[Red Richie]

The funny thing about all this 'outrage' is that EVERYONE avoids tax through various means with ISA accounts being the most glaring example. I bet you that most people in Jimmy Carr's shoes would've took the exact same decision if their accountant told them that they could pay 1% as opposed to 40% (or whatever the 'correct' amount is) tax.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by Hipster)
Was it not that well-known leftist newspaper, the Times who broke this story?

Calling the BBC leftist because they are reporting on an issue that even our leftist prime minister has been moralising about.

well yeah, but since the OP also stated that anyone wealthy enough to enter these same schemes would, and then reduced the purpose of tax to 'paying for the idle'...

I think we can leave them be to furiously mash their gammon fists into the keyboard of a computer owned by whichever crooked internet cafe owner was irresponsible enough to let them near electricity

[Riderz]

(Original post by Red Richie)
The funny thing about all this 'outrage' is that EVERYONE avoids tax through various means with ISA accounts being the most glaring example. I bet you that most people in Jimmy Carr's shoes would've took the exact same decision if their accountant told them that they could pay 1% as opposed to 40% (or whatever the 'correct' amount is) tax.

Of course, and therein lies the irony. People are outraged because they dont have the money to make it worthwhile. A good accountant is employed to find ways of keeping your tax bill down; as such you will never stop it, but just keep plugging gaps as they appear.

The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the width of a cell wall.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Maccees)
The first thing you have ever said that I kind of agree with you about.

That's probably because before this OP would only talk about social issues, whereas this is more of an economic issue.

I think OP is a good example of a traditional conservative.

[chefdave]

(Original post by Narcissist)
The ISA argument is like saying if you have ever smiled at a racist joke you aren't allowed an opinion on the holacaust.

I think you're stretching it a bit there. Jimmy Carr's K2 scheme saved him a lot more money than you're average ISA but the principle is exactly the same. Would all those left-wing journos happily shift their ISA balances over to a standard savings account? Nope. But they're happy to lambast Carr for his "immoral" actions. A period of self-reflection is in order I feel.

[Namige]

(Original post by Otkem)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18548896

Tax furore? Typical nonsense from the state-run, leftist propaganda machine that is the BBC.

I support the K2 tax avoidance scheme as it helps keep money in the pockets of the wealthy who have earned it. If any of Jimmy Carr's hecklers were successful and wealthy enough to afford his accountants, they would do exactly the same thing. I believe that keeping money in the economy itself (i.e. the pockets of the citizens) generates growth as people can spend more within the economy rather than having their income stolen by the government in order to pay for the idle.

Tax EVASION is questionable, but keeping your tax bill as low as possible is one of the most moral I can think of doing, because it means there is more disposable income to spend within the economy itself.

What are your thoughts?

No, the higher the income, the higher the propensity to save.




This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Namige)
No, the higher the income, the higher the propensity to save.




This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

And being fiscally responsible and saving should be punished because....?

[MrNucleon]

When you are born and raised in the care of the state you have a responsibility to the state.
Jimmy Carr went to a state school. [1]
He no doubt has had some form of NHS treatment at some point in his life.
He has no doubt used many public services, roads, god knows what else. If you don't want to contribute a small portion of what you earn in return for the countless benefits, then you are free to leave.

(Original post by Otkem)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18548896

I believe that keeping money in the economy itself (i.e. the pockets of the citizens) generates growth as people can spend more within the economy rather than having their income stolen by the government in order to pay for the idle.
Tax EVASION is questionable, but keeping your tax bill as low as possible is one of the most moral I can think of doing, because it means there is more disposable income to spend within the economy itself.

Do you honestly think that the money wealthy people earn goes into the economy? I am positive that a large portion of it simply stays rotting in a bank. What you have said sounds like it has been regurgitated from a Geography GCSE.

[MrNucleon]

"...but keeping your tax bill as low as possible is one of the most moral [things] I can think of doing..."
If that is seriously one of the most moral things you can think of doing I'm going to hunt you down and vomit my own blood onto your testicles.

Legality is irrelevant. You should do the right thing from a desire to benefit your fellow man, not from fear of persecution.

[1] - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...r-1022921.html

[Ben F]

(Original post by Ocassus)
And being fiscally responsible and saving should be punished because....?

Because saving destroys an economy. On an individual level, saving is very prudent and good.

