that works on the basis that something can be 'less wrong' if the amount of money involved is smaller. Perhaps you should have kept that £10 extra in change... £10 is barely wrong at all, yeah?


BrianR said:


> Ah so another example of just what a self centred person he is then. he can apologise to a nation and not mean it. This is obviously a sign of a completely moral guy then?


As I've said, he may or may not think he's done something wrong - I'm just pointing out that the public apology doesn't mean you can assume he does. As for whether or not he's a moral man in general, what does that have to do with it? He could be stealing from old grannies for fun at the weekends and it wouldn't change anything about the morality of tax avoidance. 


BrianR said:


> Why is it counter productive, it feels to me like morality is at the very heart of both issues - immoral selfish greed and who cares about the outcome - except its the ordinary guy who picks up the pieces, the guys who's homes are now worth a lot less, who have to work longer and harder and pay more for a pension, who's public services are cut, etc etc . For what its worth I think JC is like most caught with their trousers down, very very embarrassed.He should be.


It's counter productive because it's pointless trying to second guess the motives of every person involved in the strategies that caused the problems. We want our banks to loan money and we want to them to invest money - both of those things technically involve risk, even when done 'correctly'. It becomes a problem when the risk becomes too large and that's not really a moral issue, because there are many reasons why it can happen and they don't all involve greed. If we focus on the moral issues, then we're basically saying "we don't mind if it happens again, as long as it doesn't happen because of greed".


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> I find it very hard to understand a set of morals that works on the basis that something can be 'less wrong' if the amount of money involved is smaller. Perhaps you should have kept that £10 extra in change... £10 is barely wrong at all, yeah?


I guess someone denying the exchequer a £100 a year, is deserving of the same level of condemnation as someone denying them £1.5 Million. They are both morally wrong I agree and said so earlier.



> He could be stealing from old grannies for fun at the weekends and it wouldn't change anything about the morality of tax avoidance.


It appears in todays breaking news that he has a history of taking advantage of situations as his old dad found out.



> If we focus on the moral issues, then we're basically saying "we don't mind if it happens again, as long as it doesn't happen because of greed"
> 
> I don't think I am saying that. I think and hope I am simply saying that it is morally wrong, whether it is about greed or simple indifference to his fellow man. I think In JC's case it is probably about both. You are right I know little about him or his intentions, but can only guess based upon his behaviours - His dad knows quite a bit and was in the press this morning talking about how his son ripped him off too.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> I guess someone denying the exchequer a £100 a year, is deserving of the same level of condemnation as someone denying them £1.5 Million. They are both morally wrong I agree and said so earlier.


Who are you agreeing with? I didn't say they were morally wrong, I just said applying morals based on the amount of money involved was difficult to understand and used your incorrect change story as an example (where keeping the money would obviously be morally wrong, regardless of how much it was).


BrianR said:


> It appears in todays breaking news that he has a history of taking advantage of situations as his old dad found out ... His dad knows quite a bit and was in the press this morning talking about how his son ripped him off too.


Again, his general morality is irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not tax avoidance schemes are immoral, not whether JC is a nice guy.


BrianR said:


> I don't think I am saying that. I think and hope I am simply saying that it is morally wrong, whether it is about greed or simple indifference to his fellow man.


So what if people screw up the economy through genuine mistakes - despite having the best intentions? Nothing particularly immoral about that, but the end result is the same. I'd rather we found a way to stop it happening, instead of trying to apply morals to a situation that's much more complex than that.


----------



## newt (May 12, 2002)

BrianR said:


> I think morals do matter in this.
> There is a difference I think in seeing your personal tax burden reduce from the 45% top end rate to say 25% (which I think is fair enough for anyone to pay) to what J Carr has done. 1% tax? if he or his family suffered an illness, would they expect 1% service from the NHS? If he had a mad axeman in his house would he expect 1% service from the Police? Would he be outraged if a terrorist planted a bomb in his garden to find that only a 1% response came from the armed forces? Dead right he would on all counts. When he appeared in front of the nation in the jubilee celebrations, was he laughing his cock off at the rest of us, who earn a fraction of what he earns and do pay our full wack? To me it is on a scale with the scum who defraud the benefits system, an attitude that says fuck the rest of you I am alright jack. The fact he has admitted this himself, says everything. Not funny Jimmy, not funny!


Agreed. If it were possible for all to do the same we could be like Greece, however change the law so it can't be done.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Again, his general morality is irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not tax avoidance schemes are immoral, not whether JC is a nice guy.


Ah, then we are at cross purposes, because I happen to think his general morality is bang in line with his actions in this instance and my responses have been in line with the title of the thread; Which I feel is not limited to JC but is quite indicitive of todays society.



> So what if people screw up the economy through genuine mistakes - despite having the best intentions? Nothing particularly immoral about that, but the end result is the same.


To err is human and totally acceptable , so genuine mistakes are fine and learning can be taken from them; one is genuine and well meaning, the other (JC) is disgenuine and ill meaning.



> I'd rather we found a way to stop it happening, instead of trying to apply morals to a situation that's much more complex than that.


[/quote]

There will always be loopholes, always be ways of getting rich quick on the backs of others, always be a thousand ways to screw the system and so I dont think it will be possible to stop it all happening (maybe morals are our only hope; people used to have them. I just wish people would take responsibility and accountability for their own actions and contribution to the world we inhabit, instead of this shameless devil may care attitude that exists in society today.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Agreed. If it were possible for all to do the same we could be like Greece, however change the law so it can't be done.
> 
> Yes and change people too so hopefully they don't want to do it in the first place.


----------



## Phil-TT (Feb 11, 2011)

Not read all of the posts in here, but in response to the title, I see nothing wrong with what Jimmy Carr did. He acted completely within the law, if any of us had the same money and the same opportunity to save giving away the money YOU earned we would do the same. It's easy to take the moral highground and say you wouldn't but in that situation I think you may change your stance.

There will be many more people doing similar things to Jimmy and they will be doing it with a lot more money than he is. The Coalition in power at the minute are clueless morons, it's easy to see. Given the chance I would do anything I could to get one over on them, so in my opinion, fair play to Jimmy Carr.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

It's easy to take the moral highground and say you wouldn't but in that situation I think you may change your stance.[/quote]

I genuinely don't think I would. Maybe that makes me an idiot by todays moral standards. 



> Given the chance I would do anything I could to get one over on them, so in my opinion, fair play to Jimmy Carr.


