Come on if somebody sat you down and said "I can arrange it so you pay less tax than you do now and it's perfectly legal" How many people out of 100 would say no. It's no illegal therefore it isn't wrong, he earns the money and as long as he is within the law there is nothing to discuss.
of course we can discuss whether the tax system is wrong in allowing it but that is another topic.
Morally wrong, according to Cameron. Just like Boris meeting with News International clan and hoping nobody would notice.
Come on if somebody sat you down and said "I can arrange it so you pay less tax than you do now and it's perfectly legal" How many people out of 100 would say no. It's no illegal therefore it isn't wrong, he earns the money and as long as he is within the law there is nothing to discuss.
of course we can discuss whether the tax system is wrong in allowing it but that is another topic.
Good point Dave. If I was in the upper tax bracket I would pay, but I know I'm in a minority, and that's what all governments rely on.
Cameron and the rest of the cabinet are all multi millionaires and I just wonder how they and or their families accrued their wealth without using tax efficient methods. Bunch of hypocritical gits.
Unlike the weather I think it will be a 'hot topic' this summer, but like the bankers 'bonuses' these schemes/scams/will go on because the accountants, tax consultants and other "tax efficient" wheezes will just be repackaged as something else. Of course it has a serious effects on the economy, but probably 5 minutes after Pitt introduced an income tax bill in the commons some creative individual had a 'cunning plan' as black adder might suggest. Personally I do not buy into this it is legal, therefore it is all right opinion. Delude yourself all you like, just make an honest attempt to pay your bill, leave a tip, and remember you cannot take it with you. At least I have been 'advised' this is the case.
I agree with this. I would go further in saying that the Government wants a certain level of tax avoidance as it means that those they see as wealth creators can find a way of creating more wealth and investing in jobs in the economy.
If they were too aggressive in putting a stop to things then you will see more Jenson Button's and Sean Connery's who live outside the UK for much of the time.
So they expect that those who want to be "tax efficient" move from one scheme to another - it keeps the tax accountants in work, it keeps HMRC in work, and money flows around the economy rather than out of it.
I really don't buy all this indignation by Cameron and co. It just allows them to be seen to be bashing some easy hypocritical targets like Carr when they want it to appear that "we are all in this together".
Why do I say all of this, because if successive Governments truly wanted to tackle this, they could.
Cameron and the rest of the cabinet are all multi millionaires and I just wonder how they and or their families accrued their wealth without using tax efficient methods. Bunch of hypocritical gits.
It wouldnt take you more than 5 minutes research to find out, but I suppose that would spoil your indignation. how many Liberal members of the cabinet are multimillionnaires exactly?
FYI Osbourne's family built up a successful high end wallpaper company. I am sure all us ordinary folk would aim to make money from our business. And I would bet if we became successful every one of you who have children would leave your money to them. What are you moaning about? Should Osbournes family given it all away? To you perhaps? would that shut you up?
These 'hypocritical gits' you know sod all about - how many can you even name? - are the ones who are dedicated to eliminating these loopholes. Unlike the previous decade of snout-stuffing ''new'' labour in particular the endless measures instigated by Brown to help his multi millionnaire mates (including multimillionnaire Blair)
From the BBC about the scheme the Times highlighted ''Chancellor George Osborne wants to strengthen rules against this and similar schemes by introducing a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR).
This aims to act as blanket legislation to allow the taxman to differentiate between what counts as responsible tax planning and what is abusive tax avoidance. Consultation on the plans has now been published, with the government intending to bring in the rule in 2013.''
Remember this rule tightening was instigated long before the Times brought the subject up.
Cameron and the rest of the cabinet are all multi millionaires and I just wonder how they and or their families accrued their wealth without using tax efficient methods. Bunch of hypocritical gits.
It wouldnt take you more than 5 minutes research to find out, but I suppose that would spoil your indignation. how many Liberal members of the cabinet are multimillionnaires exactly?
