[TurboCretin]

(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.

You don't think there's a leap of logic between saying "you'd exploit a loophole" and saying "you'd break the law"? Exploitation of loopholes is simply a matter of knowing where the line lies between what is illegal and what is not. How does it follow that someone who would exploit a superior grasp of the tax system would willfully break the law?

[AK0001]

(Original post by 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.

Free healthcare and education? Are you being serious?

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by 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.

Here we go again. Who decides what the moral amount is?

[chefdave]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
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?

Who in their right mind would CHOOSE to pay 40x more for a product than they have too?

You're not living in the real world.

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
You said gains (presumably from circulating untaxed money) meant owners used people as slaves.

Ah no, I can see how that was misread, it is indeed ambiguous.
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. Just not gains so massive as to be ludicrous and practically using workers as slaves. "
To rephrase:
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. I am oppsed to gains so massive as to be ludicrous. I am also opposed to them practically using workers as slaves. (In terms of pay gap between CEOs and workers."

[krishan369]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
Ah no, I can see how that was misread, it is indeed ambiguous.
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. Just not gains so massive as to be ludicrous and practically using workers as slaves. "
To rephrase:
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. I am oppsed to gains so massive as to be ludicrous. I am also opposed to them practically using workers as slaves. (In terms of pay gap between CEOs and workers."

This is a hypothetical situation right? you dont actually think the wage differentials of ceo's and workers amount to something equivalent to slavery do you?

[Kage]

Yeah in my opinion it really makes no sense. If you earn so much money, you have earned it. Why should say 40% go to the government when a typical person pays a lot less percentage, because they make less money? Why should rich people have to pay a lot more? It's not like as you are rich, you are suddenly using more resources and so should pay more... It's just wrong in my opinion.

Tax in my opinion, when you reach a certain point, should be fixed, but not stupidly high.

1% he has been paying, with the amount of money he gets, is probably still a lot more than we shell out to the government even yearly.

Maybe I just don't understand it too much.
This is coming from someone that isn't rich by the way. Far from it. I work part time, and earn less than £12,000 a year taxed.

[AK0001]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
Ah no, I can see how that was misread, it is indeed ambiguous.
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. Just not gains so massive as to be ludicrous and practically using workers as slaves. "
To rephrase:
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. I am oppsed to gains so massive as to be ludicrous. I am also opposed to them practically using workers as slaves. (In terms of pay gap between CEOs and workers."

You do realise that slaves have no choice, but these workers do?

[R4INBOW]

Otkem, have you seen the thread that states right wingists are less intelligent than lefties?


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

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by chefdave)
Who in their right mind would CHOOSE to pay 40x more for a product than they have too?

You're not living in the real world.

Considering tax is a percentage of the price of the product there is no way it would be 40x more.
This isn't the same as choosing between two products of different price.
This is making is so that all products are cheaper, you aren't contributing to the state, and on top of that you are a millionaire and so you aren't really in a position where you need to save money.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
Ah no, I can see how that was misread, it is indeed ambiguous.
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. Just not gains so massive as to be ludicrous and practically using workers as slaves. "
To rephrase:
"I'm not opposed to them having gains. I am oppsed to gains so massive as to be ludicrous. I am also opposed to them practically using workers as slaves. (In terms of pay gap between CEOs and workers."

Fair enough, however I do not think the disparity between pay and also conditions etc in the UK suggest slavery. Especially not with the numerous unions we have.

[MrNucleon]

(Original post by krishan369)
This is a hypothetical situation right? you dont actually think the wage differentials of ceo's and workers amount to something equivalent to slavery do you?

I do. CEOs do none of the work, get all of the money. Workers (strangely enough) do the work, and get very little of the money. Seems akin to slavery to me.

(Original post by AK0001)
You do realise that slaves have no choice, but these workers do?

Ach, I hate this. Workers do not have a choice. A choice between a low paid job and starvation is not a choice.

[chefdave]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
Considering tax is a percentage of the price of the product there is no way it would be 40x more.
This isn't the same as choosing between two products of different price.
This is making is so that all products are cheaper, you aren't contributing to the state, and on top of that you are a millionaire and so you aren't really in a position where you need to save money.

