Topic: The Tax avoidance thread. Why should Jimmy Carr apologise?

[Mad Max]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, saw this in June 22's FT, what a shame!

"Wealthy investors including Mr. Ferguson, Sven-Göran Eriksson and a host of sports stars and City figures could be liable for huge individual tax bills after an attempt to reduce their liabilities backfired.
 
The 289 investors in Eclipse 35, a film partnership ruled to be an “aggressive” tax avoidance scheme by a tax tribunal in April, could end up paying several times more than the total of £117m tax they sought to avoid as the Revenue & Customs examines the large bank loans they took on to participate in the scheme...Mr. Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, declined to comment and Mr Eriksson, the former England football manager, could not be reached for comment."

Great news if Fergie gets stung.

[Sat1]

How can I get on this scheme?

[Mutton Geoff]

To try and absolve tax fiddlers from any blame or lack of morality is absurd, of course these loopholes exist they always will when the law makers and their friends and donors employ them so well, its the nature of our less than equal society that the rich want more in their pocket and are less willing to pay their fair share for Cameron's laughable bigger society!

He is from a family of Bankers, (wish this was a euphamism and probably should be anyway) a lot of his  personal wealth will perhaps have come from a clever accountant fiddling the country out of the right amount of tax for his family for generations to keep them in luxury they require!

So do not peddle the it is legal as someone said the other day so is farting in a lift, they both stink, the irony is the champions of this they are doing nothing wrong lobby, now want to go back to destitute youngsters because their families cannot afford to keep them when the state deserts them, for Cameron read Thatcher for the bigger society read benefit changes having the same massive detrimental effect on families as the Thatcher Poll tax did. Maybe the tory boys cant remember the family upheaval and loads of kids sleeping rough in London, or the under class it created, if so I reccomend you watch an episode of Boys from the Blackstuff where a father had to force his lad to leave home.

No offence but i am sick of right wing Philip Green and his ilk apologists in this thread, if you cannot see that people who cannot afford to pay their way getting hammered by this Govt whilst people and companies who can easily afford to pay are not only allowed to not pay their fair share but are congratulated for their enterprise, well then frankly carry on giving out your Tory doctrine while the rest of the country know who are the morally corrupt ones in this Big society (for some!)

In the end David has opened a can of worms and hopefully he will be made to eat them in Chez Cammo!

[muyuu]

Is it tax avoidance when you are in the clear? tax depends on many factors, if there are ways to legally pay 1% income tax then it's legal and that's all there is to it.

Should it be illegal? make it illegal. Cameron is in the position to do so.

I pay taxes through my nose. On top of it, I pay a 20% cut to the government on every purchase. When is it enough? If I could pay 1% I sure as fuck would, and then I would choose the charities I want to support, like Carr is doing.

[Kenny's Jacket]

At the end of the day, the vast majority of us will do what we can to feather our own nest. Its human nature. I think people suggesting otherwise are a bit naive.

cheating the benefit system is preety much the same as reducing the amount of tax you pay.  The number's might be different, but the motivation is the same.
Its a vicious circle. The poor see the rich 'avoiding tax' and think if they can cheatr the government then why should'nt I. The rich think that all their tax is going to a bunch of lazy scroungers, so Ill pay as little as possible.

Cameron was hypocritical to pick on Carr. He will know many people within his circle who move money around to avoid tax. He probably does it himself. He's made an arse of himself by highlighting Jimmy Carr.
But this is not a 'Tory' thing as much as many on here would like to make it out that way. Do you think a Millionaire like Blair pays full PAYE tax on the dosh he makes as an after dinner speaker.

Its is true that the rich make the laws. So people can say that these legal tax avoiding methods exist becasue law makers want them to exist. However I think for the likes of Philip Green the situation is different.  Governments have ways of attracting business into the their for the sake of the economy and the job market. Part of that attraction for big business is tax 'avoidance'.  I dont think that its a case of rich cronies sticking together, more a way for UK PLC to do business.

For me the people who come out worse on this are the PAYE employee's who are earning around 15k per year. they have fuck all choice but to pay full tax and probably earn too much to get Tax credits and the like.

[Lord Roger Hunt]

Some might argue that everyone has an absolute responsibility to their family to pay as much tax as they're legally obliged to but not a penny more.   

For the Government to create their own taxation laws, then infer that someone has acted 'immorally' for following them, is actually immoral in itself, arguably to the point of being libellous.

Actually, I would LOVE IT, if Carr sued the Danny Alexander for defamation, as I believe he made the derogatory comments outside the protection of the House of Commons. Doubt he will though....shame that.   

[stevedo]

Looking forward to PAC giving HMRC a hard time over this hot potato.  When are The Tax Payers Alliance going to speak out against such aggressive schemes? 

Given that they're being asked to reduce their workforce I doubt too many frivolous scheme generating accountants are having sleepness nights.

[-Q-]

So do not peddle the it is legal as someone said the other day so is farting in a lift, they both stink, the irony is the champions of this they are doing nothing wrong lobby, now want to go back to destitute youngsters because their families cannot afford to keep them when the state deserts them, for Cameron read Thatcher for the bigger society read benefit changes having the same massive detrimental effect on families as the Thatcher Poll tax did. Maybe the tory boys cant remember the family upheaval and loads of kids sleeping rough in London, or the under class it created, if so I reccomend you watch an episode of Boys from the Blackstuff where a father had to force his lad to leave home.

No offence but i am sick of right wing Philip Green and his ilk apologists in this thread, if you cannot see that people who cannot afford to pay their way getting hammered by this Govt whilst people and companies who can easily afford to pay are not only allowed to not pay their fair share but are congratulated for their enterprise, well then frankly carry on giving out your Tory doctrine while the rest of the country know who are the morally corrupt ones in this Big society (for some!)

Why do people insist on ignoring the vital distinction between people keeping the money they have earned and people taking money earned by others whether legitimately and legally (through housing benefits) or illegitimately through benefit fraud?

[Mutton Geoff]

Why do people insist on ignoring the vital distinction between people keeping the money they have earned and people taking money earned by others whether legitimately and legally (through housing benefits) or illegitimately through benefit fraud?

why do you insist on ignoring it is money they earned if you like however they are witholding money from the govt by circuitius and duplicitous means is that not the same, one cheats by taking too much out, another get an accountant to look for loopholes with the whole purpose of cheating the state of the correct amount of tax from them! One takes from the state one witholds what is rightfully the state's,

But there again I suppose it fits in with your I am alright jack philosophy, the point is when Cameron castigates an available target about tax avoidance, he needs to check his own background also his mates at chez cammo, and the donors who give money to his party but not to the country, if you cannot see the massive Hypocracy and Elitism in this and your points, then you are blind to the realities in our class dominated unfair society!

Mind you fits in with something you surely agree with, benefit cheats breed (nice animalistic imagry from the right wing Mail), but workers have children, while Cameron and his ilk have perhaps another tax dodge account to feed?

[SMD]

Why do people insist on ignoring the vital distinction between people keeping the money they have earned and people taking money earned by others whether legitimately and legally (through housing benefits) or illegitimately through benefit fraud?

Because one is a multibillion pound issue and the other is something right wingers are obsessed with.

[BIGdavalad]

why do you insist on ignoring it is money they earned if you like however they are witholding money from the govt by circuitius and duplicitous means is that not the same, one cheats by taking too much out, another get an accountant to look for loopholes with the whole purpose of cheating the state of the correct amount of tax from them! One takes from the state one witholds what is rightfully the state's,

Actually, I don't agree there. If the loopholes exist then you're not cheating the state out of anything. If the state feels it's being cheated then it should close the loopholes. If the UK's tax laws weren't so ridiculously complicated then the loopholes wouldn't exist to be exploited - but then that wouldn't suit the kind of people that give politicians large amounts of cash either.

[Sir Harvest Fields]

Once again, ITS LEGAL. Nothing wrong was done. I dont agree with it at all, but he actually did nowt wrong. Close the loopholes and get people to the tax they owe. I cant afford to use a loophole so im fucked but if there was a way i could id have to think about it.

[-Q-]

why do you insist on ignoring it is money they earned if you like however they are witholding money from the govt by circuitius and duplicitous means is that not the same, one cheats by taking too much out, another get an accountant to look for loopholes with the whole purpose of cheating the state of the correct amount of tax from them! One takes from the state one witholds what is rightfully the state's,

How is money earned by an individual "rightfully the state's?"

[stevedo]

Once again, ITS LEGAL. Nothing wrong was done. I dont agree with it at all, but he actually did nowt wrong. Close the loopholes and get people to the tax they owe. I cant afford to use a loophole so im fucked but if there was a way i could id have to think about it.

There's no incentive to close the tax loopholes for those in power, given how many wealthy and by extension powerful individuals there are willing to contribute towards party funding. Turkeys voting for Xmas.

[flw]

How is money earned by an individual "rightfully the state's?"

Have asked that very the same question myself many times.  I can only sypthasise with those wealthy people who have worked there socks of to build a life that is decent for themself and there families, why should they have to pay more ? , why should they pay more than anyone else, tax is tax and everyone should pay the same amount  irrespective of  how much they are earning /have earnt. I dont agree that its  immoral or illegal its more of a duty to abide by the law of the country and that is you pay your taxes. Whatever loopholes there are people will use them , and as others have already said in there posts,if they close the loopholes then it becomes illegal.

[SMD]

How is money earned by an individual "rightfully the state's?"

Does an individual earn their money in a vacuum?

[Corkboy]

How is money earned by an individual "rightfully the state's?"

You know, the social contract whereby if you live in a certain state, you are taken to have agreed to abide by that state's laws. So, if one of those laws says you pay tax, then that's what you pay.

Is this the first time you've had this explained to you?

[muyuu]

Does an individual earn their money in a vacuum?

Nope, but the State's voracity needs to respect a red line somewhere. The average middle class taxpayer "donates" well over 50% of his earnings, and you can rest assured they have virtually unlimited capacity to spend your money. Some rationality in spending is all most people are asking for.

[-Q-]

Does an individual earn their money in a vacuum?

No, they earn it by providing value to other people.  Hence "earning" their money.

[-Q-]

You know, the social contract whereby if you live in a certain state, you are taken to have agreed to abide by that state's laws. So, if one of those laws says you pay tax, then that's what you pay.

Is this the first time you've had this explained to you?

Not worth the paper it is written on.  It is a post-hoc rationalisation of some people's desire to control the lives of others.

If the state decrees that homosexuality is sinful and must be punished by life imprisonment, should we be rounding up gay people? After all, we have to abide by the state's laws. 

If the state decrees that Julian Assange should be killed for his crime of treason against the US, should we accept that?

[BIGdavalad]

If the state decrees that Julian Assange should be killed for his crime of treason against the US, should we accept that?

I do...

[Corkboy]

Not worth the paper it is written on.  It is a post-hoc rationalisation of some people's desire to control the lives of others.

If the state decrees that homosexuality is sinful and must be punished by life imprisonment, should we be rounding up gay people? After all, we have to abide by the state's laws. 

If you live in Iran? Yes.

Taxation is not a "post-hoc rationalisation of some people's desire to control the lives of others". It is how society functions for the good of as many as possible. Without taxation, you have no roads, firemen, army, sewage, clean water and so on.

If you don't want to pay tax, don't consume any of those services, go live in a cave or something.

[muyuu]

If you live in Iran? Yes.

The Social Contract doesn't apply in places like Iran, where the Western concept of natural rights, which is the basis for the Social Contract, is not accepted.

You cannot have it both ways. The concept of social contract (Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, ...) contradicts moral relativism. Unless you are talking about a different social contract. If by social contract you simply mean unwritten law, then you can have no qualms about Jimmy Carr and his tax scheme. It's legal as defined by the State, so it's fine. As far as there's clearly written law, one wouldn't have to guess the unwritten law. I'm assuming he's not using a clear loophole against the spirit of the law, as that's illegal and so far everybody from the government agreed Carr's scheme is clearly legal (I guess it's only morally right when party donors do it).

Taxation is not a "post-hoc rationalisation of some people's desire to control the lives of others". It is how society functions for the good of as many as possible. Without taxation, you have no roads, firemen, army, sewage, clean water and so on.

If you don't want to pay tax, don't consume any of those services, go live in a cave or something.

You do love sweeping generalisations, don't you. Let's abolish private property then.

If you justify and approve any level of spending and confiscation from the State, be sure it can grow to need absolutely everything you produce and possess.

Roads, firemen, army, sewage, clean water, illegal wars, corrupt politicians, benefit scroungers, etc all are sustained by the taxpayer but there is no justification to put an unreasonable level of burden on particular individuals while others make no effort to contribute and happily contribute to the burden. Some control must be put on the level of spending, on what must be covered by spending, and also on the burden you can put on contributors.

Jimmy Carr contributes far more than most of us, at over 1M a year on his income alone (I'm sure he contributes far more in VAT paid, tax on his tickets, tax on energy he consumes, all sorts of tax paid by people he employs, etc). I'd hardly label him a problem to the sustainability of the system. I'd say people like Cameron would have a much harder time justifying the amount of money he costs us.

[Corkboy]

I'm not going to quote your post because you appear to have taken me up completely wrongly. I don't have any issue with Carr or his tax scheme. It's legal, so no problem. If people don't like it, they can get their elected reps to change it.

I was taking issue with Q's usual (and somewhat infantile) take on taxation, i.e. that it is theft of some sort.

[pantbash]

I don't think anyone can actually "earn" the amounts that make participation in these schemes relevant from a tax dodging standpoint.
The amount they get in remuneration has far exceeded the actual worth of their efforts.

The state needs to clamp down hard and remove all tax dodging exploits, be it charitable donations or the schemes discussed in the Carr case.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

The key question here is the ethics of tax avoidance rather than the legality.  While we have a political system where the two main parties are both made up of people who benefit from tax avoidance and are utterly dependent on the patronage of those individuals and organisations who benefit from tax avoidance then it will never be illegal.  That does not however make it morally right.

Fuck the politicians and the law on this, they are never going to side with those of us on PAYE who have no access to tax avoidance schemes. Take the power into your own hands. Pursue  and out the individuals, boycott and lobby the corporations.  Support UK Uncut.

[stevedo]

The key question here is the ethics of tax avoidance rather than the legality.  While we have a political system where the two main parties are both made up of people who benefit from tax avoidance and are utterly dependent on the patronage of those individuals and organisations who benefit from tax avoidance then it will never be illegal.  That does not however make it morally right.

Fuck the politicians and the law on this, they are never going to side with those of us on PAYE who have no access to tax avoidance schemes. Take the power into your own hands. Pursue  and out the individuals, boycott and lobby the corporations.  Support UK Uncut.

38 Degrees are on the case also.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/tax-gaar-petition#petition

[SMD]

No, they earn it by providing value to other people.  Hence "earning" their money.

So what you're saying is that they earn it completely from their own means, they have created their wealth out of nothing and their own efforts? That they exist financially independent of society?

[muyuu]

I don't think anyone can actually "earn" the amounts that make participation in these schemes relevant from a tax dodging standpoint.
The amount they get in remuneration has far exceeded the actual worth of their efforts.

The state needs to clamp down hard and remove all tax dodging exploits, be it charitable donations or the schemes discussed in the Carr case.

That would push a lot of high contributors and their money outside of the country, to Gibraltar, Jersey, Isle of Man, Monaco, etc. At the end of the day, the benefit of the country comes first, and your relative moral concept of "earning" comes a distant second. This probably wouldn't apply to Carr, who needs to physically be in the UK to perform, but it does in many other cases nowadays.

The slippery slope of a closed borders stalinist regime is the alternative.

Not saying any taxation has to be wrong, but we cannot reasonably take it to the other extreme where no taxation is too much. There are many concerns at play, capital flight being an obvious one.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

That would push a lot of high contributors and their money outside of the country, to Gibraltar, Jersey, Isle of Man, Monaco, etc. At the end of the day, the benefit of the country comes first, and your relative moral concept of "earning" comes a distant second. This probably wouldn't apply to Carr, who needs to physically be in the UK to perform, but it does in many other cases nowadays.

The slippery slope of a closed borders stalinist regime is the alternative.

Not saying any taxation has to be wrong, but we cannot reasonably take it to the other extreme where no taxation is too much. There are many concerns at play, capital flight being an obvious one.

I think that the time has come to say "Go on then, leave".   It is a bluff that has been used too often.  In reality many can not and many will not.  For those that wish to move their money abroad and still operate and earn that money here then we expose their hypocrisy and target them as I detailed above.

No need for closed borders, just the exposure to public opinion.

[Lord Roger Hunt]

I, for one, have no problem paying due taxes but there are a number of things that get up my nose e.g.

1. as I understand it, anyone visiting the UK gets free healthcare which has resulted in some people actually planning their holidays to 'go sick' and receive expensive healthcare, paid for the UK tax paying public.  If this is true, it outrageous primarily because it would be so simple to stop e.g. you must be an UK resident before you receive free healthcare. If not, get some travel insurance!

2.  I also understand that we've been giving loans to overseas students, some of whom, having received their education, have gone home and not paid back the loan. Again, may be an urban myth but, if its true, well, I'm gobsmacked.

Please tell me I'm wrong, as I'd feel a whole lot better about paying 81% tax (61% direct + 20% indirect on anything I buy)! 

[pantbash]

I think that the time has come to say "Go on then, leave".

Indeed, those people can leave.
There are plenty capable who can fill the few places they vacate.

[El Monjo Boig]

2.  I also understand that we've been giving loans to overseas students, some of whom, having received their education, have gone home and not paid back the loan. Again, may be an urban myth but, if its true, well, I'm gobsmacked.

I reckon this is a myth. I did my undergrad in the UK and then moved abroad. I've been paying my student loans while I've been over here on a monthly basis, and it was made very clear to me at the time that if I went abroad and refused to pay that they'd begin criminal proceedings against me. Whether they'd bother for the relatively small amount I pay/owe is another matter, but I doubt people could just leave with no comeback.

[Mutton Geoff]

Doing some other research but happened on Sir Philip Green estimated wealth in the last rich list, 3.3billion, which to be fair is a joint estimate with Lady Green and yet he needs to manipulate his tax to pay the least amount possible, so as the old song goes;

' tis the rich what gets the pleasure tis the poor what gets the blame,'

shame that old song has even more resonance these days in the Govt thinktanks!

[Lord Roger Hunt]

Whether they'd bother for the relatively small amount I pay/owe is another matter, but I doubt people could just leave with no comeback.

I think that's the point - UK gov haven't bothered pursuing it and now the words out, loads are at it - typical of the UK really, a pushover to when it comes to being shafted. 

I would rather we spent the money wasted by politicians and the NHS looking after free loading overseas visitors, on providing proper care for the elderly,  hence why I'm pissd off with paying such high taxes...it's being spent in the wrong places. 


And don't get me on us providing overseas aid ...to India!!!   

[Mutton Geoff]

I think that's the point - UK gov haven't bothered pursuing it and now the words out, loads are at it - typical of the UK really, a pushover to when it comes to being shafted. 

I would rather we spent the money wasted by politicians and the NHS looking after free loading overseas visitors, on providing proper care for the elderly,  hence why I'm pissd off with paying such high taxes...it's being spent in the wrong places. 


And don't get me on us providing overseas aid ...to India!!!   

I think our overseas aid policy should be another thread altogether we still need to act big as if we still had an Empire!

[muyuu]

I think that the time has come to say "Go on then, leave".   It is a bluff that has been used too often.  In reality many can not and many will not.  For those that wish to move their money abroad and still operate and earn that money here then we expose their hypocrisy and target them as I detailed above.

No need for closed borders, just the exposure to public opinion.

Indeed, those people can leave.
There are plenty capable who can fill the few places they vacate.

The places I mentioned before are already full of such people, and the higher the burden the more people join them.

They don't vacate their job. They continue doing it from abroad and this income simply goes elsewhere.

One has to be rational about these matters not emotional. Just because you want to say "go away, I don't love you any more" that doesn't help the lesser medical attention you can afford, the worse social services, pensions and so on. There are real, tough compromises to be made. Not saying it cannot be done better, just pointing out that it cannot be taken to an extreme simply based on one's particular sense of morality, when there are objective things at stake.

[gamble]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, saw this in June 22's FT, what a shame!

"Wealthy investors including Mr. Ferguson, Sven-Göran Eriksson and a host of sports stars and City figures could be liable for huge individual tax bills after an attempt to reduce their liabilities backfired.
 
The 289 investors in Eclipse 35, a film partnership ruled to be an “aggressive” tax avoidance scheme by a tax tribunal in April, could end up paying several times more than the total of £117m tax they sought to avoid as the Revenue & Customs examines the large bank loans they took on to participate in the scheme...Mr. Ferguson, Manchester United’s manager, declined to comment and Mr Eriksson, the former England football manager, could not be reached for comment."

I've worked professionally in this area and done research into such schemes. Pretty mucth everyone in football in the last ten years is on one of these schemes including players such as Stevie and Carra who are heavily involved in film schemes.

Doesn't matter what the rules are, there are always ways and methods around them. waste of time going on about it.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I've worked professionally in this area and done research into such schemes. Pretty mucth everyone in football in the last ten years is on one of these schemes including players such as Stevie and Carra who are heavily involved in film schemes.

Doesn't matter what the rules are, there are always ways and methods around them. waste of time going on about it.

Until they are reviled by the people paying their wages, then they might just think twice about it.  The key here is for the general populace to make it clear that it is morally unacceptable.  Then we no longer need to wait for the government to close loopholes they are probably exploiting themselves we just need a few investigative journalists to expose the schemes and those in them.

[stevedo]

Until they are reviled by the people paying their wages, then they might just think twice about it.  The key here is for the general populace to make it clear that it is morally unacceptable.  Then we no longer need to wait for the government to close loopholes they are probably exploiting themselves we just need a few investigative journalists to expose the schemes and those in them.

Nick Davies must be twiddling his thumbs now? 
A general anti avoidance provision would be a step in the right direction.