ronthenekred Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 thats probably why some of us think carrs use of tax avoidance is a good thing. the government dont give a hoot about the little man, so why the hell would the little man care about anybody trying to avoid paying tax, legally of course. That's where the question of morality comes in. Do you do something questionable because others do, or do you listen to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 You missed the real story... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/21/david-cameron-tax-cabinet-released-near-future_n_1614631.html?utm_hp_ref=uk Strange that Cameron made his remarks just after this... David Cameron and senior ministers are not planning to disclose their tax returns in the "very near future", Downing Street indicated today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Did anyone see 8 out of 10 cats? God they went really easy on Carr. It was all - 'Yeah you evaded your tax, but it's David Cameron's fault', 'Isn't Cameron being nasty to you because you dodge all your tax and then complain about the cuts, he's the one doing all the cuts, it's all Cameron's fault'. And when one panelist pointed out that perhaps they could have more services if perhaps everyoone paid their tax the other panelists got all huggy. Sarah Millican actually tutted and pulled up her jumper. All lefties together - even when we evade our taxes it's all the Tories fault. Quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARATE DAVE Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 That's where the question of morality comes in. Do you do something questionable because others do, or do you listen to yourself. I suppose another answer is that carrs tax affairs are absolutely none of our business, yours or mine. if you were employed 40 hours as a bus driver, and earned £300 a week after tax/insurance, and at the weekend you got a fiddle job taking a bus load of pensioners to london zoo for £100 cash in hand, I can honestly say that it wouldnt bother me a bit, and secondly its none of my business what you do within your own personal financial affairs. its also not very interesting. yet here we have public figure jimmy carr legally avoiding giving half his earnings to the taxman. surely its morally right to take care of yourself before worrying about giving the revenue more money to spend on foreign aid and illegal wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I suppose another answer is that carrs tax affairs are absolutely none of our business, yours or mine. if you were employed 40 hours as a bus driver, and earned £300 a week after tax/insurance, and at the weekend you got a fiddle job taking a bus load of pensioners to london zoo for £100 cash in hand, I can honestly say that it wouldnt bother me a bit, and secondly its none of my business what you do within your own personal financial affairs. its also not very interesting. yet here we have public figure jimmy carr legally avoiding giving half his earnings to the taxman. surely its morally right to take care of yourself before worrying about giving the revenue more money to spend on foreign aid and illegal wars. I'd speculate that the reason that this issue has caught the public's attention may be because the fictional bus driver that you talk about would probably pay more tax on his income than Carr. Where is the fairness in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARATE DAVE Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'd speculate that the reason that this issue has caught the public's attention may be because the fictional bus driver that you talk about would probably pay more tax on his income than Carr. Where is the fairness in that? I suppose its down to "if the cap fits" isnt it? the fictional bus driver is who he is, and he chose his own path. a doctor earns £120,000 per year and I dont earn a quarter of that, yet he/she is striking for more pay. where is the fairness in that? I suppose that whatever the doctors choose to do, its their business, just like its the business of the fictional bus driver to choose to be a bus driver, and not a stand up comedian. My point is that we are in complete charge of our own destiny, and its down to us to make our way through life, and just because your neighbour pays less tax than you, but earns more than you, is totally irrelevant. thats his business, and yours is yours. as I said earlier, and I mean it venomously, a lot of people make other peoples business their own, then bleat about it because they are british-racing-green with envy, and its just sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I suppose another answer is that carrs tax affairs are absolutely none of our business, yours or mine. In Norway you can look at the tax returns of any other citizen. Online. 24/7 http://skattelister.no I just looked up what a mate of mine earns. He should have stayed in Chesterfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARATE DAVE Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 In Norway you can look at the tax returns of any other citizen. Online. 24/7 http://skattelister.no I just looked up what a mate of mine earns. He should have stayed in Chesterfield. thats very good, but dosent it make you feel a little uneasy that a total stranger could one day be able to know more about your finances than you do? and more to the point, why should they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I suppose another answer is that carrs tax affairs are absolutely none of our business, yours or mine. if you were employed 40 hours as a bus driver, and earned £300 a week after tax/insurance, and at the weekend you got a fiddle job taking a bus load of pensioners to london zoo for £100 cash in hand, I can honestly say that it wouldnt bother me a bit, and secondly its none of my business what you do within your own personal financial affairs. its also not very interesting. yet here we have public figure jimmy carr legally avoiding giving half his earnings to the taxman. surely its morally right to take care of yourself before worrying about giving the revenue more money to spend on foreign aid and illegal wars. So you're saying it isn't morally objectionable on the basis others do it and at the same time castigate bankers and offshore avoidance and such the like, while earning money from your hypocrisy? I don't think Carr's motivation had anything to do with illegal wars, foreign aid or any other made up story, other than self motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 I suppose its down to "if the cap fits" isnt it? the fictional bus driver is who he is, and he chose his own path. a doctor earns £120,000 per year and I dont earn a quarter of that, yet he/she is striking for more pay. where is the fairness in that? I suppose that whatever the doctors choose to do, its their business, just like its the business of the fictional bus driver to choose to be a bus driver, and not a stand up comedian. My point is that we are in complete charge of our own destiny, and its down to us to make our way through life, and just because your neighbour pays less tax than you, but earns more than you, is totally irrelevant. thats his business, and yours is yours. as I said earlier, and I mean it venomously, a lot of people make other peoples business their own, then bleat about it because they are british-racing-green with envy, and its just sickening. One thing is for sure, this country wouldn't exist as we know it if everyone had a choice on how much tax they pay. Carr is hypocritical by using the services that the country has offered him free at the point of use, but then then he shirks when it comes to paying the taxes that fund those services. If we want our public services to remain free at the point of use, we need people paying the taxes. Amusingly, if the services now stopped being free at the point of use, it wouldn't effect Carr in the slightest. Whereas me and you would suffer greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.