[/quote]

Trouble is, it isn't the coalition you would be getting one over on, it would be the childrens hospitals, schools, old folks, public services etc etc that would receive less funding and then you and I would likely be charged more tax to make up the shortfall; whilst rich celbs, tory donors and footballers sit back laughing at us all.


----------



## Phil-TT (Feb 11, 2011)

BrianR said:


> I genuinely don't think I would. Maybe that makes me an idiot by todays moral standards.
> 
> Trouble is, it isn't the coalition you would be getting one over on, it would be the childrens hospitals, schools, old folks, public services etc etc that would receive less funding and then you and I would likely be charged more tax to make up the shortfall; whilst rich celbs, tory donors and footballers sit back laughing at us all.


If that was what all tax payers money was used for then that could be an argument, however, most of the tax payers money goes on supposedly trying to help reduce the astronomical national debt the idiotic ruling parties have run up over the last X amount of years. Hospitals, schools etc would be just as underfunded if everyone was giving what was expected of them. The simple fact is, governments don't use tax payers money properly, they never do.


----------



## SteviedTT (Apr 10, 2009)

I see, we're allowed to say whatever we want about someone dodging their taxes, legally, I might add. But when it comes to the queen shaking hands with a murderer of British citizens and soldiers, the post gets deleted :?


----------



## Phil-TT (Feb 11, 2011)

SteviedTT said:


> I see, we're allowed to say whatever we want about someone dodging their taxes, legally, I might add. But when it comes to the queen shaking hands with a murderer of British citizens and soldiers, the post gets deleted :?


Wandering off topic slightly. One is a known politically sensitive area which has the potential to cause hate and insult. One is about an institution that annoys 99.9% of people and someone pulling a fast one over them. Difference is night and day.

Not getting drawn in to it further, just don't see the need to make things political on here. Typical N.Irish mentality really.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

If that was what all tax payers money was used for then that could be an argument, however, most of the tax payers money goes on supposedly trying to help reduce the astronomical national debt the idiotic ruling parties have run up over the last X amount of years. Hospitals, schools etc would be just as underfunded if everyone was giving what was expected of them. The simple fact is, governments don't use tax payers money properly, they never do.[/quote]

Its another subject, but the debt was run up by the governments of the time propping up the world banks, who's 'immoral' actions led the world to the brink of financial ruin (and we are still there). Before the banking crisis, hospitals and schools in the UK had no complaints about being under funded, infact in the previous 10 years they had received the largest level of funding for 60 years (results up, waiting lists down, new hpsopitals and schools etc, so it appears that some of the money was getting through . This is about a 'Comedian' (I have seen him twice, and I use the title with regret), who can buy a £10 million house for cash and at the same time pay just 1% in tax. Along with all his celebrity mates like Gary Barlow, combined it probably adds up to the cost of a new school or hospital. That you or I or our families may well need one day.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> Trouble is, it isn't the coalition you would be getting one over on, it would be the childrens hospitals, schools, old folks, public services etc etc that would receive less funding and then you and I would likely be charged more tax to make up the shortfall; whilst rich celbs, tory donors and footballers sit back laughing at us all.


The government know everyone on these schemes and they know how much they're paying (and not paying). There is no surprise moment at the end of the year where they suddenly realise they've got less money than they expected and they'll have to put our taxes up or make cuts to public services.

If the government needed the money they've 'lost' (a ludicrous word for it, when you think about it), they'd just shut the schemes down. The fact that they haven't should tell you that they aren't 'loosing out' on anything.

Do you think someone who's self employed shouldn't claim the tax back on business expenses? They could end up paying less tax than other people on the same wage... Are they hurting the childrens hospitals too?


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> If the government needed the money they've 'lost' (a ludicrous word for it, when you think about it), they'd just shut the schemes down. The fact that they haven't should tell you that they aren't 'loosing out' on anything.


As I understand it (and open to being wrong), it isn't as simple as that and that closing down schemes and loopholes takes time.

Do you think someone who's self employed shouldn't claim the tax back on business expenses? They could end up paying less tax than other people on the same wage... Are they hurting the childrens hospitals too?[/quote]


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Do you think someone who's self employed shouldn't claim the tax back on business expenses? They could end up paying less tax than other people on the same wage... Are they hurting the childrens hospitals too?


[/quote][/quote]

No, I think they are entitled to claim back reasonable business expenses that allow them to carry out their work and dont see them out of pocket. They should not be allowed to claim for cleaning moats etc (this does hurt childrens hospitals etc) . You aren't suggesting j Carrs self payment of 99% was reasonable?


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

I've been away from the computer for the weekend so have missed out on much of the debate in recent days, but the contra side of the argument still seems very much to be if it is legal or you can get away with it then it's okay. However, that kind of relies on the presumption that that everything that is wrong is presumed to be illegal. Of course, that's just a load of rubbish!

Adultery isn't illegal but could very easily be argued to be immoral. Failing to pay a debt isn't illegal but that doesn't make it okay. And it seems to be the same mentality that suggests it's fine to dodge the penalties for motoring offences as long as you can find a loophole and get away with it.

I'm sorry, but to me that just displays chronic moral and ethical poverty and a complete failure to appreciate the basic difference between right and wrong. Something isn't right simply because you can get away with it!

We've had the example of a residents' parking area incorrectly marked out. Well, if I found such a circumstance I'd appreciate that there is a reason for such a thing to be in place. It may be that I could park there and avoid being prosecuted but that's simply ignoring the reasons why such a scheme (flawed or not) was put there to start with. I would know that by parking there I'd be causing a problem to local residents who need that space. Out of simple consideration for fellow members of society I wouldn't park there and frankly neither would a hell of a lot of people.

Those who say that they would, and share the mentality of those who would happily avoid paying taxes that a democratic government expects them to pay, are simply being selfishly anti-social. As someone said right at the start of this thread, a straightforward "I'm alright, Jack" attitude.

And it's silly to suggest that just because a loophole exists and is still in place then the government are okay with it! There are armies of tax accountants out there spending a lot of time looking for loopholes and coming up with very complex schemes to get around the legislation - more time than is ever spent drafting the legislation in the first place. It takes time for these schemes to come to notice and be prevalent enough to justify the public expense of legislating to close them. And then it takes time to get the relevant legislation enacted. All these loopholes do get closed in time, but then those clever tax accountants just find something else. None of that changes the fact that it was never the intention of the government that by these methods tax bills should be reduced. The intention of the government is always that people pay the designated rate of tax on their income and all the income that isn't specifically exempted by allowances. These scams are invariably just different ways of diverting income out of the country or making it appear to be something else - something that in reality it isn't.

