Should Gary Barlow return his OBE?

[easyrider]

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...

No thats not what I said.

Children in need ticks the charity annual BBC remit of public service broadcasting. And celebs use it for their own gains.

Although Children in Need is welcomed by a large proportion of the British public, there are some who offer an alternative view, that the portrayal of children, particularly disabled children, as victims is unfortunate and counter-productive. It is argued that a change in social attitudes will benefit the disadvantaged more than money and public sympathy.[citation needed]

In November 2006, Intelligent Giving published an article about Children in Need, which attracted wide attention across the British media. The article, titled "Four things wrong with Pudsey", described donations to Children in Need as a "lazy and inefficient way of giving" and pointed out that, as a grant-giving charity, Children in Need would use donations to pay two sets of administration costs. It also described the quality of some of its public reporting as "shambolic".[22][23]
In 2007, it was reported that Terry Wogan, as the show's host, had been receiving an annual honorarium since 1980 (amounting to £9,065 in 2005). This made him the only celebrity paid for his participation in Children in Need. Wogan, however, stated that he would "quite happily do it for nothing" and had "never asked for a fee". The BBC stated that the amount, which was paid from BBC resources and not from the Children in Need charity fund, had "never been negotiated", having instead increased in line with inflation.[24] Two days before the 2007 event, it was reported that Wogan had waived his compensation.[25]

There has also been concern about the type of groups receiving funding from Children in Need. Writing in The Spectator, Ross Clark noted how funding goes towards controversial groups such as Women in Prison, which campaigns against jailing female criminals. Another charity highlighted was the Children’s Legal Centre, which provided funding for Shabina Begum to sue her school as she wanted to wear the jilbab. Clark pondered whether donors seeing cancer victims on screen would appreciate "that a slice of their donation would be going into the pockets of Cherie Blair to help a teenage girl sue her school over her refusal to wear a school uniform".[26]

 

[Raz]

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 don't disagree with the point you're making as celebs do get an opportunity that non-celebs may not but the point is that those celebs still do something. Many celebs don't have an honour so it's not an automatic right.

Also worth noting is that honours is also about what a person does to further British reputation internationally.

 

[Richdog]

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

Heh, your insecurity is tragic yet hilarious, as is your shoehorning in of celebrating the "full time working um" in order to somehow validate the argument. You automatically think anyone rich is just "filling time" if they help people in need? I would say you were trolling for a reaction, if I didn't know you were actually serious.

I hope to hell and back your ingrained pettiness and bitterness towards anyone with more than you have doesn't rub off on your daughter, otherwise her potential and outlook on life may end up being a tad limited!

Just sayin.

aHim 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.

Agreed on all points, it's pretty damn feeble and simplistic logic at the best of times.

 

[easyrider]

I don't disagree with the point you're making as celebs do get an opportunity that non-celebs may not but the point is that those celebs still do something. .

Of course they do...Its in their best interest to stay in the public eye. Look Gary is releasing his album at the end of the month.

Why else do you think he did the children in need rock concert?

 

[easyrider]

Heh, your insecurity is tragic yet hilarious, as is your shoehorning in of celebrating the "full time working um" in order to somehow validate the argument. You automatically think anyone rich is just "filling time" if they help people in need?

No but some do. Many find that Charity works helps their careers. If you can't see this then I cannot help you.

I hope to hell and back your ingrained pettiness and bitterness towards anyone with more than you have doesn't rub off on your daughter, otherwise her potential and outlook on life may end up being a tad limited!

Just sayin.

I have no issues with people with more than me either.Again you have missed the point.

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

@easyrider

Barlow will be paying exactly the amount he should be paying in tax and speaking from experience I was hounded for many years of tax dodging and they just wanted exactly what was owed.
If your accountant gives you a choice of paying £1000 in tax or have a £1000 toy instead I know what I would choose every time and Barlow will be doing the same.

My daughter watches it. So his ambience is present.

I thought you had 25 different viewing rooms in your house making the Facebook type statement of "I have to watch it" void.

 

[toshj]

No thats not what I said.

Children in need ticks the charity annual BBC remit of public service broadcasting. And celebs use it for their own gains.

You mentioned previously, as quoted below, that we don't need Children in Need.

