|
I made a mistake and won't do it again,says Jimmy Carr about him paying tax.I wonder if Philip Green follows in Jims footsteps paying his taxes.We know this is only the tip of the Iceberg when it comes to fiddling the system throug accountants.We are quick enough blaming the benefit scrounger in this country but the rich set a good example how not to be a decent citizen.Philips excuse is that he creates work and his employers pay tax.(Pull the other one) >;)
|
It's bent not to pay tax, legal or not, if you earn lots of money.
These people don't make money out of thin air. They make it from the society and the economy they live in.
That is Warren Buffett's philosophy to as it happens - whether he pays regular tax I don't know, but he is giving most of the money he has made away to good causes - precisely on the grounds that society as a whole is where it comes from, and all rich people do is manage to stick on to more of what is generated by the whole economy as it swirls around, and ultimatley society is where it should go back to.
Credit to Jimmy Carr for the u-turn, even if it is a good career move.
|
>
>> That is Warren Buffett's philosophy to as it happens - whether he pays regular tax
>> I don't know,
He doesn't, Was arrested in April for not paying tax for the last 10 years. He owes about 1 billion dollars apparently.
|
|
Not sure if he was arrested but it was the company he is CEO for that was involved (Berkshire Hathaway)
|
|
Use google and find it yourself ;-)
|
>> Use google and find it yourself ;-)
Tried. Am unable. (Can't is a banned word for jobseekers). There are some satirical articles but no wheat.
|
>> >> Use google and find it yourself ;-)
>>
>> Tried. Am unable. (Can't is a banned word for jobseekers). There are some satirical articles
>> but no wheat.
Try harder, its there, Scheesh no wonder you can't find work
(thats humour in the form of a joke BTW just in case someone mistakes it for bile)
|
I do humour it's OK.
Still can't find much that means anything on what should be a pretty hot story if there's anything to it.
It's pretty well known that BH has a major cashpile and doesn't pay divis.
In any case he is giving fairly serious amounts away. He may well think he's got more idea what to do with it than the US Treasury!
|
I'm ambivalent about this.
On the one hand I'm sure we'd all love to pay less tax and would use such a scheme if we could.
On the other, I don't like the guy and as a satirist he's got to take it as well as handing it out.
I wonder who dobbed him in?
|
It's legal and even HMRC accept it. I don't see the problem at all.
If HMRC don't like it then HM Treasury / Government should stop it.
Simple.
|
When I was self employed, my accountant used to make sure I paid as little income tax as possible.
If I was a huge earner I would pursue every avenue of tax avoidance, and some!
I wouldn't mind so much if UK Gov did more to help the genuine poor and the elderly unable to heat their homes,
But no, they throw £billions of taxpayers hard earnts on the Bush/Blair wars, £billions to the Eurozone, £billions to the robbing Banks.
Stuff em! is what I say.
|
|
JC's problem, as I see it, is that he has done something legal and then apologised for doing it. It leaves people a bit confused. How he got that much money for being that unfunny is another matter!
|
>>How he got that much money for being that unfunny is another matter!<<
He looks funny (funny peculiar)
:)
|
Jimmy Carr earned a shed load of money from normal people, and then used morally wrong but perfectly legal avoidance schemes to limit his tax liabilities to almost nothing. Fair enough.
Jimmy Carr earned his money by ridiculing, publicly, rich people who earned shed loads of money from other normal people and using morally wrong but perfectly legal avoidance schemes.
I doubt there was a greater display of hypocrisy displayed anywhere in the free world.
|
Shock horror: left wing socialist is a hypocrite over money..
Well I never .. wot a surprise.
(Another member of the "don't do as I do,do as I say " brigade. See Tony Blair et al)
|
>> Shock horror: left wing socialist is a hypocrite over money..
>>
When has Jimmy Carr ever stated that he was a left wing socialist?
|
I can't accept the 'perfectly legal' description. It's not perfectly legal to use complicated contrivances to circumvent the law - it might not be illegal, but that's not quite the same thing. It's a bit, well a lot, like getting off on a technicality. It's immoral.
HMRC may yet recover the K2 sheltered tax.
I'll say again that it isn't wealthy individuals who "make" money - it's the economy. Tax is about two things, pooling for shared resources and redistributing wealth. Anybody wealthy who wants to opt out is just a bigger sponger than than benefit cheats, and no better.
I feel quite strongly about this.
|
>> I'll say again that it isn't wealthy individuals who "make" money - it's the economy.
In the US the overwhelming idea (funnily enough propagated by the ultra-rich) is that the wealthy earn the cash and the economy benefits as it trickles down the food chain.
Sounds like cack to me.
|
>> In the US the overwhelming idea (funnily enough propagated by the ultra-rich) is that the
>> wealthy earn the cash and the economy benefits as it trickles down the food chain.
>>
>> Sounds like cack to me.
Or as Warren Buffett puts it, "there aren't many self made millionaires in Sub Saharan Africa".
|
|
Manatee, I would rethink your role model if I were you!!!
|
Ha ha.
I think the argument is more persuasive when it comes from somebody like Buffett, rather than somebody like me, when it just sounds like envy ;-)
|
Isn't the whole point of making something allowable against tax to encourage tax avoidance?
I avoid tax by making pension contributions.
|
The bit where Jimmy Carr has done himself no favours is how he's attacked the banks on their well paid senior staff. There a comedy sketch you've no doubt seen with him pretending to be a bank teller in Barclays and going on how Barclays only pays 1% in tax....
... Barclays is not doing anything illegal but he feels he can have a go at them. But he also paid only 1% tax.
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/news/4387300/Jimmy-Carr-Barclays-video.html
|
"The bit where Jimmy Carr has done himself no favours is how he's attacked the banks on their well paid senior staff. There a comedy sketch you've no doubt seen with him pretending to be a bank teller in Barclays and going on how Barclays only pays 1% in tax...."
I think what a lot of people are missing is that Jimmy Carr is a comedian. His act is exactly that an act. He is no a politician and doesn't seek to be one. He isn't required to live his life in accordance with his script.
|
>> "The bit where Jimmy Carr has done himself no favours is how he's attacked the
>> banks on their well paid senior staff. There a comedy sketch you've no doubt seen
>> with him pretending to be a bank teller in Barclays and going on how Barclays
>> only pays 1% in tax...."
>>
>> I think what a lot of people are missing is that Jimmy Carr is a
>> comedian. His act is exactly that an act. He is no a politician and doesn't
>> seek to be one. He isn't required to live his life in accordance with his
>> script.
People in showbiz need to be liked by the audience to be successful. It could well be fatal for someone who's act insists of making fun of certain type of people. Specially when you are one of those types.
|
Anyone on PAYE has to pay the right level of tax.
The self employed get away with paying as little as legally possible. I know tradesmen, cab drivers and business people that pay very little tax then moan that the public service is draining the country dry. Well if they stepped up and were made to pay a decent level of tax that I have to, then maybe the country could afford the public services that they deserve.
It's the PAYE workers that subsidise the rest in my view, and the sooner they cough up more the quicker we can get of this hole. We're all in this together, aren't we!! Well why don't they put there money where their mouths are and contribute. The public sector is bearing the brunt of the economic mess, the private sector would be welcome to bear it's share.
Last edited by: Mr. Ecs on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 14:35
|
>> contribute. The public sector is bearing the brunt of the economic mess, the private sector
>> would be welcome to bear it's share.
>>
Q. What is the difference between public sector and private sector?
A. The public sector spends what the private sector earns.
|
>> Q. What is the difference between public sector and private sector?
>> A. The public sector spends what the private sector earns.
A common misconception - vast amounts of social spending goes directly to private companies who provide the services.
|
>> A common misconception - vast amounts of social spending goes directly to private companies who
>> provide the services.
>>
Q. What is the ultimate source of the social spending money?
A. The private sector, or printing money.
(but we all know it grows on trees
www.flickr.com/photos/smirf/6973135894/
www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/money-on-trees4.jpg )
p.s. In reality, our money comes from the poor of the world, at the bottom of the money pyramid. Our "debt burden" is funded by them too.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 16:39
|
>> p.s. In reality, our money comes from the poor of the world, at the bottom of the money pyramid. Our "debt burden" is funded by them too.
Bingo - and our attempts to give them a better existence will lead to a fall in our slice of the pie.
|
>>The self employed get away with paying as little as legally possible<<
They also have to pay Class 4 National Insurance contributions which is basically Tax by N.E. Other name.
|
|
AND most of the self employed don't 'do' a 35 hr week and have indexed linked coffee breaks for half of the week.
Last edited by: Martin Devon on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 20:25
|
I pay my accountant to deal with my tax forms. I dont understand the allowances, thats why I pay her. I somewhat doubt Jimmy Carr understood quite what he was signed up to either, his accountant would just say this is a good low tax avenue, its legal and you will have more money, what do you reckon? Most people will say sure where do I sign.
I dont buy into this 'moral' argument. If its morally wrong, it should be illegal, the government has the power to make it illegal so by not doing so they are complicit in this avoidance.
The tax rules in this country are absurd aswell. I am forced to claim 45p per mile for my motor expenses as because the car is split use, I have to use mileage rather than the actual cost of running the car. The car actually costs me about 30-35p per mile to run, so Im gaining 10-15p per mile for my personal allowance purely because HMRC has set this figure to 45p ( was 40p last year ).
I actually now do half the miles I did in the best years of business, but claim nearly the same for motor expenses on account of the rules. I asked my accountant if I could just claim 30p a mile and she said no, they require you to claim 45p end of. She agreed it was a bit bonkers but she said theres alot of that with HMRC and you just have to make sure you follow their rules and to hell with the reality of anything.
|
>>I dont buy into this 'moral' argument. If its morally wrong, it should be illegal, the government has the power to make it illegal so by not doing so they are complicit in this avoidance.
