I think it is the hypocrisy of Carr and Barlow that has got up peoples noses..
Carr earns millions for taking the piss out of people who dodge tax. And now he has been caught himself. Compromised is the word I would use.
St Gary of Barlow has been on TV asking people to part with their well earned cash to help the needy while he dodges paying his fair share.
Lily Allen is right. Its just as bad as benefit cheating. Ripping off the state and not paying their fair share.
In these times of austerity when people are unable to pay their mortgages tales of the rich and famous getting away with tax fraud are particularly grating.
the pontificating over this non-issue on these forums borders on childlike naivete. no-one should pay a penny more than they ought to. if you have the means to avoid tax within the law, do it.
the pontificating over this non-issue on these forums borders on childlike naivete. no-one should pay a penny more than they ought to. if you have the means to avoid tax within the law, do it.
Taxes pay public sector workers, teachers, doctors, nurses, fireman etc....it is child like naivete on his part to protest about highly paid executives or chide governments over low paid workers.
Someone on PAYE can't do what the £3m a year Mr Carr is doing, so it is they who are paying more in taxes to subsidise his lifestyle.
Someone on PAYE can't do what the £3m a year Mr Carr is doing, so it is they who are paying more in taxes to subsidise his lifestyle.
how can anybody put a figure on and account for apparent "losses" to legal tax avoidance and declare that others are making up some kind of non-existent "shortfall" ? if there's not enough money, the government are spending too much of what they do get.
The schemes like Carr's K2 do not always work, a few years down the line he could be faced with a massive tax bill when HMRC legally claim back all the, temporarily, avoided tax.
Jimmy Carr has just apologised on twitter, he said he made an error of judgement and he's not in the scheme any more. He said his financial advisor just said "do you want to pay less tax, it's perfectly legal" and he said yes, as we all would
Question Time will be a good one tonight. I bet MP's do loads of these type of things and party donors. The papers are going to have a field day exposing people now I think. Will be like expenses thing all over again but including celebs and high profile figures.
Who exposed the whole Jimmy Carr thing in first place out of interest?
if there's not enough money, the government are spending too much of what they do get.
Do you think that rainfall is irrelevant to how much water is in a reservoir?
If two kids are on a see-saw, and it's down at one end. Is the only way to fix it to remove the heavier kid and find a lighter one?
All of these supposed money experts on here scoffing at the ignorance of others, yet appear to be oblivious to the fundamentals of what is required to make something balance.:rolleyes:
I’m glad you mention U2 who have salted their money away in the Nederlands for years whilst being more than happy to rip off the tax man in one of the most impoverished countries in Europe. Shame on the lot of them, shoving their sanctimonious sh1t down our recession-hit throats.
If there's one person guaranteed to make my blood boil, it's Bono, with his sanctimonious claptrap. Asking for ordinary working people to give money, while he's making sure that he pays as little tax as possible I don't mind his singing, it's just when he starts speaking that I want to ram my fist in his face**
It is immoral, what all these people are doing. I have to laugh at the hyocrisy of politicians though, all getting on their high horse about it, as though they're all squeaky clean themselves.
Also Jimmy Carr is the one that the news seem to be focussing on. They seem to be barely mentioning Gary Barlow, probably due to his recent elevation to godlike status by certain sections of the media.
The only ''error of judgement'' Carr made was to get caught.
Either it's legal and there's nothing to apologise for or it's illegal in which case you face the consequences.Apparently the arrangements are currently legal (although that may change of course:eek:)
Do you think that rainfall is irrelevant to how much water is in a reservoir?
If two kids are on a see-saw, and it's down at one end. Is the only way to fix it to remove the heavier kid and find a lighter one?
All of these supposed money experts on here scoffing at the ignorance of others, yet appear to be oblivious to the fundamentals of what is required to make something balance.:rolleyes:
you can't balance books by proclaiming "losses" against money that your own rules, or use of them, mean you are never going to see.
how can anybody put a figure on and account for apparent "losses" to legal tax avoidance and declare that others are making up some kind of non-existent "shortfall" ? if there's not enough money, the government are spending too much of what they do get.
Suggest you ask Mr. Carr he's been the one writing and been in sketches lambasting rich people for not paying their fair does.
As for taxes and government spending, maybe Mr. Carr thinks people should rely on charity handouts?
