[Sir Fox]

(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?

Ever thought of how an economy would work without a dense network of streets built from taxes? The rich can send their children to private schools, build their own wells, attend private hospitals etc., but I have never heard of private streets, police etc. and if large proportions of the population impoverish because tax cuts render the government unable to finance the healthcare and education system the purchasing power decreases and the economy declines.

There is a reason for taxes, especially in an age of high national debts which one day should be paid back

[MrNucleon]

(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.

So... It's not Carr's fault that he is exploiting these tax loopholes? The temptation is so great that he has NO CHOICE other that to be exploititative and immoral?

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by benpearson1)
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.

The only reason you and I do not set up businesses in Jersey is because the cost and effort is nowhere near worth the amount of money that will be saved. He's cutting down on costs, something those struggling to pay taxes would want to do also, no? So, please stop taking the high-ground.

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
Would the corporate owners set up their businesses if there was no viable reward? Would they create jobs if the above didn't happen?

I'm not opposed to them having gains. Just not gains so massive as to be ludicrous and practically using workers as slaves.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
I'm not opposed to them having gains. Just not gains so massive as to be ludicrous and practically using workers as slaves.

That is a completely different story for a completely different thread. You're wandering off topic.

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
The only reason you and I do not set up businesses in Jersey is because the cost and effort is nowhere near worth the amount of money that will be saved. He's cutting down on costs, something those struggling to pay taxes would want to do also, no? So, please stop taking the high-ground.

If the only thing stopping you from exploiting loopholes is their lack of gain, then I can assume that with sufficient gain you would exploit them. It logically follows that if you were able to break a law without being caught you would do it, and I pity you for that.

I can honestly say I would not start a buisness in Jersey. I AM taking a high ground because the exploitation is not something I would do.

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
That is a completely different story for a completely different thread. You're wandering off topic.

If the topic naturally leads to another related discussion I am inclined to persue it.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
If the only thing stopping you from exploiting loopholes is their lack of gain, then I can assume that with sufficient gain you would exploit them. It logically follows that if you were able to break a law without being caught you would do it, and I pity you for that.

I can honestly say I would not start a buisness in Jersey. I AM taking a high ground because the exploitation is not something I would do.

That's what I said...
I'm not going to hire super accountants and put in all of that effort to save a few hundred pounds a year. If we're talking about millions, then it's a different story.

He is cutting down on costs. That time you put down a tin of baked beans? You cut down on osts and didn't pay VAT. Why is it that when it's done on a larger scale people begin to become vilified?

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
If the topic naturally leads to another related discussion I am inclined to persue it.

Tax avoidance and slave labour are different things. If you must, where is your evidence that tax leads to slave labour so grossly worse than what 'may already occur'?

[Bollo's Lovechild]

(Original post by Otkem)
[url

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.

Yeah but then it just goes into lining the pockets of the rich, not into public service provision where it's actually needed. Especially in austere times like these

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
That's what I said...
I'm not going to hire super accountants and put in all of that effort to save a few hundred pounds a year. If we're talking about millions, then it's a different story.

He is cutting down on costs. That time you put down a tin of baked beans? You cut down on osts and didn't pay VAT. Why is it that when it's done on a larger scale people begin to become vilified?

There is a fundamental difference. When I put down the tin of baked beans I don't get the tin of baked beans. Jimmy Carr, however, would get the tin of baked beans, and pay less for it than I would have, due to lower tax.
Your comparison is invalid.

[TurboCretin]

Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not. Whether or not you think tax avoidance is a good thing depends on whether you think of it as prudent or sneaky. They are simply different spins on the same thing: tax avoidance is clever to the effect that it turns the intricate technicalities of tax law on themselves, thereby obeying the letter of the law, if not the spirit. Then again, with the Tories in power who's to know whether the spirit and the letter of tax law are at odds.

[MrNucleon]

I didn't say one lead to the other. I can't quite remember how the topic came about; you can look back if you wish.
I was merely digressing somewhat.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
There is a fundamental difference. When I put down the tin of baked beans I don't get the tin of baked beans. Jimmy Carr, however, would get the tin of baked beans, and pay less for it than I would have, due to lower tax.
Your comparison is invalid.

If you wish to be pedantic, then fine. That time you put money in an ISA?

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
I didn't say one lead to the other. I can't quite remember how the topic came about; you can look back if you wish.
I was merely digressing somewhat.

You said gains (presumably from circulating untaxed money) meant owners used people as slaves.

[RowingGoose]

Because morally, it's greedy and selfish but there's a lot of these occurences going on (politicians' spending, benefit scams, CEOs getting bonuses even when targets aren't met etc)

I agree that most of the rich have worked hard and are put in a position of high responsibility (e.g. CEOs) but then so are other people. (Going off on a tangent, a higher rate of pay might not necessarily make people happier or creative anyway which has got big impacts for business). But it's an issue that the top 10% of earners pay half of the country's tax (a vital amount of money) and many can imo still afford to live comfortably.

There'll be pressure on Cameron to close some of these loopholes but that may anger his business friends close to home!

[Pindar]

Of course it's not "morally questionable". Tax is legalised theft. Encouraging it is just wrong. Everyone has a moral obligation not to pay tax if they don't have to, it is immoral to encourage theft.

[ThatPerson]

My opinion is, is that if you use scheme's such as Jimmy Carr's, you shouldn't be entitled to any of the benefits that come with the UK's high tax. The UK is a socialist-capitalist society where we have free healthcare and education, unlike in other countries, to support this we have a higher rate of tax than those countries. If people aren't willing to pay the moral amount of tax then morally they shouldn't be entitled to/use any of the services that are funded through tax.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by RowingGoose)
Because morally, it's greedy and selfish but there's a lot of these occurences going on (politicians' spending, benefit scams etc)

I agree that most of the rich have worked hard and are put in a position of high responsibility (e.g. CEOs) but then so are other people. But it's an issue that the top 10% of earners pay half of the country's tax (a vital amount of money) and many can imo still afford to live comfortably.

There'll be pressure on Cameron to close some of these loopholes but that may anger his business friends close to home!

But, as Stefan has demonstrated in the post below you, what is deemed morally correct differs from person to person.

[chefdave]

(Original post by benpearson1)
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.

Well if you just want to have a pop at Carr because he's decided to pay 1% tax rather than 40% my response is....so what? You'd have to be a complete buffoon to pay 40 times more for a service than you have to, morality doesn't come into it. The more interesting question for me is how we structure our public finances. Carr's case is perhaps an indication of serious failings at HM Treasury, so rather than waste this opportunity by discussing individual morality perhaps we could use it as a springboard to address the more important weaknesses that blight the system.

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.

You can't solve theft with more theft. If the majority of the population are struggling to meet their monthly outgoings (which I agree is a problem) the state needs to seriously reconsider the way we've structured our economy. It's not Carr's fault we're in a God almighty mess.