And as I've said, almost invariably this is done by people so wealthy they cannot even remotely make the argument that they need the extra money they are keeping. That makes it blatant greed and, in a world where so many are living in poverty, morally repugnant.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> No, I think they are entitled to claim back reasonable business expenses that allow them to carry out their work and dont see them out of pocket. They should not be allowed to claim for cleaning moats etc (this does hurt childrens hospitals etc) . You aren't suggesting j Carrs self payment of 99% was reasonable?


How do you feel about people buying a load of ****, booze and perfume duty free on the way back into the country? That's a tax loophole which is exploited for personal gain. Have you ever done it? Have you ever ordered something from abroad and avoided duty on it?

Regarding the 'reasonableness' of JCs taxes - Firstly, 'reasonable' is a completely unquantifiable thing, and what's reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another and may even change on a daily basis for some people. Many people think it's unreasonable that they pay any tax at all. It's not really a useful concept to try to apply to this.

If you're just curious about my own feelings, I personally think it's unreasonable that these schemes exist, but I think it's perfectly reasonable that while they exist, people make use of them. In other words, I think the government is responsible for how much tax we pay, not the individuals.

I'm sorry, but I just think there's no logical consistency to your argument. You talk about 'fair amounts', and seem to accept that these amounts are whatever HMRC tell you to pay - but you then claim that HMRC demanding 1% from JC (that's not a figure he decided, it's determined by the current tax laws) is not only unfair, but it's JCs fault that it's unfair. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> I've been away from the computer for the weekend so have missed out on much of the debate in recent days, but the contra side of the argument still seems very much to be if it is legal or you can get away with it then it's okay. However, that kind of relies on the presumption that that everything that is wrong is presumed to be illegal. Of course, that's just a load of rubbish!


You're right, that is complete rubbish. Morals and the law are completely separate and independent things. It's also the exact opposite of the argument I'm making.

My point is that the amount of tax *any* individual pays is not determined by morals or fairness or anything else. It's determined by the tax laws. You pay what you're required to pay, not what you think is fair. If they both happen to be the same thing, then that's just chance. I can't understand the logic of saying that one person paying the amount they're required to by law is morally right, but another person paying the amount they're required to by law is morally wrong - particularly when morals have played no part in the calculation of either of those amounts.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Spandex, Mark also wrote this in his last post but you saw fit to avoid it and talk about ****, duty free issues etc which is smoke screening at best, petty at worse.

Mark wrote:-
And it's silly to suggest that just because a loophole exists and is still in place then the government are okay with it! There are armies of tax accountants out there spending a lot of time looking for loopholes and coming up with very complex schemes to get around the legislation - more time than is ever spent drafting the legislation in the first place. It takes time for these schemes to come to notice and be prevalent enough to justify the public expense of legislating to close them. And then it takes time to get the relevant legislation enacted. All these loopholes do get closed in time, but then those clever tax accountants just find something else. None of that changes the fact that it was never the intention of the government that by these methods tax bills should be reduced. The intention of the government is always that people pay the designated rate of tax on their income and all the income that isn't specifically exempted by allowances. These scams are invariably just different ways of diverting income out of the country or making it appear to be something else - something that in reality it isn't.

He is saying that these people like Carr employ accountants to specifically help them avoid tax, that is the facts of the case and as such is totally selfish and as stated earlier "I'm alright Jack"


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Spandex said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > I've been away from the computer for the weekend so have missed out on much of the debate in recent days, but the contra side of the argument still seems very much to be if it is legal or you can get away with it then it's okay. However, that kind of relies on the presumption that that everything that is wrong is presumed to be illegal. Of course, that's just a load of rubbish!
> ...


Our political masters in Westminster are put there on their promises of fairness and morals and they legislate tax laws, so to say fairness and morals have no place is completely wrong, the modern Parliament was set up to bring fairness and morality into the lives of ordinary people, not just the rich who in previous times were the MP's who had no morals or sense of fairness, only their own self interest, similar to JC.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Spandex said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > I've been away from the computer for the weekend so have missed out on much of the debate in recent days, but the contra side of the argument still seems very much to be if it is legal or you can get away with it then it's okay. However, that kind of relies on the presumption that that everything that is wrong is presumed to be illegal. Of course, that's just a load of rubbish!
> ...


I cannot for the life of me see why people cannot understand Spandy's highly reasonable point of view.

Mark, let's say we have two identical roads each with a speed of 40mph. Let's also say that Road A has a load of school kids walking along it and there is no pavement. By contrast Road B is completely empty but has pavements either side. Now let's say Driver A is driving down Road A at 40mph and Driver B down Road B at 50mph. Am I right in assuming that by your reckoning Driver A is legally okay but morally wrong and Driver B is both?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

merlin c said:


> Spandex, Mark also wrote this in his last post but you saw fit to avoid it and talk about ****, duty free issues etc which is smoke screening at best, petty at worse.


Thanks for your 'input' Merlin.

The duty free point isn't a smoke screen. It's an example of 'loophole' based tax avoidance which has become so commonplace that even people who question JC's morality almost certainly do it themselves. Pointing out the hypocrisy in that situation is hardly petty - I think if you're going to question someone elses morality, you need to be able to demonstrate a logical consistency in your argument.

I didn't address Marks point about the government's intentions, because neither of us know what they actually are in this case. It seemed a little pointless to get into a debate about it when we'd both be second guessing. There are as many reasons why the government would be happy to keep this scheme open as there are for them closing it. Unfortunately they don't always have our best interests at heart. The fact that Cameron tried to create a media frenzy around one individual certainly suggests to me that he wanted to divert attention away from his governments part in this.


merlin c said:


> Our political masters in Westminster are put there on their promises of fairness and morals and they legislate tax laws, so to say fairness and morals have no place is completely wrong, the modern Parliament was set up to bring fairness and morality into the lives of ordinary people, not just the rich who in previous times were the MP's who had no morals or sense of fairness, only their own self interest, similar to JC.


They are put there on the promise of numerous things they don't deliver, so that's not really an argument in itself. Regardless of that, the point I'm trying to make is that tax is not, and never has been, a moral obligation.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

I think we will agree to differ on certain issues here Spandy, we all have different opinions and most are shades of grey unfortunately, good to talk though mate. [smiley=gossip.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Bung (Jun 13, 2011)

Phil-TT said:


> , if any of us had the same money and the same opportunity to save giving away the money YOU earned we would do the same. .


It's generally not a good idea to presume to be the spokesperson for everyone. No offence meant but if we all had that attitude then the world would be worse off in my opinion and we would be spending far too much time trying to screw each other over all for the sake of money.

@Spandex I agree with you in principle, however I feel that your view is a tad wishful thinking, unless you're ready to lead the revolution and get rid of the corrupt in power. For they have always been there and always will while we continue to worship at the altar of money.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

i have to marvel at some of my clients that are very very well off indeed and seem to know how to hold onto the money and not pay the amount we have to as mere mortal middle class folks. yet i suppose many of them have good or clever accountants that know all of the loopholes to use in a particular set of circumstances to them. so who is wrong the client or the accountant that sets these schemes up for them?
i have one client who's ex partner as in wife is now based in malta in a villa he bought for her, his business interests are now all head office based at that registered address. he travels in and out of the uk via ireland to keep his time here allowed for tax reasons under the limit. i guess i will never get to the stage of ever using such high powered accountants or offices abroad.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> How do you feel about people buying a load of ****, booze and perfume duty free on the way back into the country? That's a tax loophole which is exploited for personal gain. Have you ever done it? Have you ever ordered something from abroad and avoided duty on it?


As I understand it, there is a personal allowance relating to duty free goods from some destinations and not from others. Had I brought goods back from countries not included in the scheme, or smuggled additional product from countries that are involved in the scheme then that would be illegal and immoral.Increasingly immoral is the black market in these goods that takes money from the exchequer and puts it into the hands of criminals.



> Regarding the 'reasonableness' of JCs taxes - Firstly, 'reasonable' is a completely unquantifiable thing, and what's reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another and may even change on a daily basis for some people. Many people think it's unreasonable that they pay any tax at all. It's not really a useful concept to try to apply to this.


Yes, but we are debating and as such everything is fair game. I could say that the vast majority of the public are disgusted by JC and do consider him immoral and therefore you are out voted (how can so many be wrong whilst you are right) and therefore your views are unhelpful. But I dont believe that. I believe you make a strong case for your views Spandex; but my values mean that I am as unlikely to buy into your views as you are to mine.



> If you're just curious about my own feelings, I personally think it's unreasonable that these schemes exist, but I think it's perfectly reasonable that while they exist, people make use of them. In other words, I think the government is responsible for how much tax we pay, not the individuals.


Yes I get that and you do make a very logical case in support of your views. I think if the goverment control everyhing they will be accussed of being a nanny state, so they cant win. You wouldnt take a penny out of a blind mans collecting tin and neither would I; but what JC and his kind are doing is exactly that.



> I'm sorry, but I just think there's no logical consistency to your argument. You talk about 'fair amounts', and seem to accept that these amounts are whatever HMRC tell you to pay - but you then claim that HMRC demanding 1% from JC (that's not a figure he decided, it's determined by the current tax laws) is not only unfair, but it's JCs fault that it's unfair. You can't have it both ways.


[/quote]

I can have it any way I want it :lol: that is the beauty of freedom of speech. I think HMRC demanded exactly the same from JC as they demand from you and I. He had the money to employ someone to ensure he didn't pay that. He has apologised and regardless of how you second guess that, this is an admission of wrong doing on his part. He seems genuine. If he isnt as you suggest then that just confirms my point regarding the depth of his immorality.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

In the first instance there's no suggestion at all that the government are 'happy' to leave _any_ tax loophole open - it's invariably the case that it's just one that hasn't been closed yet. They're not put there deliberately - they simply come about as a result of flaws in legislation. They are simply failures to anticipate all eventualities in the legislative process. To suggest that the mere existence of these schemes implies some sort of tacit consent is just daft! You keep churning it out, but it's a totally spurious argument.

Your example of import duty allowances is again a non-argument. It's not tax avoidance at all. It's not a loophole or a scheme - it's a deliberately given allowance just like your PAYE tax coding, your inheritance tax allowance or capital gains allowance. Just like you are allowed to earn a certain amount of income without paying tax you are allowed to import a certain amount of goods tax free. It's no different so let's just put that one away too.

Tax avoidance is all about clearly recognising what the intention of the government is in the collection of tax, but finding weaknesses in the manner in which it is collected so that you don't pay the tax that would have been due had the original intentions been enacted in full. There is a difference for instance in making sure you claim all the allowances you are entitled to (because it is clear you were intended to have those allowances) and, for example, having half your director's salary paid to your spouse who actually does nothing for your company whatsoever simply so you can make use of their tax allowances and avoid your income being taxed at the higher rate. It's probably one of the most common dodges there is. It's never been closed simply because it would cost far too much money to investigate and police - trying to prove the spouse wasn't doing anything to earn the wage would be almost impossible. I'm sure we can all see that if someone is being paid £100k for doing their job while their spouse sits at home doing nothing all day they should be paying tax on a single income of £100k and shouldn't be splitting that income between them and each getting taxed as if they earned £50k apiece. It's illegal if the spouse isn't genuinely employed - but what if they are doing one hour's work a month, taking the post out, for £50k pa? Legal? Yes. Honest, moral, fair? No - because it's clearly just a scam.

And if you don't happen to be the director of the company you work for you're not going to be able to ask them to give half your wage to your spouse are you? If you want to make your argument that because it is allowed to go on then it must be intended then why isn't there legislation in place that allows _any_ employee to have part of their salary transferred to a spouse in order to maximise the tax advantages? But of course there isn't, because it was never anyone's intention that anyone should be able to do this.

It's actually never about making the most of the rules. It's never about playing strictly by the rules - as you're suggesting. It's about disguising your income and artificially creating something that no rules actually exist for, so that what would have been taxable income can no longer be touched. I think your line of argument is really based on a lack of understanding about what these fancy avoidance schemes do. For instance, do you understand how the K2 scheme that Carr was using actually works?


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

So here's the K2 scheme . . .

Jimmy is initially employed by the BBC for a TV series and is paid £1m pa, on which he's paying income tax at a rate upto 40%, and is probably paying something in excess of £300k in tax.

Then Jimmy says to the BBC, "I quit" and terminates his contract. "Oh", say the BBC, "But we still want you to do your TV series."

"That's okay", says Jimmy, "But you have to speak with my new employer, Jimmy Carr Productions Ltd".

