jimmy carr

[storme37]

i wish i was paying £250.000 in tax lol

[Fisherman Mike]

Never mind that he avoided tax, how did he earn £3.3million? he is as funny as an orphanage on fire.

 

Is there actually a Yorkshireman in the world with a sense of Humour though Bob ?

[bobt]

Is there actually a Yorkshireman in the world with a sense of Humour though Bob ?

 

yea my mate a farmer, he paid about the same in tax last year, as I pay in a week,

pays himself minimum wage, then bonus payments at a low tax rate,

runs a new range rover and shoots 3 days a week in season.

now there is a man laughing.

[jacksdad]

I'm a self employed Plumber and I declare every single penny that I earn!

[Drayman]

yea my mate a farmer, he paid about the same in tax last year, as I pay in a week,

pays himself minimum wage, then bonus payments at a low tax rate,

runs a new range rover and shoots 3 days a week in season.

now there is a man laughing.

 

Just another use of the system - perfectly legal and done by lots. No doubt the Rangie is a "farm vehicle" so didn't pay VAT. All running costs will be VAT free then after 3 years he'll sell it to himself at a rock bottom price then sell it on the open market and take the difference. I wonder if all his cartridges go down under pest control. The watch out might be that HMRC has put the "pay minimum wage and then take a dividend" out to consultation as they consider it a loophole worth stopping. Only trouble is you would lose loads of small businesses.

[Dekers]

Tax Avoidance LEGAL

Tax Evasion ILLEGAL

 

What has that got to do with morals, the Government make the laws, it's either legal or illegal, sod morals if its legal!

 

If the government don't like it, stop preaching morals and change the law!

[Gimlet]

My problem with all this is that only tax avoidance is subject to moral question, the costs incurred by the size and reach of the State is not. When Brown turned on the spending taps in 2000 the country was relatively prosperous. He had yet to fully inflate the debt bubble, the economy was growing, manufacturing output was 14% higher than it was when he left office and unemployment was low. Brown then spent every penny the nation posessed. He increased every form of taxation to the highest level he could get away with politically and on top of that he began to borrow vast sums from the international bond markets taking Britain's national debt to its highest level since the second world war. This was before he 'bailled out' the banks. In fact in 2007/2008, with the Conservatives ahead in the polls, a new leader and a program of tax and spending cuts, in particular a proposed £1000,000 inheritance tax threshold, Brown made a derisory tax cut himself for purely political reasons. The sum was miniscule and would have benefitted a few middle class households to the tune of a few pounds a year. So ravaged were the public finances that to do even this he had to borrow. So indebted had Brtain become that it was calculated at the time that this episode was the equivalent of a person earning £20,000 a year having to take out a loan to find £20.

All that State structure which Brown put in place, with all the poisonous social consequences including a deliberately complicated tax system and a welfare machine expressly designed to create State dependancy (or a 'Client State' as he called it with his best Stalin-straight face) is still there. There is no austerity. Spending is increasing. Immigrants flock to Britain from accross the world to soak up the borrowed State cash washing down the streets.

When we are presented with a bucket that has a bottom to it we might reasonably be expected to throw something in. Until then attaching the question of morality to tax avoidance while ignoring the State machine that destroys wealth on an industrial scale and is still running flat out is a joke.

[AVB]

AVB,

 

an employee salary of somewhere close to 1/2 million can't be sneezed at :blink:. What line of work are you in? But there are schemes for you to reduce your tax bill and accountants will know about them. But with all the schemes there's a risk. It may still be that the HMRC could win a case against K2 and anyone who has used it would have to pay back the tax they owe with interest. As it stands, and like many of these schemes, they are currently described as legal based on the opinion of tax lawyers. If the ruling goes the other way, as has happened, then folks have to pay up - and it may, also as has happened, be money they've already spent. But like you, if I can pay less tax I would do.

 

Ha ha ha. I wish. You presumed my 250k bill was was for one year and equated to a 500k salary. Unfortunately my pay is spread over a number of years and as it happens a lot of it was paid out last year. In fact some of it was 'earnt' when tax was 40% but because it was paid to me last year had to pay 50% which seemed unfair to me.

