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 ithttps://p.twimg.com/Av8g2XkCQAIphEG.jpg:large" >

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