Morally, you have every right to look after your own best interests.
Should Gary Barlow return his OBE?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Morally, you have every right to look after your own best interests.
While I agree with that to an extent it does depend somewhat on the avoidance being practiced - some schemes really abuse the law or at least the intention of the law. If someone is being quite aggressive in their avoidance of tax, their contribution to a society that enabled them to earn significant wealth in the first place then it does seem a bit off for them to attempt to make demands from people much less wealthy than them in order to donate to a charity providing things which ought to be provided, in some instances, by the state in the first place.
Ahh I love these threads... the rantings of the working class, hard-done-by, those rich people have it easy while I struggle from day to day type spiel.
Gary Barlow and many people like him (not all of course, but many) have got where they are today through natural talent and epic sacrifice. Even if Gary Barlow does legally avoid the full effect of our (imo unbalanced) tax system, he still pays monumentally more than you or I. What we are talking about is degrees of paying less on millions.
If I had worked my arse off my whole life to amass that kind of money, then dubious views of morality be buggered, I would be doing what I could to minimize my payouts too. The government is ineffective, inefficient, and does not realistically give a **** whether you live or die. To assume that if you pay more tax means that you or others are going to automatically receive some additional benefit in the untold millions wasted each year is simply naive daydreaming based on ignorance.
Barlow does a ton of work for charity, and has actively raised millions, which is more than many other artists have done in their lives, and I see no reason why he should be judged based on what he (LEGALLY) does with his own money.
The irony is that if 90% of people here could find a way to pay less tax then they would do, the only difference is the ingrained jealousy and bitterness towards those who have more in life than you do, and the resentment it creates in people bitter or frustrated about their own situation, people who generally lack the talent and vision to do something significant with their own lives, and deep down are fully aware of it.
Barlow seems like a good bloke, and I can think of far worse I see on my TV screens on a regular basis.
Easyrider is not known for being the brightest spark. This thread is incontrovertible proof of that.
Pretty much spot on.
Gary Barlow and many people like him (not all of course, but many) have got where they are today through natural talent and epic sacrifice. Even if Gary Barlow does legally avoid the full effect of our (imo unbalanced) tax system, he still pays monumentally more than you or I. What we are talking about is degrees of paying less on millions.
If I had worked my arse off my whole life to amass that kind of money, then dubious views of morality be buggered, I would be doing what I could to minimize my payouts too. The government is ineffective, inefficient, and does not realistically give a **** whether you live or die. To assume that if you pay more tax means that you or others are going to automatically receive some additional benefit in the untold millions wasted each year is simply naive daydreaming based on ignorance.
Barlow does a ton of work for charity, and has actively raised millions, which is more than many other artists have done in their lives, and I see no reason why he should be judged based on what he (LEGALLY) does with his own money.
The irony is that if 90% of people here could find a way to pay less tax then they would do, the only difference is the ingrained jealousy and bitterness towards those who have more in life than you do, and the resentment it creates in people bitter or frustrated about their own situation, people who generally lack the talent and vision to do something significant with their own lives, and deep down are fully aware of it.
Barlow seems like a good bloke, and I can think of far worse I see on my TV screens on a regular basis.
Easyrider is not known for being the brightest spark. This thread is incontrovertible proof of that.
[FnG]magnolia;25321600 said:
Pretty much spot on.
Last edited:
That's right...Insult me cause you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I know more about Tech and life and overclocking and Home cinemas than you will ever know.
The fact remains.
Your post was vacuous at best.
TAKE THAT
So having a different view of the world to you and knowing that some actions are more tax efficient than others is trolling? That acusation is often banded around when someone can't construct a reasoned reply.
How is it different for someone to construct their finances legally using an accountant or advisor, to someone wealthly constructing their finances legally using an accountant or advisor?
That's right...Insult me cause you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I know more about Tech and life and overclocking and Home cinemas than you will ever know.
The fact remains.
Your post was vacuous at best.
TAKE THAT
Easyrider, I assure you that you very likely don't know half as much about life as you think you do. As for the overclocking and home cinema part... maybe so, but then I'm not sure that's anything to particularly boast about.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,709
- Location
- Warwickshire
Only give awards to 'normal' people? Why? By normal I assume you mean not famous. Not sure why just being famous should preclude you from awards.
Unfortunately I would tend towards this opinion, and I'm not sure how knowing a lot about AV tech really mitigates this.
Him and Glaucus are both equally hilarious to read. Case in point: I say that people dislike lazy benefits claimants that don't work when they could and didn't try at school. He counters this by telling the story of an intelligent graduate with lots of A-levels that can't find a job no matter how hard they try; exactly the kind of person I obviously was NOT talking about. Sheer intellectual brilliance.
Unfortunately I would tend towards this opinion, and I'm not sure how knowing a lot about AV tech really mitigates this.
Him and Glaucus are both equally hilarious to read. Case in point: I say that people dislike lazy benefits claimants that don't work when they could and didn't try at school. He counters this by telling the story of an intelligent graduate with lots of A-levels that can't find a job no matter how hard they try; exactly the kind of person I obviously was NOT talking about. Sheer intellectual brilliance.
Many are.
A lot of them are but those are usually picked up only in local news if at all. A celeb getting an OBE will be covered by national media whereas someone else working for a good cause (say a person who has volunteered and supported charities for 50 years) may get a mention in the local press. Exceptions are when campaigners work on something currently in the news (FGM, knife crime etc).
No you're hilarious...where are these so called jobs for the lazy?
The mere fact you cannot look at the bigger picture shows a blinkered vision and lack of any intelligence.
You sound like a politician...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,709
- Location
- Warwickshire
So a celeb that does extraordinary work for charity and has brightened the lives of millions, should be precluded from receiving awards just because they're celebrities? Why?
There aren't jobs for the lazy. That's the point
.There aren't jobs for the lazy. That's the point
Eh?
There aren't jobs full stop.
Exactly. Just because they're a celeb it doesn't lessen the work they do in support of charities etc.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,366
Wow, this thread is turning into a flame war LOL. Let's all just take a deep breath and calm down.
If you are worth millions and have nothing to do in-between albums then chairty work is where its at.
a: It makes you look good
b: It relieves Boredom
I mean Gary just can't sit in his big house all day can he?
Or like Elton...Just auction off all the **** you buy on a regular basis and give it all to charity.
I would be more inclined to celebrate the full time working mum that needs to work to eat that fund raises on a regular basis.
Just sayin
I dunno... you seem like an awfully cynical person. Look at the amounts Children in Need has raised since 1980. You've got to be a bit of an ass hat (as someone mentioned earlier) to claim Children in Need is a waste of time and that celebs are doing in purely for themselves...