You're missing the point that HMG can make rules in line with a spirit, then there is a whole industry devoted to finding ways around it. HMG then has to challenge the treatment and/or change the rules, and the advisers move on to cooking up the next "scheme", and HMRC has to challenge the historic treatment in court and try to recover unpaid tax. The Exchequer is always behind the curve.
When HMRC settles cases it challenges, it usually extracts an undertaking, at least in large corporate cases, that the entity will not pursue any more "schemes". Everybody concerned knows what a "scheme" is, and it's nothing as simple as being legal or illegal. I have personal knowledge of this (not on my own account!)
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 15:10
|
>>You're missing the point that HMG can make rules in line with a spirit<<
The rules should be absolute.
They arent because taxation is so massively complicated with so many tax breaks and allowances, not to mention schemes to allow people to avoid tax that the government offers up.
As soon as you introduce this stupid notion of 'spirit', you just beg for the rule to be abused.
|
>> The rules should be absolute.
>>
>> They arent because taxation is so massively complicated with so many tax breaks and allowances,
>> not to mention schemes to allow people to avoid tax that the government offers up.
Tax breaks and allowances were introduced to make tax equitable, encourage philanthropy and entrepreneurship, and to stimulate economic growth.
It was of course instantly abused by both sides of the tax table.
>> As soon as you introduce this stupid notion of 'spirit', you just beg for the
>> rule to be abused.
Rich people are rich for a reason. They crave money. The spirit of giving it back to the state really doesn't exist.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 15:44
|
>> Rich people are rich for a reason. They crave money.
I crave money Zero. So do most people who haven't got much. What distinguishes rich people from ordinary money-cravers is that they have the consistent will, and can stand the years of petty grief and deadly, deadly boredom, for long enough to actually amass some of the stuff. For most people it comes bit by bit.
Oil wildcatters, successful pulp authors and film-makers, some musicians and artists and so on can perhaps sometimes be believed when they say they love their work. But bankers and cold-eyed, ruthless asset strippers? Do me a favour. Their work is miserable, dreary and petty.
|
>> The rules should be absolute.
They draft them as "absolutely" as they can. Very clever people at firms like Ernst & Young then figure a way to avoid the intended result and market it. HMRC then has to contest the avoided tax at considerable expense and/or get the legislation amended.
>> As soon as you introduce this stupid notion of 'spirit', you just beg for the
>> rule to be abused.
I used the word 'spirit' as in 'intention'. I am not so naive as to think that you can legislate that people act like nice chaps, and you know it.
There is always a 'spirit' to rules and it is certainly not a stupid notion. The architects of these dodges know fine well when they are swerving round it.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 16:12
|
>> In the US the overwhelming idea (funnily enough propagated by the ultra-rich) is that the
>> wealthy earn the cash and the economy benefits as it trickles down the food chain.
>>
>> Sounds like cack to me.
>>
Of course it is cack.
Everyone knows that the poor earn the cash and it trickles up to fill the coffers of the wealthy (Doctors included).
The full story of "How the World's Economy" works - in one word: Cash
Cash is useless and has no value while it is physically with you (in your wallet or under your mattress).
Stuff you buy with the cash has no value once you have bought the stuff, unless you can find someone willing to pay you something for it if you later decide to sell that stuff.
Use the cash to pay in to bank deposits/savings, or buy food/clothes, or heat your home, or buy gold or Edvard Munch's masterpiece The Scream, or give it to charity, or any other transaction you care to think of - as long as cash is not physically stored by you then it gets used and trickles up or down the economic chain.
It matters not whether you spend it, or Government spends it, or the Banks spend it by lending your money to others (rich or poor) - the money gets used in the economy.
Trust me, I know all this - because once my parents had shed loads of cash/wealth/property but lost it all in an instant due to circumstances totally out of their control. Not dissimilar to the Japanese Tsunami victims.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 14:36
|
>> I doubt there was a greater display of hypocrisy displayed anywhere in the free world.
I have no doubt whatsoever that that is completely wrong. Gross hypocrisy is just material, grist to a comedian's mill.
Stand-up comedians don't usually set themselves up as role models. It isn't a respectable profession really. Stand-ups are quite often fairly deplorable characters in their private lives, one of the more driven categories of mountebank or minstrel, and louche like most of the others.
So there's more than a whiff of humbug about all this huffing and puffing over Carr's tax affairs. Like any high but irregular earner he had the sense to hire an accountant to deal with all that. Just as anyone would in that position.
There is no connection at all between a comedian's stage act and his private financial affairs. To pretend that there is is just fatuous, and sanctimonious too. Envy is probably the cause.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 24 Jun 12 at 16:41
|
>> Envy is probably the cause.
Perhaps disapproval of certain heartless 'jokes' plays a part too. But in my opinion it's morally dubious, or at least confused, to allege financial hypocrisy (as the Prime Minister wrongly did in this very case, but for more obvious reasons) when what has given offence is heartless unfunny humour. There's no legitimate connection.
|
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Ain't it all a bloomin' shame?