So then the BBC contract JCP Ltd for Jimmy's services, paying them £1m - same as before.

But now JCP Ltd (wholly owned by Jimmy by the way, except for 1% held by his wife) pay Jimmy just £5k pa, on which he pays no tax at all because it is below his annual tax allowance. But Jimmy can't possibly survive on that, so what does he do? Well JCP Ltd _lend_ him £995k. Now because this is a loan and not 'income' it doesn't get taxed. And then at the end of the year JCP Ltd writes off the loan as a bad debt, so not only does Jimmy get to keep the money tax free the company can also write that off as a tax loss against their profits (together with the £5k salary they paid Jimmy) and therefore pay no corporation tax either!

So the situation is actually no different - the BBC are still paying Jimmy Carr £1m for his TV series but now, through a bit of clever accounting instead of paying £300k in tax Jimmy pays nothing. He earns the same amount of money but makes no contribution to society at all.

You really think that's all fine and above board and perfectly acceptable?


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > In the first instance there's no suggestion at all that the government are 'happy' to leave _any_ tax loophole open - it's invariably the case that it's just one that hasn't been closed yet. They're not put there deliberately - they simply come about as a result of flaws in legislation. They are simply failures to anticipate all eventualities in the legislative process. To suggest that the mere existence of these schemes implies some sort of tacit consent is just daft! You keep churning it out, but it's a totally spurious argument.
> ...


Respect to that, brilliantly and elequently said chap.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> As I understand it, there is a personal allowance relating to duty free goods from some destinations and not from others. Had I brought goods back from countries not included in the scheme, or smuggled additional product from countries that are involved in the scheme then that would be illegal and immoral.Increasingly immoral is the black market in these goods that takes money from the exchequer and puts it into the hands of criminals.


There is an allowance, but this still constitutes tax avoidance as that is your sole intention when you buy them. It is still tax that could have gone towards public service, but instead is in your pocket, for no reason other than your own greed. And to put it in your terms, the allowance is a legal definition, not a moral one, surely? How is it *morally* different from other tax avoidance methods?


BrianR said:


> Yes, but we are debating and as such everything is fair game. I could say that the vast majority of the public are disgusted by JC and do consider him immoral and therefore you are out voted (how can so many be wrong whilst you are right) and therefore your views are unhelpful. But I dont believe that. I believe you make a strong case for your views Spandex; but my values mean that I am as unlikely to buy into your views as you are to mine.


I'm not sure the vast majority are disgusted. I've seen no evidence for this. They may well be, but I'm not sure how we'd know.


BrianR said:


> Yes I get that and you do make a very logical case in support of your views. I think if the goverment control everyhing they will be accussed of being a nanny state, so they cant win. You wouldnt take a penny out of a blind mans collecting tin and neither would I; but what JC and his kind are doing is exactly that.


No, once again, you've given an example which is nothing like the situation we're discussing. Taking the penny would be theft, which most people agree is immoral as well as illegal. JC certainly hasn't committed theft, regardless of which side of the moral fence you are.


BrianR said:


> I can have it any way I want it :lol: that is the beauty of freedom of speech. I think HMRC demanded exactly the same from JC as they demand from you and I. He had the money to employ someone to ensure he didn't pay that. He has apologised and regardless of how you second guess that, this is an admission of wrong doing on his part. He seems genuine. If he isnt as you suggest then that just confirms my point regarding the depth of his immorality.


I meant you cant have it both ways and still be correct, as they're logically incompatible. Freedom of speech lets you share your opinion, it doesn't mean your opinion can't be wrong. :wink: I've never said JC isn't genuine. I've just pointed out that we will never know and that there are perfectly plausible reasons as to why he might not be.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

No, once again, you've given an example which is nothing like the situation we're discussing. Taking the penny would be theft, which most people agree is immoral as well as illegal. JC certainly hasn't committed theft, regardless of which side of the moral fence you are.



BrianR said:


> I can have it any way I want it :lol: that is the beauty of freedom of speech. I think HMRC demanded exactly the same from JC as they demand from you and I. He had the money to employ someone to ensure he didn't pay that. He has apologised and regardless of how you second guess that, this is an admission of wrong doing on his part. He seems genuine. If he isnt as you suggest then that just confirms my point regarding the depth of his immorality.


I meant you cant have it both ways and still be correct, as they're logically incompatible. Freedom of speech lets you share your opinion, it doesn't mean your opinion can't be wrong. :wink: I've never said JC isn't genuine. I've just pointed out that we will never know and that there are perfectly plausible reasons as to why he might not be.[/quote]


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> I meant you cant have it both ways and still be correct, as they're logically incompatible. Freedom of speech lets you share your opinion, it doesn't mean your opinion can't be wrong


Whether my comments were logically incompatable depends upon your point of view, just because you think that doesn't make your view the one truth. I was simply trying to paint a picture when speaking about the blind mans collection tin, it wasn't meant to be taken literally; it simply said that some make choices to do things that others would find repugnant. In this instance the collection tin is the exchequer and JC was the person taking (keeping) money from it; some have a view that that is ok, whilst others disagree. As long as there are people who think that is ok, then the longer that type of situation will persist.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> In the first instance there's no suggestion at all that the government are 'happy' to leave _any_ tax loophole open - it's invariably the case that it's just one that hasn't been closed yet. They're not put there deliberately - they simply come about as a result of flaws in legislation. They are simply failures to anticipate all eventualities in the legislative process. To suggest that the mere existence of these schemes implies some sort of tacit consent is just daft! You keep churning it out, but it's a totally spurious argument.
> 
> Your example of import duty allowances is again a non-argument. It's not tax avoidance at all. It's not a loophole or a scheme - it's a deliberately given allowance just like your PAYE tax coding, your inheritance tax allowance or capital gains allowance. Just like you are allowed to earn a certain amount of income without paying tax you are allowed to import a certain amount of goods tax free. It's no different so let's just put that one away too.
> 
> ...


You're not 'given' a duty-free allowance, the allowance is just a law to try to reduce the amount of duty HMRC were losing when it started to become easier for people to travel abroad - basically they've reduced, but not closed the loophole. Regardless, all of your arguments are focusing on the legality of the different types of tax avoidance, rather than the morality, which I believe is the whole point here. The reason I mention avoiding duty on booze, etc is because I can't understand a moral (not legal) argument against the K2 scheme that sees nothing wrong with avoiding tax on items bought outside the UK. The reasons for an individual doing it are the same and the end result is the same. Yet apparently the morality is different.

