Celebrity Tax Avoidance Page 4

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 21 Jun 2012 12:04:15 5,528 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Or alternatively have so much money that you are not a burden on society. Note this will never be 100% true in the real world.
    Well then you're just a filthy leech who is sucking society dry. :p

    Edited by disusedgenius at 12:05:02 21-06-2012
  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 12:04:50
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Is it moral that anyone has to pay any tax?
    Sure, unless you're going to contrive some kind of hermit who doesn't benefit from/interact with society.
    Or alternatively have so much money that you are not a burden on society. Note this will never be 100% true in the real world.
    And then there are those on low incomes that pay taxes that contribute to benefits that the wealthy get - health care, roads, education. It's wrong that the weak are giving to the strong.
  • mcmonkeyplc 21 Jun 2012 12:07:49 39,515 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The weak are not JUST giving to the strong. It's not like they don't get these benefits either AND it's not like the strong aren't paying anything either.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 12:09:01 44,737 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Or alternatively have so much money that you are not a burden on society. Note this will never be 100% true in the real world.
    Well then you're just a filthy leech who is sucking society dry. :p
    ...by not using any of the things tax income is spent on? No taking advantage of subsidised public transport, no burden to the NHS, private schooling, no requirement for free legal representation etc etc.

    Quite the opposite :p

    Edited by LeoliansBro at 12:09:40 21-06-2012

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • senso-ji 21 Jun 2012 12:10:14 6,001 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @LeoliansBro

    If you except that the system will fall over, then that's all I'm interesting in.

    'Encouraging wealth' is a two way street - if people want to come to this country and enjoy all the benefits of free healthcare, schooling, employment rights, freedom of speech, etc, then they should expect to contribute to it fully. If through tax avoidance any of the services they enjoy will risk being compromised, then that system shouldn't be accepted.

    As to the PAYE opt out, you need to satisfy these criteria to qualify. Something that a lot of people on PAYE (nurses, policemen and other public sector workers, for example) will find impossible to do.
  • disusedgenius 21 Jun 2012 12:11:29 5,528 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    ...by not using any of the things tax income is spent on? No taking advantage of subsidised public transport, no burden to the NHS, private schooling, no requirement for free legal representation etc etc.

    Quite the opposite :p
    Sorry, that was written in haste during work:

    I meant to say that they'd sucked society dry*. The whole no-man-is-an-island thing. I don't think you can really get to such a level of wealth in a vacuum.


    * as a 'hilarious' over statement, obviously

    Edited by disusedgenius at 12:12:00 21-06-2012
  • sickpuppysoftware 21 Jun 2012 12:11:36 1,347 posts
    Seen 23 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Is it moral that anyone has to pay any tax?
    Sure, unless you're going to contrive some kind of hermit who doesn't benefit from/interact with society.
    This is a gaming forum. Ticking pretty much every box there.

    You cannot stop me with paramecium alone!

  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 12:11:45 44,737 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    There are two types of people we want to encourage to this country. Useful people who will get the benefits of state support and pay taxes. And rich people who don't need the benefits of state support but will spend lots of money here, and will only do so if there is an incentive. Such as this tax arrangement.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • JuanKerr 21 Jun 2012 12:12:13 36,422 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Is it moral that anyone has to pay any tax?
    Sure, unless you're going to contrive some kind of hermit who doesn't benefit from/interact with society.
    Or alternatively have so much money that you are not a burden on society. Note this will never be 100% true in the real world.
    And then there are those on low incomes that pay taxes that contribute to benefits that the wealthy get - health care, roads, education. It's wrong that the weak are giving to the strong.
    Lots of wealthy people have private healthcare and send their kids to private schools, so they're funding all the education and health needs of the poor, yet they still pay 40% tax. IT'S AN OUTRAGE.
  • X201 21 Jun 2012 12:14:28 15,697 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Or alternatively have so much money that you are not a burden on society. Note this will never be 100% true in the real world.
    Well then you're just a filthy leech who is sucking society dry. :p
    ...by not using any of the things tax income is spent on? No taking advantage of subsidised public transport, no burden to the NHS, private schooling, no requirement for free legal representation etc etc.

