[Closed] Jimmy Carr and Tax

Cameron is the PM and he has close friends and family who have avoided tax and continue to do so. I would say that is far more important in a democracy than what a newspaper does.

They dont seem to have published the cabinets members tax returns either as promised...any idea as to why?

Oh and ta for commenting..i will be less goading/politer next time

camerons only got himself to blame he obviously doesnt like the fact that jimmy carr mocks him so he singled him out

so there he is on the historic day when Aung San Su Kyi has defied a brutal regime with unwavering dignity, given a passionate address to the UK parliament, the worlds media are watching live- and dave is asked......

'is your mate from Take That morally wrong too?'

[i]in that Cameron is as guilty of that as the Mirror![/i]

And has the same level of responsibility to the British public?
Are you honestly that worried and shocked by this new-found discovery of hypocrisy in the tabloid press? (!!! added for tabloid sensationalism)

Anyway, [i]8 out of 10 Cats[/i] is on 4 at 10 pm tonight. Not a big Carr fan previously, but I expect Sean Lock may have a little jest with him.
I'd guess Carr may have a little, tiny dig back at CMD too, now he's the one paying more tax on less wealth. Worth watching anyway.
He'll do ok out of this financially, and probably gain a lot more support than he loses. Will CMD?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/8-out-of-10-cats

Cameron is the PM and he has close friends and family who have avoided tax and continue to do so.

Sorry, are you accusing them of utilising agressive tax avoidance schemes of dubious legality that exercise a lacuna in tax law to operate agains the spirit of the law, or of using permitted and know tax reliefs/clauses that were built into the laws when written?

I would say that is far more important in a democracy than what a newspaper does.

Really, So why are we wasting money on the Leveson inquiry, if what a newspaper does is so unimportant?

As you well know cameron described Carr as "morally wrong" though he had not broken the law. It is not hard to see why people are asking what the difference is between Carr and Daves chums, colleagues and family members. Your attempt at a smoke screen both transparent and piss poor.
I know you are right wing but FFS everyone can see cameron is being as hypocritical as ken was*...why not just have some integrity and admit this and chastise him for it
* rumours abound his father did this - well it was his job -- and the pm has not released his own tax returns nor tha cabinets as he suggested he would...odd that eh.

I struggle with long sentences - but Jimmy Carr is a red herring to divert the attention away from bankers, big business and the rest of the hegemony.
(this has probs been posted already but there's 7 pages ffs)

[IMG] [/IMG]

Theres a few valuable and important lessons here.

1: CMD is shaping up to be the worst prime minister in a few years. 😉 I would like to think that those advising him were advising him badly, but it's just his personality traits which causes him trouble,

2: The undying defence of the right whingers. Most normal people can see the hypocrisy in politicians, Unfortunately those who aren't normal have to point out that the opposition are also hypocrites. Well have a gold star, we already know they are.

The point they miss is someone like CMD is in no position to point out somebody else's tax status considering who he is and who he associates with.

So while everyone will carry on blaming everyone else for being hypocritical, the story for me is another example of poor judgment in a long list of poor judgments by a poor prime minister.

[i]...divert the attention away from bankers, big business and the rest of the hegemony.[/i]

So bleedin' obvious and the reason why this thread didn't interest me. It's just not worth getting worked up about.

As I said

there's two types of "tax avoidance" aren't there

When I fill in my tax return at the end of the year, and I list expenses incurred in work that were not refunded by my employer, and get that offset against my tax bill for next year - then you could easily argue that its tax avoidance - I'm paying less tax than I otherwise would, but its part of the system, and I'm allowed to do it.

On the other hand, if put the money in an offshore company that lends it back to me so I don't pay tax, then its also legal, but its far from being part of the system or something I'm allowed to do, its a blatant tax dodge.

Both are tax avoidance, however one I would argue is very different from the other morally.

The problem about the solution that people are suggesting, that you close the loophole, is that it doesn't solve the problem, as the dodgy firms move on to the next aggressive tax dodge - The Revenue closes one scheme; they find another way round it.

The beauty of playing the Jimmy Carr card in this way is that it tackles the root of the problem, by making people afraid of putting money into [b]any[/b] agressive tax scheme, for fear of it getting out.

Of course - the problem with the vodaphone case, was that despite the claim of 6 billion, this was doubtful and deep down HMRC actually doubted that they would win the case against vodaphone if it went to court, so they settled for 1.25 billion that they could get, rather than nothing if they lost the case.

divert the attention away from bankers, big business and the rest of the hegemony.

So bleedin' obvious and the reason why this thread didn't interest me. It's just not worth getting worked up about.

too bleedin' obvious though..