As for your description of the K2 scheme, again, you're focusing on the legal side, rather than the moral one. Trying to prove that the loophole wasn't intentional doesn't change the morality (and doesn't really affect the assertion that the government have left it open on purpose). Ultimately the question is, "is the payment of taxes a moral issue"... Not "does the government want to stop tax avoidance". Using loaded, emotive words like 'scam', despite there being no deception or obfuscation involved doesn't really change that.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Brian i think there will always be legal loopholes for the rich and powerfull of our society bud, if they closed all of them i think they would be so worried about losing not only funding via donations but also our top brains going abroad where tax benefits to them are better. i mean we are talking about guys that have the power to put 1000's on the dole overnight if they felt like it or it benefitted them in life.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> > I meant you cant have it both ways and still be correct, as they're logically incompatible. Freedom of speech lets you share your opinion, it doesn't mean your opinion can't be wrong
> 
> 
> Whether my comments were logically incompatable depends upon your point of view, just because you think that doesn't make your view the one truth. I was simply trying to paint a picture when speaking about the blind mans collection tin, it wasn't meant to be taken literally; it simply said that some make choices to do things that others would find repugnant. In this instance the collection tin is the exchequer and JC was the person taking (keeping) money from it; some have a view that that is ok, whilst others disagree. As long as there are people who think that is ok, then the longer that type of situation will persist.


Realistically, to follow through on the 'collection tin' metaphor, all you can really say is that JC has refused to put his penny in the tin. I actually think it's a good metaphor, although I think that because it sort of backs up what I'm saying about the morality of the K2 scheme. 

I personally agree that I have a moral obligation to pay my way in society, but that doesn't mean that I believe I have a moral obligation to pay my taxes. For example, I don't feel any moral obligation to fund the massive inefficiencies in the government. I also don't feel any moral obligation to fund wars that I don't agree with. I do, however, completely understand that I'm never going to have a say in exactly what my taxes pay for and I'm not going to get a refund for the things I disagree with. I'm also fine with the fact that I'm likely to pay significantly more into the system than I will ever take out. So, I pay my taxes, but I won't agree that I have a *moral* obligation to do so.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

Whilst JCs tax affairs seem to have polorised viewpoints on here, either one way or the other, at the end of the day, its legal at the present time, morally right or wrong, lets hope those that are obviously very upset it, vote with their feet and don't go to a JC gig, never buy any Apple products or purchase via Amazon, the amount or Corproration Tax they avoid on UK sales makes the likes of JC look like a drop in the ocean. Don't hear many politicians complaining about Amazons UK revenues of £8billion over 3 years and not a penny paid in Corp Tax. Again totally legal, but morally right? , then again we do not want to upset Corporate America do we?, but quite easy to call out a single individual in public for a political soundbite.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Spandex said:


> You're not 'given' a duty-free allowance


Yes, you are! It really is that simple. And it's not going to become something it isn't just because you keep banging on about it. You have a duty free _allowance_. It's an agreed concession, just the same as the other allowances I listed. It just simply isn't a 'loophole'. Full stop.



Spandex said:


> Regardless, all of your arguments are focusing on the legality of the different types of tax avoidance, rather than the morality, which I believe is the whole point here.


Well then you're clearly not understanding my argument at all - nor it seems even your own. I'm sure I'm not the only person interpreting your stance as being 'as long as it is within the law then it's okay'. I'm pretty sure what I've been saying all along is that even though something may strictly be legal doesn't mean it's morally correct. As I've illustrated K2 is legal, but I asked the rhetorical question of whether you thought it was right, clealry making the case that I feel it is immoral. The whole thrust of my debate focuses on the morality!


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

can see this being a ten pager quite easily  is very interesting to read i feel with agreements on both sides


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> Yes, you are! It really is that simple. And it's not going to become something it isn't just because you keep banging on about it. You have a duty free _allowance_. It's an agreed concession, just the same as the other allowances I listed. It just simply isn't a 'loophole'. Full stop.


What I was saying is that we weren't *given* the allowance, as that implies we didn't have it to start with. The allowance is a restriction in how much we could bring in, in order to manage the financial impact. Full stop. Roger that. Over.


Mark Davies said:


> Well then you're clearly not understanding my argument at all - nor it seems even your own. I'm sure I'm not the only person interpreting your stance as being 'as long as it is within the law then it's okay'. I'm pretty sure what I've been saying all along is that even though something may strictly be legal doesn't mean it's morally correct. As I've illustrated K2 is legal, but I asked the rhetorical question of whether you thought it was right, clealry making the case that I feel it is immoral. The whole thrust of my debate focuses on the morality!


I've stated a number of times that I don't think that morals and the law are the same thing, and I had hoped this would make it obvious that I'm not saying 'as long as it is within the law then it's okay'. Perhaps I was being a little optimistic to think that. So, I'll say it again, just to be clear.* The reason why I think that tax avoidance isn't a moral issue is because I don't believe paying your taxes is a moral obligation. It is a legal obligation. I DO NOT think that legality equates to morality.* Clear enough? Full stop. End paragraph.

Yes, you've stated enough times that you think it's immoral, but that's not a debate. Ive not seen an _explanation_ as to why it's immoral.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

I have just spent quite a while reading this paper on the law and morality as they are both being used here and I also posted earlier about my feelings of a direct link between legality and morality. After reading this paper a few times to fully digest it (its quite long) I have moved my position on this subject as I can now see that laws with morality at their core and those without due to blatant self interest walk hand in hand in the corridors of power, the first 3 pages summarise this quite well. I know this does not settle the issues you are discussing but I think it removes the morality issue from both sides, due to the fact that it is and at the same time is not relevant. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lawf0081/pdfs/la ... edited.pdf


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> > Brian i think there will always be legal loopholes for the rich and powerfull of our society bud, if they closed all of them i think they would be so worried about losing not only funding via donations but also our top brains going abroad where tax benefits to them are better. i mean we are talking about guys that have the power to put 1000's on the dole overnight if they felt like it or it benefitted them in life.


Hi Gaz,

Yes I totally understand your point. I guess what exists at the heart of what I am saying is this; today, in a time of austerity, with 3 million struggling on the dole; with the cost of living through the roof and normal people struggling daily as the are asked to contribute more for less and doing so (having no choice but to do so); a multi millionaire, is choosing to duck and dive and dodge what I believe are moral obligations (nothing illegal in that I know, no legal responsibility, he has the right not to give, he has the right as the law currently standds to pay 1% and keep 99%). I know he has good company in that and there are those who have more and contribute even less, but that doesnt make JC any better and its JC who has catalysed this debate. I hear a lot about how these people could take their funds out of the country and leave us in the lurch and I ask myself where would they go that would be better than that which they have here? Its why they are here in the first place. I seriously don't have a problem with their dealings if they dont live here and so my other argument is that not only do they want to avduck, dive and dodge, but also want to take advantage of living here too, with the rest of us who pay full wack. To me its not in the spirit of our culture, its not doing the right thing by your fellow countrymen, its about greed and putting ones own interest ahead of everyone and everything else; Its about a bloke who's own father denegrates his actions (who's dad does that without good cause)? Its about a bloke who is now snivellingly apologising ( without second guessing his motives, isn't that an admission he realises he is wrong)? If it isn't then his morals would appear to be lacking in more than one area.

You can dress this up any way one likes; the legal moral argument, the law, etc etc but what it boils down to in my opinion is a very rich bloke, not wanting to conform with what most have no choice but to conform with, whilst taking money from those that do pay full wack. 'Majesty the people have no bread" - "then let them eat cake" - J Carr 2012


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> merlin c said:
> 
> 
> > I have just spent quite a while reading this paper on the law and morality as they are both being used here and I also posted earlier about my feelings of a direct link between legality and morality. After reading this paper a few times to fully digest it (its quite long) I have moved my position on this subject as I can now see that laws with morality at their core and those without due to blatant self interest walk hand in hand in the corridors of power, the first 3 pages summarise this quite well. I know this does not settle the issues you are discussing but I think it removes the morality issue from both sides, due to the fact that it is and at the same time is not relevant. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


 :lol: :lol: Clear as mud


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

So what about the F1 drivers ? What's so different about moving out of the country to avoid paying tax ?


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > So what about the F1 drivers ? What's so different about moving out of the country to avoid paying tax ?


Only difference is that they aren't here, using the resources, biting the hand that feeds them, pretending to be something they are not. Long may they live somewhere else!


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Brian, when you talk about taxes, you only refer to all the nice emotive 'end users' such as children's hospitals, old people, etc, but a fair chunk of your taxes will go on things that I genuinely don't think you could claim have any moral connection (some of which you'd probably even agree are immoral). So, when you strip away the things you feel a real moral obligation to support, you're left with a load of money that you're justifying purely on the grounds that "if other people are paying it then I should too". Now, that may be a perfectly good reason to do it, but it's not a moral reason.

Ultimately, if you have no say whatsoever in how your tax money is spent, you're going to struggle to justify the morality of tax by invoking the end user.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

BrianR said:


> > merlin c said:
> >
> >
> > > I have just spent quite a while reading this paper on the law and morality as they are both being used here and I also posted earlier about my feelings of a direct link between legality and morality. After reading this paper a few times to fully digest it (its quite long) I have moved my position on this subject as I can now see that laws with morality at their core and those without due to blatant self interest walk hand in hand in the corridors of power, the first 3 pages summarise this quite well. I know this does not settle the issues you are discussing but I think it removes the morality issue from both sides, due to the fact that it is and at the same time is not relevant. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
> ...


Now your learning..........


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

The other thing to consider is the level of tax being applied to each person (because the definition of 'fair' - i.e. paying the same as everyone else - is intrinsically linked to this). If you look at it from a purely moral perspective, what is the reasoning behind rich people paying a higher percentage as tax? Chances are, they're a smaller financial burden on society (private medical, schooling, etc. Less likely to be having the Police out to deal with anti-social behaviour) and even with a flat tax rate, they'd be contributing more money for all the other things tax goes towards.

So, morally, it's hard to justify higher tax rates for the rich. That's not to say it's immoral to tax them more.. just that I can't see how they're *morally* obliged to pay more.

What it comes down to is the purely logical argument that because they have more money, a higher tax rate impacts them less than it would someone with a lower income. So, you tax them more because you can, not because of a moral imperative. I completely agree with taxing the rich at a higher rate, but again, I can only justify it on financial and logical grounds, not moral ones.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Ultimately, if you have no say whatsoever in how your tax money is spent, you're going to struggle to justify the morality of tax by invoking the end user.


[/quote]

I disagree, I understand that there are things I would rather my taxes are not invested in, but I am aware of where at least some of my taxes go and those things benefit me and people in general (hospitals, schools, care homes, roads, police, infratstructure in general). We are all end users and we are all tax payers (even those who don't work pay VAt ect), therefore if a person chooses not to pay, legal or not, he impacts all of those end users in some way, who do indeed pay. I understand your argument, I simply dont agree with it, because if we didn't pay tax, then all of things I mention above would not be possible; the poor would die in their beds due to lack of care (immoral), our people would be uneducated (immoral). Both would come as a result of acting like JC, not breaking the law, but still, doing the wrong thing. So the reverse actually, I think you struggle to justify the immorality of not paying tax, by removing the impact of doing so. For what its worth, I think your argument is the one those who don't pay comfort themselves with; until found out.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

So your argument is that there's no moral obligation to pay tax (we only do it because we are forced to) and so ipso facto there's no immorality in trying to avoid paying tax.

No morality in paying tax? So you go out with a couple of dozen friends for dinner, enjoy a decent meal and then at the end of the night when the bill comes and it gets split between everyone you refuse to pay your share and leave everyone else to cover your bit. You just walk out. Technically it may not be proven as a crime so apart from pissing-off all your mates you'll get away with it. Not immoral?

Taxation is just the same. You choose to live in this country and sit down at the table. You benefit from the services provided and eat the meal of education, NHS, defence, policing and all the other local services you get. When the bill comes you pay your agreed share of the taxes. You dodge your taxes you're just refusing to pay your share of the bill.

We choose to live in this society and in doing so we give implicit agreement to abide by the rules. We agree to live by the rule of law and we agree to fund public services and redistribute wealth via a taxation and welfare system. That's all part of being a British citizen. An attitude of 'take as much as I can while giving as little as possible' is a failure to live up to those expectations - no different from the dependency culture of those who live their lives on benefits making no effort at all to find work. In fact tax dodgers are worse as they have a much simpler choice in the matter.

You don't see any morality in that?

And the progressive tax system? Well, it is clear that if you split the total cost of all services equally per head then there would be many who simply couldn't afford to pay. We live in an unequal society - in fact one of the most unequal societies in the developed world. Latest figures show the top 20% of society earns 16 times more than the bottom 20%. Those at the top get rich on the basis of the labour of those at the bottom. Of course it would be nice if the rich demanded a little less profit for themselves and instead paid their workers a little more so that they could live with a bit more dignity, but sadly they don't - they're too greedy for that. This country should not be run for the benefit of the few but for the benefit of all and the rich are the ones who benefit the most from the rest of society - they don't make their money single-handed. It makes sense that those who benefit the most and make the most out of society should also contribute the most. And hence the progressive tax system in which the more you earn the more you pay.

Ideally those who earn the most should pay the most, but it doesn't work out that way quite specifically because of tax avoidance. Those who pay the most tend to be those in the middle, who earn reasonable incomes but who are salaried employees and so not in a position to exercise control over their tax affairs. And therefore what is intended to be a properly progressive system becomes distorted by the greed of the wealthiest of society who are quite happy to take from us and use us to make themselves rich but are not prepared to put anything back in.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Mark Davies said:


> So your argument is that there's no moral obligation to pay tax (we only do it because we are forced to) and so ipso facto there's no immorality in trying to avoid paying tax.
> 
> No morality in paying tax? So you go out with a couple of dozen friends for dinner, enjoy a decent meal and then at the end of the night when the bill comes and it gets split between everyone you refuse to pay your share and leave everyone else to cover your bit. You just walk out. Technically it may not be proven as a crime so apart from pissing-off all your mates you'll get away with it. Not immoral?
> 
> ...


Mark, I covered your points about 'paying your way' in earlier posts and I'm getting tired of repeating myself just for your benefit, so I'll just leave it up to you to go back and read them (or not).

As for the progressive tax system, the alternative is generally accepted as a 'flat rate', not the 'equal payment' you mention above, for exactly the reasons you give. Incidentally, with both the progressive and the flat rate systems, you pay more when you earn more, so the rich still make a larger financial contribution. Hence my point that the progressive system is simply more *sensible* than the flat rate, not more *moral*.

By the way, your 'restaurant bill' metaphor is a little silly, seeing as in that situation you usually get people to either pay an equal share, or pay for what they ate - I can't imagine you ask your friends to pay based on how wealthy they are... :?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Actually, using the restaurant bill metaphor, would you say that you have a moral obligation to pay the same as everyone else, or to pay for what you've eaten?

I think most people would admit that splitting the bill equally is simply the most convenient method - They all agree to do this knowing that some will pay more than they 'owe' and some will pay less. If someone piped up and said "hold on, I only had a salad, I don't want to pay an equal share", I don't think anyone would say they were acting immorally, would they?

Now, I'm obviously not claiming JC was just trying to avoid paying more than his share, but it's a fact that the tax he has paid (on his salary of £100k) will mean he's a net contributer and has more than covered his share.


----------



## BrianR (Oct 12, 2011)

> Now, I'm obviously not claiming JC was just trying to avoid paying more than his share, but it's a fact that the tax he has paid (on his salary of £100k) will mean he's a net contributer and has more than covered his share.


[/quote]

As the total requirement for tax revenue for the country is balanced across the spectrum of earnings, low, middle and upper earnings and that this is the requirement to potentially balance the books and partake in the club that is UK, no he hasn't covered his share. If someone on £15k a year can pay their full share, that which is required of them (without double dealing that is), then so can JC. Lets not forget that JC would have nothing, were it not for the people who do pay their taxes and buy his tickets. The top end tax rate reduced from 50% to 45% not long ago; on his investment in that tax scheme (£3million) that would have saved him £150k on its own. Thats equiv to 6 average incomes in the UK (just his tax saving at normal rates), how greedy is this guy? The more I think of him the angrier I become. I despair for the normal working man who in effect pays to put these minimally talented freaks from already priv backgrounds, in the financial positions they find themselves in; how on earth can a *comedian* earn such vast sums, its mind boggling to me; He and those like him are not above the rest of us, they only think they are.

I am exhausted with this thread now and am getting tired of the sound of my own voice going around in circles (and so must everyone else be  . So I am outta this one now. It has been good debating with you.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianR said:


> I am exhausted with this thread now and am getting tired of the sound of my own voice going around in circles (and so must everyone else be  . So I am outta this one now. It has been good debating with you.


I know the feeling... See you in the next one.


----------



## newt (May 12, 2002)

Gazzer said:


> Brian i think there will always be legal loopholes for the rich and powerfull of our society bud, if they closed all of them i think they would be so worried about losing not only funding via donations but also our top brains going abroad where tax benefits to them are better. i mean we are talking about guys that have the power to put 1000's on the dole overnight if they felt like it or it benefitted them in life.


That's an interesting point, as I understand it the Greek authorities were frightened to properly tax the very rich for fear they may leave, good decision :roll:


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

newt said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> > Brian i think there will always be legal loopholes for the rich and powerfull of our society bud, if they closed all of them i think they would be so worried about losing not only funding via donations but also our top brains going abroad where tax benefits to them are better. i mean we are talking about guys that have the power to put 1000's on the dole overnight if they felt like it or it benefitted them in life.
> ...


cheers Newt, amazing that i can actually be sensible for a change...........oh well no 10 pager as it looks like the debaters have gone on strike.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Maybe they are just having their afternoon nap...









:lol: :lol:


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Gazzer said:


> newt said:
> 
> 
> > Gazzer said:
> ...


You can't say I didn't try :wink:


----------



## Smeds (Oct 28, 2009)

Anyone see 8 out of 10 cats?


----------



## wja96 (Mar 4, 2010)

Gazzer said:


> i have one client who's ex partner as in wife is now based in malta in a villa he bought for her, his business interests are now all head office based at that registered address. he travels in and out of the uk via ireland to keep his time here allowed for tax reasons under the limit. i guess i will never get to the stage of ever using such high powered accountants or offices abroad.


That's tax evasion, not avoidance. Illegal and very punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Going in and out through Ireland might seem clever, but due to anti-terrorism systems it's actually much more likely he'll get caught because of the very odd travel pattern.

If, like me, you're a small businessman, I'd stay well clear of folks like that as, if they do get caught, anyone associated with them will get put though the HMRC wringer as well. And that's not because you or I have anything to be ashamed of, but I'd rather not waste two or three days going though my last seven years tax returns with an unfriendly HMRC inspector and incurring extra accountants fees for them sitting there and explaining why they gave me this or that tax allowance.


----------