FYI Osbourne's family built up a successful high end wallpaper company. I am sure all us ordinary folk would aim to make money from our business. And I would bet if we became successful every one of you who have children would leave your money to them. What are you moaning about? Should Osbournes family given it all away? To you perhaps? would that shut you up?
These 'hypocritical gits' you know sod all about - how many can you even name? - are the ones who are dedicated to eliminating these loopholes. Unlike the previous decade of snout-stuffing ''new'' labour in particular the endless measures instigated by Brown to help his multi millionnaire mates (including multimillionnaire Blair)
From the BBC about the scheme the Times highlighted ''Chancellor George Osborne wants to strengthen rules against this and similar schemes by introducing a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR).
This aims to act as blanket legislation to allow the taxman to differentiate between what counts as responsible tax planning and what is abusive tax avoidance. Consultation on the plans has now been published, with the government intending to bring in the rule in 2013.''
Remember this rule tightening was instigated long before the Times brought the subject up.
Why didnt you socialist Darlings do something?
My indignation is fine Thankyou very much. Yes I am fully aware that George Gideon Oliver Osborne has come from a family that has done very well in business and good luck to them. I don't know a single business or self employed person that doesn't employ tax efficient methods and good luck to them as well. I would hazard a guess that this includes the business built up by The 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor?
It has taken a few hundred years to turn full circle but we are now once again being ruled by the aristocracy and have as much of a clue how real people live and struggle as I do about a millionaires lifestyle. I detest them.
As for your personal attack on me. Well Fuck off.
Oh you did make me laugh suggesting they are dedicated to closing these loopholes. Shouldn't that bit be on the jokes thread.
It is not a problem that any of the parties want to tackle. Maggie wanted to turn us into a financial economy Swiss style and so we said goodbye to manufacturing ( not all Maggie's fault) We are now over reliant on the financial services to earn us money and all parties are terrified that if they tax the rich, the rich will move elsewhere. Central London has become a mere playground for the super rich and all we seem able to do is stand on the edges and helplessly watch our pensions shrivel. All the parties will posture and weep crocodile tears, truth is that I detest and mistrust most of them now.
seems as if most of take that have been doing the same as carr.
so David Cameron is speaking out on the celebrities when Cameron’s father had an offshore bank account and made his money i.e. David’s inheritance via doing the same as carr and take that. the hypocrisy.
Personally my first question if someone said to me "do you want to pay less tax" would be to ask exactly what it involves. Buying stuff in a duty free shop, opening an ISA, writing off childcare vouchers etc - they're all things anyone can do and have limits on the total value of tax you can avoid. Pretending that your income is just a loan from a company (with no defined terms, interest rate or repayment plan) to avoid millions in tax is just taking the piss.
Personally I'm with Ormiston on this. I didn't grow up in social housing, but went to state school, and my family have had cause to make use of the health and social care system quite a lot in recent years. And then there's public transport, libraries, getting my bins emptied and so on. I've benefitted from other people paying their taxes over the years, and it's churlish to quibble about paying mine now. As for the argument that higher tax rates are a disincentive to entrepreneurs, perhaps if they spent more time being happy about the HUGE amounts of money they're taking home rather worrying about what they're contributing in tax. If you're earning just enough to be paying the top rate of tax, you're still taking home 3 times the national average salary (probably 4 times average take home pay). If you're on a million a year, you're taking home more in a year, than the average person will do in 25, and if you're making complex arrangements to avoid paying your fair share that's just greedy.
Personally my first question if someone said to me "do you want to pay less tax" would be to ask exactly what it involves. Buying stuff in a duty free shop, opening an ISA, writing off childcare vouchers etc - they're all things anyone can do and have limits on the total value of tax you can avoid. Pretending that your income is just a loan from a company (with no defined terms, interest rate or repayment plan) to avoid millions in tax is just taking the piss.