I don't care how little we think of our elite.. you cannot rise to the top of society and be [i]that[/i] naive..

what was [i]absolutely[/i] bleedin' obvious is the public interest that the story would generate and the resulting fallout with toffs up and down the country being named and shamed..
Carr [i]must[/i] have been a willing fall guy, and the scapegoats that will fall over the few weeks must have been on the chopping block for a while..

Both are tax avoidance, however one I would argue is very different from the other morally.

Tax status
Lord Ashcroft courted controversy when Chairman of the Conservative Party Eric Pickles MP declared on BBC Radio 4 that Ashcroft would be willing to appear on the station's flagship Today programme to clarify his unclear tax status. However, when invited, Lord Ashcroft quickly declined, according to John Humphrys. Ashcroft delayed comment on whether he currently pays tax on his global income in the United Kingdom, despite being a prominent and influential member of the legislature and major donor to the Conservative Party but eventually announced his non-domiciled status.[

camerons advisors are obviously giving him some terrible advice

its almost as if hes being sabotaged from whithin his own party, as if someone wants his job, but who could it be?............

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18547842 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18547842[/url]

****ing hell please god no!

I haven't read this whole thread, but given thatnhe admitted an error of judgement, is he going to pay back everything he avoided, since starting the [s]scam[/s] scheme?

psa ch4 now

Handling himself rather well on tv right now, but I'll stick by my previous judgement.

They're all at it!!
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/22/chris-hoy-received-loan-firm ]Who is next?[/url]

Reminds me a bit of when Angus deyton did 'have I got news for you' after his hookers, blow and gangster rap binge...

It's on you tube, brilliant watch!

Not an 8 out of 10 regular but wasn't going to miss tonight.

watch it every week, but this is one of the funniest 🙂

One thing that confuses me about these 'loans' is that if my Ltd company loan me money I have to pay it back by the end of my tax year - otherwise its BIK, with consequential costs. How come these are different - is it just the offshore bit?

double post

I guess because the company doing the loaning is not jimmys company?

flood gates about to open?

It has now emerged that Sir Chris Hoy, Britain's multiple Olympic gold medal winning cyclist, has also received a loan from his own company.

The latest accounts of Hoy's Trackstars Ltd state: "At 30 June 2011 Sir Chris Hoy owed the company £324,771

i can see no way to end the cycle unless all tax havens ae shut down

and thats never gonna happen

not when most of parliament, the media and every bank and big business is taking the pi$$ too

[img] [/img]

[i]I guess because the company doing the loaning is not jimmys company? [/i]

Devils Advocate - Get a controlling interest in that company, ask for the money back 🙂

For those with the intellect to read behind newspaper headlines, you might want to read the actual national audit office report which covers the Vodaphone tax bill

http://www.nao.org.uk//idoc.ashx?docId=fcc4c280-35e2-49f4-8aff-a6a854ae5eb2&version=-1

(page 38, company D)

So essentially both Jimmy Carr and Vodaphone used overseas companies based in tax havens to reduce their tax bill. Jimmy Carr's scheme was apparently totally legal, and may have cost the country around £1.5 million. Vodafone schemes may have been totally legal, but was never proven either way, one would think that Vodafone wouldn't have settled if they were totally sure of its legality. That scheme may have cost the country around £3 billion. Yet Jimmy Carr is morally wrong and Vodafone don't deserve a mention?

Vodafone schemes may have been totally legal, but was never proven either way, one would think that Vodafone wouldn't have settled if they were totally sure of its legality.

Vodafone will be completely sure of their position, the problem is nobody else is. The difficulty the HMRC has is:

its staffed by civil servents of the caliber that at civil service wage attracts.
The tax system is exceptionally complex, and the accounts of mega corporations are exceptionally complex
Vodafone and the like can afford the brightest, best tax lawyers in the world

When vodafone tells the HMRC 'this is what we owe, and this is how and when we'll pay it' they know that HMRC doesn't have the resources or the expertise to tell them they're wrong

...fair play to Jon Richardson on 8 out of 10 cats, gave Carr a bit of stick without a tongue in his cheek. Sean Lock and the others had a pop but more in a "this'll get a laugh" way. And Carr just seemed to think it's okay because he knows he's been a naughty boy. When, in reality, he's an amoral c***. Richardson 10, Carr 0.

I don't see the problem if it's legal, this is nothing new just another way of paying less tax. Majority of Ltd company directors have a way around it as well, they pay themselves a small salary which they are taxed on then make up there wages by paying themselves dividends which is tax free, you don't have to be rich to do this just have a company that is limited.

EDIT, nah, I think I might have been talking bollocks.

When, in reality, he's an amoral c***.

That's a balanced opinion.

I don't see the problem if it's legal, this is nothing new just another way of paying less tax

Yeah, but the problem is that this is disproportionately a trick of the wealthy, which means that those who can't escape tax, ie generally the less well paid, suffer more. Legal it may be, morally justifiable, more often than not, it ain't.

nealglover - Member

When, in reality, he's an amoral c***.

That's a balanced opinion

Feel free to offer your own "balanced" opinion...

morally justifiable, more often than not, it ain't.

Morals are a personal thing, not universal.

So to say its not "Morally justifiable" means nothing more than "I don't agree with it"

It's just a fancy way of saying it that's all.

Morals are a personal thing, not universal.

So to say its not "Morally justifiable" means nothing more than "I don't agree with it"

It's just a fancy way of saying it that's all.

Judging by his comments on telly last night, I don't think Carr could morally justify it either. But yes, I don't agree with it, and I think it should be illegal as well as immoral, or amoral for that matter.

There are plenty of things that are legal, that most of us would find morally indefensible. And similarly, many things which are illegal are so because of a moral standpoint. You have to draw a line somewhere.

Celebrities maggots! Step on them. 🙄

Judging by his comments on telly last night, I don't think Carr could morally justify it either.

He doesn't have to "Morally Justify" anything though does he.

His morals are his, yours are yours.

They don't have to match.

But yes, I don't agree with it, and I think it should be illegal

I don't agree with it easier, and the loopholes need to be sorted out

(it should be illegal) as well as immoral.

You can't [b]make[/b] something immoral ?

As I said earlier, morals are a personal thing.

There are no "morals police" who decide these things.

There are plenty of things that are legal, that most of us would find morally indefensible.

such as ?

And similarly, many things which are illegal are so because of a moral standpoint.

Things such as Abortion would split the "Morals" debate.

An anti abortionist thinks abortion is immoral
A pro abortionist thinks removing a woman's right to choose is immoral

Both arguments are "morally justifiable" aren't they ?
So they must both be right ? ....... Right ?

]You have to draw a line somewhere.

Agreed.

But Morals are personal, and very wide ranging, so have no real part in deciding where the line is.

I get your point but if we are not using morals to decide what is right[legal] and wrong[illegal] what are we using?

Lets take bike theft as an example. As a society we have deemed these to be morally wrong though ,one would assume, the perpetrators dont agree. Do we just shrug as say it's just a personal thing?

Lets take bike theft as an example. As a society we have deemed these to be morally wrong though ,one would assume, the perpetrators dont agree. Do we just shrug as say it's just a personal thing?

People view theft as wrong, so a law is created, then it is enforced.

Can't work any other way.

I see what you are saying, however it's not hard to imagine that a lot crime (such as bike theft) is comitted by people who also see it as morally wrong, but do it anyway, because they need the money ?

It's not a simple subject, and I don't have the answers.

But just to simply say (regarding Jimmy's Tax situation) [b] "It's Morally Indefensible"[/b] doesn't work at all.

(as is proven by the many people who don't have an issue with it, because it's not illegal)

nealglover - Member

An anti abortionist thinks abortion is immoral
A pro abortionist thinks removing a woman's right to choose is immoral

Both arguments are "morally justifiable" aren't they ?
So they must both be right ? ....... Right ?

We have a law that allows abortion, to a certain point during pregnancy. Therefore we, as a society, have imposed a moral consensus on that issue, which takes account of all the many personal morals expressed. We can also impose a moral consensus on tax dodging.

There are plenty of things that are legal, that most of us would find morally indefensible.

such as ?

How about a heavily pregnant woman drinking and smoking to excess? I'd imagine most of us find that morally abhorrent, but it's not illegal.

But Morals are personal, and very wide ranging, so have no real part in deciding where the line is.

Like Junkyard says, morals form the basis for many, if not most, of our laws. Personal morality becomes social morality and when the majority of us feel a line has been crossed, then legislation ensues. Or are you suggesting something other than societal morals is paramount in determining our legislation? I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm wrong, but I can't see what else might.

Tax avoidance is legal, evasion isn't. Is it immoral? Probably but it's the scale that makes it so objectionable. How many self employed exaggerate their expenses a bit - that's evasion but seen by many as 'playing the game'. The loopholes should be closed but it's important to increase the growing perception that avoidance on a large scale is anti social. Richardson said it right on tv last night, Mr Carr's avoided tax would pay for many nurses/teachers etc and that's the point. Carr's dependant on society for his income so it's an easy target. I'd like to see the papers/whoever naming an aful lot more. I think there's a country where everyone's tax returns are publicly available, now that is a socially good idea!