Well that is what I would do for anyone who sets up a company simply to avoid tax as opposed to trade. It's been common practice for years for self employed contractors to do as Carr has done. They are clearly being paid as individuals for their services and are just using the company to avoid tax.

I still think some sort of legislation about what is tax free as opposed to what isn't tax free would be far easier to police. ISA's and pension contributions tax free - fine. Pay yourself a pittance of a salary from your company and take income a different way thus paying less tax - tax it as income.

Not only that, but there have been several cases we've heard about (and thus dozens we haven't) where top earners eg council executives etc. have been allowed to "retire" on full pension and then carry on doing the same job as before, but as an outside consultant provided by the company now being paid by the Council to provide the service.

The problem with any attempt to simplify the tax system is that there will always be losers when allowances and exemptions are removed, and not necessarily the rich. Usually these exemptions were introduced for a valid reason, but have been exploited.

"Pastygate" was a fairly good example of a tax change that initially had good intentions, was mainly targeted at the supermarkets, but went horribly wrong because it hit the good guys as well.

Don't know if this has been posted but there's a terrific article in the New Statesman, by a Tory no less, on the tax avoidance issue. www.newstatesman.com/blogs/voice ... -democracy

Don't know if this has been posted but there's a terrific article in the New Statesman, by a Tory no less, on the tax avoidance issue. www.newstatesman.com/blogs/voice ... -democracy

I didn't think it went wrong because it hit any good guys. It went wrong because it was a ludicrous tax you couldn't police. In that sense it does have a lot in common with the seeming inability to police the current income tax system.

One way to simplify things would be to have all income taxed at the same rate. Then it would close loopholes where the self employed can pay themselves a small salary and then use their company to pay them in such as way as the rate of tax paid is less than it would be if they took the cash as salary.

I am sure income tax system it is a ludicrously complex one and IMO the only way you are going to prevent wholesale tax avoidance is to simplify it radically.

Avoidance or evasion, the difference is moot in my opinion when legal schemes can result in the likes of Carr paying 1% in tax so something needs to be done.

May I suggest that anyone who takes the p1ss like this should be subject to a huge retrospective fine. Preferably equal to their income. That would teach them.

Also I would suggest we should be fining their financial advisors an equal amount. That would teach them too.

But what he did was, as it stands, legal.

Why is anyone surprised at Cameron's hypocrisy? He's a hypocrite what what else should we expect?

BTW I know who Jimmy Carr is but I don't think I've ever seen him perform. He looks a bit like Cameron I think. Has anyone seen them in the same room together?

As I said before, it may not be. It probably has not been tested. The people who design and sell these schemes take legal opinion but an opinion is just an opinion. They also normally point out the risks in the small print and in the even smaller print there will be a huge fee for the salesman. Although I do not know this particular scheme's details it is almost certainly too simple to say it is legal.

I kmow. So make a law that says that people who take the p1ss are subject to severe sanctions. And anyone who can't see that this is a p1sstake is seriously stupid.

Fine, your task for the weekend is to frame that in a statement that could stand up in a court of law

I assume Carr, Barlow etc are all self employed. Why don't HMRC do what they do to the ordinary self employed chippy or bricky working for a builder and get the promoter or record company to deduct 20% (or 45% in their case) from any payment they make to the performer and send it to HMRC, it would then be up to the individual to submit accounts and get any refund themselves.

I would assume this legislation could be tweaked to include ALL self employed people working labour only for a third party without too much hassle. Whether the political will to upset major party donors is there is another question.

What part of "as it stands" did you miss?

The Daily Mirror nails it:

Was Gary Barlow one of Ken Barlow's lovechildren? Would explain the w@nker genes.

bitter and jealous, who'd have thought.

Why isn't Milliband on that page, or Kinnock, or Prescott?

it suits the looney left to pillory the right, but they won't expose their own.

Do you have any evidence of them offshoring money to avoid paying tax on it?

I wondered when you'd pop up with your stock "jealous" comment

It's a stock comment because it's accurate cod'ead, I'm not ssaying it's "right", but it is legal, and labour had years to change the law and never did, how many millions did Blurgh and Brownose make out of being PM.

the whole political and social "elite" are allowed to do as they please, amazing how nobody has mentioned F1 drivers domiciled in Monaco (for tax purposes) or footballers with offshore "foundations".

to make tax avoidance a Cameron issue is to be blind to the facts.

Cameron made it a Cameron issue when he publicly derided one tax avoider, whilst conveniently ignoring the many tax avoiders who fund his personal wealth and that of his party.

Spot on.
Quite what how much Blair or Brown made as PM has to do with this, or why only Labour PM's were picked out I really don't know.

Cameron described one off-shore tax dodger as "morally wrong", why won't he pick anyone else out?

Presumably by calling Jimmy Carr's affairs morally wrong Cameron is just jealous?

he was an idiot to single out one individual, I agree, but it isn't just Conservatives that enjoy a questionable tax status, see Bono for details.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested it was. The reason people are singling out Conservatives is to highlight Cameron's hypocrisy. It wouldn't be a very strong argument if they were saying, "Oi, Cameron, what about Tony Blair? He's uses 'tax efficiency' schemes too."

You don't seem to be getting the point. When a [iTory[/i Prime Minister decides to publicly criticise an individual over their tax affairs then quite understandably the focus falls on his fellow [iTories[/i - particularly those he is either close to or has defended/refused to comment on in the past. This doesn't exonerate anyone else - Cameron has made a rod for his own back here.

I also assume that you think Cameron criticised Carr out of jealousy? After all that's the only reason rich folk get criticised at all in your book, isn't it?

no, Cameron criticised Carr to try and gain some popular support.

In general people criticise those better off than them because of jealousy, or some other self interest, like bemoaning their kids having to pay for their education.

Agreed.
As I said earlier in the thread, another bandwagon passing, he jumps on board.
He thinks we're all thick.


Envy is the word you are seeking here, I think, not jealousy.
As Dally will no doubt confirm, envy is the sin, jealousy isn't.



Either way you are talking generalised bollox.
My attitudes to taxation are not based on envy, I see people worse off than me paying more tax than those better-off then me and that is plain wrong, absolutely feck-all to do with envy (or what you call jealousy).
You are not alone, there are others who frequent this board who can't grasp that fair-mindedness is not the same as envy, who can't understand any motive other than self interest.
Your view says more about the way you think than it does about those you criticise.