Personally I'm with Ormiston on this. I didn't grow up in social housing, but went to state school, and my family have had cause to make use of the health and social care system quite a lot in recent years. And then there's public transport, libraries, getting my bins emptied and so on. I've benefitted from other people paying their taxes over the years, and it's churlish to quibble about paying mine now. As for the argument that higher tax rates are a disincentive to entrepreneurs, perhaps if they spent more time being happy about the HUGE amounts of money they're taking home rather worrying about what they're contributing in tax. If you're earning just enough to be paying the top rate of tax, you're still taking home 3 times the national average salary (probably 4 times average take home pay). If you're on a million a year, you're taking home more in a year, than the average person will do in 25, and if you're making complex arrangements to avoid paying your fair share that's just greedy.
depends on what we all define as paying our fair share is. 30% across the board sounds fair to me but won't be to others obviously, have a minimum wage exemption and then most of us won't be worried about what harry hampton is earning.
just make the tax more simple so that every person has to pay and this hopefully avoids leakage and loopholes for everybody.
Wow. Just read that El Tel is another who took part in this. Who would have thought someone as straight and up front as him would get drawn into something so mucky?
I notice that Call Me Dave refused to comment on Lord Ascrofts tax affairs when asked some time ago, it being a 'matter between the individual and the tax authorities'. I wonder why? Nor has he commented on Gary Barlow OBE's involvement. Maybe next time he and Gary are out on the hustings together he might care to ask him the name of his accountant?
As for the dentists doing it, my word don't they make enough out of the state???
If you had an accountant who said hey, want to pay less tax, how many of you would say no - of course not - it's unpatriotic? I know I wouldn't.
Very true of course on an individual basis because we think that HM Govt isn't going to miss just our little bit are they? But I'd like to think that most of us would think again if we sat and thought about it or it became clear that our actions were collectively causing a massive black hole in public finances.
I've never had any real money so guess I might act differently from those who do but as someone working in the public sector who grew up in a council house and went to a comprehensive I might feel a greater sense of the effects of being "tax efficient".
Jeez there is some self righteous indignation going on here. As I said earlier in reality this activity is legal therefore if an individual has the means to take advantage of it then he/she is perfectly entitled to do so. Whether we think that is "morally" (whatever that means) acceptable is open for debate but as Sagalout said that would assume that all tax collected is used for good and moral purposes. I do think there is a bit of the green eyed monster operating here as well because I will be openly honest here if someone said to me that I have an opportunity to pay less tax legally I would take it but like most I am on PAYE and pay a large chunk of my income to the revenue and National Insurance, which is also a tax. So if they change the law then people like Jimmy Carr will not be able to take advantage of this loophole but until they do he is entitled to take advantage of it.
Oh and by the way I hope they do change the law it is wrong.
Envy and political posturing drives much of this debate and not much reality. We can't have lower taxes which increase the revenue to government because that helps the rich and it's politically more important to be seen as anti-rich than do what's useful for society.
Someone mentioned the link between compulsory PAYE tax deductions and civil liberties. The likes of F1 drivers can live anywhere in the World, are we going to have laws that say if you were born here and ever worked here you cannot leave the country. That's why there will never be sufficient legal powers to do what many want which is to squeeze money from unwilling donors and expect them to stand still while, in their eyes, being mugged. It would be a police state and how many would remain here who could afford to get out. Global corporates can go anywhere and practical problems are not going to deter hard nosed financial decisions.
Another angle to think about is where does the money go that isn't paid in tax. It doesn't mean it doesn't benefit the UK in other ways. Some wealthy individuals believe they can do more social good by funneling money through charitable causes and investing in business ventures than giving it to politicians to p**s up the wall. Most are control freaks and their desire to avoid tax I suspect is as much to do with keeping control of their wealth than a need for more money, when they could never spend what they have anyway.
