Day Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 If a bloke came up to you and said he could help you pay less tax and it's all legal would you do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcnram Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 If a bloke came up to you and said he could help you pay less tax and it's all legal would you do it? Of course, definitely, why not??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 If a bloke came up to you and said he could help you pay less tax and it's all legal would you do it? It a good question,but from the perspective of an ordinary working Joe they would not earn enough for it to make much difference, financially, so you have to say that anyone that does it is a greedy barsteward. Personally I believe they want flucking, I am a pensioner that always worked, and until retiring through ill health had never been out of work, and payed all my dues. I also saved into a personal pension as much as I could for a comfortable retirement, and just for looking after myself I get penalised and still pay income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No because I believe it is morally reprehensible to commit such an action which is indirectly causing harm upon others. The money people contribute is spent on services to help those who aren't wealthy and do need that help. The amount lost through tax evasion and avoidance is far more than any amount lost through benefit cheats, yet when it comes to benefit cheats no-one states it is okay and when it comes to tax avoidance some state it is okay and others not so. Tax avoidance, evasion and benefit cheats are morally equivalent, regardless of legality. Both of these categories means that they are depriving funds from other areas of the government which could be needed to help build a new school. From a strictly utilitarian point of view the tax avoiders/evaders are worse because the harm they doing is so much more in monetary terms than the benefit cheat. People who avoid/evade tax are greedy and a general anti avoidence rule should come into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I presume you're talking about Jimmy Carr. I think he was a very good sport on telly about it. Could have defended himself and was very open and admitted it was a bad decision. Didn't try to shirk any responsibility and was prepared to bend over and bite the twig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Interesting bit of political skullduggery going on here methinks. Murdoch's Sun has been running a campaign against benefit cheats, saying £1.7b is overpaid to scroungers etc etc.This takes the publics attention from the real cheats (Vodafone £6b). Murdoch gets royally shafted by the ongoing inquiry into hacking and bribery. He gets called a liar (on oath, by two ex Prime Ministers) Murdoch's Times runs a big story about "legal" Tax dodging exposing celebs and the like knowing full well that the fallout will drag Cameron, Osbourne and most of the money men who fund the Tory party in to it. Nearly all the Cabinet and the major donors have used tricks like Jimmy Carr (or their businesses have) over the years. Revenge of the Murdochs? Back on topic, i suppose if i were self-employed i would. I don't have the option because every cent I earn is taxed without me seeing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Cameron needs to learn that if you live in a glass house you really should not throw stones. Jimmy Carr did nothing illegal, it is up to Government to sort this out for all, and first step would be to get their own house in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Cameron needs to learn that if you live in a glass house you really should not throw stones. Jimmy Carr did nothing illegal, it is up to Government to sort this out for all, and first step would be to get their own house in order. Agreed - HMRC and the Government are fully aware of tax avoidance/evasion schemes. They lack the political will to clamp down on them because the people they represent are the ones doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Made me laugh on 8 out of 10 cats last night.... Hello, Mr Taxman, I'm Jimmy, don't think we've met 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 Made me laugh on 8 out of 10 cats last night.... Hello, Mr Taxman, I'm Jimmy, don't think we've met 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons//laugh' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Was funny, loved that first round....new gameshow you can host "through the loophole", how can you afford a house like this... 3 words....bush tucker trial Thought he handled it all pretty well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 No comments about Vodaphone/Phillip Greene from Cameron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBW Ram Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 If I ruled the world the highest income tax rate would be 33%. I dont know what that makes me politically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 If I ruled the world the highest income tax rate would be 33%. I dont know what that makes me politically Blairite New Labour. He always banged on about The Third Way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 If I ruled the world the highest income tax rate would be 33%. I dont know what that makes me politically it depends what you mean, you are probably a libertarian and most likely a classical libertarian. John Stuart Mill was a Libertarian and while Robert Nozick stated that all tax was theft and many regard him as conservative he was also a Libertarian on those grounds. However one cannot judge your political ideology based on what you think the tax rate should be, and why 33%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBW Ram Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Blairite New Labour. He always banged on about The Third Way. I might be massively simplifying it but think that's an acceptable amount for someone to be able to take away from you. I'm not wealthy and I've worked my whole life. I pay 32% now and I'm ok with that. I think it gets a bit too much when the government start taking away more than the person gets to keep themselves and I can't bring myself to agree that someone making 100k pays a higher rate than someone who makes 30k. If they both pay 33% - then the guy who makes the 100k contributes more already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I pay an accountant to save me paying too much tax, I pay him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I might be massively simplifying it but think that's an acceptable amount for someone to be able to take away from you. I'm not wealthy and I've worked my whole life. I pay 32% now and I'm ok with that. I think it gets a bit too much when the government start taking away more than the person gets to keep themselves and I can't bring myself to agree that someone making 100k pays a higher rate than someone who makes 30k. If they both pay 33% - then the guy who makes the 100k contributes more already. Yes but because poorer people have less to give then we tax them less so they can have a better quality of life and tax the super rich more as a proportion because they can give more and have a social responsability to the poorest in society. If the tax rate was a flat 33% many richer people would still try and get round it because the secret fact is those who avoid/evade tax now would if it was set at 33% in honesty. I think the gap between rich and poor is too big and it needs to change, one way is through aggressive taxation, another way is making pay fairer.between jobs so the gap is smaller. It saddens me there are food banks in this country when some have garages full of bentleys and ferrarri's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I might be massively simplifying it but think that's an acceptable amount for someone to be able to take away from you. I'm not wealthy and I've worked my whole life. I pay 32% now and I'm ok with that. I think it gets a bit too much when the government start taking away more than the person gets to keep themselves and I can't bring myself to agree that someone making 100k pays a higher rate than someone who makes 30k. If they both pay 33% - then the guy who makes the 100k contributes more already. The guy who earns 100k has a lot more left as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBW Ram Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 it depends what you mean, you are probably a libertarian and most likely a classical libertarian. John Stuart Mill was a Libertarian and while Robert Nozick stated that all tax was theft and many regard him as conservative he was also a Libertarian on those grounds. However one cannot judge your political ideology based on what you think the tax rate should be, and why 33%? YR. I"ve had a quick read on libertarianism and no it's not me. You've got me reading some really interesting articles though. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 YR. I"ve had a quick read on libertarianism and no it's not me. You've got me reading some really interesting articles though. Thanks. no problem 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> there are two different kinds one is called classical and one is called welfare liberalism. I would imagine you're more conservative, you seem to have ideas a little like adam smith, do you like Burke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.