 

I did look at some of the 'film investment' schemes a few years ago but didn't participate as they sounded dodgy which they turned out to be. A bit like Carr's salary loan scheme

[storme37]

I'm a self employed Plumber and I declare every single penny that I earn!

i bet you do

[Willxx]

the point remains - why target one comedian who has actually not broken any law? How come our PM has gone very quiet when other people have been mentioned? pots and kettles etc??

Edited June 24, 2012 by Willxx

[Gimlet]

the point remains - why target one comedian who has actually not broken any law? How come our PM has gone very quiet when other people have been mentioned? pots and kettles etc??

 

Because Cameron, like Blair, Brown and now Milliband and Clegg is a professional politician. He isn't guided by principle but by what makes it on to News At Ten and the morning headlines. Like the others he is a follower not a leader.

Jimmy Carr's tax dodge is only more interesting than other people's tax dodges because he performed a sketch lambasting Barclays for doing precisely the same thing he has done. He's a right-on sanctimonious luvvie leftie and therefore a priceless hypocrite and very newsworthy. He was always going to get a hammering when some journalist sniffed out his tax affairs because of that sketch. Cameron was being opportunist and trying to be the first one on the bandwagon. Just like Blair, he wets his finger, sticks it in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing and sets off in that direction holding aloft a brand new moral principle hoping to catch some of the momentum.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Gimlet

[kdubya]

the point remains - why target one comedian who has actually not broken any law? How come our PM has gone very quiet when other people have been mentioned? pots and kettles etc??

 

they didn't target one man yet another little miss information from the lovers of tax avoidance, Carr was named as one of 1100 using the K2 scheme devised by Roy Lyness an accountant at peak performance, the times that broke the story simply highlighted Carr as he was high profile.

 

KW

[Diceman]

they didn't target one man yet another little miss information from the lovers of tax avoidance, Carr was named as one of 1100 using the K2 scheme devised by Roy Lyness an accountant at peak performance, the times that broke the story simply highlighted Carr as he was high profile.

 

KW

 

Willxx was referring to the PM's statement, which mentioned Carr and missed out the other 1099, so I can't see how this is 'miss information'

 

Still, I don't pay any taxes that I don't have to so I must be one of those lovers of tax avoidance.

Out of interest Kdubya, how much extra do you chip in every year over and above what you are legally obliged to pay?

[kdubya]

Willxx was referring to the PM's statement, which mentioned Carr and missed out the other 1099, so I can't see how this is 'miss information'

 

Still, I don't pay any taxes that I don't have to so I must be one of those lovers of tax avoidance.

Out of interest Kdubya, how much extra do you chip in every year over and above what you are legally obliged to pay?

 

my tax (40%) is paid at source and I dont pretend to be earning 30 bob an hour like half the self employed or employ the wife as a secretary or pretend the washing machine is a company need etc etc, tax avoidance is no different to those on benefit doing a "bit on the side" apart from the fact that the benefit cost pales into insignificance compared to the tax avoided, but by hell how the avoiders like to have a go at the scroungers.

 

KW

Edited June 24, 2012 by kdubya

[Diceman]

my tax (40%) is paid at source and I dont pretend to be earning 30 bob an hour like half the self employed or employ the wife as a secretary or pretend the washing machine is a company need etc etc, tax avoidance is no different to those on benefit doing a "bit on the side" apart from the fact that the benefit cost pales into insignificance compared to the tax avoided, but by hell how the avoiders like to have a go at the scroungers.

 

KW

 

All of your examples are EVASION. We are talking about AVOIDANCE, so yes, there is a difference.

[kdubya]

All of your examples are EVASION. We are talking about AVOIDANCE, so yes, there is a difference.

 

there may be difference in law but the principle is the same its still "cooking the books" bent scheming *****

 

KW

[evo]

Personally I paid about £250K in tax last year :hmm: :hmm: take it your a bank manager then :lol:

[pimpkiller]

Ive actualy lost some respect for Carr, not because he was dodging but because I expected him to spit some venom back. It does seem to be a bit tactical how he seems to be singled out in the media because hes a bit of a *** rather than say Gary Barlow whos a nice guy getting a nod for helping put on a big show.

[Gimlet]

my tax (40%) is paid at source and I dont pretend to be earning 30 bob an hour like half the self employed or employ the wife as a secretary or pretend the washing machine is a company need etc etc, tax avoidance is no different to those on benefit doing a "bit on the side" apart from the fact that the benefit cost pales into insignificance compared to the tax avoided, but by hell how the avoiders like to have a go at the scroungers.

 

KW

 

People who live entirely on benefits contribute nothing to the economy. Nil, zilch, zero, nowt, sweet Fanella Arkwright, diddly ****. They take out, they put nothing back. Which is fine if they are medically incapable of supporting themselves- there but for the grace of God go the rest of us. But if they are unavailable for employment because you are otherwise occupied in chain smoking, eating crisps and leaning on a pushchair it is not fine. Such people cost the Nation far more than any tax avoider. Those who have earned their keep and are liable for taxation are economically active and they would be a great deal more economically active if they were permitted to keep more of their own money.

Government spending amounts to over 40% of GDP. In parts of the country it is closer to 60%. For a sustainable economy that is not careering towards bankruptcy or thieving the life chances from future generations that figure should be nearer 20%. Welfare payments account for 30% of total spending.

Money that remains in the possession of he who earned it is not lost to the economy, it is the economy.

[Diceman]

there may be difference in law but the principle is the same its still "cooking the books" bent scheming *****

 

KW

[storme37]

woolfie woolfie

[Diceman]

 

Money that remains in the possession of he who earned it is not lost to the economy, it is the economy.

 

Beautifully put, but pearls before swine I fear Gimlet.

[ME]

People who live entirely on benefits contribute nothing to the economy. Nil, zilch, zero, nowt, sweet Fanella Arkwright, diddly ****. They take out, they put nothing back. Which is fine if they are medically incapable of supporting themselves- there but for the grace of God go the rest of us. But if they are unavailable for employment because you are otherwise occupied in chain smoking, eating crisps and leaning on a pushchair it is not fine. Such people cost the Nation far more than any tax avoider. Those who have earned their keep and are liable for taxation are economically active and they would be a great deal more economically active if they were permitted to keep more of their own money.

Government spending amounts to over 40% of GDP. In parts of the country it is closer to 60%. For a sustainable economy that is not careering towards bankruptcy or thieving the life chances from future generations that figure should be nearer 20%. Welfare payments account for 30% of total spending.

Money that remains in the possession of he who earned it is not lost to the economy, it is the economy.

 

 

 

 

I am self employed and I employ a few people. During my eight years of running a company, I have spent many a night lying in bed worrying about keeping them all in jobs. Some bad months I have paid my mortgage from my savings so that I could still pay my staff.

 

If it wasn't for the self employed / entrepreneurs many people wouldn't have a job. This does not excuse the self employed to do what they want with their tax, but it does put us in a different category from the people that make a career out of cheating the benefit system.

[Mungler]

My firm employs 18 people. That's 18 people who need their money each month and their mortgages paying.

 

To buy the firm I had to take out a very large loan which I am still paying for.

 

If it doesn't work out i.e. what comes in doesn't meet what goes out, then I am personally responsible from my own assets i.e. I will lose my house.

 

Put that in your PAYE shop steward pipe....

 

As for tax, I pay plenty and I would happily pay less if and where it is lawful to do so.

 

The "government" as an organisation would be bankrupt - the waste.... where do I start? Do I feel morally obliged to blindly pay into that to the maximum where I could lawfully and legitimately pay less using a clever accountant? Pppffffffff.

 

As for some notional moral high ground on the payment of tax - grow up.

[Nial]

From:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Avon_Clyde,_Lord_Clyde

 

 

"Lord Clyde gave this famous quote (amongst taxation circles) in the case of Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue [1929] 14 Tax Case 754, at 763,764:[1]"

 

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

 

 

 

Nial.