My point is...We don't need Children in need. Its a conspiracy by the BBC to tick the charity public service remit.

I'm sick of celebs telling me things.

Of course we need it. It has raised hundreds of millions of pounds for children's charities. How is that not needed?

You may be unhappy with the message and how the show is presented, but that doesn't mean that children and associated charities don't need the money. Who are you to say that impoverished and needy individuals don't need charitable financial support.

Of course, the government could always do more to help those on our doorstep, but in the absence of this, efforts such as Children in Need raise necessary money and awareness.

 

[easyrider]

I thought you had 25 different viewing rooms in your house making the Facebook type statement of "I have to watch it" void.

His Drone leaks through the walls.

 

[easyrider]

You mentioned previously, as quoted below, that we don't need Children in Need.

The BBC needs Children in need.

Of course we need it. It has raised hundreds of millions of pounds for children's charities. How is that not needed?

You may be unhappy with the message and how the show is presented, but that doesn't mean that children and associated charities don't need the money. Who are you to say that impoverished and needy individuals don't need charitable financial support.

Of course, the government could always do more to help those on our doorstep, but in the absence of this, efforts such as Children in Need raise necessary money and awareness.

So lets stop paying India 1.4 billion.... scrap the BBC show and spend millions on children in need.

In Fact why don't the BBC take 1 quid of the license fee instead and pay that to children in need rather than giving the top dogs within the corp millions of bonus and pay offs?

 

[nick.lidgett]

The BBC needs Children in need.





So lets stop paying India 1.4 billion.... scrap the BBC show and spend millions on children in need.

In Fact why don't the BBC take 1 quid of the license fee instead and pay that to children in need rather than giving the top dogs within the corp millions of bonus and pay offs?

I like this idea but we should keep the show its fun to watch

 

[sniffy]

The blame is with the government for not closing the loopholes, not those exploiting them. Who the hell in their right mind would pay more tax than they need to?

 

[CorrectHorseBattery]

The blame is with the government for not closing the loopholes, not those exploiting them. Who the hell in their right mind would pay more tax than they need to?

+1.

 

[bazaarboy]

It's called equality. Why should someone who works hard be punished?

Oh that's right, rampant jealousy from scroungers, the joy that is Britain.

Quite true.
The existing system is heavily biased against those who are fortunate or have the skill to earn more.
Why not have a flat rate for everyone, higher earners would still contribute more, perhaps without feeling the need to use legal tax avoidance schemes

 

[dante6491]

Easyrider, I think it comes down to your interpretation of what you believe the role of the state is. Some people think that taxation is the states money, others believe it belongs to the individual.

I fall into the latter category because of the implied threat associated with taxation: If you don't pay you will be punished. I think the state should act as an incentive for good behaviour, to an extent they already do, which is where a tax loophole comes in. If you donate x amount to charity you do not pay tax on it. Why do they offer that loophole? Numerous studies show that the individual is a more effective spender of money than the state. There is a greater net benefit of people giving money to charity than the government taxing it, then distributing it.

In regards to flat taxation which was brought up earlier, it's a question of fairness. It should not be up to the state to discriminate based on wealth, much like we should not discriminate on any factor. A flat rate of taxation treats everyone equally. Everyone pays exactly the same in relative terms. I am no different to my neighbour, the man living down the street, the new school leaver or the pensioner. Having a flat rate offers a far greater incentive to work harder, you are not being penalised for success (or in instances I concede, luck). Forbes have an article about it http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanl...tax-then-need-to-return-to-the-gold-standard/ You may also want to read up on Negative Income Tax.

 

[Bear]

In regards to flat taxation which was brought up earlier, it's a question of fairness. It should not be up to the state to discriminate based on wealth, much like we should not discriminate on any factor. A flat rate of taxation treats everyone equally. Everyone pays exactly the same in relative terms. I am no different to my neighbour, the man living down the street, the new school leaver or the pensioner. Having a flat rate offers a far greater incentive to work harder, you are not being penalised for success (or in instances I concede, luck)

I used to think the same but I don't any more. Too many times I have seen company bosses cut bonuses and give workers a 1.5% pay rise but give themselves a very large pay rise 35% in one instance and the other directors getting 25%. Until things like that stop happening then I don't think stepped tax bands should be stopped.

