Celebrity Tax Avoidance Page 2

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 10:43:15
    Inertia wrote:
    @Fab4

    So slavery was great when it was legal. But unconscionable when illegal. I think someone earning more than 3 million should pay more than £3500 tax whether that is the law or not.
    Slavery and not paying much tax isn't comparable.
  • gang_of_bitches 21 Jun 2012 10:45:28 5,442 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    Zomoniac wrote:
    I'm more disappointed at how easily he's backed down than anything to be honest. In his position I'd have just said "yeah, I've optimised my tax return for my personal gain, because I can. When your non-dom donor friends and the likes of Vodafone start paying their tax, come back to me and we can talk".
    So we can only tackle one issue at a time? We can have a multi-pronged approach you know.

    Anyway from what they have been saying on this tax avoidance from the wealthy is actually the bulk of the revenue that is being lost. They were saying on Sky news 7 billion pounds is being lost through tax avoidance by the wealthy and businesses but of this over half is actually down to the wealthy. Yes as individuals no single one may be as big as something like Vodafone but as a whole they are more significant.
    Plus, while I am entirely against the Vodafone, Amazon and Barclays tax avoidance they do at least have the mitigating factor of employing thousands of people in the UK. I'd still call their bluff though.
  • mcmonkeyplc 21 Jun 2012 10:47:22 39,387 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    /not biting

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Inertia 21 Jun 2012 10:47:56 676 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    In a practical sense Vodafone hold more negotiating leverage as they employ a lot more people than Jimmy Carr. Get the easy money first.

    This is the dilemma of big corporations that employ lots of people but don't pay taxes. As soon as government mention taxes they start thinking about relocating parts of their business. It's a tough decision on any government to call their bluff. And I certainly don't think this government will do that.
  • roz123 21 Jun 2012 10:52:48 7,112 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    They should force people who avoid tax to live in a real shit hole part of the country
  • glaeken 21 Jun 2012 10:53:17 11,100 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @gang_of_bitches Well we can go after them all. I just don't buy into us not being able to string up Jimmy Carr until we have sorted out Vodafone.

    Really I am sure they are very few wealthy people who are not at this in some form so I think we should just start to close all these loop holes. Actually with an army of the wealthy’s accountants trying to find new loop holes it should be pretty easy to achieve in the long run as they will actively be helping the treasury identify areas that need attention.

    As for the argument that everyone would do it if they could I like to compare it to parking fines. If I could park anywhere and be immune from parking tickets I would but should I be able to? Just because we would be selfish in certain circumstances is not reason why we should be able to be.

    Edited by glaeken at 10:56:14 21-06-2012
  • THFourteen 21 Jun 2012 10:54:52 32,868 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    roz123 wrote:
    They should force people who avoid tax to live in a real shit hole part of the country
    where they could claim back all the tax they DID pay in benefits.
  • Chopsen 21 Jun 2012 10:56:28 15,726 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    As for the argument that everyone would do it if they could I liked to compare it to parking fines. If I could park anywhere and be immune from parking tickets I would but should I be able to? Just because we would be selfish in certain circumstances is not reason why we should be able to be.
    Parking fines are for doing things which in advance are clearly advertised as being forbidden, with a clear penalty specified at the outset.

    What Carr and a load of the people have and will continue to do it exploit how the system has been set up, but avoiding anything that has been expressly forbidden.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 10:58:24 43,229 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    You're all going to love this.

    If someone is able to exploit a loophole to see more money end up with themselves, good for them. Any of you pay one penny in tax more than you have to?

    If the Government sees fit to leave such loopholes open, they may have very sound (albeit Machiavellian) reasons for doing so. A billionaire Russian, attracted by the tax laws to the UK, could spend millions in country, netting the government income through corporate profits, as opposed to zero should he choose to live elsewhere because he will have to pay full tax.

    If a comedian mocks tax dodgers while himself running a tax-efficient scheme, his punishment should be falling revenues as fewer people watch/listen to him, rather than being singled out and forced to pay tax when all he's done is the most prudent and fiscally sound option.

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 11:01:46 21-06-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • senso-ji 21 Jun 2012 10:59:25 5,795 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Tax loop holes will always exist but fair play to Carr for admitting it's morally wrong and pulling out of it. Cameron is a cunt for lecturing him; he's not likely to call out Philip Green and Lord Ashcroft in the same way, I'd imagine.
  • glaeken 21 Jun 2012 10:59:43 11,100 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Chopsen Yes I know but I was just trying to give an example of something we as a society already do balance selfish drives with the needs of the many.

