Cyclone Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Be honest - Carr is only doing what every one of us would do if we had the opportunity. We all want to pay as little tax as possible - anyone who says different is a liar. I'm sure it's a point that's been raised already but life's too short to sift through 18 pages of posts. I wouldn't join a scheme similar to the one he's in, the risk is far too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 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. Not really, we all live in this society together, and we have expectations about fairness, about the rules being applied equally to all. These expectations include one that we all pay a fair amount of tax, if someone earning more (much more in this case) is paying less (much less) then it is our business as they are not contributing their share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 stoning women in iran, is normal in iran. yet considered barbaric here in the uk. just because the norwegians want to know what colour their neighbours underpants are, does not mean we should want to have the same type of intrusion here. just what the hell do people want? everyone has the right to keep their private affairs private. do you think the phone hackers were right to tap peoples phones? the invasion on peoples right to privacy is ludicrous, and im pretty sure that if your waist size was put on a 40ft billboard outside the town hall, you would have something to say about it. equality dosent mean knowing whats in your bread bin. Exposing exactly how much tax everyone paid would ensure that those earning a lot, and those being paid to serve the country (ie politicians) couldn't get away with joining quasi legal schemes to avoid paying their share, I can't see many downsides to the Norwegian model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 That’s an interesting point, people expect the services they rely on to be paid for by people that don't need the service, maybe it would be farer for the people that used the service to contribute the most towards it. The countries revenue collection has long been based on a principle of those that can afford it the most paying the most. It shows a fairly large lack of humanity to suggest that public services shouldn't really be public, but should be available only to those that can pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARATE DAVE Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Exposing exactly how much tax everyone paid would ensure that those earning a lot, and those being paid to serve the country (ie politicians) couldn't get away with joining quasi legal schemes to avoid paying their share, I can't see many downsides to the Norwegian model. I would just expect that personal business should stay personal, whether it be right or wrong in whoevers eyes. As for downsides to norwegian models, ive had a look at Ester Soffia Johannsdottir, and I totally agree. no downsides at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 That’s an interesting point, people expect the services they rely on to be paid for by people that don't need the service, maybe it would be farer for the people that used the service to contribute the most towards it. Not really. Surely we all benefit from the NHS, education, police, refuse collection etc etc. In my opinion, they are the glue that holds society together. The alternative is too awful to contemplate. That is one of the things that annoys me most about companies like Vodaphone. They want educated, healthy workers in a stable environment. Then they go to great lengths to avoid paying for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, always been, always will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Not really. Surely we all benefit from the NHS, education, police, refuse collection etc etc. In my opinion, they are the glue that holds society together. The alternative is too awful to contemplate. That is one of the things that annoys me most about companies like Vodaphone. They want educated, healthy workers in a stable environment. Then they go to great lengths to avoid paying for them. But they paid there fair share of tax £1.25billion to be exact and the National Audit Office (NAO) ruled that Vodafone’s settlement of its UK tax bill was reasonable. They also employed lots of people that pay tax, they provide a service that people want and without them and companies like them the country would be significantly worse off, and we wouldn't have a NHS, education, police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Excellent article and comments in the FT today.... Sorry its a paywall. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ac2cebf4-bc65-11e1-a836-00144feabdc0.html The scheme was opened in 2007 and the last transaction was 2008. Barclays Capital assisted the plan with a £780million loan, and Disney assisted it in the States. Yet again Barclays is assisting another avoidance scheme. Why does it still have a banking license? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERDREAM Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Excellent article and comments in the FT today.... Sorry its a paywall. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ac2cebf4-bc65-11e1-a836-00144feabdc0.html The scheme was opened in 2007 and the last transaction was 2008. Barclays Capital assisted the plan with a £780million loan, and Disney assisted it in the States. Yet again Barclays is assisting another avoidance scheme. Why does it still have a banking license? Yes, but will Jimmy Carr buy one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.