Ashcroft is easy to despise but he is as secretive about what he does for charity as he is about his business and wealth. I know for a fact that he is also financing UK business where banks are failing to do so. Victorian social advances were almost entirely funded by the wealthy and if you don't want to recognise what they put back in to society then fine, but it's a fact some do and how do we know it does less good than if the money was in the hands of the government.
It's the rich celebs with little to offer back to society who represent the other side of the argument for more control. They can be caught by the proposed laws because they earn a living in the UK, reside in the UK, use it's facilities and charge for appearing at charity events they use to promote their career.
Some of the comments here saying "if you had a chance to pay less tax you'd take it" are utterly cringeworthy.
There's a little country called Greece where they had that opportunity - pretty much on a universal and annual basis - and guess what? They did pay less tax than they should - in many cases no tax at all - and I think we all know how that turned out.
Sorry, but I have HAD the chance to substantially lower my tax bill in one of these schemes and did not take it because, quite frankly, I would have been pretty ashamed of myself if I had done.
I have been lucky enough to be pretty successful in life and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying back my legally owed share, I took plenty from state on the way through in education, housing and the NHS so now I have to pay my share back.
People can drone on all they like about it "not being illegal" etc., but the fact is just because something is not legal does not mean its actually acceptable in practice.
Its perfectly legal for me (married, aged 39) to make the moves on the young and rather easily impressed young 20 year-old girls at my company when we are on an overseas conference, using my status and position in the company to do so - but I don't do it.
Part of that is because I am a fat, bald bastard, another part is because my Missus would happily cut my balls off whilst I was asleep but the most important part is that I know it would be absolutely wrong for me to behave in that way so I don't do it.
Comments
As I said above, why would anyone pay more tax than they are legally obliged to?
If they were too aggressive in putting a stop to things then you will see more Jenson Button's and Sean Connery's who live outside the UK for much of the time.
So they expect that those who want to be "tax efficient" move from one scheme to another - it keeps the tax accountants in work, it keeps HMRC in work, and money flows around the economy rather than out of it.
I really don't buy all this indignation by Cameron and co. It just allows them to be seen to be bashing some easy hypocritical targets like Carr when they want it to appear that "we are all in this together".
Why do I say all of this, because if successive Governments truly wanted to tackle this, they could.
how many Liberal members of the cabinet are multimillionnaires exactly?
FYI Osbourne's family built up a successful high end wallpaper company.
I am sure all us ordinary folk would aim to make money from our business. And I would bet if we became successful every one of you who have children would leave your money to them. What are you moaning about? Should Osbournes family given it all away? To you perhaps? would that shut you up?
These 'hypocritical gits' you know sod all about - how many can you even name? - are the ones who are dedicated to eliminating these loopholes. Unlike the previous decade of snout-stuffing ''new'' labour in particular the endless measures instigated by Brown to help his multi millionnaire mates (including multimillionnaire Blair)
From the BBC about the scheme the Times highlighted
''Chancellor George Osborne wants to strengthen rules against this and similar schemes by introducing a General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR).
This aims to act as blanket legislation to allow the taxman to differentiate between what counts as responsible tax planning and what is abusive tax avoidance. Consultation on the plans has now been published, with the government intending to bring in the rule in 2013.''
Remember this rule tightening was instigated long before the Times brought the subject up.
Why didnt you socialist Darlings do something?
The 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor?
It has taken a few hundred years to turn full circle but we are now once again being ruled by the aristocracy and have as much of a clue how real people live and struggle as I do about a millionaires lifestyle. I detest them.
As for your personal attack on me. Well Fuck off.
Oh you did make me laugh suggesting they are dedicated to closing these loopholes. Shouldn't that bit be on the jokes thread.
I would stick the little twat in the tower !
so David Cameron is speaking out on the celebrities when Cameron’s father had an offshore bank account and made his money i.e. David’s inheritance via doing the same as carr and take that. the hypocrisy.