    Quite the opposite :p
    You're going to need a lot of money to pay for your own private roads/police/fire brigade/army etc
  • Load_2.0 21 Jun 2012 12:14:33 19,518 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Excessively rich still use roads, fireservice and police.
  • Load_2.0 21 Jun 2012 12:15:06 19,518 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Damn
  • JuanKerr 21 Jun 2012 12:16:19 36,422 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    What about people who don't work and don't pay any tax at all? Should they be banned from using all the public services other people pay for?
  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 12:17:09
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    The weak are not JUST giving to the strong. It's not like they don't get these benefits either AND it's not like the strong aren't paying anything either.
    But they are giving to people who don't have any need for their money which is morally and ethically wrong.
  • Load_2.0 21 Jun 2012 12:18:08 19,518 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    No they should be harvested for organs.
  • gang_of_bitches 21 Jun 2012 12:18:14 5,643 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Is it moral that anyone has to pay any tax?
    Sure, unless you're going to contrive some kind of hermit who doesn't benefit from/interact with society.
    Or alternatively have so much money that you are not a burden on society. Note this will never be 100% true in the real world.
    It will never be even 10% true in the real world! We are so inextricably linked that living a life where you didn't use public resources - roads, defence, power stations etc. is inconceivable. And that's exactly the reason why it should be incumbent on all of us to pay tax, not pick and choose and how we spend our money.
  • LeoliansBro 21 Jun 2012 12:18:28 44,737 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Hence me saying it'll never be 100% true. Although you can argue that the rich have better security systems, burglar alarms, sprinkler systems, and road tax is supposed to be ring fenced.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • JuanKerr 21 Jun 2012 12:21:40 36,422 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    The weak are not JUST giving to the strong. It's not like they don't get these benefits either AND it's not like the strong aren't paying anything either.
    But they are giving to people who don't have any need for their money which is morally and ethically wrong.
    So what do you suggest then? How about higher earners pay more tax than people on lower incomes, perhaps. Oh.
  • gang_of_bitches 21 Jun 2012 12:22:13 5,643 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @LeoliansBro

    But it's so not even close to 100% true that it has no meaning whatsoever!
  • disusedgenius 21 Jun 2012 12:22:30 5,528 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    But they are giving to people who don't have any need for their money which is morally and ethically wrong.
    Not really, they're contributing to common services.
  • RedSparrows 21 Jun 2012 12:23:33 23,882 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    They don't have a military, emergency services or a proper heritage industry either.

    And so on.
  • JuanKerr 21 Jun 2012 12:24:10 36,422 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    But they are giving to people who don't have any need for their money which is morally and ethically wrong.
    Not really, they're contributing to common services.
    And wealthier people pay more towards those common services than poorer people. I'm struggling to see how that's 'morally and ethically wrong'.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 12:25:32
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    But they are giving to people who don't have any need for their money which is morally and ethically wrong.
    Not really, they're contributing to common services.
    But why should they? If someone earns 1m a year they can contribute to that service but not be allowed to make use of it. They can easily afford it.
  • disusedgenius 21 Jun 2012 12:26:30 5,528 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    I'm struggling to see how that's 'morally and ethically wrong'.
    Eh? I'm saying it's not wrong.
  • disusedgenius 21 Jun 2012 12:28:11 5,528 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    But why should they? If someone earns 1m a year they can contribute to that service but not be allowed to make use of it. They can easily afford it.
    Because otherwise it wouldn't be 'common', it'd be charity. Could very well end up being more divisive and 'two-tier' for society.
  • Ged42 21 Jun 2012 12:29:13 7,773 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The thread title sounds a daytime TV show.

    Jimmy Carr hosts as two teams if Z-list celebrities battle to dodge the most tax.

    Losers end up in prison.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 12:29:44
    So charity is less moral than taxation?
  • JuanKerr 21 Jun 2012 12:30:09 36,422 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    JuanKerr wrote:
    I'm struggling to see how that's 'morally and ethically wrong'.
    Eh? I'm saying it's not wrong.
    I know - that was aimed at Aargh :)
  • Rusty_M 21 Jun 2012 12:31:13 4,865 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Should we then means test everything? Earners above a certain threshold would be entitled to nothing from the state.

    I think that would bring about far more problems than it would solve.

    The world is going mad. Me? I'm doing fine.
    http://www.twitch.tv/rusty_the_robot
    http://twitter.com/Rusty_The_Robot

  • Deleted user 21 June 2012 12:31:23
    Here in Belgium if you earn over 35K you have to pay 63% tax in total. Buzzin.
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply