Jimmy Carr, tax avoidance, and morality

[chem1st]

Undoubtably that goes on but it is hardly fair to blame the (1%). That's a myth that the left love to foster.

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html

 

Top 1% of earners contribute almost a third of all the income tax paid into Treasury coffers

 

By James Chapman

UPDATED: 16:35, 27 February 2012

 

The highest-earning 1 per cent of Britons pay almost 30 per cent of all income taxes, according to research.

 

The 308,000 on the 50p top rate – who earn more than £150,000 – pay £47billion a year to the Treasury.

 

Since 2000, the share of tax paid by the highest earners has risen from 22.2 to 27.7 per cent.

 

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html#ixzz1yQ9i8kc1

 

If one man earn £1 million, and 99 earn 1 pence.

 

Tax the 99 at 100% and the one high earner at 0.01%

 

You have tax paid of £1 by the bottom 99%.

And tax paid of £100 by the top 1%.

 

In this case the 1% pays over 99% of all income taxes.

 

However, the poorest pay 10000 times as much tax as a percentage of their income.

 

The figures you use create an illusion.

 

Consider council tax, and other regressive taxes (such as NI - levelled at a higher rate upon low income earners, 12% vs 2% for higher earners), DUTY upon petrol, cigarettes and alcohol.

 

Council tax as a percentage of income.

DUTY upon a beer/wine as a % cost of a beer.

 

The only fair way to look at it, is to look at tax as a percentage of income.

 

(That being all income - not just income for income tax purposes)

[chem1st]

Of course this doesn't include Jimmy Carr, who, if he's paying income tax of £3,500, must be on a declared income of around 20k.

 

The rest of his income being in a different form of 'income' for tax purposes.

[JFKvsNixon]

Which is very very wrong. Close the loopholes and knock the top rate of tax to 25% if you want. Having a top rate of 40 or 50% is pretty academic is nobody is paying it.

 

The tax rate of 40% doesn't come in at that high a level, you start paying it if you earn a little less than 42 and a half thousand. Not many people on a salary around that can afford accountants.

[L00b]

The tax payer does have a choice; he can choose pay tax in full, in part, or not at all.

That is as obvious as a nose on a face, but my reply was as a worker with a family to support and various other financial/life commitments, i.e. your 'standard person subjected to taxation'.

 

Not an imaginary person so principled, or obtuse, as to risk imprisonment, destitution, etc.

 

So let's just keep it real...or agree to disagree on that one

I'm not sure 'not 'moral' or 'amoral'' is possible. Surely the state is amoral, it does not consider morality at all when it comes to tax matters, either the collecting of tax, or the spending of it?.

But 'moral' is not, either (in context): the Gvt does 'moral' things with tax income (e.g. pay benefits/support incomes), because these are societal diktats. It is not altruism. So, precisely my point

So why should we consider the morality of minimising tax due through use of legal schemes; when the government is not taking morality in to account, when it comes to working out how much tax we owe, and more importantly, how it will spend the money.

And again (is precisely my point/the gist of what you quoted of my post)

So you don't think morality comes in to it at all?

Absolutely not. In the least. Taxpayer/state is a purely functional relationship.

[Anna B]

I winced when I heard his comments because he is very unwise to call Jimmy Carr immoral when you look at who funds the Tories and Lib Dems. Their tax arrangements aren't going to stand up to any scrutiny at all.

 

Exactly. He may find he's opened a right can of worms.

[Riche]

As a % or as an absolute amount? I don't really understand the comparison.

People would sooner pay interest on a deppreciating asset that needs feeding with taxed fuel and maintaining at considerable cost than pay the same amount in tax. What don't you understand. They serve their vanity before their need to contribute directly to society in taxes that pays for the democracy we live in.

[truman]

People would sooner pay interest on a deppreciating asset that needs feeding with taxed fuel and maintaining at considerable cost than pay the same amount in tax. What don't you understand. They serve their vanity before their need to contribute directly to society in taxes that pays for the democracy we live in.

 

For some people a car is a necessity...

[Mister M]

Exactly. He may find he's opened a right can of worms.

 

Good I'm glad

[Riche]

For some people a car is a necessity...

 

So is paying your Taxes else the whole machine grinds to a halt. I have a city car, family car and a van, all taxed and insured, I pay may taxes and son's uni fee's also, because of which I don't buy rounds, own 3 pairs of shoes and havent been on hols for 4 years. Cut ya cloth and pay ya way.

[MrSmith]

I agree. The whole tax system is a mess and needs simplifying. We have super rich individuals and corporations running rings around HMRC.

 

I've no idea what the answer is, but villification of a few soft targets won't make much difference. Enjoyable as it is to see Carr's hypocrisy laid bare, his tax avoidance pales into insignificance when measured against Boots or Vodaphone or...

 

At least Boots and Vodaphone employ people, Tony Blair would have been a better comparison because he is another comedian that avoided tax.