[sheldorofazaroth]

Does anyone have an opinion on this matter. Today's society allows working class people who are on benefits to be sent down if they do an extra few hours of cleaning work or something, however when Jimmy Carr or Gary Barlow pay no or low tax they only get told its morally wrong?


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

[OedipusTheKing]

I found this topic so amusing, particularly with Cameron's comment on it. Blame Jimmy for finding a loop hole in a tax system, or - more reasonably, I would argue, have the politicians enact laws to prevent said loop holes from working in the first place

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by sheldorofazaroth)
Does anyone have an opinion on this matter. Today's society allows working class people who are on benefits to be sent down if they do an extra few hours of cleaning work or something, however when Jimmy Carr or Gary Barlow pay no or low tax they only get told its morally wrong?

The difference is that one of the things you mentioned is illegal while the other is simply morally questionable. One is exploiting the system illegally for financial gain, whilst the other is exploiting it legally for financial gain.

[SarahSimpsons]

What Jimmy Carr is doing is perfectly legal and most people in his position would do the same. I actually feel bad for him and the fact that hes being singled out for all of this. There are many worse crimes being committed, and its not like he isn't contributing to society, in fact I would say that he is contributing a lot more to society than some.

[Eldedu]

He's a **** for doing it, but he's no worse than a million other ***** (some of them large businesses stashing much more than he ever will) who do it and don't suffer from a hate campaign in the media.

[Stressworthy]

It was, of course, a massive error of judgement on his part and I can't get my round how he thought it'd be a good idea... but then, that's one of the less important things I need to get my head round, I'd imagine. I didn't like how Cameron and the papers made it a huge personal attack, though... particularly when it's a pot-calling-the-kettle-black scenario.

[SarahSimpsons]

(Original post by Stressworthy)
It was, of course, a massive error of judgement on his part and I can't get my round how he thought it'd be a good idea... but then, that's one of the less important things I need to get my head round, I'd imagine. I didn't like how Cameron and the papers made it a huge personal attack, though... particularly when it's a pot-calling-the-kettle-black scenario.

Exactly!

[Rhadamanthus]

It's legal and as far as being morally questionable, it's about as immoral as someone seeing that a can of coke is 89p then looking for a cheaper, own-brand alternative.

[Fusion]

(Original post by Stressworthy)
It was, of course, a massive error of judgement on his part and I can't get my round how he thought it'd be a good idea... but then, that's one of the less important things I need to get my head round, I'd imagine. I didn't like how Cameron and the papers made it a huge personal attack, though... particularly when it's a pot-calling-the-kettle-black scenario.

I could give you over 1.5m reasons why he thought it was a good idea

3.5m at 50%= 1.75m
3.5m at 1% = 35k

[internetguru]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
It's legal and as far as being morally questionable, it's about as immoral as someone seeing that a can of coke is 89p then looking for a cheaper, own-brand alternative.

I agree I feel the same way about rape.

[Ray Bradbury]

The hypocrisy of Cameron et al gets me. Theses (politicians) pricks wrote British tax legislation and left it with more holes than a Swiss cheese just so that tax avoidance could take place. IIRC didn't Cameron's father place money in a tax avoidance scheme. If they wanted to they could stop all dodgy tax avoidance within one parliament, but they wont because they are all part of the game.

[Norton1]

(Original post by internetguru)
I agree I feel the same way about rape.

You think rape is the cheaper own brand alternative to sex. I think you're what we might define as a walking 'rape situation'.

[marcusfox]

Everyone avoids tax. If you could get away with paying less tax you would. So would everyone here.

If you were suddenly to become a millionaire, one of the first things you would be doing is figuring out how to legally hold on to as much of that money as possible.

If you want to talk about tax evasion, the illegal kind, HMRC are on record saying that the biggest losses to the revenue are tax credit fraud, cash in hand work, VAT fraud, roll your own tobacco and agricultural diesel. You don't have to look to the rich to find that kind of thing going on.

[ForKicks]

It's pretty simple. Benefit fraud is illegal, tax avoidance is legal. If the laws were changed and broken by celebrities et al, then they would be sent down too.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

If it's legal then anyone clever enough to find a way to beat the system deserves a pat on the back as far as I'm concerned.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by internetguru)
I agree I feel the same way about rape.

Do you now? Do you really.

[Stressworthy]

(Original post by Fusion)
I could give you over 1.5m reasons why he thought it was a good idea

3.5m at 50%= 1.75m
3.5m at 1% = 35k

no, yeah, fair point obvs... I meant more in the sense of getting caught, but even so I bet tonnes of people would've done it. that's mostly why I didn't like the idea of him being some sort of scapegoat.

[marcusfox]

Tax avoidance simply means arranging things so you don't pay what you don't have to pay. An entirely sensible policy. Many ordinary people in the UK are actively involved in tax avoidance. Such as moving money from savings to an ISA, so the interest is not taxed. Buying your tobacco and alcohol from lower duty jurisdictions. Or simply refusing to smoke or drink altogether. Why would you want to pay more tax than you legally had to?

If the loophole exists, then it is because the government want it to exist, if they didn't, then they'd close it.

Besides, a company has a responsibility to minimise the amount it pays in tax.

In the process of doing so, it is a good thing. It keeps down the prices of goods and services that they sell.

Who do you think will pay in the end if all that avoided tax is collected?

Corporation Tax is just another burden on a company's bottom line, which means it just gets passed on to us in the form of higher prices and lower wages.

Find a way to plug the avoidance in the airline industry, and guess what, the fares will go up, that's all.

Companies are just pieces of paper, they can't pay taxes, corporate taxes are just a ploy by cynical politicians to convince us that they are keeping our taxes down, when in fact they aren't, it's just tax on the ordinary person, by the back door.

As I already said, the HMRC is on record by saying that by far the greatest sums lost in tax evasion (thats the illegal one by the way) are agricultural diesel, roll your own tobacco, cash in hand work and tax credits. You don't need to go to the Cayman Islands or Switzerland to find that going on, and I very much doubt that it's the rich that are responsible for it.

Anyway, it's entirely delusional to believe there are all these corporate honey pots just waiting to be plundered. Those companies avoid taxes to keep their costs down and that saving was passed on to their customers years ago, so it just isn't there to be claimed back.

[DynamicSyngery]

Tax avoidance on the whole is both legal and moral; problem in Carr's case is hypocrisy. He's another champagne socialist who castigates bankers while doing exactly the same thing.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by internetguru)
I agree I feel the same way about rape.

And why do you think that looking for a cheaper product in a supermarket is comparable to rape? Are you sick?