Families need £36,800 to live acceptably.....

[paradisiac]

No one was asking him to pay more, only to pay his fair proportional share.....Taxes are calculated as a proportion of income, this applies to everyone. Just because someone can afford to avoid taxes doesn't mean it is a moral thing to do....something Jimmy Carr admitted himself in his apology.

I believe there should be a single universal taxation rate that applies to everyone who earns above a predetermined liveable minimum.....whether you earn £25k or £250k or £2.5m the proportion of taxation you pay should be the same.

but he paid his 1% he didn't avoid any of that, he paid his legal obligation. maybe a flat rate 20% for everyone earning over £18k would be better. but singling out people for not pay over and above what the law states is wrong*.


*im not suggesting this is what you are implying, but that's the gist I got from the Jimmy Carr thread from most people.

Why was he banned?

yeh, I didn't see anything in this thread ban worthy.

 

[shoes]

Elmarko banned?

Wtf!!!!!

Just had a look at his recent posts, nothing in there which seem untoward!?

 

[paradisiac]

Just had a look at his recent posts, nothing in there which seem untoward!?

maybe a different thread went south for him.

I cant believe I semi agreed with you though, something isn't right

 

[Castiel]

but he paid his 1% he didn't avoid any of that, he paid his legal obligation. maybe a flat rate 20% for everyone earning over £18k would be better. but singling out people for not pay over and above what the law states is wrong*.

*im not suggesting this is what you are implying, but that's the gist I got from the Jimmy Carr thread from most people.

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was immoral. The point being made was that the same people who denigrate the working person (or the unemployed) claiming their legal entitlement in benefits are generally the same people who are defending Jimmy Carr (or those in similar circumstances) for avoiding their tax obligations.

It is a double standard.

 

[shoes]

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was immoral. The point being made was that the same people who denigrate the working person (or the unemployed) claiming their legal entitlement in benefits are generally the same people who are defending Jimmy Carr (or those in similar circumstances) for avoiding their tax obligations.

It is a double standard.

No it isn't! Legally not paying more than you have to is very very different from claiming something you're legally entitled to but morally could do without if you made some intelligent choices about procreation and work.

You shouldn't be penalised for being successful, you should, however be penalised for being reckless.

 

[estebanrey]

I bet his 1% is worth more than any of our 20%/40% contributions.

Individually sure, collectively no where near.

I bet he also has private health care, sends his kids to private schools etc.

In fact I bet in terms of net contribution he beats any one of us in here.

First of all it's a silly viewpoint looking at someone individual circumstances and trying to apportion a net break even figure as the point of taxes are to support society not individuals.

And without the rest of society (Jimmy's audiences) he doesn't have a job. It's a relationship.

But also not all taxes go on schools and hospitals (not that you can discount them from his life as the existence of them creates the opportunity for the private schools and hospitals he takes advantage of), what about defence or the road networks. What about foreign aid the Olympics.

I don't like the Olympics, should I get a rebate in my tax too?

But hey ho, we should strip him of his wealth so the irresponsible poor can have a family.

Paying your fair share of tax isn't "stripping people of their wealth". Had reduced his liability to 25% that would be one thing, but 1% is just taking the mickey no matter how little you feel you draw from society.

 

[paradisiac]

I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was immoral. The point being made was that the same people who denigrate the working person (or the unemployed) claiming their legal entitlement in benefits are generally the same people who are defending Jimmy Carr (or those in similar circumstances) for avoiding their tax obligations.

It is a double standard.

I understand that, and I agree, but the system is all wrong. whilst I agree no one should be in a stage of possibly being homeless, I think its wrong that I work 37.5hours a week and struggle, but my ex, because she has the kids, doesn't have to work, can afford holidays abroad, buy nice things.....it a failure in the system that encourages laziness.

 

[Haggisman]

No it isn't! Legally not paying more than you have to is very very different from claiming something you're legally entitled to but morally could do without if you made some intelligent choices about procreation and work.

You shouldn't be penalised for being successful, you should, however be penalised for being reckless.

Actually, it's exactly the same.

Jimmy Carr is legally paying the correct amount of tax, however morally he shouldn't be using legal loopholes to reduce that amount.

Person claiming tax credits is legally paying the correct amount of tax, however morally they shouldn't be using legal loopholes to reduce that amount.

 

[snave]

Sorry didn't read through the whole thread but did they disclose exactly what made up these costs? Be interesting to see what's deemed as essential

 

[shoes]

Actually, it's exactly the same.

Jimmy Carr is legally paying the correct amount of tax, however morally he shouldn't be using legal loopholes to reduce that amount.

Person claiming tax credits is legally paying the correct amount of tax, however morally they shouldn't be using legal loopholes to reduce that amount.

There is nothing immoral about not paying any more tax than you have to. It will only get frittered away on the ungrateful poor, useless sporting events, a new jaguar for john prescott (or his current counterpart) or keeping prisoners in better conditions than necessary etc.

It is very immoral to claim more than you need because you have chosen to put yourself in that situation, and leeching off others unnecessarily.

Perhaps it's personal opinion, but avoiding paying more than you have to for something and effectively stealing something are very different in my book.

 

[Haggisman]

There is nothing immoral about not paying any more tax than you have to. It will only get frittered away on the ungrateful poor, useless sporting events, a new jaguar for john prescott (or his current counterpart) or keeping prisoners in better conditions than necessary etc.

It is very immoral to claim more than you need because you have chosen to put yourself in that situation, and leeching off others unnecessarily.

Perhaps it's personal opinion, but avoiding paying more than you have to for something and effectively stealing something are very different in my book.

Working tax credits is a refund of tax you have already paid. Net effect = paying less tax.

The only difference is in one case you go through a procedure to reduce the amount you pay in the first place, and in the other you go through a procedure to claim back some of what you've already paid.

If you see one as being morally wrong, then by extension you must see the other as being morally wrong.

 

[paradisiac]

There is nothing immoral about not paying any more tax than you have to. It will only get frittered away on the ungrateful poor, useless sporting events, a new jaguar for john prescott (or his current counterpart) or keeping prisoners in better conditions than necessary etc.

It is very immoral to claim more than you need because you have chosen to put yourself in that situation, and leeching off others unnecessarily.

Perhaps it's personal opinion, but avoiding paying more than you have to for something and effectively stealing something are very different in my book.

again, I tend to agree with you. are people saying if they walk into a shop and see an item for sale with 50% off, they will insist on paying the extra 50% because that's the morally right thing to do?
but, I would deem it morally wrong for someone earning £30k a year going around all the bargain/charity shops and grabbing all the bargains, stopping those that could only afford those items buying them.
people don't NEED all the benefits they are entitled to, although they are legally obliged to have them.

 

[Castiel]

No it isn't! Legally not paying more than you have to is very very different from claiming something you're legally entitled to but morally could do without if you made some intelligent choices about procreation and work.

You shouldn't be penalised for being successful, you should, however be penalised for being reckless.

It is exactly the same. It may not fit in with your ideology and it brings into question your own morality, but even Jimmy Carr himself agreed that once he realised why was actually being done that it was immoral and subsequently apologised.

Perhaps it's personal opinion, but avoiding paying more than you have to for something and effectively stealing something are very different in my book.

If you accept that claiming legally entitled benefits that you might not need is effectively stealing from the taxpayer, then by that same logic, intentionally avoiding via loopholes paying the taxes that you owe is equally effectively stealing from the taxpayer. The outcome is the same...The Taxpayer is out of pocket...in fact the latter is arguably worse because they have intentionally sought to subvert and avoid their tax obligations by purposely seeking ways of not paying their taxes, whereas someone on low incomes claiming benefits are often told to claim by Government agencies and charities that deal with low income deprivation.

 

[realBabelfish]

Elmarko banned?

Wtf!!!!!

david cameron must be a mod here!

yet the blatantly racist guy yesterday isnt banned.

 

[Haggisman]

again, I tend to agree with you. are people saying if they walk into a shop and see an item for sale with 50% off, they will insist on paying the extra 50% because that's the morally right thing to do?
but, I would deem it morally wrong for someone earning £30k a year going around all the bargain/charity shops and grabbing all the bargains, stopping those that could only afford those items buying them.
people don't NEED all the benefits they are entitled to, although they are legally obliged to have them.

Actually, it's more like finding something that's been really obviously mis-priced (e.g. a 50" TV at £4.99 which should obviously be £499) and then buying the shop's whole stock.

Perfectly legal, but morally right?

 

[Castiel]

Actually, it's more like finding something that's been really obviously mis-priced (e.g. a 50" TV at £4.99 which should obviously be £499) and then buying the shop's whole stock.

Perfectly legal, but morally right?

Exactly, it goes to ones honesty.

 

[paradisiac]

Actually, it's more like finding something that's been really obviously mis-priced (e.g. a 50" TV at £4.99 which should obviously be £499) and then buying the shop's whole stock.

Perfectly legal, but morally right?

Exactly, it goes to ones honesty.

so you guys are saying the government have accidently miss priced the tax for Jimmy Carr at 1% and he failed to inform them that it was the wrong price? so you are saying other people on his earnings, did spot this error and paid over and above the 1%?

I am confused now on this.

 

[Things change I've changed]

david cameron must be a mod here!

yet the blatantly racist guy yesterday isnt banned.

What the hell.....,

Why was Elmarko banned?, we barely have any decent decent lefties on here as it is

EDIT -

Perhaps he is a returnee? he is still a relatively new member, he posted his picture up last night, perhaps that was a mistake.

 

[Haggisman]

so you guys are saying the government have accidently miss priced the tax for Jimmy Carr at 1% and he failed to inform them that it was the wrong price? so you are saying other people on his earnings, did spot this error and paid over and above the 1%?

I am confused now on this.

If you look at it simplistically, then yes.

The government in error left a loophole open that allowed him to legally pay less tax than he otherwise should have. While he/his accountants decided to exploit this loophole, others with more integrity decided to ignore it, and paid the correct amount.

Unless you're implying that the government intended for people on Jimmy Carr's earnings to only be paying 1% tax?

 

[paradisiac]

If you look at it simplistically, then yes.

The government in error left a loophole open that allowed him to legally pay less tax than he otherwise should have. While he/his accountants decided to exploit this loophole, others with more integrity decided to ignore it, and paid the correct amount.

Unless you're implying that the government intended for people on Jimmy Carr's earnings to only be paying 1% tax?

I believe this is what I am implying, as I believe these loopholes exist so that the companies/people the government are all pally pally with can exploit them, they just failed to take into consideration other people might also see these loopholes and exploit them.