Celebrity Tax Avoidance Page 8

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • kalel 21 Jun 2012 14:56:36 87,682 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    So everyone is immoral given the option.
    I somewhat presumed that 'people' != 'everyone'.
    I'll rephrase, society is immoral given the option and do an elected governments role is to help enforce moral behaviour through taxation (amongst other things)?
    My view is that we are all essentially moral but due to the scale of society government is necessary as parameters need to be put into place to ensure it functions. Very small communities can self govern.

    If people were inherently immoral then no society would be possible at all, government or no.
  • disusedgenius 21 Jun 2012 15:05:42 5,324 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    I'll rephrase, society is immoral given the option and do an elected governments role is to help enforce moral behaviour through taxation (amongst other things)?
    Well kinda, if society is hypocritical (as Chopsen said, I don't particularly disagree with him) so taxation via an elected government is indeed the moral balance used do balance this hypocrisy. It doesn't as much enforce moral behaviour as much as it excuses immoral behaviour due to certain assumed standards.

    I'd say that the reason people can (and should) get annoyed at people gaming the system is that they have managed to excuse themselves at a much lower standard than is seen as acceptable, It's not like greedy tax avoidance is a cosmic constant or anything (it's hard;y immoral in Monaco, say), it's just part of the whole social contract thing.
  • Chopsen 21 Jun 2012 15:12:40 15,983 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    My view is that we are all essentially moral but due to the scale of society government is necessary as parameters need to be put into place to ensure it functions. Very small communities can self govern.

    If people were inherently immoral then no society would be possible at all, government or no.
    I agree with this. But I think it works for "big print" stuff like killing people, harming them directly and physically, stealing, stuff like that. Things that any person of reasonable emotional maturity can see directly as being wrong. How to pay tax is so far withdrawn from any sense of immediate consequence or impact on people that I don't think ideas of inherent moral compass apply so easily.
  • kalel 21 Jun 2012 15:18:15 87,682 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    My view is that we are all essentially moral but due to the scale of society government is necessary as parameters need to be put into place to ensure it functions. Very small communities can self govern.

    If people were inherently immoral then no society would be possible at all, government or no.
    I agree with this. But I think it works for "big print" stuff like killing people, harming them directly and physically, stealing, stuff like that. Things that any person of reasonable emotional maturity can see directly as being wrong. How to pay tax is so far withdrawn from any sense of immediate consequence or impact on people that I don't think ideas of inherent moral compass apply so easily.
    Again though, on small scales people can accept taxation is fair and necessary. A small office might have a tea kitty or whatever. People generally accept that communal needs have to paid for by the community.

    I do agree with much of what you're saying but I don't accept that anyone who takes issue with tax avoidance is essentially a hypocrite, as they'd do the same given half the chance. I do think there is an element of people being offended by behaviour that they genuinely would not do themselves.
  • Rusty_M 21 Jun 2012 15:28:38 4,681 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    urban wrote:
    Really, who gives a shit? What I wanna know is what are the government doing while everyone's screaming out Gary Barlow's name?
    have a little patience

    The world is going mad. Me? I'm doing fine.

  • X201 21 Jun 2012 16:31:26 15,412 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to criticise Gary Barlow over alleged use of a tax avoidance scheme.

    Mr Cameron said he was not going to give a "running commentary" on people's tax affairs - but he had made an exception for comedian Jimmy Carr because "it was a particularly egregious example of an avoidance scheme that seemed to me to be wrong".


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18535642
  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 16:33:28
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I thought it was the 60s. And this is (as an aside) a very good example of misapplication of tax - those with cars subsidising those without.
    Only if you make the erroneous assumption that the road came after the car, which it didn't. Roads/carriageways have always been there, paid for by general taxation. Heavy-arsed cars came along, fucking up the surfaces of those roads for everyone, therefore it was decided they'd be charged accordingly, to help compensate for the damage and disruption they cause
  • glaeken 21 Jun 2012 16:38:13 11,174 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I believe you had to pay higher road tax on a shire horse.
  • richardiox 21 Jun 2012 16:56:46 5,596 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    LeoliansBro repping the banker "I'm ok perosnally so fuck the rest of society" capitalist mentality to the fullest as always.

    Precictable as rain in the summer. And about as welcome.
  • Dougs 21 Jun 2012 16:57:45 67,701 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    X201 wrote:
    Prime Minister David Cameron has refused to criticise Gary Barlow over alleged use of a tax avoidance scheme.

    Mr Cameron said he was not going to give a "running commentary" on people's tax affairs - but he had made an exception for comedian Jimmy Carr because "it was a particularly egregious example of an avoidance scheme that seemed to me to be wrong".


