Mister M Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It is morally wrong. Anybody who disagrees is too stupid to realise that it's OK to criticise somebody who you like. Agreed. When some of the MPs were exposed for having abused their expenses, they claimed that what they were doing was legal, perhaps it was, but it didn't make it moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It is morally wrong. Anybody who disagrees is too stupid to realise that it's OK to criticise somebody who you like. depends on your morals!!! explain why its wrong? morals are a very grey area? lots of people dont particularly like Jimmy Carr & lots do i am sure some from both sides crticised him as there are also very many who say "good on him", i personally dont find him that funny....but good on him:o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 depends on your morals!!! explain why its wrong? morals are a very grey area? lots of people dont particularly like Jimmy Carr & lots do i am sure some from both sides crticised him as there are also very many who say "good on him", i personally dont find him that funny....but good on him:o So, you say "good on him" because others say "good on him" as an explanation of your morals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 So, you say "good on him" because others say "good on him" as an explanation of your morals? not at all i say "good on him" because he has used a legal way to reduce his tax bill ! as far as i can see there are no morals where tax is concerned, anyone with any sense does not pay more than is legally required, unfortunatly if you are in PAYE your stuffed, but thats what happens if you want a secure position, if you take risks and run a business or are self employed you reap the rewards for that risk. when you get your payslip at the end of the month and see what HM revenue has deducted do you say hang on i want to pay a bit more???.........no of course you dont:roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It's quasi legal at best and will soon be illegal, possibly backdated for illegality and thus requiring everyone in it to pay up with some tax on the income they were hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARATE DAVE Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 So, you say "good on him" because others say "good on him" as an explanation of your morals? I dont say "good on him" because of morals. I say good on him because I mean it. If I were in his position, I would have done the same. Yep, he has backtracked from it, but he has only done that to save his face. I wouldnt have bothered as I would have made enough money not to worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I think we are at crossed wires here because you agree with me here. Probably. If we say divided up the cost of services and it came to £5,000 a adult then with a poll tax a family of four with two parents on a total income of £20,000 would have a 50% tax rate. A similar family on £100,000 total income would have a tax rate of 10%. That patently wouldn't be fair and any party that tried to introduce would probably never govern again. On the other hand if there was a flat rate of 30% and family one paid £6,000 tax and family 2 paid £30,000 that would be better. If it increased the efficiency of tax collection and increased total receipts it might be worth pursuing. If you support the second example rather than the first then we are more in agreement. I still have my doubts about the second one though because a flat rate might not optomise receipts if it was set wrongly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 I dont say "good on him" because of morals. I say good on him because I mean it. If I were in his position, I would have done the same. Yep, he has backtracked from it, but he has only done that to save his face. I wouldnt have bothered as I would have made enough money not to worry about it. Would you really have taken part in a high risk offshore scheme? Have you got a family? What about when the tax man comes knocking for the backdated tax when the scheme is declared illegal by HMRC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KARATE DAVE Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Would you really have taken part in a high risk offshore scheme? Have you got a family? What about when the tax man comes knocking for the backdated tax when the scheme is declared illegal by HMRC? Yes, and yes. as for the tax man a-coming, well I think I could be wealthy enough to pay him, and with no other worries, as isnt wasnt illegal when I did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 It's quasi legal at best and will soon be illegal, possibly backdated for illegality and thus requiring everyone in it to pay up with some tax on the income they were hiding. thats as maybe be! but until that day its legal, quite how they would "backdate" illegality remains to be seen as these schemes in the first place were sanctioned by the revenue. if they do have to pay back anything then i am sure they are in a position to do so and would probably say well we tried ...bad luck better luck next time and so the game goes on! i would say nearly everyone in all walks of life have at some time defrauded the tax man wether its cash in hand payments to tradesmen, cash to shopkeepers, undeclared income etc etc...its a game and we all play it ...just some people paint themselves whiter than white:suspect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.