[Closed] Jimmy Carr and Tax

10 out of 10!

9 out of 10 surely?

[img] [/img]

hora - Member
Did someone say Dick?

I have an attractive one I'd have you know

So,.. You want a picture of hora's dick....mmmmmmm..... 😯

Yeah. Go on, then.

It might calm me down.

Here's mine...

[img] [/img]

Wasn't the word 'Beautiful' used originally Hora?

Five pages to get to hora's beautiful penis. I believe that is now /thread

mk1fan - Member

10 out of 10!

9 out of 10 surely?

Or 8 even 🙂

(putting hora's penis to one side for a moment)

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/downing-street-no-imminent-plans-to-disclose-david-camerons-tax-details-7872318.html ]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/downing-street-no-imminent-plans-to-disclose-david-camerons-tax-details-7872318.html[/url]

now i wonder why that could be...................?

Or 8 even

Despite your sarcasm, it's perfectly clear and consistent. You choose not to see it as such because you obviously don't agree with my point of view.

You chopped my quote so not to include the word "keeping". It is very clear that I am saying there is no justification imo for keeping the present legal tax loopholes which provide no benefit other than as means of avoiding tax. However as these loopholes exist I see no reason why anyone would not use them.

All pretty straight forward easy to understand stuff. Although I do appreciate that it might upset the sensitivities of moralising petty bourgeois lefties who get worked up and anal over such matters.

Your view is hypocritical and cheap/lazy "marxist" attacks at me wont alter that

In fact, I'm so incensed at Cameron's bullsht that I'm going to vote Labour at the next election. Not that I think that bunch of tosseurs are any better at running stuff, but just to stick one up Cameron's rear entry.

I'm going to clone polling cards and vote twice for Dave to every one of yours

I know what y are saying and I think most people view this as hypocrisy

Excellent, you are entitled to your opinion - I had assumed you didn't agree with me, I don't have an issue with that.

My only issue was that you chopped quotes out of my posts and taking them completely out of context put them in a sequence specifically to give the deliberate false impression that I was contracting myself. Which was a pretty desperate measure.

Like a lot of people I believe that keeping tax loopholes which serve no useful purpose other than to provide a means of not paying tax is not justified. Also like a lot of people I have no issue with people using legal means to minimise their tax liabilities.

You might not agreed with that point of view, in fact you clearly don't. But that point of view is completely consistent and does not represent a contradiction. Your allegation that it does is false.

I know what y are saying and I think most people view this as hypocrisy

Principles are one thing, extra money for bike bits is quite another 🙂

I could come up with some spurious analogies but I'm sure you are allowed to dislike the rules and ask for change whilst still playing by the current rules.

*no chance of me ever being in that income bracket

[i]If you force someone like Jimmy Carr to pay a high rate of tax you might drive him out of the country. Worth a try, anyway.[/i]

I thought he was a comedian who told jokes ?

Often quite funny ones too.

He is not that funny though - certainly not £3million funny

If you force someone like Jimmy Carr to pay a high rate of tax you might drive him out of the country. Worth a try, anyway.

+1

Value of future DVDs/Tours > Potential tax saved

He is not that funny though - certainly not £3million funny

Well apparently he is precisely that .....funny to the tune of £3 million.

Unless of course you have some information which you would like to share that provides evidence that his wealth is not solely dependent on his ability to be funny ? Perhaps he's got another very lucrative part time job ?

Had he not pulled out of the K2 scheme, his career and popularity would have nose-dived, now he gets to say sorry and come his next tour, all will be forgotten (much like his comedy).

Alright; what I was getting at is that I don't know how he has amassed a £3million fortune telling the crap jokes that he does.

crap jokes

are you certain about that..?

The 'what's worse than biting into an apple and finding a worm..?' joke was pretty ground breaking.. probably worth a good few hundred thousand alone

I don't know how he has amassed a £3million fortune telling the crap jokes that he does.

Well a wild guess is that unlike you a great many people find him highly amusing and he has been very successful as a comedian ?

.

all will be forgotten (much like his comedy)

I still clearly remember the first I ever saw him doing stand up, many years ago. I thought who is this **** making jokes about African kids moving closer to a river so that they wouldn't have to walk so far for water, or how he felt Tesco must be overcharging him if his week's shopping bill would pay to feed an African family for a year. His more recent Paralympic joke is hard to forget too. Yep, he's given me some very memorable jokes, certainly more than most comedians.

Anyway, it's [i]"Vehicle Excise Duty"[/i]... not Carr Tax.

Well a wild guess is that unlike you a great many people find him highly amusing and he has been very successful as a comedian ?