When it came to paying tax HMRC presented Carr with a range of different options, he could have paid a tax rate in excess of 40% or with a little creativity he could have received the exact same level of service for a mere 1%. It's not an issue of morality, any sane person would choose to pay the 1% rate because it's in their interest to keep as much of their money as possible. Would you pay 40x more for a jar of coffee because the proceeds went to charity? If not why would you expect anyone else to do so?

[Existentialistic]

10/10 - Epic troll, would read again.

[krishan369]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
I do. CEOs do none of the work, get all of the money. Workers (strangely enough) do the work, and get very little of the money. Seems akin to slavery to me.



Ach, I hate this. Workers do not have a choice. A choice between a low paid job and starvation is not a choice.

I'm sorry, but being paid much less than a CEO doesnt amount to slavery... you think the UK is overrun with slaves? slavery means you have no means of finding alternative employment, you're physically trapped, you have rights removed from you that you're employers have and you could probably could find arguments that do display these characteristics within the CEO/worker scenario but use a bit of common sense.

Also, who are you to say that all CEO's don't do any work, for all you know they could work damn hard. And if they're the ones that took the risk and invested their money to start the business I hardly think them getting paid more money if the risk pays off resembles slavery. We are in the UK, there is a minimum wage, welfare, a very low homeless rate, you cant say big firms here hire slaves.

[Endless Blue]

(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.

I find it rather annoying that you seem to think you know every little thing about me and what I would do if I were in his position. You seem very presumptuous and patronising and basically a bit of a ****er, but that is besides the point.

As much as you genuinely like to think you know me, I wouldn't actually do what Carr did were I in his position. Or at least, I think I wouldn't which is all I can say unless put in that position (which we both know isn't going to happen). And like other people have said, there's a fundamental difference between 'cutting down on costs' and essentially avoiding taxes altogether. I don't think anyone would have minded had he cut down on 5, even 10% but the fact is that he was paying 1% and surely you can see for the majority of the population who can barely 'cut down on cost at all' how incredibly frustrating it is for someone in Jimmy Carr's position to be paying such little tax. At least he apologised for it and, unlike you, didn't try to justify it because 'the loopholes exist' and er 'well I bet you'd do the same wouldn't you!!'

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by benpearson1)
I find it rather annoying that you seem to think you know every little thing about me and what I would do if I were in his position. You seem very presumptuous and patronising and basically a bit of a ****er, but that is besides the point.

As much as you genuinely like to think you know me, I wouldn't actually do what Carr did were I in his position. Or at least, I think I wouldn't which is all I can say unless put in that position (which we both know isn't going to happen). And like other people have said, there's a fundamental difference between 'cutting down on costs' and essentially avoiding taxes altogether. I don't think anyone would have minded had he cut down on 5, even 10% but the fact is that he was paying 1% and surely you can see for the majority of the population who can barely 'cut down on cost at all' how incredibly frustrating it is for someone in Jimmy Carr's position to be paying such little tax. At least he apologised for it and, unlike you, didn't try to justify it because 'the loopholes exist' and er 'well I bet you'd do the same wouldn't you!!'

Pick up your toys and stick them back in your pram, please, I was speaking in general terms. You're making nebulus distinctions as to what he should pay. Who decides where the line is drawn?

You not buying cake is avoiding tax. You putting money in an ISA is avoiding tax. Stop acting like a saint. You're morally superior to nobody.

[AdamskiUK]

Tax is a bad thing anyway.

Read Ayn Rand.

Silly leftists.

[Endless Blue]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
Pick up your toys and stick them back in your pram, please, I was speaking in general terms. You're making nebulus distinctions as to what he should pay. Who decides where the line is drawn?

You not buying cake is avoiding tax. You putting money in an ISA is avoiding tax. Stop acting like a saint. You're morally superior to nobody.

Well it's a good thing I don't eat much cake then. You must be great company, by the way.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by benpearson1)
Well it's a good thing I don't eat much cake then. You must be great company, by the way.

All I've done in this thread is say humans by nature want to minimise costs and tax avoidance takes place much more frequently than one would like to think. You are a brilliant judge of character (!)