Jimmy Carr, Tax Avoider

[ken dodd]

He tweeted his apology today. He must have been concerned about losing over 50,000 followers yesterday...

apologising for taking advantage of a perfectly legal scheme ?

you couldn't make this shit up

[Cactus Jack]

I very much doubt anyone in the scheme took too much notice of exactly what was happening.

This makes a nonsense of all the claims that lower tax rates affect tax avoidance in any way. Accountants are very clever people who are paid lots of money to help people with large incomes pay very little tax, they do their job. Ensuring that the tax system is designed so that everyone pays a fair share and those with most can't get away with paying least is the governments job, what a pity they aren't as effective.

[spicy]

David Cameron is right to moralise about such issues, especially when it come to comedians like Jimmy Carr who use political satire in his material. I'd suggest more people were 'found out'. I know what he was doing was not illegal but come on, you don't earn all that amount of money and expect to pay just £3,500 a year or whatever paltry sum it was.

Lots of us who are PAYE can't get away with it.

I've just had a letter regards Orthodontics and my youngest , he may not be guaranteed treatment on the NHS, he's only nine ffs. If more people paid their dues things could be a little better for all of us.

Except of course when David Cameron uses just such a scheme himself.

And hires dozens who does likewise to lord it over us in government.

Especially the likes of Philip Green.

While your at it Canny you can dig up some tax dodging characters from Labour. Get rid of the loopholes/schemes.

[spicy]

He tweeted his apology today. He must have been concerned about losing over 50,000 followers yesterday...

apologising for taking advantage of a perfectly legal scheme ?

you couldn't make this shit up

Legal does not always equate to RIGHT!

Get it? Carr is a tight as his squinty eyes.

[ken dodd]

He tweeted his apology today. He must have been concerned about losing over 50,000 followers yesterday...

apologising for taking advantage of a perfectly legal scheme ?

you couldn't make this shit up

Legal does not always equate to RIGHT!

Get it? Carr is a tight as his squinty eyes.

of course it does...how more right can you be
than entering into a plan authorised and sanctioned by law ?

unless,of course,they've made frugality a crime,and not told anyone

[Guest]

He tweeted his apology today. He must have been concerned about losing over 50,000 followers yesterday...

apologising for taking advantage of a perfectly legal scheme ?

you couldn't make this shit up

Legal does not always equate to RIGHT!

Get it? Carr is a tight as his squinty eyes.

of course it does...how more right can you be
than entering into a plan authorised and sanctioned by law ?

unless,of course,they've made frugality a crime,and not told anyone

How tattyfilarious

[subwus]

David Cameron is right to moralise about such issues, especially when it come to comedians like Jimmy Carr who use political satire in his material. I'd suggest more people were 'found out'. I know what he was doing was not illegal but come on, you don't earn all that amount of money and expect to pay just £3,500 a year or whatever paltry sum it was.

Lots of us who are PAYE can't get away with it.

I've just had a letter regards Orthodontics and my youngest , he may not be guaranteed treatment on the NHS, he's only nine ffs. If more people paid their dues things could be a little better for all of us.

Except of course when David Cameron uses just such a scheme himself.

And hires dozens who does likewise to lord it over us in government.

Especially the likes of Philip Green.

You are really trying to goad me into commenting on New Labour's record on this aren't you?
Maybe later, or on another day(!)

[subwus]

I very much doubt anyone in the scheme took too much notice of exactly what was happening.

This makes a nonsense of all the claims that lower tax rates affect tax avoidance in any way. Accountants are very clever people who are paid lots of money to help people with large incomes pay very little tax, they do their job. Ensuring that the tax system is designed so that everyone pays a fair share and those with most can't get away with paying least is the governments job, what a pity they aren't as effective.

This is a result of the complexity of the tax system. Some kind of tax system that is more in line with a flat tax system becomes ever more appealing.

[Cactus Jack]

I guess we couldn't tempt you into a neutral fact based opinion.

Thought not.

[Guest]

I very much doubt anyone in the scheme took too much notice of exactly what was happening.

This makes a nonsense of all the claims that lower tax rates affect tax avoidance in any way. Accountants are very clever people who are paid lots of money to help people with large incomes pay very little tax, they do their job. Ensuring that the tax system is designed so that everyone pays a fair share and those with most can't get away with paying least is the governments job, what a pity they aren't as effective.