Ironically, on a larger scale saving is disastrous and should not be encouraged at all, as one person's expenditure is another's income - you take away the expenditure and the economy completely stagnates.

[Beebumble]

Laughing at how the people justifying tax avoidance are the same people who go on about people on benefits.

[M^2012]

Personally, I don't think that the rich having the option of dodging around taxes, however legal, is morally right, as many of them will have benefited from the proceeds of tax at some point to getting to where they are.

However, I also think that David Cameron was wrong to make a statement about one individual's tax affairs, as they were totally legal, so I don't see why he has the authority to criticise another person's morality in a public statement, as he did.

[chefdave]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
When you are born and raised in the care of the state you have a responsibility to the state.
Jimmy Carr went to a state school. [1]
He no doubt has had some form of NHS treatment at some point in his life.
He has no doubt used many public services, roads, god knows what else. If you don't want to contribute a small portion of what you earn in return for the countless benefits, then you are free to leave.

Please think about what you're saying. The state doesn't have a right to bully the population into handing over ever increasing sums of cash because we've all occassionally used a public service. The fact is even at 1% Carr has already paid for all the public services he's consumed, the left just want to use him as a cash-cow to fund their socialist fantasies.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Hipster)
Was it not that well-known leftist newspaper, the Times who broke this story?

Calling the BBC leftist because they are reporting on an issue that even our leftist prime minister has been moralising about.

It's Otkem, anything bad ever said about a wealthy person is "leftist".

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
When you are born and raised in the care of the state you have a responsibility to the state.
Jimmy Carr went to a state school. [1]
He no doubt has had some form of NHS treatment at some point in his life.
He has no doubt used many public services, roads, god knows what else. If you don't want to contribute a small portion of what you earn in return for the countless benefits, then you are free to leave.



Do you honestly think that the money wealthy people earn goes into the economy? I am positive that a large portion of it simply stays rotting in a bank. What you have said sounds like it has been regurgitated from a Geography GCSE.

Who do you think buys the expensive houses, cars, clothes and jewelry? Stop being dense. Even if they want to save their money, so what?

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by chefdave)


Please think about what you're saying. The state doesn't have a right to bully the population into handing over ever increasing sums of cash because we've all occassionally used a public service. The fact is even at 1% Carr has already paid for all the public services he's consumed, the left just want to use him as a cash-cow to fund their socialists fantasies.

I'm not saying the state should bully. I'm saying that people should have the decency to see the good they have gained from the money of others, and to behave similarly and in a moral manner.

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
Who do you think buys the expensive houses, cars, clothes and jewelry? Stop being dense. Even if they want to save their money, so what?

My point is that arguements from "It's good for the economy" are redundant and silly.
The people who make the expensive houses, cars, clothes and jewelry only aquire a mere fraction of what was paid for those items; most goes into the pockets of more rich corporate owners.
The rich are not the economy, and they do not suffer from its losses.

[chefdave]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
I'm not saying the state should bully. I'm saying that people should have the decency to see the good they have gained from the money of others, and to behave similarly and in a moral manner.

It's not Carr's fault though, if Cameron wants to ensure that we all pay our fair share he needs to rearrange the tax code so these loopholes are closed down. It's not up to Carr to find ways to pay more tax than necessary, it's up to the coalition to introduce some sanity into the realm of public finance.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
My point is that arguements from "It's good for the economy" are redundant and silly.
The people who make the expensive houses, cars, clothes and jewelry only aquire a mere fraction of what was paid for those items; most goes into the pockets of more rich corporate owners.
The rich are not the economy, and they do not suffer from its losses.

Would the corporate owners set up their businesses if there was no viable reward? Would they create jobs if the above didn't happen?

[Endless Blue]

(Original post by chefdave)
It's not Carr's fault though, if Cameron wants to ensure that we all pay our fair share he needs to rearrange the tax code so these loopholes are closed down. It's not up to Carr to find ways to pay more tax than necessary, it's up to the coalition to introduce some sanity into the realm of public finance.

I really don't understand this argument that people keep on regurgitating. Just because loopholes exist doesn't mean they should be exploited by those who, let's face it, don't really need to. I don't think anyone on here doesn't want to see these loops closed, but that's not really the discussion.

Funnily enough I think I remember you from another thread where you constantly banged on about the 'Boomers' exploiting the current generation(s). I don't see why you're supporting Carr exploiting these loopholes to the extent he is when the majority of the population are struggling to pay their own taxes.