Jimmy Carr, tax avoidance, and morality

[JFKvsNixon]

They are providing a service, made possible by the Gvt and lawmakers, in response to a demand for the service. Why should they be blamed any more (or less) than users of such services?

 

The "blame" lies squarely and unambiguously at the foot of the Gvt and lawmaking bodies of the land, who could make the whole issue disappear at the stroke of a bit of law-making.

 

But then, of course, they will then get it in the neck just as much for frightening the said corporations (and their local jobs) away...because other countries'regime will then appear still more tax-friendly after such changes.

 

Proverbial rock and a hard place - do you want to trade places?

 

Seriously, how can they close the loopholes?

[Cyclone]

They are providing a service, made possible by the Gvt and lawmakers, in response to a demand for the service. Why should they be blamed any more (or less) than users of such services?

 

The "blame" lies squarely and unambiguously at the foot of the Gvt and lawmaking bodies of the land, who could make the whole issue disappear at the stroke of a bit of law-making.

It's obviously a lot more complicated than that.

 

The laws needs to be drafted incredibly carefully and tightly to achieve exactly the desired affect.

The current scheme involving loans that are never repaid for example is not a foreseeable effect of any existing tax legislation.

[L00b]

Seriously, how can they close the loopholes?

By opening new ones on the quiet. (EDIT - joke of course...I think )

It's obviously a lot more complicated than that.

Indeed. whereby my 'But' paragraph

The laws needs to be drafted incredibly carefully and tightly to achieve exactly the desired affect.

The current scheme involving loans that are never repaid for example is not a foreseeable effect of any existing tax legislation.

There will be more created/found when that one is closed.

 

Considering the inherent complexity which the current Tax Code has gradually achieved to date, there is no human or even machine way the legislator could do anything with forecasting all its possible effects. You could build a garden shed out of the tomes!

 

It's long been known in e.g. France, that tax inspectors join then 'serve' the minimum possible contractual term of public office, learning all the tricks on the job, then flee to the private sector at the end of the term for quintuple+ salaries advising clients how to use/get around all the tricks. I don't imagine UK, Germany, etc. tax inspectors are any different. This veritable 'industry' is all permitted by the ever-increasing complexity of the tax codes.

 

The KISS principle/'back to basics' is what is needed, ideally.

 

But I'm sure you can understand/envisage the potential politico-socio-economical consequences as well as I

[taxman]

David Cameron has explained why he singled out Jimmy Carr for condemnation rather than the many others, including Gary Barlow.

 

"Mr Cameron said he was not going to give a "running commentary" on people's tax affairs - but he had made an exception for comedian Jimmy Carr because "it was a particularly egregious example of an avoidance scheme that seemed to me to be wrong"."

 

Dave may have made a rod for his own back here by publicly condemning one individual and not others. Now every time someone is alleged to have avoided tax Dave will be asked why he isn't condemning them as being morally wrong. It would look even worse for him if one of his cronies was involved, say Philip Green or Lord Ashcroft.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The KISS principle/'back to basics' is what is needed, ideally.

Yes. Let's look at some data.

The standard proprietary publication is Halsbury's Statutes.

The fourth edition was first wholly issued in 1985, although regularly updated since then.

On the edition's first appearance, tax law was in three quite large volumes (42/43/44 plus a bit of v41 re Stamp Duties).

How many volumes now (2012)? Eight (42-49). Tax statutes are unbelievably long, due greatly to a bizarrely-conceived Tax Rewrite Project that more than doubled the size of Income and Corporation Tax legislation.

[Bozo]

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.

 

Clearly Jimmy Carr left his moral compass at home and deserves little sympathy.

 

Cameron, however, appears to have lost his political compass altogether. He is now being portrayed as at best selective in his criticism of tax avoidance, at worst hypocritical. I'm sure the media will delight in a post-Levison world where the heat can be turned back on to politicians.

 

You can bet your bottom dollar that they will be scrutinising every politician, party funders, clingers, friends and celeb supporters for their tax history. BskyB anybody?

 

I suspect it is going to get very mucky out there in a lose-lose world.

 

I don't recall when we last had such a talentless group of politicians, more focused on what they think the public want to hear then offering any leadership?

 

Cameron to be fair could still make it as a comedian if a vacancy arises in the near future at Channel 4.

[Mister M]

David Cameron has explained why he singled out Jimmy Carr for condemnation rather than the many others, including Gary Barlow.

 

"Mr Cameron said he was not going to give a "running commentary" on people's tax affairs - but he had made an exception for comedian Jimmy Carr because "it was a particularly egregious example of an avoidance scheme that seemed to me to be wrong"."

 

Dave may have made a rod for his own back here by publicly condemning one individual and not others. Now every time someone is alleged to have avoided tax Dave will be asked why he isn't condemning them as being morally wrong. It would look even worse for him if one of his cronies was involved, say Philip Green or Lord Ashcroft.

 

Absolutely. I can't help but feel over the coming days and weeks, journalists will go into overdrive finding out who doesn't pay their fair share and asking why Jimmy Carr and not all the others.

But this has been a long time in coming. The tax affairs of the wealthy have always been called into question. I think against the backdrop of austerity and huge inequality, those in the public eye who avoid or evade tax will have opprobrium heaped upon them.

And although I'm not a supporter of Cameron I'm glad that he gave an honest answer to the question asked about Carr, rather than prevaricate and refuse to answer.

[janie48]

Clearly

 

I don't recall when we last had such a talentless group of politicians, more focused on what they think the public want to hear then offering any leadership?

 

Cameron to be fair could still make it as a comedian if a vacancy arises in the near future at Channel 4.

 

Cameron singled out Jimmy Carr for attack,and you don't think that shows strong leadership???

[Anna B]

Its not illegal though so it should be made illegal. Blame the accountant and the government before you blame him. Its not like he thought of it himself.

 

Trying to close tax loopholes is like trying to keep corks under water. Close one and another one pops up. Avoiding tax is what accountants are employed for.

 

The only way to do it would be to outlaw accountancy as a profession which wouldn't be possible, and even then some sneaky individual would get through.

[Anna B]

They are providing a service, made possible by the Gvt and lawmakers, in response to a demand for the service. Why should they be blamed any more (or less) than users of such services?

 

The "blame" lies squarely and unambiguously at the foot of the Gvt and lawmaking bodies of the land, who could make the whole issue disappear at the stroke of a bit of law-making (i.e. purge the tax code, à la purge of the benefits' maze into the universal credit).

 

But then, of course, they will then get it in the neck just as much for frightening the said corporations (and their local jobs) away...because other countries'regime will then appear still more tax-friendly after such changes.

 

Proverbial rock and a hard place - do you want to trade places?

 

Why would the government close loopholes when they themselves (the millionaire ones at least,) are probably amongst the biggest recipients of the benefits? They also have their friends to consider, who no doubt also benefit hugely.

 

If we're going to start looking into tax avoidance, can we start with newly minted multi-millionaire Tony Blair? -Before he 'accidently' shreds his tax returns, as well as his expenses receipts....