:-D
|
|
I use many ways to avoid paying tax in perfectly legal ways. But I pay my share at the normal rates on my income and my savings and investments are as tax efficient as I can get them. Paying 11.5k in stamp duty on my house sticks in my craw. The HMRC writing to me ask me for my late wife's salary records three years after she died sticks in my craw, the cluttered information on the HMRC website sticks in my craw, the HMRC monolith as represented by the staff at the local Office sticks in my craw, the maze that you have to navigate to speak to someone remotely human sticks in my craw, but Carr and his offensive assault on a legless soldier, whose tax-payer funded recovery he doesn't contribute really offends me. His whinging, wheedling to get off a mobile phone rap is offensive. He's a horrible little man. He can **** off.
|
|
Well said about both HMRC and Carr.
|
|
Once watched one of his performances where he was trying to get laughs by being particularly derogatory towards someone with either mental health or disability issues (I cant remember which). In any case his so called humour was well below the mark and I have never watched him since. And I'm not averse to some dark humour myself.
|
Yet Gary Barlow does the same thing and very little gets said.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18535642
|
|
Well it has been suggested that he should decline the OBE he has been awarded but which has not yet been given to him
|
|
Gary Barlow is an inoffensive and talented working class singer. Carr's an offensive toff.
|
>> Carr's an offensive toff.
Toffs aren't hungry enough to do standup which, if you think about it, must be very hard work, not for everyone by any means. Few can be funny for more than ten minutes or so and many irritate some part of the audience from the start. Carr's a bit sick and not very simpatico but, as has been pointed out, it's a stage act and he may be quite different in private. He can be fairly funny sometimes.
Like Fullchat and others here I find a fair amount of what passes for comedy these days distasteful or depressing. That said, though, I always watch an unknown standup because a good one can be very diverting. Fortunately I have catholic tastes in humour as in other things. I am not bound to a narrow range of entertainments. But I am a restless and capricious TV watcher and cinema/theatregoer.
|
>> Gary Barlow is an inoffensive and talented working class singer. Carr's an offensive toff.
They are both guilty of doing a Ken Dodd though.
|
|
Agreed on both counts. I've recently seen some top class comedians (Rich Hall and Jack Dee) live both very good. Taking the proverbial from the disabled is crass. They only do 'cos they know they can't get away with racism any more.
|
|
I do like Rhod Gilbert. His Ryanair luggage sketch is brilliant. He is talking about retiring and becoming a school teacher. I think he may find it a lot more stressful than Stand-Up!
|
|
He's had a two series run on BBC Wales - absolutely brilliant. Rhod Gilbert's Work Experience. (does what is says on the tin) he was thrown in one episode into a primary school teacher role. It was a very effective and moving programme. I think he was well impressed with the work (he started out as a cynic) - shame this programme wasn't nationally broadcast.
|
|
He can be found, quite often, appearing in Live at the Apollo on the oddly named DaveTV channel. He was also on BBC Breakfast earlier this week, looking totally knackered; he admitted to having had 2 hours sleep and that he had done 40 performances of a 130 night tour. What a trouper!
|
|
I saw the Rhod Work Experience programme, in Berkshire, England :-)
|
>> Paying 11.5k in stamp duty on my house sticks in my craw.
I'd rather you hadn't effectively told us that you paid £382,000 for your house.
|
We watched a Peter KAy DVD over Christmas. Very funny and I don't think there was anything offensive etc about the entire act. Not that I recall anyway.
The more I think about Carr the less I like him. Not sure I ever did to be honest. He's at Stockport tonight - feel like going along outside to heckle him :-)
|
|
Stamp duty is not a problem, you know the rate and the bands, you budget for that in your house price range.
|
I know a few IT contractors who use schemes like this. It's widespread and goes far beyond the rich and famous.
And yes, I would jump at it if I was in their shoes.
HMRC is a joke. I've had four tax code changes in this financial year alone, despite personally telephoning HMRC several times to advise them of my exact circumstances. Drinking session and brewery come to mind. Each code of course delivered by first class mail with a load of accompanying literature at whatever cost.
|
>> I know a few IT contractors who use schemes like this. It's widespread and goes
>> far beyond the rich and famous.
If you are talking about the IR35 rule, its a mere trifle compared to the K2 tax avoidance scheme.
|
|
I don't know the name, but it involves the salary going to a trust fund on the Isle of Man or Channel Islands, and then being "paid" each month with a non repayable loan.
|
>>Carr and his offensive assault on a legless soldier, whose tax-payer funded recovery he doesn't contribute really offends me. His whinging, wheedling to get off a mobile phone rap is offensive. He's a horrible little man. He can **** off<<
I don't really watch telly that orften (apart from Cops on CBS) and have absolutely no idea who this ere Carr geezer is but, going by your summary of the man, I don't think I like him either.
|
|
So? Most big businesses are gradually avoiding their pension and NI contributions by employing more and more staff via external recruitment agencies.
|
The one thing I really dislike about him is his appalling laugh. Sounds like a donkey being shafted with a broom handle.