Personally I'm with Ormiston on this. I didn't grow up in social housing, but went to state school, and my family have had cause to make use of the health and social care system quite a lot in recent years. And then there's public transport, libraries, getting my bins emptied and so on. I've benefitted from other people paying their taxes over the years, and it's churlish to quibble about paying mine now. As for the argument that higher tax rates are a disincentive to entrepreneurs, perhaps if they spent more time being happy about the HUGE amounts of money they're taking home rather worrying about what they're contributing in tax. If you're earning just enough to be paying the top rate of tax, you're still taking home 3 times the national average salary (probably 4 times average take home pay). If you're on a million a year, you're taking home more in a year, than the average person will do in 25, and if you're making complex arrangements to avoid paying your fair share that's just greedy.
just make the tax more simple so that every person has to pay and this hopefully avoids leakage and loopholes for everybody.
then go after the real money.
it's all smoke and mirrors.
I notice that Call Me Dave refused to comment on Lord Ascrofts tax affairs when asked some time ago, it being a 'matter between the individual and the tax authorities'. I wonder why? Nor has he commented on Gary Barlow OBE's involvement. Maybe next time he and Gary are out on the hustings together he might care to ask him the name of his accountant?
As for the dentists doing it, my word don't they make enough out of the state???
I've never had any real money so guess I might act differently from those who do but as someone working in the public sector who grew up in a council house and went to a comprehensive I might feel a greater sense of the effects of being "tax efficient".
Oh and by the way I hope they do change the law it is wrong.
Someone mentioned the link between compulsory PAYE tax deductions and civil liberties. The likes of F1 drivers can live anywhere in the World, are we going to have laws that say if you were born here and ever worked here you cannot leave the country. That's why there will never be sufficient legal powers to do what many want which is to squeeze money from unwilling donors and expect them to stand still while, in their eyes, being mugged. It would be a police state and how many would remain here who could afford to get out. Global corporates can go anywhere and practical problems are not going to deter hard nosed financial decisions.
Another angle to think about is where does the money go that isn't paid in tax. It doesn't mean it doesn't benefit the UK in other ways. Some wealthy individuals believe they can do more social good by funneling money through charitable causes and investing in business ventures than giving it to politicians to p**s up the wall. Most are control freaks and their desire to avoid tax I suspect is as much to do with keeping control of their wealth than a need for more money, when they could never spend what they have anyway.
Ashcroft is easy to despise but he is as secretive about what he does for charity as he is about his business and wealth. I know for a fact that he is also financing UK business where banks are failing to do so. Victorian social advances were almost entirely funded by the wealthy and if you don't want to recognise what they put back in to society then fine, but it's a fact some do and how do we know it does less good than if the money was in the hands of the government.
It's the rich celebs with little to offer back to society who represent the other side of the argument for more control. They can be caught by the proposed laws because they earn a living in the UK, reside in the UK, use it's facilities and charge for appearing at charity events they use to promote their career.
There's a little country called Greece where they had that opportunity - pretty much on a universal and annual basis - and guess what? They did pay less tax than they should - in many cases no tax at all - and I think we all know how that turned out.
Sorry, but I have HAD the chance to substantially lower my tax bill in one of these schemes and did not take it because, quite frankly, I would have been pretty ashamed of myself if I had done.
I have been lucky enough to be pretty successful in life and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in paying back my legally owed share, I took plenty from state on the way through in education, housing and the NHS so now I have to pay my share back.
People can drone on all they like about it "not being illegal" etc., but the fact is just because something is not legal does not mean its actually acceptable in practice.
Its perfectly legal for me (married, aged 39) to make the moves on the young and rather easily impressed young 20 year-old girls at my company when we are on an overseas conference, using my status and position in the company to do so - but I don't do it.
Part of that is because I am a fat, bald bastard, another part is because my Missus would happily cut my balls off whilst I was asleep but the most important part is that I know it would be absolutely wrong for me to behave in that way so I don't do it.