Or even inherited it/been given handouts from daddy.

Yes that's possible. Is that what happened then ?

Anyway, it's "Vehicle Excise Duty"... not Carr Tax.

Or even inherited it/been given handouts from daddy.

Is he also a cabinet member then?

So what your saying is the greater the number of people like something the better it is? Maybe its actually the greater the number of people like something the lower the common denominator; or the more senseless it is.

No doubt he is good at what he does; that does not mean what he does is good though.

So what your saying is the greater the number of people like something the better it is?

If that's directed at me I merely gave you a possible explanation with regards to your comment : "I don't know how he has amassed a £3million fortune telling the crap jokes that he does". I haven't made any comment about something being better than something else.

Although DS seems to think that his success might down to inheritance and handouts from daddy.

Yes that's possible. [b]Is that what happened then ?[/b]

Is he also a cabinet member then?

Although DS seems to think that his [s]success[/s] wealth might down to inheritance and handouts from daddy.

already done on page 1 or 2, sorry graham

Dammit. Always last to the party.

I don't know if that's what happened or not, but it's nice to see you thinks it's possible that his multi-millionaire father might have contributed in some way to his wealth.

Well of course it's possible. It's also possible that he might have stolen it - I don't know how he got his money.

I did say that my suggestion he had made £3 million from being a successful comedian was just a "wild guess". Thanks for offering other possible alternatives.

Thanks for offering other possible alternatives.

I'm always struggling until you come along with your well thought out comments. Thanks once again.

I'm always struggling until you come along with your well thought out comments.

Yes that's possible. Is that what happened then ?

Yes that's possible. Is that what happened then ?

To go from a possibility to an absolute is quite a bizarre thought process

Yes it is. Is that what happened, then?

I hadn't realised that one had to pass the ernesto scoring system before being able to comment.

No I hadn't either.

Your constant twisting and deliberate misinterpetation would indicate that are quite desperate to prove some point or other.

Oh is that what I've done ........I took your [i]"Or even inherited it/been given handouts from daddy"[/i] comment and twisted it and deliberately misinterpreted it ?

Ah well, I guess it's just what I do 😀

Asking a closed question to get the answer that suits you rather than accepting a suggestion/possibility from another person isn't twisting then?
I guess that's just what you do. 😥

TOOOO UNNERD!

Dunno, I think I could quite easily say these [s]tax[/s] slavery rules are a load of bobbins and should be reformed ASAP but while others are legally "getting away with it" I'd have* a [s]bit of that too [/s] number of those slaves too.

Still happy with your argument/point?
If you think it is wrong and cannot be justified then dont do it....you run the risk of being a petty bourgoise if you do apparently.

Ernie it is entirely flase to say I have misinterpreted your view – I simply quoted what you said and you have repeated the same claim/view in each post you reply to. Its obvious you think the tax loopholes cannot be justified but despite this you will do/use the thing you cannot justify.

I guess that's just what you do. 😥

Yep. I just don't care.......I'm a right nasty ****er 8)

Stop being flase.

Still happy with your argument/point?

tax is one of the slightly less morally bankrupt issues, closer to my examples (imo)

But I'll admit it's contentious.

plenty of other examples I could use which aren't quite as emotive

Re transport it would be like not wearing a helmet whilst arguing for compulsion ...no one has come up with that mad an argument not even on here 😀

Yes it is contentious and I agree tax avoidance is less worse than keeping slaves.

The tax laws as they are intended do seem particularly unfair to someone like Jimmy though due to his very short period of high earning potential.

Assuming he made his £3 mil evenly over 10 years; he could have paid (very) roughly £1.2 mil in tax, but that is his entire lifetimes earnings squashed into 10 years.

Someone with a regular career who also has a lifetime earnings potential of £3 million but over 45 years will pay a lot less tax.

Therefore I don't think may people would begrudge Jimmy if he'd gone down the pay via a company route. Pay himself the eqivalent wage of a longer career every year to equalise his tax liability to that of someone with a regular job with the odd dividen thrown in along the way.

The K2 stuff does seem to be taking the piss a bit though but it is up to the government to close the loophole though, rather than villify people in the media.

I agree tax avoidance is less worse than keeping slaves

I like Mr Carr's work and I hate tax, almost as much as I hate Cameron two faced hypocrisy far more.

The tax laws as they are intended do seem particularly unfair to someone like Jimmy though due to his very short period of high earning potential.

Will he be incapable of other work if his comedy career ends? Or will he, you know, have to manage like everyone else who didn't have a 3 million quid headstart?

apologies if this has been answered (i've not read the whole thread).