Sometimes he's funny. Sometimes he isn't. He does at least use language in interesting ways to make things such as the world's shortest joke: dwarf shortage
I just find it funny that he's fallen in the trap of many others - being a complete hypocrite. Many of those that are complaining will probably pay cash to plumbers/builders and buy suspiciously cheap booze/cigarettes without thinking what they're doing is exactly the same.
Everyone has a legal right to reduce their tax bill to being as small as possible. If the method is legal then too bad if HMRC don't like it. If the system was simple it would be far harder to cook up these schemes to avoid paying your way. Vodafone's tax bill that they're arguably evading is 3000x the size of Mr Carr's.
|
Think Cameron has dropped a rather large one here.
It would appear that his father and father in law have been avoiding tax, and when previously asked about Philip Green (whom earns considerably more and pays very little tax) he stated that he would not comment on individual cases........
|
|
Probably come back to haunt him.
|
|
HMRC have been cut, and they probably lose their more effective teams to the financial industry faster than replacements can be brigaded in. Talk about own-goals but that's what you get when accountants and lawyers have the ear of the idle rich who run the current Government. It's not accidental IMHO. It's quite funny the way these contrived, wholly artificial and preposterous schemes are prefaced by the word "legal". What is needed is the revolution in examining financial performance that was called "lifting the veil" in company law. If only HMRC were given the incentive and balls to do this. But this dereliction in the face of brass-nosed and lucrative evasion is a consequence of government wanting to give up it's role. I appreciate that until they are tested in court, there is a presumption that there is no wrong-doing, but some of these schemes are in the "not proven" area, not the "legal" arena!
Last edited by: NIL on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 21:29
|
If it's legal avoidance it's OK. The man is, however, a creepy hypocrite.
As an aside, the more money the "Gummint" take from you, the more they have to waste on useless projects and other dickwittery.
|
|
One view, but how do you fund a stretched NHS and a Benefits' system that's been abused to the point of collapse ?
|
>> One view, but how do you fund a stretched NHS and a Benefits' system that's
>> been abused to the point of collapse ?
>>
Cut NHS and a Benefits' system back to what they should be for, "basic life support"
(certainly not for getting on housing and other benefits exceeding the average earnings of the working man/woman www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293730 ).
Stop funding for lifestyle illnesses and injuries (excessive boozing, gluttony, "substance" abuse, smoking related diseases, repairing failed boob jobs, gastric bands, injuries from mountaineering/parachute- jumping/motorcycling/car-accidents, STI/GUM clinics, under-age pregnancy, .... .... ).
Last edited by: John H on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 22:02
|
|
Like what they do in some other Euro countries ! I'd be quite happy with a system that allows me to insure myself for participating in dangerous sports as described. Our local hospital is the venue for fallen stumblers and fumblers off the local hills, fished off their precarious perches at the taxpayers expense by Helicopter and patched up at the local A&E. The vast majority have no local connection. A steady drain on local resources.
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 22:12
|
>> system that allows me to insure myself for participating in dangerous sports as described. >>
agreed.
|
>> the vast majority have no local connection. A steady drain on local
>> resources.
They are called tourists, they put money into the local economy.
|
|
They don't Zero (in the main) they drive here in the morning, climb (and occasionally fall off) and drive home at night,,,,
|
|
Health Boards can cover a pretty wide area.
|
|
The Betsi Cadwalader one does (North Wales).
|
|
So tourism maybe does put a fair bit of $$$ into the local economy that would otherwise not be there?
|
But how could that work? Stop someone going for a walk in the hills without checking their insurance?
Refuse to treat them if they fell off a rock? (How big a rock? you would have to make a rule)
And why should someone who goes rock climbing and has a fall be considered less deserving of medical treatment than someone who fall off a ladder through carelessness whilst painting their house.
No, the health service has to be comprehensive. You can't have a system with multiple exclusions. Apart from anything else it would spawn another tier of administrators deciding who qualified for treatment and who didn't. Then there would be the appeals procedure....
|
|
As CGN says. There would be a system not unlike the US model. The bureaucratic tyranny more costly than anything we can cock up over here!
|
>> the current Government. >>
which has been in power for only 2 years, and consists of a coalition.
>> dereliction in the face of brass-nosed and lucrative evasion is a consequence of government wanting to give up it's role. >>
It would be difficult enough for the Tories to run the country with a small majority, let alone one in partnership with the Liberals.
>> there is a presumption that there is no wrong-doing, >>
"19 June 2012 - Last week, the government started a consultation on the introduction of what is, in effect, the tax anti-avoidance rule recommended by Graham Aaranson QC as a result of a review Osborne commissioned in 2010. "
www.kinsellatax.co.uk/
"In efforts to raise an extra £7bn from tax evaders by 2015, the government are moving over 2,000 HMRC staff into anti Tax Avoidance and anti Tax Evasion posts.