If it's all about percentages then the people in positions of wealth can't complain about not paying the same percent in tax as lower earners, if they won't even pay the same percent in wages they can't have it both ways.

 

[dante6491]

I used to think the same but I don't any more. Too many times I have seen company bosses cut bonuses and give workers a 1.5% pay rise but give themselves a very large pay rise 35% in one instance and the other directors getting 25%. Until things like that stop happening then I don't think stepped tax bands should be stopped.

If it's all about percentages then the people in positions of wealth can't complain about not paying the same percent in tax as lower earners, if they won't even pay the same percent in wages they can't have it both ways.

That is down to the company though. It's not up to the state to discriminate. I am actually a fairly large fan of unions in this regard if they act in the best interests of their members. People joining together to withhold labour if the company does something they do not agree with. Or partnerships like John Lewis where everyone has a say. One of the most interesting propositions the government has put forward is the removal of a workers rights in exchange for shares of the company which in turn grants them owners rights.

 

[elmarko]

You have said this social leech thing before, I can't see how you can say that without knowing how much they put into the tax system. The intended amount is the amount set out under law, if you are complying with that then you are paying the intended amount.

I'm not talking about net benefit from the state, I'm talking about money earned via the society they work within.

When I say 'intended' I'm speaking in a spirit of the law VS letter of the law sense (hence the ' ' ).

If you look at the situations with contractors for instance, I say this as I am one. You are expected to pay as a temporary worker, corporation tax, employers NI, income tax, employees NI. Why should someone who is a temporary worker be expected to pay more types of tax to a person they are sitting next to and is it wrong to avoid some of that if it is within the law?

You have to look at net social impact of those policies & what kind of total losses you are enduring after all deductions (compared to losses another would endure on PAYE).

I used to think the same but I don't any more. Too many times I have seen company bosses cut bonuses and give workers a 1.5% pay rise but give themselves a very large pay rise 35% in one instance and the other directors getting 25%. Until things like that stop happening then I don't think stepped tax bands should be stopped.

If it's all about percentages then the people in positions of wealth can't complain about not paying the same percent in tax as lower earners, if they won't even pay the same percent in wages they can't have it both ways.

A flat rate can work, just not a low flat rate (as that would result in a huge deficit in public finances).

A flat 50% rate for everybody (with the government providing significantly more to off-set the balance), you could have a functioning system - but it may not be desirable.

You are completely correct about the rest mind.

Edit - on a side note, I don't think he should return his OBE mind - but I don't even think OBE's should even exist .....

Why not have a flat rate for everyone, higher earners would still contribute more, perhaps without feeling the need to use legal tax avoidance schemes

Rubbish, a flat rate would not reduce tax avoidance.

People don't avoid tax due to some view on the morality of a variable tax system - they avoid paying tax because it yields them a greater amount of money, as long as large sums of money can be made avoiding tax, people will do it - regardless as to what a mythical flat rate was set at.

If it is about fairness, would you be happy with a flat 60% rate then across the board? - or let me guess, when you say "I want a flat rate" what your really mean is "I want to pay a lower rate than I do currently"?.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Wow, this thread is turning into a flame war LOL. Let's all just take a deep breath and calm down.

GD at its best.

 

[Bear]

When I say 'intended' I'm speaking in a spirit of the law VS letter of the law sense (hence the ' ' ).

You have to look at net social impact of those policies & what kind of total losses you are enduring after all deductions (compared to losses another would endure on PAYE).

In the example of a contractor, they are expected to pay 20% corp tax and 13.8% employers NI above what someone on PAYE would have to pay, for potentially doing the same job as someone you are sitting next to. Personally I think it is wrong.

 

[elmarko]

In the example of a contractor, they are expected to pay 20% corp tax and 13.8% employers NI above what someone on PAYE would have to pay, for potentially doing the same job as someone you are sitting next to. Personally I think it is wrong.

Assuming the wages are similar then yes that would be unfair. (assuming that's what somebody on PAYE on the same salary would pay).

In my line of work, contractors are paid double what the permanent members of staff are paid for the same job, making the direct percentage comparisons not quite so simple (as if the perm staff members were on that salary that would be paying more as a percentage of total deductions).