Why did cameron pick jimmy carr, there must be scores of people who avoid tax is this any many other ways.

aa - Member

Why did cameron pick jimmy carr, there must be scores of people who avoid tax is this any many other ways.

Presumably he thought lots of people don't like him. Which is why he's so cagey about Gary Barlow.

And how many of you lot wouldn't?
It's income tax that is immoral.
You couldn't have go at GB after all that stuff that was on the telly.

Big supporter of the Tories, Mr Barlow.

Lovin' his latest tune:

Why did cameron pick jimmy carr

The Times did the original piece naming Jimmy Carr, then as I understand it a BBC reporter asked Cameron what he thought of Carr's tax arrangements. The rest is [s]a very long STW thread[/s] history.

Has anyone pointed out yet that Camerons family fortune is built on tax avoidance - on a scale that makes Carrs look like nothing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens

to say nothing of a whole line of tories - Ashcroft for example who is also a liar saying he would become UK resident but then didn't.

suprisingly plans to publish minsters tax afairs seem to have been shelved

[img] [/img]

I'd be much more impressed if Call-Me-Dave had named and shamed this Monaco dwelling tax evasion expert.

But hang on ...... [url= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/08/vince-cable-tempted-comment ]Oops sorry apparently he works for Dave[/url]

hes done nowt illegal has he, i only wish i could be in a position to do the same.

s****

[img] [/img]

Hmmm - mirror group newspapers throwing round accusations of tax dodging...

interesting one that, considering what they got done for:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61998J0409:EN:HTML

Didn't the Mirror also champion this fine man of the [s]people[/s] legal tax avoiding classes?

[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ken-livingstones-the-best-man-for-london-814936 ]Has he published yet? [/url]

Well I think that robert maxwell was a bit of a dodgy geezer too

but i wont hold it against them

(piers morgan on the other hand....)

Whatever the Mirror group may have done, don't you think it's good that someone is pointing out Cameron's breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue? Also, do you really think its on to comment on an individual's tax affairs (Cameron has previously said its wrong btw making him even more of a hypocrite)?

CFH - when you find you're making the same point as Zulu Eleven you probably need to have a little word with yourself. The guy's a loon.

I just cannot believe it there is an article on Tory politicians and Flash makes no comment but links to labour - Ken is my guess - you dont even need to use the link 🙄

FFS flash can you just stop doing this is it pathetic and transparent
Seriously WHY do you do this?

Could you comment on the Tories and their tax avoidance as well as labours.....We all have a political hue but you either support tax avoidance or you oppose it, who does it is is irrelevant..you dont want to look like a lightweight with no integrity attmepting to score glib political points ..... Oh sorry you do dont you 😳

Should CMD also call these folk names or just Carr...any view on the actual point/issue?

Zulu - a sper your point in the Guardian ...does their tax affairs have any impact on the accuracy/truth of this report?

Why do the right whingers just fling mud rather than actually give us their view on this issue when it concerns their party?
I was very explicit about ken ...shame you two cannot even attempt to do this

Junky, he should indeed. My point was that it's rather hard to fling accusations of hypocrisy around when you yourself have a track record of doing just that. Now, the circle goes around both ways, in that Cameron is as guilty of that as the Mirror!

.

Cameron is the PM and he has close friends and family who have avoided tax and continue to do so. I would say that is far more important in a democracy than what a newspaper does.

They dont seem to have published the cabinets members tax returns either as promised...any idea as to why?

Oh and ta for commenting..i will be less goading/politer next time

camerons only got himself to blame he obviously doesnt like the fact that jimmy carr mocks him so he singled him out

so there he is on the historic day when Aung San Su Kyi has defied a brutal regime with unwavering dignity, given a passionate address to the UK parliament, the worlds media are watching live- and dave is asked......

'is your mate from Take That morally wrong too?'

[i]in that Cameron is as guilty of that as the Mirror![/i]

And has the same level of responsibility to the British public?
Are you honestly that worried and shocked by this new-found discovery of hypocrisy in the tabloid press? (!!! added for tabloid sensationalism)

Anyway, [i]8 out of 10 Cats[/i] is on 4 at 10 pm tonight. Not a big Carr fan previously, but I expect Sean Lock may have a little jest with him.
I'd guess Carr may have a little, tiny dig back at CMD too, now he's the one paying more tax on less wealth. Worth watching anyway.
He'll do ok out of this financially, and probably gain a lot more support than he loses. Will CMD?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/8-out-of-10-cats

Cameron is the PM and he has close friends and family who have avoided tax and continue to do so.

Sorry, are you accusing them of utilising agressive tax avoidance schemes of dubious legality that exercise a lacuna in tax law to operate agains the spirit of the law, or of using permitted and know tax reliefs/clauses that were built into the laws when written?

I would say that is far more important in a democracy than what a newspaper does.

Really, So why are we wasting money on the Leveson inquiry, if what a newspaper does is so unimportant?

As you well know cameron described Carr as "morally wrong" though he had not broken the law. It is not hard to see why people are asking what the difference is between Carr and Daves chums, colleagues and family members. Your attempt at a smoke screen both transparent and piss poor.
I know you are right wing but FFS everyone can see cameron is being as hypocritical as ken was*...why not just have some integrity and admit this and chastise him for it
* rumours abound his father did this - well it was his job -- and the pm has not released his own tax returns nor tha cabinets as he suggested he would...odd that eh.

I struggle with long sentences - but Jimmy Carr is a red herring to divert the attention away from bankers, big business and the rest of the hegemony.
(this has probs been posted already but there's 7 pages ffs)

[IMG] [/IMG]

Theres a few valuable and important lessons here.

1: CMD is shaping up to be the worst prime minister in a few years. 😉 I would like to think that those advising him were advising him badly, but it's just his personality traits which causes him trouble,

2: The undying defence of the right whingers. Most normal people can see the hypocrisy in politicians, Unfortunately those who aren't normal have to point out that the opposition are also hypocrites. Well have a gold star, we already know they are.

The point they miss is someone like CMD is in no position to point out somebody else's tax status considering who he is and who he associates with.

So while everyone will carry on blaming everyone else for being hypocritical, the story for me is another example of poor judgment in a long list of poor judgments by a poor prime minister.

[i]...divert the attention away from bankers, big business and the rest of the hegemony.[/i]

So bleedin' obvious and the reason why this thread didn't interest me. It's just not worth getting worked up about.

As I said

there's two types of "tax avoidance" aren't there

When I fill in my tax return at the end of the year, and I list expenses incurred in work that were not refunded by my employer, and get that offset against my tax bill for next year - then you could easily argue that its tax avoidance - I'm paying less tax than I otherwise would, but its part of the system, and I'm allowed to do it.

On the other hand, if put the money in an offshore company that lends it back to me so I don't pay tax, then its also legal, but its far from being part of the system or something I'm allowed to do, its a blatant tax dodge.

Both are tax avoidance, however one I would argue is very different from the other morally.

The problem about the solution that people are suggesting, that you close the loophole, is that it doesn't solve the problem, as the dodgy firms move on to the next aggressive tax dodge - The Revenue closes one scheme; they find another way round it.

The beauty of playing the Jimmy Carr card in this way is that it tackles the root of the problem, by making people afraid of putting money into [b]any[/b] agressive tax scheme, for fear of it getting out.

Of course - the problem with the vodaphone case, was that despite the claim of 6 billion, this was doubtful and deep down HMRC actually doubted that they would win the case against vodaphone if it went to court, so they settled for 1.25 billion that they could get, rather than nothing if they lost the case.

divert the attention away from bankers, big business and the rest of the hegemony.

So bleedin' obvious and the reason why this thread didn't interest me. It's just not worth getting worked up about.

too bleedin' obvious though..

I don't care how little we think of our elite.. you cannot rise to the top of society and be [i]that[/i] naive..

what was [i]absolutely[/i] bleedin' obvious is the public interest that the story would generate and the resulting fallout with toffs up and down the country being named and shamed..
Carr [i]must[/i] have been a willing fall guy, and the scapegoats that will fall over the few weeks must have been on the chopping block for a while..

Both are tax avoidance, however one I would argue is very different from the other morally.

Tax status
Lord Ashcroft courted controversy when Chairman of the Conservative Party Eric Pickles MP declared on BBC Radio 4 that Ashcroft would be willing to appear on the station's flagship Today programme to clarify his unclear tax status. However, when invited, Lord Ashcroft quickly declined, according to John Humphrys. Ashcroft delayed comment on whether he currently pays tax on his global income in the United Kingdom, despite being a prominent and influential member of the legislature and major donor to the Conservative Party but eventually announced his non-domiciled status.[

camerons advisors are obviously giving him some terrible advice

its almost as if hes being sabotaged from whithin his own party, as if someone wants his job, but who could it be?............

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18547842 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18547842[/url]

****ing hell please god no!

I haven't read this whole thread, but given thatnhe admitted an error of judgement, is he going to pay back everything he avoided, since starting the [s]scam[/s] scheme?

psa ch4 now