... new team of over 2,000 tax inspectors - specialising in tax evasion and tax avoidance - will target 350,000 additional wealthy UK tax payers, whose combined assets amount to over £2.5m.
Chief Secretary to The Treasury, Danny Alexander, said at the Birmingham conference:
“It took 12 years for the previous government to take action against the wealthiest 5,000 people, some of who weren’t paying their fair share of tax. We can do better than that.
“My message to the small minority who don’t pay what they owe is simple. I agree with the chancellor. We will find you and your money and you will pay your fair share.”
|
Danny Alexander - Lib Dem
And Scottish.
And Ginger.
|
I know of a couple of contractors doing similar - as DP says. Their costs are billed by an offshore trust of some sort and this pays them a basic salary. The rest is paid as loans which never need repaying. Basically they pay pax on minimum wage.
One worked for my company in 2005/2006 and a few times since. Last year he got another contract but we would not pay him through the 'agency' he wanted to use. Maybe the company had some morals - don't know but he had to sign up with another agency.
|
"www.kinsellatax.co.uk/
"In efforts to raise an extra £7bn from tax evaders by 2015, the government are moving over 2,000 HMRC staff into anti Tax Avoidance and anti Tax Evasion posts.
... new team of over 2,000 tax inspectors - specialising in tax evasion and tax avoidance - will target 350,000 additional wealthy UK tax payers, whose combined assets amount to over £2.5m."
It's an exercise in deck-chair movement, PR fudge and opportunity costs.
As for consultation. Ha. There wouldn't need to be an airy-fairy tax avoidance rule if Govt. had the will to prevent these fiddles. Another smokescreen.
|
|
350,000 with combined assets of 2.5m....that's less than a tenner each - crumbs !
|
>> 350,000 with combined assets of 2.5m.... >>
hehe. LOL. That is how accountants get your tax down ( understating figures by a factor of 1,000). ;-)
Last edited by: John H on Fri 22 Jun 12 at 22:42
|
>> Another smokescreen. >>
Whateva.
|
"the government are moving over 2,000 HMRC staff into anti Tax Avoidance and anti Tax Evasion posts."
Not new jobs.
PR fudge? Yes.
Going to increase the tax intake? Who knows.
|
>> "the government are moving over 2,000 HMRC staff into anti Tax Avoidance and anti Tax
>> Evasion posts."
>>
>> Not new jobs.
>>
>> PR fudge? Yes.
>>
>> Going to increase the tax intake? Who knows.
>>
>>
maybe, but action nonetheless, cf the 13 wasted years of a Labour government.
|
|
A learned response. How very Rebekah....
|
|
Oh look a red face! My first! I'd just like to point out that I have never given anyone one of these. As others have said in another thread, either discuss the issue further or go to teacher:)
|
>> A learned response. How very Rebekah....
>>
Ditto to you. :0)
p.s. I didn't dish out any of the red faces on this thread.
|
|
Didn't think it was you, JohnH. More amused than anything, but I suspect it's a game to see if the mods are moved to erase the facility as the red tide is increasing!
|
|
For a red face virgin NIL, you are being positively greedy now.
|
>> I made a mistake and won't do it again, says Jimmy Carr about him paying tax.
If Jimmy Carr is paying tax in accordance with the rules, then what's the problem? I would expect everyone to use the tax rules to their best advantage.
>> We know this is only the tip of the Iceberg when it comes to fiddling the system through accountants.
If I could reduce my tax bill by more than it would cost me to employ an account, then I would employ an accountant. I don't see how employing an accountant is "fiddling the system".
The thing I don't understand is why Jimmy Carr is saying he made a mistake.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 06:56
|
I don't know why you can't understand it. Obviously he did make a mistake, as he was being publicly pilloried and may well have lost much of his following overnight.
Anyway, as I have tried to explain several times above, there's legal, illegal, and loopholes. K2 is a loophole.
The people who market and use these schemes know very well that they are subverting the intention of the regulation or statute, and they expect their actions to be contested and/or the rules changed. They then go on to invent another wheeze. It's what they do. It's parasitic and anti-social.
Next question?
|
>> The thing I don't understand is why Jimmy Carr is saying he made a mistake.
Because as Z pointed out earlier he has (rightly or wrongly) criticised others who have done similar things, which is hypocrisy.
Although he's made some mistakes, I like Jimmy Carr.
|
>> Because as Z pointed out earlier he has (rightly or wrongly) criticised others who have
>> done similar things, which is hypocrisy.
Being hypocritical is hardly an offence. If Jimmy Carr's shoulders are broad enough for him to take any criticism then good luck to him. I just wish I had enough money to be able to manipulate tax rules to my advantage.
|
>> >> Because as Z pointed out earlier he has (rightly or wrongly) criticised others who
>> have
>> >> done similar things, which is hypocrisy.
>>
>> Being hypocritical is hardly an offence.
But he was effectively making personal attacks on people on national TV.
|
>> But he was effectively making personal attacks on people on national TV.
>>
I didn't see that programme, but when all is said and done they were only words. I've remember someone saying that all humour is at someone's expense. Sticks and stones is my motto.
|
>> >> But he was effectively making personal attacks on people on national TV.
>> >>
>>
>> I didn't see that programme,
I think it was more than once.
>> but when all is said and done they were only words.
But he is going by his own standards - he feels he has behaved very badly so is apologising for it.
|
To me its irrelevant whether he's had a go at Barclays Bank for tax avoidance or not.
Instead of saying "it's perfectly legal", which is putting a favourable gloss on it, you could equally say "he (through his advisers who are members of a profession with supposed standards) has set out to achieve what Lester Piggott was sent to prison for, but without the risk of prosecution".
It certainly doesn't guarantee that he won't eventually have to pay the tax if HMRC contests it, and a settlement is reached or a court rules against it.
The real villains are the professionals who punt these schemes, and the only reason they are "legal" is because they appropriate a provision in the rules intended to facilitate a different, genuine transaction and subvert it. That is not the same as claiming tax reliefs you are entitled to - for example avoiding higher rate tax by making pension or genuine charitable contributions.
The hypocrisy is neither here nor there to me - just words as L'es says.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 10:25
|
I wonder how many people who tut loudly about this, have themselves been involved in tax avoidance which, albeit legal, defeats the intention of the rules.
One example is avoiding capital gains on buy-to-let properties (or buy-to-do-up-and-sell), by living in them for the minimum amount of time (a year I believe).
The intention of the rules is to avoid people having to pay capital gains on their main residence, so that they can build equity, but tax people making a profit by speculating on the property market.
I know several people who did this back in the days of the property boom, and potentially avoided tax on hundreds of thousands of pounds of capital gain.
Across the country people no doubt avoided paying tax on many billions of pounds of capital gain.
Again, all legal, just as Jimmy Carr's scheme is, but against the spirit of the law.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 10:39
|
Jim Davidson backs Jimmy Carr. tinyurl.com/c5tapyc
Jim and Jimmy. Two great comedians.
|
|
Am I now morally obliged to go back to Greggs and pay another 20p ?
|
|
Lester pigott the jockey got banged up for tax Avoidance years ago, and when the gaoler turned up with his bread and water ( breakfast) lester turned to him and said " i cant eat all that" ......il get my coat
|
|
Lester Piggott in youth was renowned (like the Duke of Kent and Stirling Moss) for motoring offences and car crashes. Enviable chaps they were.
|
|
I can hold my head up in such exalted company then.
|
Yeah Zeddo, none of us could drive for toffee nuts until we'd paid our dues... what I meant really was that they had better cars than we did and their accidents, speeding fines and so on were more spectacular.
We can't count your bus because you were no longer in your salad days.
|
>> you were no longer in your salad days.
Note: this doesn't mean 'old enough to know better'. Knowledge doesn't always come into it. There but for the grace of God... only the other day... oh never mind.
|
|
Who said Jim Davidson is a great comedian? You must be joking they kicked him off the stage with his racist remarks here in Hull.
|
|
You got to be carefull calling some people.Jimmy Carr found this out because these people will find you out.Yes he is a hyprocrit.
|
|
What sums it up I think, this guy's not afraid to flash the cash - what grinds is that he is rich and has got even richer through tax avoidance. The vast majority of working people in this country cough up their income tax and there is little scope for "avoidance" - the little s*** has no scruples.
|
>> What sums it up I think, this guy's not afraid to flash the cash -
>> what grinds is that he is rich and has got even richer through tax avoidance.
Do you think he knew much about it though Rob? No doubt he knows his accountant is going to try to keep as much of the money he earns in his bank account, but I don't believe he knew exactly how he was doing that. He should have done, and he is now regretting (and apologising for) the fact he didn't. In other words, I think you're being a bit harsh.
Of course his public apology could be just a damage limitation exercise in which case you would be absolutely right.
|
Why do racing drivers live in Monaco?
If they live there for more than 6 months and 1 day in a year, they don't pay tax.
youtu.be/_ObRzF8I5DE
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 20:21
|
|
Even 'Arrys dog, Rosie, had an account there.
|
Sadly I couldn't afford to live in Monaco even if I didn't pay any tax.
That's it in a nutshell really. If you start off very rich, you can duck out of tax. If you're an average Joe on PAYE, you're stuffed.
The country is financed by the squeezed middle.
|
...The country is financed by the squeezed middle...
True, but I don't begrudge paying your jobseekers' allowance. :)
|
>> ...The country is financed by the squeezed middle...
>>
>> True, but I don't begrudge paying your jobseekers' allowance. :)
Yes I need to look into that ;-)
I've been fully occupied more or less with contacting people and my "outplacement" training which, as I have been offered it, I intend to take full advantage of.
Rumour has it I can get about £60 a week for 6 months, then having savings will preclude me getting any more of my taxes back! I'm not even sure if being paid in lieu of notice will delay being able to claim yet. I'll try calling them on Monday, but I have a horrible feeling they'll tell me I have to go to whatever the Labour Exchange is called now.
A friend of mine was in this situation a couple of years ago and claimed it on principle. He felt the general humiliation and jerking around made it barely worthwhile. On one occasion he had an interview offered in London (he lives in Manc) on his signing on day. He rang them to rearrange. They wouldn't and told him he'd lose benefit if he didn't sign on as required. Needless to say he went for the interview.
|
Is there still such a thing as earnings-related dole for the newly umemployed?
Might be worth having for a man of your (former) means.
|
|
I'll look into it and report back...
|
...I'll look into it and report back...
Worth doing.
You might be well set at the minute, but that money could come in handy down the line.
|
No.
Job seekers allowance is all it is. And they wouldn't give me that.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 20:44
|
|
No jobseekers allowence for me either.I paid stamps for 43 years.Due to my private pension what I paid for.
|
>> Is there still such a thing as earnings-related dole for the newly umemployed?
>>
>> Might be worth having for a man of your (former) means.
>>
>>
No, that went years ago. IIRC there's six months 'contributory' payment for those with an employment history. After that it's analogous to Income Support and based on household income; if Mrs Dugong has a reasonable job Manate'll get nowt.
|
|
Mrs Dugong earns about £200 a month and a state pension of £114 a week. I have informed her of her new status as breadwinner, and I've got stuck in to the cooking and washing up.
|
>> Veggie sausages beckon.
OFFS. Vegetarian sausages sound disgusting, and veggie ones even worse.
'I'm a veggie.'
FFS.
|
I despise the whole concept of vegetarianism, vegans, and anyone else who sets themself up to be some how superior by way of their diet. That includes 99% of people who claim to have an allergy to something or other. If you don't like something don't eat it, don't claim that unlike the rest of humanity you are specially sensitive. Similarly if you like vegetable only meals that's great,I do myself but ditch the smug morally superior tone that vegetarians and their even more morally superior vegan brethren adopt. And if you really like vegetables cook them properly, not turn them into some pseudo meat product .
Carrot anybody?
|
>> Rumour has it I can get about £60 a week for 6 months, then having savings will preclude me getting any more of my taxes back!
I'm willing to do you a favour.... transfer your savings to my bank account, and then you can claim all the benefits...
..... just don't ask for it all back in a hurry, when you are back in employment.. :-s
|
|
I tried to claim JSA and they wouldn't give it me either. A very degrading and de-humanising process. I know a number of people who do claim it (they volunteer at the CAB) they pop out to sign on and always return crest-fallen. Two women in particular, one an ex-management type the other a busy type I'd employ in a heartbeat. Without exception they despise the staff at the JCP and their attitude. I saw nothing that convinced me otherwise. The staff there seemed particularly brutalised by what they do.
|
...The staff there seemed particularly brutalised by what they do...
I suspect that can happen, although my experience differs.
I had some contact with the local Jobcentre because I was off longer with the hip than anticipated.
They were fine with me, and one of the lasses even sent a handwritten note congratulating me on my return to work.
It may be they saw my case differently to their long term customers who do all they can to avoid work.
|
Back on topic, there's a long piece by Carr's dad about his estrangement from his sons in Britain's best newspaper.
Quite a good read in a Sunday supplement sort of way:
tinyurl.com/7ozeklm
|
|
I think it is rather sad than anybody should reveal this sort of stuff to the public. I also think that anyone who is estranged from all three of his sons could have good think about why/how. It probably isn't 50/50 but it isn't 100/0 either
|
...I think it is rather sad than anybody should reveal this sort of stuff to the public...
Possibly, although one doesn't know how one might react until such a situation presents itself.
Given the talk of a five-bedroomed house in Bucks, it doesn't appear Mr Carr Snr is after or needs any of Jimmy's money.
The article finishes with an appeal for Jimmy to get back in touch, which I imagine was another motivation for Mr Carr to do it.
|
That article hides more than it reveals. Not surprising, as it isn't reporting, just a speech by the father.
It seems odd to me too that a "newspaper" should run what is essentially one side of a personal argument.
The point about NLP is interesting. But what about the other two that won't speak to him either?
|
|
I haven read it, but based on whats on here, I have to say It has to be something pretty drastic for all three sons to blank you forever.
|
|
Dad does seem to have some issues over money and debt owed.
|
"It has to be something pretty drastic for all three sons to blank you forever"
Nail, hit, hammer, head, the, (I think those are the relevant words!)
|
...It seems odd to me too that a "newspaper" should run what is essentially one side of a personal argument...
Jimmy Carr was offered the chance to comment but chose not to.
Should he change his mind, the Mail - or most other newspapers - would be happy to run his side as a follow-up.
|
|
The article also implies that Carr Snr advised his son to not use any tax avoidance schemes, so in the event that I ever need a good accountant then I think hes one to skip!
|
And proving there's no such thing as bad publicity:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18569728
|
Jimmy Carr. - Manatee
