Jimmy Carr overcome by grief

I really see nothing wrong with a single proportionate, flat-rate tax for all, be it 20% or 30% or whatever.

To those saying "yes but how is it fair that 30% of x is more than 30% of y" they seem to ignore the fact that 70% of x is also more than 70% y; so if your in position x you still end up with more than person y.

Otherwise we would need to introduce a single flat-rate poll tax which would price out the majority of the low-middle income workers.
 
Are the people who are morally outraged by tax avoidance suitably enraged by people on benefits spending money on alcohol and cigarettes?

After all, it is legal.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Why is this news?
Click to expand...

Probably something to do with Jimmy Carr criticising others for aggressive tax avoidance in the past, making him a tad hypocritical. Of course, now the PM has come out and said this sort of tax avoidance is immoral he would himself be hypocritical if he appointed tax avoiders to government positions wouldn't he?
 
Robbo said:
That's all fair enough, but my comment wasn't really directly aimed at you.

It was a general remark that usually (not always) the people who complain the most about these things do so out of jealousy, and would probably do the exact same thing as Jimmy Carr if they had reason to as well.

People just like to get themselves worked up over (what are in reality) little things, Stockhausen is the master at this. He also just posts and posts and posts and doesn't reply to anything which makes all of his threads a bit repetitive and boring. :p
Click to expand...

yeah, he does. but i often think there is a little something in what he seems to say. he just says it in an explosive manner. i think if other people made threads on a similar issue and not in such as explosive way they might get better responses, since many just dismiss him because of who he is.
 
OldCoals said:
Are the people who are morally outraged by tax avoidance suitably enraged by people on benefits spending money on alcohol and cigarettes?

After all, it is legal.
Click to expand...

to be honest it does wind me up. but since the unemployed only cost us each £3 a year it doesnt bother me that much (this was worked out on another forum i frequent and i was shocked how little of the budget goes on it). plenty of unemployed people arent benefit scum they just got made redundant in the recession and to be honest the odd beer might made life a bit less ****.

i dont know any unemployed people who smoke cigarettes. rolling baccy maybe but its cheap anyway.
 
gettothechopper said:
its because of things like this that the rich-poor divide is so large

normal bloke working 9-5 pays his taxes via paye, so cannot get an accountant / scheme to be creative with his taxes

well off bloke who has an accountant and a "company" can get away with paying a fraction of what they should pay

this means the rich get richer and the average joe (who is still working hard) doesnt
Click to expand...


Yes - this is known as the Sam Vimes "boots" theory of socio-economic unfairness:

Terry Pratchett said:
Samuel Vimes earned thirty-eight dollars a month as a Captain of the Watch, plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. This was beyond his pocket and the most he could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with luck last a year or so before he would need to resort to makeshift cardboard insoles so as to prolong the moment of shelling out another ten dollars.

Therefore over a period of ten years, he might have paid out a hundred dollars on boots, twice as much as the man who could afford fifty dollars up front ten years before. And he would still have wet feet.
Click to expand...
 
Duff-Man said:
Yes - this is known as the Sam Vimes "boots" theory of socio-economic unfairness:
Click to expand...

But if Captain Vimes had some financial acumen, he would have bought the $10 pair, then save up for the $50 pair, switching out before the cheap pair got ragged. He could then spread the cost of a new $50 pair over the expected lifespan of his current $50 pair.

;)
 
krooton said:
But if Captain Vimes had some financial acumen, he would have bought the $10 pair, then save up for the $50 pair, switching out before the cheap pair got ragged. He could then spread the cost of a new $50 pair over the expected lifespan of his current $50 pair.

;)
Click to expand...

I think the point is that the highlighted section was not realistic on his wage, at least not in the period that he has his original pair of boots, hence the $50 pair being beyond his reach.

The natural solution would have been a "boots mortgage", but I dread to think what Ankh-Morpork would have done with such organised money-lending!
 
realBabelfish said:
what happened to the lovely old rich people back in history that used their wealth to help society. philanthropy used to be something the super rich did.

i agree i wouldnt pay more tax than required (without schemes etc, im talking standard income tax) but i would look up creating a foundation to help people. people with learning and physical disabilities etc
Click to expand...


What are you classing as rich / super rich here?
 
Duff-Man said:
I think the point is that the highlighted section was not realistic on his wage, at least not in the period that he has his original pair of boots, hence the $50 pair being beyond his reach.

The natural solution would have been a "boots mortgage", but I dread to think what Ankh-Morpork would have done with such organised money-lending!
Click to expand...

I'm sure Vetinari could have spotted him some dollah. ;)
 
boxman2000 said:
Football is the worst I've come across - the way I've seen their contracts structured the amounts they actually get paid for playing football just because of the way it can be paid into offshore/European companies.

Look at Luxembourg, Switzerland and Delaware if you really want to find unpaid taxes!
Click to expand...

This. I am aware of a few footballers who are paid a certain wage which they then pay tax on in this country but the majority of their wage is paid to an offshore company which owns the "image" rights of the footballer and hence tax is avoided.

So when you see that so and so is on £100,000 per week, don't expect that he will be paying tax on the £5.2m you think he earns. He might pay tax on £100,000 and the other £5.1m is paid to a company in Luxembourg as an appearance fee etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom