Jimmy Carr overcome by grief

[JAzz]

I don't think the prime minister or any other MP for that matter should be preaching about what is morally right or wrong. Why is the PM even commenting on him in the first place yet other high profile cases he seems to keep a dignified silence.

I don't think he has done anything wrong, he hasn't broken any law so what is the problem? Maybe he should be stupid (but morally right) and just pay the tax he should pay. What is next people start demanding that small business owners shouldn't set up limited companies because they should pay more tax running it in their personal name?

 

[drunkenmaster]

Precisely - so how about targeting some tax saving schemes at those at the bottom of the ladder for a change?

Because those schemes are aimed at getting richer people to spend money on things they otherwise wouldn't buy. Like a car that at £20k they think, meh, but at £15k vat free, they might buy.

That PUTS money into the economy by selling another car. at 15k which will pay someones wages and mean another car gets made, which employs other people and those people will spend money on things, etc, etc.

So its 20k in a guys bank, of 15k into the economy. Making something tax free or lowered tax on things people buy anyway, simply takes tax money away.

The schemes are often aimed at stopping people saving so much money and having people buy more **** they don't really need as it keeps the world ticking.

Random non rich guy Z not paying tax on something he normally buys anyway, just helps him save a small amount which he likely would save instead.

I've said since before the Tory's won, generally good policies, horrendous PR though with Labour flat out lying to make them look as bad as possible. The school fee's situation, the poorest people pay LESS than they used to, people like me would pay a lot more than we used to(not rich at all, okay money but didn't want to be a burden on parents) but also get a much fairer loan as when I went it got the lowest loan possible which frankly leads to a laughable lack of money for no reason at all. I would have been able to borrow more to live a bit better and pay significantly more back in the long run if/when I end up with a good job. Its a better system for the poor, it taxes rich people for education or should I say, it taxes truly successful people for the educations that help them get there. It means the people who do the best out of uni and end up rich, pay massively more than people who end up poor.

It's a great system with horrifically poor PR with poor people thinking it was worse for them(if you are poor and stay poor, you pay smeg all of it back) and ignoring the fact that rich people can pay basically nothing now and will with the new system be paying a huge amount of cash back into the system.

Tax breaks, and schemes that seemed aimed at the rich saving money are more often than not, schemes to persuade them to spend their savings rather than let them sit there doing nothing.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I don't think the prime minister or any other MP for that matter should be preaching about what is morally right or wrong. Why is the PM even commenting on him in the first place yet other high profile cases he seems to keep a dignified silence.

I don't think he has done anything wrong, he hasn't broken any law so what is the problem? Maybe he should be stupid (but morally right) and just pay the tax he should pay. What is next people start demanding that small business owners shouldn't set up limited companies because they should pay more tax running it in their personal name?

Which high profile cases, a few the op posted are laughable. A guy whose business is primarily run outside the uk and works outside the uk, doesn't pay much tax here. Only the completely barmiest rules suggest he really should, this is also a guy who started things like Crimewatch and done lots of good for the country.

The guys having a go at Cameron's father, afaik this is a guy who made money and paid tax in the UK, then put his savings abroad, and invested his savings and didn't pay significant tax on his investments. So he paid his "job" tax as normal, which isn't what Carr is doing.

There seems to be this overwhelming idea that Torys are rich and don't pay tax and Labour are the common man and do pay taxes. The millibands are terrible, the Labour Mp's were pretty much the worst in the expenses scandal, plenty of Labour MP's avoid tax, afaik Cameron hasn't, floppy haired twit hadn't while Livingstone had avoided as much as he could.

I don't know the in's and outs of Cameron's dad nor Ashcroft situation, but afaik neither have avoided paying tax from their main job, until their jobs for all intents and purposes, moved abroad? Personally I'm of the school that, you have a job in the UK, you pay tax on it, avoiding paying that tax is morally wrong. If you buy businesses elsewhere, or invest your savings (from working which is already taxed) then that is pretty much it the UK can smeg off. In the same way Amazon SHOULD pay tax on things they sell in the UK, to the UK, that is dodgy and needs fixing. I'm happy to pay taxes here, if I was making 5mil a year I'd pay 50% tax, fine, but if 30 years later I take my savings and buy a US business, I'd want income from that business to pay tax in the US, not the US and the UK, even more so if I'm not classed as living in the UK.

I'm not sure what irked me the most, the fact that Livingstone avoided as much tax as he could or the fact that he had the balls to bring up tax avoiding, accused the other guy, when he knew full well he was doing it himself, and it also turns out that Boris hadn't done anything wrong in the slightest while Livingstone was cheating Londoners out of 100k's in tax.

I can't understand the mentality of a guy who while cheating himself and knowing it, could accuse someone he had no idea if he was or not. But the public ate it up for a few days, oh Tory guy being accused with no proof, but he's tory and makes money he must be cheating us. While the Labour guy must be on the level as he's with the working mans party. I'm glad it completely backfired, but what kind of person would shine a light on something HE was doing wrong with no proof the other guy was, how stupid can you be, or more to the point, how strong is the incorrect perception that Tory's are toff's who must be cheating us and Labour are the good guys that he thought the mere accusation would stir up the ill informed enough to win the election.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

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.

I can only speak for myself as an above average earner with a child. But both sides of the scale infuriate me. Scroungers moreso though i must admit.

 

[Tunney]

Perhaps the government should consider scrapping the top tax band or maybe reduce it to something low enough to discourage this sort of thing from happening?

How low would we have to go? It's hard to compete against 0%.

 

[The Halk]

The justification to lower tax percentages would be when the government isn't haemorrhaging money left right and centre.

E.g. the effective rate of tax just now might be 25% when it should be 40%. When the effective rate gets to 35% then there's justification to lower it a little.

To me it seems like a great thing to do in a recession. Promise future tax cuts once tax revenue hits certain thresholds and then close loopholes, simplify tax law and improve enforcement until you reach the thresholds. Meanwhile tax revenue is simply increasing all the time.

The last administration had a real hard-on for putting their hands in people's pockets - taking from one and giving to another. Often they were the same person - see tax credits for example.

There's wonderful potential to simplify tax - by negative income tax in some cases for example. Tax less and give less benefits for the same overall result, but simpler and missing out the problems and expense.

 

[elmarko]

The justification to lower tax percentages would be when the government isn't haemorrhaging money left right and centre.

E.g. the effective rate of tax just now might be 25% when it should be 40%. When the effective rate gets to 35% then there's justification to lower it a little.

To me it seems like a great thing to do in a recession. Promise future tax cuts once tax revenue hits certain thresholds and then close loopholes, simplify tax law and improve enforcement until you reach the thresholds. Meanwhile tax revenue is simply increasing all the time.

The last administration had a real hard-on for putting their hands in people's pockets - taking from one and giving to another. Often they were the same person - see tax credits for example.

There's wonderful potential to simplify tax - by negative income tax in some cases for example. Tax less and give less benefits for the same overall result, but simpler and missing out the problems and expense.

Simply taxing all income at the same rate would go a long way at evening out the wage distribution.

I have to agree with the last part, it makes no sense to give with one hand & take from the other.

If we consider them poor enough to have to give them extra money - why are we taking them?.

Regarding the argument that tax breaks for the rich encourage spending from others in this thread.... that's rubbish...

Poor people/middle class earners spend the largest portion of wages in the economy - increasing the effective wage of 90% of the population would yield a greater increase in spending (increasing demand & creating jobs) - that's how it works.

Venture capitalist Nick Hanauer touches on this very fallacy in this talk.

 

[Trifid]

How low would we have to go? It's hard to compete against 0%.

I have no issue changing the current 50% band to 0 (zero)%.

 

[robgmun]

I've been meaning to fill this in for Mr. Carr for a while:

Perhaps the government should consider scrapping the top tax band or maybe reduce it to something low enough to discourage this sort of thing from happening?

(I know this is based on PAYE which I know he would still not be using).

^ That's disgusting, no wonder Jimmy Carr avoids tax, and i would do the same

 

[elmarko]

^ That's disgusting, no wonder Jimmy Carr avoids tax, and i would do the same

People will avoid paying tax regardless as to what level it's set.

Tax avoidance hasn't suddenly dropped globally as the top rate has been cut from 80%+ to 40/50%.

Tax avoidance will happen if it's a significant amount of money, when you get into the millions/billions 10% is enough to warrant trying to avoid.

 

[elmarko]

I have no issue changing the current 50% band to 0 (zero)%.

How do you suggest we pay for the government services which enable modern capitalism to run?

 

[Trifid]

How do you suggest we pay for the government services which enable modern capitalism to run?

Obviously I'm not qualified to make these decisions etc. But I wouldn't be surprised if tax intake would increase from it. There's little point finding ways around it for those who would take benefit from this tax break, many wouldn't leave for tax havens, thus paying the maximum rate of tax, it might promote big business in the country who would employ others who would pay tax.

Also wasn't it in the news that the 50% rate doesn't actually generate much income anyway?

 

[elmarko]

Obviously I'm not qualified to make these decisions etc. But I wouldn't be surprised if tax intake would increase from it. There's little point finding ways around it for those who would take benefit from this tax break, many wouldn't leave for tax havens, thus paying the maximum rate of tax, it might promote big business in the country who would employ others who would pay tax.

Also wasn't it in the news that the 50% rate doesn't actually generate much income anyway?

Watch the video from the multi-millionaire venture capitalist I posted.

If refutes every single point you made.

Demand creates jobs & wealth, not individuals - if they left somebody else would take the business that just opened up or the job they quit.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

People will avoid paying tax regardless as to what level it's set.

Tax avoidance hasn't suddenly dropped globally as the top rate has been cut from 80%+ to 40/50%.

Tax avoidance will happen if it's a significant amount of money, when you get into the millions/billions 10% is enough to warrant trying to avoid.

Given that most of the costs associated aren't fixed fee, that's wrong.

 

[elmarko]

Given that most of the costs associated aren't fixed fee, that's wrong.

Are you implying that somebody with an income in the 10's of millions a 10% rate isn't worth avoiding?.

 

[Trifid]

Are you implying that somebody with an income in the 10's of millions a 10% rate isn't worth avoiding?.

I agree. This is why I suggested a maximum amount of tax payable that is low enough to not bother with the hassle of avoiding it.

To your other points, maybe, I don't know, not my area of expertise and I have no figures to base it on. My thinking was, if the UK was considered a tax haven than head quarters of large multi national companies would setup base here. I.e. Luxemburg and Amazon. I just think it is wrong for Mr. Carr to be expected to pay £1.7mil in tax if he was to pay the full PAYE amount.

 

[The Halk]

We won't compete with the small tax havens because they have much larger amounts of multinational companies compared to normal companies.

Corporation tax is in a race to the bottom though, it won't last forever. Sooner or later companies will stop paying tax altogether.

What will happen is international agreements on tax so that you don't get stuff like what we do happening - where we allow people to pay a small amount of tax on non-UK money so that they come here to do it. We do it intentionally to attract people, mainly to London, from elsewhere in Europe. We get a fraction of the tax income that another country should be getting - but importantly we get it, not the other company.

The rest of the world will eventually gang up on the crown dependency tax havens. and the European ones etc.... until then they'll rake it in.

 

[elmarko]

I agree. This is why I suggested a maximum amount of tax payable that is low enough to not bother with the hassle of avoiding it

That would be fine, if we didn't rely on the tax to cover the costs of running a society.

Big business is only able to make they money they do because the state takes care of the jobless, crime, infrastructure, health of the population, educating the workforce - if the state did not' have the money to continue these functions what do you think would happen to the economy?.

People like to pretend they don't benefit from living in a society, but Jimmy Carr is only able to make the money he can because we have a state & a population of people who can afford tickets.

If we liked in a 100% pro-capitalist dystopia you are proposing nobody would have the money to afford to see him perform.

Watch the video I posted.

To your other points, maybe, I don't know, not my area of expertise and I have no figures to base it on. My thinking was, if the UK was considered a tax haven than head quarters of large multi national companies would setup base here. I.e. Luxemburg and Amazon. I just think it is wrong for Mr. Carr to be expected to pay £1.7mil in tax if he was to pay the full PAYE amount.

You will notice that tax havens have very small populations which are easy to manage, we don't have that luxury.

If we give the economy in full to the rich, the gap between the rich & poor will accelerate even further - resulting in a further squeeze in the spending power of the population, resulting in lower demand for goods & services, resulting in less jobs, resulting in even lower spending power (you can imagine how this continues).

 

[shauncr91]

Going to be seeing Jimmy in 3 weeks, can't wait to see some of this tax stuff in the show

 

[robgmun]

Are you implying that somebody with an income in the 10's of millions a 10% rate isn't worth avoiding?.

In all honesty. If i was pulling in 2million+ a year then my personal threshold is about 20%-30%. Any more then that then i would look deeply into tax avoidance. At 45%-50%, well that's just taking the **** and any government that implements and endorses that kind of financial rape doesn't get my sympathy. Hence my position, so in answer to your question, Yes i wouldn't tax avoid all the way up to at least 25%

On the flip side i would go as far as 1% like Jimmy Carr, that's also taking the ****. I would take part in scheme that reduce it to the threshold i mentioned above