Jimmy Carr has just apologised on twitter, he said he made an error of judgement and he's not in the scheme any more. He said his financial advisor just said "do you want to pay less tax, it's perfectly legal" and he said yes, as we all would
Intellegient moralist Jimmy Carr claims it an 'error of judgement'. Does an impression of Mr Carr...:rolleyes:
you can't balance books by proclaiming "losses" against money that your own rules, or use of them, mean you are never going to see.
It's got nothing to do with proclaiming losses or predicted takings. It's about actual money that hasn't gone to the exchequer. The teasury has less money as a direct result of Carr and his accountant's choice of tax avoidance scheme.
The scheme in questions was blatently not within the spirit of the law. It's an exploit of a loophole that may not even be legal. Even if it is, it is not what was intended by the tax men, so this talk of it being predicted and therefore nothing to do with there not being enough money is silly.
Back to basics, if you compare it with the water shortages in the South East. A hose-pipe ban was one part of it, but the water companies are also expected to plug the leaks. The rich (and sometimes famous) people using spurious tax dodges are the equivalent of the leaking pipes. People who are fans of cuts are bound to want the focus to stay on that, but there is no getting away from the fact that less cuts would be required if the tax revenue system wasn't so leaky in the first place.
In a drought scenario, we might need to be more careful with how we, the customers, use water, but is there a single person here who doesn't think that the water companies should be doing more to collect and conserve it in the first place?
The schemes like Carr's K2 do not always work, a few years down the line he could be faced with a massive tax bill when HMRC legally claim back all the, temporarily, avoided tax.
I used to work for the Inland Revenue Special Office which was involved in some very complex schemes which I cant mention as it may give some people ideas.
It has been common practice for donkey years where there is a large tax bill going over previous tax years that its quicker and less expensive to come to a negotiated settlement so a person who was found to owe £5,000,000 may have this reduced to £1,000,000 or £2,000,000.
Owe HMRC a small amount and a person will not have a option but the larger the tax bill is the better the chances of striking a good deal.
These good deals was the reason why I left the Revenue as I did not think it right that rich people could avoid large chunks of tax where people on PAYE had no choice in the matter.
So a massive tax bill is likely to be far less than it sounds.
It's got nothing to do with proclaiming losses or predicted takings. It's about actual money that hasn't gone to the exchequer. The teasury has less money as a direct result of Carr and his accountant's choice of tax avoidance scheme.
The scheme in questions was blatently not within the spirit of the law. It's an exploit of a loophole that may not even be legal. Even if it is, it is not what was intended by the tax men, so this talk of it being predicted and therefore nothing to do with there not being enough money is silly.
HMRC employ their own accountants and legal bods to pore over tax law, so they will be able to spot where possible loopholes exist and what people may legally be able to exploit. that has to be factored in to any kind of projected tax take or budgeting.
I don't really understand this whole furore, I've always thought that for years celebs have squirrelled away money in off-shore bank accounts and lived in Switzerland to avoid paying/minimal amount of taxes and that it's common knowledge.
I don't really understand this whole furore, I've always thought that for years celebs have squirrelled away money in off-shore bank accounts and lived in Switzerland to avoid paying/minimal amount of taxes and that it's common knowledge.
Isn't this the same or am I missing something?
Nah..we just detest Carr.
There's the moral issue, man earning £3m a year feels it's not enough and should pay almost zero tax, while those paying to see him he must consider as mugs for paying a 25% tax rate, VAT, commission fees on tickets and actually paying to watch Carr.
HMRC employ their own accountants and legal bods to pore over tax law, so they will be able to spot where possible loopholes exist and what people may legally be able to exploit. that has to be factored in to any kind of projected tax take or budgeting.
Rich people spend a lot of money on dodgy accountants to find the loopholes that HMRC didn't spot. That's pretty much what a loophole is. If it was always intended that individuals should be applying tax laws that way, it wouldn't be a loop-hole.
And HMRC don't spend nearly as much money on tax experts as the private sector do. Big business will gladly spend a million pounds on financial advice that will save them £50million.
Suggest you ask Mr. Carr he's been the one writing and been in sketches lambasting rich people for not paying their fair does.
so what? it's his material that he uses to get a laugh, professionally. it doesn't mean that he has to believe in what he is taking the piss out of, does it?
Comments
Carr earns millions for taking the piss out of people who dodge tax. And now he has been caught himself. Compromised is the word I would use.
St Gary of Barlow has been on TV asking people to part with their well earned cash to help the needy while he dodges paying his fair share.
Lily Allen is right. Its just as bad as benefit cheating. Ripping off the state and not paying their fair share.
In these times of austerity when people are unable to pay their mortgages tales of the rich and famous getting away with tax fraud are particularly grating.
Taxes pay public sector workers, teachers, doctors, nurses, fireman etc....it is child like naivete on his part to protest about highly paid executives or chide governments over low paid workers.
Someone on PAYE can't do what the £3m a year Mr Carr is doing, so it is they who are paying more in taxes to subsidise his lifestyle.
how can anybody put a figure on and account for apparent "losses" to legal tax avoidance and declare that others are making up some kind of non-existent "shortfall" ? if there's not enough money, the government are spending too much of what they do get.
Who exposed the whole Jimmy Carr thing in first place out of interest?
If two kids are on a see-saw, and it's down at one end. Is the only way to fix it to remove the heavier kid and find a lighter one?
All of these supposed money experts on here scoffing at the ignorance of others, yet appear to be oblivious to the fundamentals of what is required to make something balance.:rolleyes:
If there's one person guaranteed to make my blood boil, it's Bono, with his sanctimonious claptrap. Asking for ordinary working people to give money, while he's making sure that he pays as little tax as possible
It is immoral, what all these people are doing. I have to laugh at the hyocrisy of politicians though, all getting on their high horse about it, as though they're all squeaky clean themselves.
Also Jimmy Carr is the one that the news seem to be focussing on. They seem to be barely mentioning Gary Barlow, probably due to his recent elevation to godlike status by certain sections of the media.
Either it's legal and there's nothing to apologise for or it's illegal in which case you face the consequences.Apparently the arrangements are currently legal (although that may change of course:eek:)
you can't balance books by proclaiming "losses" against money that your own rules, or use of them, mean you are never going to see.
Suggest you ask Mr. Carr he's been the one writing and been in sketches lambasting rich people for not paying their fair does.
As for taxes and government spending, maybe Mr. Carr thinks people should rely on charity handouts?
Intellegient moralist Jimmy Carr claims it an 'error of judgement'. Does an impression of Mr Carr...:rolleyes:
It's got nothing to do with proclaiming losses or predicted takings. It's about actual money that hasn't gone to the exchequer. The teasury has less money as a direct result of Carr and his accountant's choice of tax avoidance scheme.
The scheme in questions was blatently not within the spirit of the law. It's an exploit of a loophole that may not even be legal. Even if it is, it is not what was intended by the tax men, so this talk of it being predicted and therefore nothing to do with there not being enough money is silly.
Back to basics, if you compare it with the water shortages in the South East. A hose-pipe ban was one part of it, but the water companies are also expected to plug the leaks. The rich (and sometimes famous) people using spurious tax dodges are the equivalent of the leaking pipes. People who are fans of cuts are bound to want the focus to stay on that, but there is no getting away from the fact that less cuts would be required if the tax revenue system wasn't so leaky in the first place.
In a drought scenario, we might need to be more careful with how we, the customers, use water, but is there a single person here who doesn't think that the water companies should be doing more to collect and conserve it in the first place?
I used to work for the Inland Revenue Special Office which was involved in some very complex schemes which I cant mention as it may give some people ideas.
It has been common practice for donkey years where there is a large tax bill going over previous tax years that its quicker and less expensive to come to a negotiated settlement so a person who was found to owe £5,000,000 may have this reduced to £1,000,000 or £2,000,000.
Owe HMRC a small amount and a person will not have a option but the larger the tax bill is the better the chances of striking a good deal.
These good deals was the reason why I left the Revenue as I did not think it right that rich people could avoid large chunks of tax where people on PAYE had no choice in the matter.
So a massive tax bill is likely to be far less than it sounds.
HMRC employ their own accountants and legal bods to pore over tax law, so they will be able to spot where possible loopholes exist and what people may legally be able to exploit. that has to be factored in to any kind of projected tax take or budgeting.
Isn't this the same or am I missing something?
You really have to be pretty stupid to pay more tax than you need to.
Nah..we just detest Carr.
There's the moral issue, man earning £3m a year feels it's not enough and should pay almost zero tax, while those paying to see him he must consider as mugs for paying a 25% tax rate, VAT, commission fees on tickets and actually paying to watch Carr.
And HMRC don't spend nearly as much money on tax experts as the private sector do. Big business will gladly spend a million pounds on financial advice that will save them £50million.
so what? it's his material that he uses to get a laugh, professionally. it doesn't mean that he has to believe in what he is taking the piss out of, does it?
maybe Mr Carr thinks paying more than he is legally obliged to IS a charity handout. i'm inclined to agree with that.