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18535642
    Fucking hell!
  • cheeky_prawnking 21 Jun 2012 17:12:26 4,574 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    He will get to Barlow, just need a little patience.
  • X201 21 Jun 2012 17:15:24 15,412 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    cheeky_prawnking wrote:
    He will get to Barlow, just need a little patience.
    *cough*

    Rusty_M just up there :rolleyes:
  • cheeky_prawnking 21 Jun 2012 17:19:03 4,574 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Oh Ffs
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 17:24:40 44,225 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    richardiox wrote:
    LeoliansBro repping the banker "I'm ok perosnally so fuck the rest of society" capitalist mentality to the fullest as always.

    Precictable as rain in the summer. And about as welcome.
    You could try reading and addressing my points. Or you could fuck off. Either's good.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Inertia 21 Jun 2012 17:41:20 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g Why the rich should pay moe tax[/link]

    This, for me, is an accurate TED talk on who really are the job creators in society.

    Edited by Inertia at 17:43:02 21-06-2012
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 17:43:54 44,225 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I can't link to Youtube at work but I'd be genuinely interested if you could summarise?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Inertia 21 Jun 2012 17:51:51 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Basically he demonstrates US reduction of taxes of the rich has led to a decline in total employment. That the middle class pretty much pay for most things in society and if they have disposable income they create jobs through consumption. The rich try and keep jobs down, to make profits, it is a last call to employ more people. But the call is middle class demand not rich men.

    So there are not enough rich men, and there never will be, in the US to power its economy with jobs.They can earn 3000 times more than the average worker but don't consume 3000 times more. If you increase the average worker's wage then demand across the economy will increase and jobs will follow.

    Edited by Inertia at 17:52:13 21-06-2012
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 18:16:39 44,225 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    OK, it is true what you say but you're looking at a closed system. You're saying this is 'give the rich a break, they keep the economy afloat' which (you're probably right) isn't true. I'm saying, and I suspect this kind of thinking isn't unique to me, 'give the rich a reason to come and spend their money in my country, lest they go elsewhere'.

    I will watch that later though, sounds well worth a look.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • disusedgenius 21 Jun 2012 18:20:47 5,324 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    'give the rich a break'

    'give the rich a reason to come and spend their money in my country'
    They're not that far off each other though, practically speaking? Shirley giving them a reason is essentially treating them special/giving them a break?
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 18:24:41 44,225 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Would you offer discounted coffee to encourage customers to browse your bookstore, hoping they buy some books?

    Mind you, if you say the word 'Borders' I will shank you in the fundamentals.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • mcmonkeyplc 21 Jun 2012 18:29:24 39,456 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Inertia wrote:
    Basically he demonstrates US reduction of taxes of the rich has led to a decline in total employment. That the middle class pretty much pay for most things in society and if they have disposable income they create jobs through consumption. The rich try and keep jobs down, to make profits, it is a last call to employ more people. But the call is middle class demand not rich men.

    So there are not enough rich men, and there never will be, in the US to power its economy with jobs.They can earn 3000 times more than the average worker but don't consume 3000 times more. If you increase the average worker's wage then demand across the economy will increase and jobs will follow.
    I haven't watched this yet but the solution he mentioned just leads to rampant inflation. Also him saying that it's the middle class that creates the demand that drives growth is true and it always has been. The rich are too tiny in number... It's all too obvious.

    The rich he seems to be going on about are those that own business. Yeah they will try and keep costs down to maximise profits. It's logical.

    I need to watch this but I would expect better than this from TED.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Load_2.0 21 Jun 2012 19:03:27 19,268 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I wish I could send you to an off shore account.
  • jonsaan 21 Jun 2012 19:09:46 25,352 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    One for you. Nineteen for me.

    FCUTA!

  • Inertia 21 Jun 2012 19:09:53 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @mcmonkeyplc

    His main thrust is that the rich as job creators is a myth. He only has about 6 minutes to talk. But he shows some figures about tax and inflation adjusted pay averages that we would have expected but don't see etc.

    It's not going to change your world if you are clued up on economics, As you said inflation can iron out any pay increases if they happen across the whole of society, but it is something you don't normally hear in the mainstream press.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 19:37:53 44,225 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The rich as job creators is not a myth. Who else creates jobs?

    Be wary of sounding like Madgod.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Inertia 21 Jun 2012 20:09:59 677 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    What he is saying is that the rich create jobs to profit from demand but middle class demand is the true creator of jobs. Stifle that demand and all the rich men in the world can't make jobs happen if nobody is buying. It's an obvious synergy between the two but it 's worth stating because if you decimate middle class spending as this government has the rich cannot make up the slack by creating jobs where demand is not met.

    And I think the government has kind of twigged that they can't be too austere against the middle classes as growth has been stagnant for too long. Tax cuts to the rich won't create enough jobs. It may attract wealth to this country but that in itself is not going to create enough jobs.

    For me that is a reasonable premise, not the whole picture, and different sectors have different economic factors, but as an idea not held too tightly, it is certainly more preferable than do whatever the rich want as they are the guarantors of our future.

    Of course reality is somewhere in the middle.
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply