Jump to content

Carr Tax


Norman Verona

Recommended Posts

Made me laugh, Politicians speaking of morals

It would be funny if it wasn't hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carr should not have been named by the Prime Minister. That was wrong and will be something he will regret. NOTW will be putting all their resource into this now.

The problem is not loopholes, it is the excessive levels of taxation. Excessive across the board on income and almost every aspect of our lives from fuel to business rates to council tax. The 40% level captures too many people and the 50% level should not exist. 20% VAT is crazy.

There are actually relatively few easy loopholes left and the costs and risks of exploiting what is left are becoming higher and more risky.

None of these schemes are really approved and they all carry significant risk to anyone going into them. Risk over the security of the money deposited and also risk of being challenged by HMRC at almost any point in time in the future. Whilst the scheme may have resulted in Carr only paying 1% to HMRC, I am sure that the advisers fees, legal insurance, funding costs, set up fees etc would have ended up pushing effective 'tax' rate to maybe 10, 15 or even 20%. So it was probably presented to Carr as this scheme will save you 30% not you will only pay 1% income tax.

Also I doubt Carr would have put all his income into this.

I wish that Carr had stayed in the scheme and at some point just made a donation to Charity at a rate equivalent to an acceptable level of tax so atleast the government wouldn't have got their hands on it and he would have been honest about why he and many others do it. Most of them wouldn't go near these schemes if they had a 20 or 30% or perhaps even 40% tax rate to begin with.

I would be staggered if tax evasion doesn't cost more than tax avoidance.

We need to be careful in this country that we don't end up following the politics of envy. Do get this country where it needs to be we need to have aspiration and ambition not envy and spite.

Carr is successful and good luck to him. His tax affairs, if legal are nothing to do with us. His advisers are only doing what we all do in our own lives - minimises our taxes and maximising our investment returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think this sums up all politicians of all parties.

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen doughnuts waiting for him at his door.

Then an MP came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The MP was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen MPs lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.

BOTH POLITICIANS AND NAPPIES NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it ill advised for a comedian? Yes.

Not too sure about that. I think it's possibly more about the measure of the comedian. He's gone back on it 'cos he's scared of losing his audience. But half of Ken Dodd's act is about his tax avoidance history and his audience love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodd was evasion not avoidance.

I wonder if the man in the street relates more to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodd was evasion not avoidance.

I wonder if the man in the street relates more to that.

Ken Dodd evaded tax did he?

No Doddy !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carr should not have been named by the Prime Minister. That was wrong and will be something he will regret. NOTW will be putting all their resource into this now.

IIRC he was named by the interviewer.

I think it's quite funny, smart A*** comedian caught out and running scared. What a hypocritical ****. He thinks it's clever to effectively lecture us, the audience, about his views on 'big business' screwing tax payers when he was doing the very same. You have to laugh, it's funnier than his gags anyway.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carr's biggest mistake was apologising.

He should have taken the mick out of the PM for setting up a system that was "immoral". Then he could have started on the political morals of a PM that wouldn't criticise the teflon superstar Gary Barlow.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm feeling guilty now, think I should move my savings out of my tax free isa for fear of being branded imoral by mr c. Do we think he is going to personally review each tax payer individually!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone is self employed and they use these measures it usually upon the advice of their accountants. His only wrong in my view was not using his own judgement as to whether he should do it or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they will bring in new tax rules and the very rich will again move their cash into yet another tax haven / fund / offshore location / charity a few more of the lower ranks will be entrapped but the big boys will continue to escape as they always have. Thats the immoral bit not what Jimmy Carr did as an individual. There is a guideline in place which covers worldwide earnings versus remittance but I understand it is still a guideline and not statute. They will just move abroad then and I expect we will suffer from the loss of there company. I recall a few of the larger pop stars moved out and we all bleated on about the loss to the revenue of their tax but if they ain't paying anyway ? they could go and annoy some other neighbour. What changed so they all came back, did the government or revenue encourage the big guys to stay by allowing certain get out routes as it is kudos to have them here and waltzing in and out of No 10 rather than LA.

John, the accountant recommends the action but the client will always sign a form to say he has approved the issue. Not that they fully understand of course its the accountants get out of jail free card.

Bob :no: :no: :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little uneasy about calling someone immoral when they do something that's legal.

As you say, it may be called immoral if the government allow tax avoidance schemes to be created.

Just remove all the tax breaks and deal with genuine cases (like double taxation) as it us now, you have to apply on a form stamped by the country where you will be paying tax (assuming there's a treaty in existence)

If the whole tax and benefit system was streamlined we could deal with our so called deficit at a stroke. By reducing the size of the civil service and all the hangers on employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little uneasy about calling someone immoral when they do something that's legal.

As I said before, legality doesn't define morality.

A married man having an affair isn't illegal, but is immoral.

Parking in a disabled parking space when not disabled isn't illegal, but is immoral.

Going through a red light to let an ambulance through is illegal, but isn't immoral.

Defining morality by the laws of the land is a very poor way to run society - do we need to legislate for every possible situation in order for people to feel the need to do the correct thing? Why can't people have a sense of decency and fairness which isn't defined by law.

A nonsense argument IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grieg, I agree it's a nonsense argument. But it was started by the PM.

The point I was making was that, in my opinion, the government allow these loopholes to be created so where does the immorality lie.

Just set tax rates that all can afford and stop the nonsense of tax breaks to manipulate the economy. After many years it's fairly obvious that all they do is manipulate the amount of tax paid by high earners.

By the way, all the examples you cite are nothing to do with paying money. The government set out the rules but want to label people who use those rules to their advantage immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please review our Terms of Use, Guidelines and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.