Jimmy Carr and Tax

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

They’re all at it!!
Who is next?

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
linky

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

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

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 make 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) “It’s Morally Indefensible” 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!

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.

The less well paid don’t suffer more, as they pay less tax and often none when you take credits/benefits into account.

If you believe that whether Jimmy Carr and the like avoid/pay tax has any bearing on yours or anyone elses tax bill, you’ve been suckered in.

Lets take forced marriage 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?

If you believe the the amount of money the tax system generates has no bearing on how much they tax us they you are the one suckered in. Tax avoidance leads to us paying more tax to compensate – the government has a spending bill of they get more they need to charge less tax. If everyone stopped smoking [ lets call this tax avoidance 😉 ] is your argument the government would not increase tax elsewhere so they still get the same overall money?

As the whole point of them avoiding tax is to pay a lower percentage of their income I am sure the most succesfull manage to get well under the lowest income tax rate. By less well off i assume the poster meant folk who were not millionaires not those who pay no net tax [who are the poorest in our society].

Even net gainers from the system could be better off if we say reduced VAT as a result of the increased money raised by the reduction/ceasing of avoidance.
If tax avoidance reduced and the govt got more as a result i am sure the govt would reduce tax further .I find it quote unlikely that a Tory govt would increase spending on the public sector though I do accept the tax cuts may only benefit the better off in society – I am sure the Libdems would target the poor though.
It is just not true to suggest that we dont pay for this avoidance or that it has no impact on my or anyone else tax rate.

they pay themselves a small salary which they are taxed on then make up there wages by paying themselves dividends which is tax free,

No it’s not tax free. By paying a dividend you avoid paying employee’s and employer’s NI. However, you will have paid corporation tax on company profits which reduces the amount of dividend you can pay, then if you are a higher rate tax payer then you will have to pay a further 25%, lower tax rate earners don’t pay any extra, this is why if you can you have your partner as director and split the shares so the dividend maximises your tax saving…

Also, it’s not the preserve of the wealthy, more the preserve of the self employed.

Plenty of employee avoidance wheezes (EBTs anyone?) but largely the better off get better avoidance advice so it is more available and worthwhile to the wealthy. It’s simply wrong and the Govts job to create statute that is easily defensible. That said the private avoidance sector possibly pays more than the public sector….

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.

And indeed, the K2 scheme that Carr was involved with, was not illegal, therefore, as you say, we as a society, have imposed a moral consensus on that issue, which takes account of all the many personal morals expressed.

Not that I agree with it mind….

And indeed, the K2 scheme that Carr was involved with, was not illegal, therefore, as you say, we as a society, have imposed a moral consensus on that issue, which takes account of all the many personal morals expressed.

I take your point, but have we? Who was even aware of K2 until this week? I certainly wasn’t. Tax dodging generally may have been in the public domain, but I think more and more the hypocracies of a system which benefits the rich only are becoming evident, and becoming a moral, as well as financial, issue.

but I think more and more the hypocracies of a system which benefits the rich only are becoming evident,

We’re there Channel Island based tax dodging systems that helped the poor too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAT-free_imports_from_the_Channel_Islands
😕 I think this is the greater hypocrisy.

There’s always an “up” side….

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18569728

“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”

which he then explained as he took a loan from the company to buy some property which he has paid back in full

daily fail looking for a story in nothing ahead of the olympics imo