What about something like this?
It's a somewhat complicated way to legally pay as little as possible. Is it morally abhorrent like Carr's actions?
Families need £36,800 to live acceptably.....
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
What about something like this?
It's a somewhat complicated way to legally pay as little as possible. Is it morally abhorrent like Carr's actions?
He used a K2 tax shelter...which means he created a company, in this case in Jersey that he works for, all their earnings are paid into this company, he then resigns from the company which then pays any salary he is owed (basically what he paid into the company to begin with) into an offshore trust (jersey) and then that trust loans him the money which is technically (although the company will never do so) repayable on demand which is exempt from tax and thus he avoids paying tax on his earnings.....So he effectively loaned himself his earnings with no interest on an indefinite term to avoid paying income tax.
He intentionally avoided paying his income taxes in the same way you and I would have to......the scheme is currently legal as it takes advantage of a loophole that the HMRC is currently investigating.
Last edited:
I think it goes to someone's moral responsibilty socially rather than their responsibilty to corporate profits. The K2 tax havens take advantage of loopholes in complex tax legislation, not taking advantage of a companies intentional marketing policies.
I'm not sure the two things are really comparable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
my sister lives in Jersey. so could I technically then, go self employed, use her address as head office, and then work in the uk and not pay tax on my wages?
sorry, im not being facetious, I don't fully understand what went on.
Those are voucher codes intentionally created by the company in order to allow people to save money (in order to increase business). I don't see how it relates at all?
Pretty sure it wasn't their intention for someone to work out how to chain them all together to get the best deal, which clearly is a loss-leader for them.
It would be complicated and you would need very expensive accountants to make sure it was set up and run properly. In Jimmy Carr's defence he probably did not understand the scheme himself, and that is borne out by his closing the scheme when it came to light.
I think the problem Jimmy Carr has is that he has been critical of bankers and the rich who use similar schemes to hide earnings from the HMRC, whiled pint it himself.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2012
- Posts
- 359
My one problem with this "dont tax people on X earnings" but after say 18k tax them 20% thats an excellent idea... now if you earn over 18k its better to not get the pay rise because you wont pay tax.
No matter what tax is a lose lose for govement, they will never make everyone happy.
Some of your points are agreeable Shoe but other are just silly IMO.
I've paid tax and the misses since we were 16 i had a breif spell of 2 month out of work granted. im now 25 and shes 26, last year when she had the baby we were claiming working tax (we now earn over the threshold) to boost our earning while mainly, she was on maternity leave and her earnings dropped from 1500+ to 500ish iirc, maybe less?
Yet according to your logic we shouldnt be entitled to that because the baby was our choice? Despite paying a hell of a lot of money into the system? quite possibly and highly likely a lot more than most other couples without kids.
No matter what tax is a lose lose for govement, they will never make everyone happy.
Some of your points are agreeable Shoe but other are just silly IMO.
I've paid tax and the misses since we were 16 i had a breif spell of 2 month out of work granted. im now 25 and shes 26, last year when she had the baby we were claiming working tax (we now earn over the threshold) to boost our earning while mainly, she was on maternity leave and her earnings dropped from 1500+ to 500ish iirc, maybe less?
Yet according to your logic we shouldnt be entitled to that because the baby was our choice? Despite paying a hell of a lot of money into the system? quite possibly and highly likely a lot more than most other couples without kids.
Indeed, and it probably states on the vouchers "not to be used in conjunction with any other offer" or words to that effect, so doing so is not actually allowed.
You would only pay tax on the amount over £18k
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
ok that makes sense. like I said, wasn't being facetious. but I till maintain the only reason these loopholes exist are because of the people the government intended to use them (be it themselves, donors.....). I think they are unfortunate the Jimmy Carr thing was as big as it was in the media, as it has put them in a position where these such loopholes are being questioned.
I don't know the moral standing issue personally, I would much prefer someone like Jimmy Carr to pay 1% (lets say £200k a year) in tax, than some single mum taking benefits as she deems that is a way of life. Jimmy Carr has, albeit not as much as people think he should have, contributed a lot in taxes. these single mums have not. the system needs to encourage people to work, not look at a life on benefits as a comfortable, if not better, alternative to working.
Sure he did
Abhorrent, really?
The act itself is not abhorrent or morally wrong, if a 90 year old pensioner freezing in her council flat legally paid £10 less tax to get by I am sure a lot of the opinions from this forum to government would be different.
The VERY WORST part about this whole debate is that we are even talking about Jimmy Carr at all... It was irresponsible to name one person in the way that they did. You have all been manipulated by your government.
Last edited:
The site won't let you use multiple vouchers, the technique is about chaining various multi-buy deals together.
You'd only get taxed on the amount over 18k you earn, so it would still be worth it.
18k = 0 tax = 18k
20k = 400 tax = 19600.
Maternity is what.. six months? Save up six grand before you have the child, simples.
I was playing on the people shouting blue murder over the whole thing, I personally don't think he did anything wrong.
I suspected so, but you never can tell...
I have my doubts about the whole thing.
I must admit, I did wonder if a deal was done whereby for some kind of benefit Jimmy Carr took the rap to make it look like the government were cracking down on this kind of thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 7,754
- Location
- Cornwall
I don't believe I have been manipulated at all
and especially not by the government. I believe they would have preferred the media to not of run the story about Carr, as it has drawn attention to why these loopholes were in place to start with. they did their best to cover it up, but Cameron just seemed dig himself into a big hole.I wasn't really saying that he did anything wrong per se, however certain posters in the thread were stating that it's perfectly fine for someone like Jimmy Carr to pay hundreds of thousands less tax than intended, but if someone earning £22k is paying £400/month less tax it's morally repugnant.
I keep looking for traces of irony in your posts, and then I realise you are probably very serious. The system is designed to support tax-payers through financially difficult situations, it's exactly WHY we pay our taxes, to get help when we need it. Your posts are just getting increasingly silly and unreasonable.