This is a result of the complexity of the tax system. Some kind of tax system that is more in line with a flat tax system becomes ever more appealing.

A flat tax system is always unfair and a fair tax system is always bureaucratic.

The Right want an unfair system and moan about fair ones like hell.

[subwus]

I guess we couldn't tempt you into a neutral fact based opinion.

Thought not.

A flat tax is neutral. It is neither regressive or progressive.
Regressive and progressive taxation (which both exist in our current taxation system) introduce marginal tax rates that distort incentives in favour of cheating the tax system.
High marginal tax rates on the less well off, because of the crippling effects of the benefits system is disgusting. But this is ok for the left because of 'fairness'.
Marginal tax rates on the wealthy invite a battle of wits between government inspectors (civil service employees) and the wealthy... who can employ independent tax lawyers and accountants who know how to exploit the complexity that progressive taxation brings.
Tax lawyers and accountants who advise the wealthy would love you to bring in more progressive taxation complexity, it gives them more loopholes to exploit.
Bring in moves for a flat tax system. A universal income on the benefits front looks appealing also.

[subwus]

I very much doubt anyone in the scheme took too much notice of exactly what was happening.

This makes a nonsense of all the claims that lower tax rates affect tax avoidance in any way. Accountants are very clever people who are paid lots of money to help people with large incomes pay very little tax, they do their job. Ensuring that the tax system is designed so that everyone pays a fair share and those with most can't get away with paying least is the governments job, what a pity they aren't as effective.

This is a result of the complexity of the tax system. Some kind of tax system that is more in line with a flat tax system becomes ever more appealing.

A flat tax system is always unfair and a fair tax system is always bureaucratic.

The Right want an unfair system and moan about fair ones like hell.

What do you mean by 'fair'?
How far in your life should the government be involved so that you think the government has been 'fair' to you?
Do you think that 'fairness' from the government means that they just spend money in your favour that has to be taken from others?

[Cactus Jack]

Subwus since the days of the Greeks and Romans it has always been the case that the wealthiest, who get most from a society, are expected to put most back into that society. For the Greeks the wealthiest men were expected to contribute more time to politics in its orginal meaning (affairs of state), for the Romans the wealthiest were also expected to provide, equip and even serve as soldiers more often depending on their wealth.

Even in societies like pre-Columban Native Americans where private ownership wasn't even a concept it was accepted that those who gained most from the tribe should return most to it. There are now and always were a group of selfish people who wanted society to protect their property and freedom without meeting the levy, we have progressed beyond the Greek system of throwing such men from the city gates and handing over their property to the people of the town to a less lethal method of impressing the enhanced duties demanded by their enhanced status upon them.

[subwus]

Subwus since the days of the Greeks and Romans it has always been the case that the wealthiest, who get most from a society, are expected to put most back into that society. For the Greeks the wealthiest men were expected to contribute more time to politics in its orginal meaning (affairs of state), for the Romans the wealthiest were also expected to provide, equip and even serve as soldiers more often depending on their wealth.

Even in societies like pre-Columban Native Americans where private ownership wasn't even a concept it was accepted that those who gained most from the tribe should return most to it. There are now and always were a group of selfish people who wanted society to protect their property and freedom without meeting the levy, we have progressed beyond the Greek system of throwing such men from the city gates and handing over their property to the people of the town to a less lethal method of impressing the enhanced duties demanded by their enhanced status upon them.

So, give us your monetary value of 'fairness'. That is what this all about isn't it?
How much does the government have to give you, so you feel you have been treated 'fairly'?
Name that price.
The pre-Columbian Native Americans, what a fantastic example, please tell me how much of New Labour and the Lib Dems policies has been attributed to them?
Are you advocating that New Labour and the Lib Dems follow the policies of the pre-Columbian Native Americans?
Have you advocated this pre-Columbian Native American policy to Cannydc yet?
Maybe you should, Cannydc will email Ed Milliband straight away...

[Cactus Jack]

Oh and Subwus goes for another strawman, now there's a shocker.

Reply to the actual point Subwus - go on give it a go.

Put thoughts of pleasing the grunting ape out of your mind and focus on how you can argue for a condition where those who derive most benefits from a complex socio-economic construct should pay least for it. If it helps think in terms of having to construct an case for Malta being called upon to fund the entire EU.