    Carr has not broken the law but is exploiting a system we need to fix. Really it’s all down to improving legislation.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 11:04:47 43,229 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    By the way anyone here have an ISA? Same thing.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MrDigital 21 Jun 2012 11:05:18 1,866 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Fab4 wrote:
    Its always a dodgy path to take, making laws based on 'morality'.
    Not really... In fact, most laws are largely based on what society deems as moral and immoral.

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • gang_of_bitches 21 Jun 2012 11:06:17 5,442 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    You're all going to love this.

    If someone is able to exploit a loophole to see more money end up with themselves, goid for them. Any of you pay one penny in tax more than you have to?

    If the Government sees fit to leave such loopholes open, they may have very sound (albeit Machiavellian) reasons for doing so. A billionaire Russian, attracted by the tax laws to the UK, could spend millions in country, netting the government income through corporate profits, as opposed to zero should he choose to live elsewhere because he will have to pay full tax.

    If a comedian mocks tax dodgers while himself running a tax-efficient scheme, his punishment should be falling revenues as fewer people watch/listen to him, rather than being singled out and forced to pay tax when all he's done is the most prudent and fiscally sound option.
    On the face of it fair enough. Maybe I'm being catastrophically naive about things, but I think if you introduced a law that said companies weren't allowed to operate in this country unless they paid tax in this country, not many would leave. as for individuals fuck 'em.

    As it happens, I could avoid tax, but choose not to, though that's by the by. For me personally, I think I would accept as much as a 5% reduction in revenue to the exchequer to be safe in the knowledge that everyone was paying their fair share. Obviously a 5% hit overnight, especially now would not be great, but done in fair time, go for it.
  • gang_of_bitches 21 Jun 2012 11:07:40 5,442 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    By the way anyone here have an ISA? Same thing.
    ISAs have a very specific purpose and cap. it really isn't the same thing at all!
  • senso-ji 21 Jun 2012 11:08:51 5,795 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    By the way anyone here have an ISA? Same thing.
    Only if your employer pays your wages before deducting taxes.
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 21 Jun 2012 11:09:33 37,364 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    You're all going to love this.

    If someone is able to exploit a loophole to see more money end up with themselves, good for them. Any of you pay one penny in tax more than you have to?

    If the Government sees fit to leave such loopholes open, they may have very sound (albeit Machiavellian) reasons for doing so. A billionaire Russian, attracted by the tax laws to the UK, could spend millions in country, netting the government income through corporate profits, as opposed to zero should he choose to live elsewhere because he will have to pay full tax.

    If a comedian mocks tax dodgers while himself running a tax-efficient scheme, his punishment should be falling revenues as fewer people watch/listen to him, rather than being singled out and forced to pay tax when all he's done is the most prudent and fiscally sound option.
    Quite right. All Jimmy has done wrong really is to be a hypocrite. Is it clear he knew exactly how he was saving tax money?

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • Rhythm 21 Jun 2012 11:10:23 2,470 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    By the way anyone here have an ISA? Same thing.
    Not quite. ISAs are there to provide a legal means of saving a very limited amount of money AFTER you've already paid tax on what you've earned.

    Jimmy's not broken any laws in doing what he did but a loophole is a loophole, ie it goes against the spirit of the what the law was trying to achieve.

    Would anyone saying "fair play to him" spout the same line when they see teenagers having more and more kids to bump up the benefits and house they're entitled to claim for?
  • gang_of_bitches 21 Jun 2012 11:11:10 5,442 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    DDevil wrote:

    Quite right. All Jimmy has done wrong really is to be a hypocrite. Is it clear he knew exactly how he was saving tax money?
    No, but he confirms that he knew he was saving loads of tax. The means to the end are irrelevant.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 11:13:15 43,229 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    By the way anyone here have an ISA? Same thing.
    Only if your employer pays your wages before deducting taxes.
    Nope. Ordinarily you pay tax on interest, however by doing things this way you pay no tax. The very definition of tax avoidance.

    g_o_b - that's where we'll always differ. You are concerned with everyone being treated fairly, I'm concerned with maximising tax revenues. Neither of us can say which ultimately benefits the country the most, which is why we differ.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Inertia 21 Jun 2012 11:24:23 676 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @LeoliansBro

    Fiscally prudent arrangements in the short-term may be harmful in the long run. History demonstrates that truth time and time again.

    It's not tax efficient it is tax avoidance. Pure and simple. £3500 tax on £3300000 is far too low if compared with people earning much much less. If people pay taxes it must be fair. And across the board. You can't suddenly draw a pretend line at an imaginary level of wealth where the individual trickles back his wealth to the poorest and so can justifiably not pay a fair percentage of his earnings in tax. Where is this line? How is it calculated? Where are the figures that back up these arguments?

    It's a myth that the wealthy contribute more to society than the poor. Look back in the last 1000 years and this argument that the rich are owed something by society is incredibly fallacious and very modern.
  • roz123 21 Jun 2012 11:24:48 7,112 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Any of you pay one penny in tax more than you have to?
    If it was not going to be spent on wars in the middle east and bailing out the banks I would happily pay more tax.
  • Load_2.0 21 Jun 2012 11:26:10 18,918 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Tax avoidance played a large part in the Greek situation.

    I am surprised LB would champion the practice.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 11:26:12 43,229 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I’m so unimpressed with this post that I feel it needs a response in detail.
    Rhythm wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    By the way anyone here have an ISA? Same thing.
    Not quite. ISAs are there to provide a legal means of saving a very limited amount of money AFTER you've already paid tax on what you've earned.
    See what I said above. People aren’t being taxed on their net income, they’re being taxed on earnings made from their net income. To extrapolate, it’s OK for Jimmy Carr to avoid tax therefore because the people who are paying to see him have already paid tax and are using their net income to buy tickets. As to ‘very limited’, is this a point of principle or is it the amount he saved that matters? Because the latter smacks of jealousy and self-entitlement.

    Jimmy's not broken any laws in doing what he did but a loophole is a loophole, ie it goes against the spirit of the what the law was trying to achieve.
    How do you know what was intended here. Maybe it wasn’t something they missed, maybe it was to attract investment. Startup businesses get to use the first four years of losses to offset future profitability and so pay no tax, is that a ‘loophole’ that needs closing as well?

    Would anyone saying "fair play to him" spout the same line when they see teenagers having more and more kids to bump up the benefits and house they're entitled to claim for?
    Hand wringing bleeding heart human interest stories have no place in this discussion especially when they have no basis in fact and are vague, supposed and anecdotal at best, as above. Do you know that this tax loophole results in less government revenue in toto? No? Then shut up.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 11:29:29
    So Jimmy Carr not paying much tax is like all of his audience putting what they paid for tickets into an ISA.
  • MetalDog 21 Jun 2012 11:29:44 23,708 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    roz123 wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Any of you pay one penny in tax more than you have to?
    If it was not going to be spent on wars in the middle east and bailing out the banks I would happily pay more tax.
    Yep, this.
    As long as I can cover my bills and basics, I'm happy to be taxed more to pay for public services.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • gang_of_bitches 21 Jun 2012 11:32:22 5,442 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    senso-ji wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    By the way anyone here have an ISA? Same thing.
    Only if your employer pays your wages before deducting taxes.
    Nope. Ordinarily you pay tax on interest, however by doing things this way you pay no tax. The very definition of tax avoidance.

    g_o_b - that's where we'll always differ. You are concerned with everyone being treated fairly, I'm concerned with maximising tax revenues. Neither of us can say which ultimately benefits the country the most, which is why we differ.
    But ordinarily you've already paid tax on the income that you're investing. Having avoided tax once, Barlow and Carr could then do it again through an ISA.

    On the second point you're completely right and I accept that in these matters I'm rather a hippy dippy idealist. I'm also lucky enough to have never, except for very short spells, had major money worries, which I think colours my opinions. I understand why things are the way they are, and will always accept the general consensus, but will continue to worry that extracting every last penny to the detriment of all else will no more lead to an ultimately happy society than one that is entirely fair, but completely bankrupt.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 11:33:10 43,229 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Load_2.0 wrote:
    Tax avoidance played a large part in the Greek situation.

    I am surprised LB would champion the practice.
    Misreporting income is tax evasion, which is illegal. And if the practice is fiscally damaging the Government is perfectly welcome to respond. My point is that everyone assumes this is both accidental on the Govt's part and bad for the economy, when it may be neither.

    Inertia: where does Jimmy Carr spend all his money? He's boosting growth in the UK economy through spending, helping consumer confidence and also ultimately filling government coffers through the eventual corporate taxes. Obviously it isn't this extreme, but then neither is it as extreme as your point.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 11:35:25 43,229 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Here's a fun one as well. Internet piracy? Leads to lower corporate revenue, lowers profits, reduces government income.

    But that's a victimless crime, so Jimmy's must be as well?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • senso-ji 21 Jun 2012 11:35:37 5,795 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Here's an idea - why doesn't everyone in the UK get paid an untaxed wage by their employer, and be allowed to use every tax loophole available to pay the absolute minimum tax. Then see just how much the Treasury recovers in one year compared to the current system.
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply