Jimmy Carr

[Letters]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18531008


(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18531008)Wonder if they'll show 8 Out of 10 Cats tomorrow :popcorn:

Reminds me a bit of the Angus Deatun HIGNFY thing in that he was hosting a show about the week's news and he was the week's news (8 out of 10 not so overtly topical but they do have the 'what are you talking about' round which is)

[Flavs]

Hasn't done anything wrong has he? If i were rich and could afford an accountant i would find every method for getting out of tax as well

[Marc Overmars]

Jimmy Carr. :bow:

[Niall_Quinn]

Tax is immoral and unlawful when levied on labour. It's theft whichever way you cut it. When you take money from people under duress and accompanied by threats and in the absence of a contract then that's a crime. The fact the state does it simply means they view themselves above the rest of us and above the law. Just because a crime has been in progress for a long time doesn't mean it's lawful and just because a bunch of crooks create statute to absolve themselves of wrongdoing does not create the contract that would make taxation on labour lawful. The tax system is purely for the benefit of the mega rich. People get confused with the fallout in the form of crumbs that fall off the table, they mistake these crumbs as consideration and a mutual benefit. Interesting then that the mega rich don't pay tax but the poor do. Even more interesting how that tax is used, generally to service interest on another criminal activity namely the production of debt from thin air, or counterfeiting if you want the legal definition. This in turn leads to inflation (another tax) and more immorality in the form of double taxation on labour - twice the crime. They'll even go for a third pop in some cases and raise illegal fines for non payment of tax. Can you envisage a more crooked system?

[Shaqiri Is Boss]

How dare we try what the politicians and their friends have been doing for decades.

They're the ones who make the tax system specifically so people can do this.

[Niall_Quinn]

How dare we try what the politicians and their friends have been doing for decades.

They're the ones who make the tax system specifically so people can do this.

Yep. If 8 out of 10 people woke the fuck up we could put an end to this and we'd all be better off, especially the poor.

[the easter bunnie]

I'm not aloud to watch Jimmy Carr as he is very rude and says bad swears. mummy called the Prime Minster a hippopotamus for saying that Jimmy Carr was immoral. Hippos skin ways a ton

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm not aloud to watch Jimmy Carr as he is very rude and says bad swears. mummy called the Prime Minster a hippopotamus for saying that Jimmy Carr was immoral. Hippos skin ways a ton

I have sweets at my house if you want to come over.

[Letters]

Hasn't done anything wrong has he? If i were rich and could afford an accountant i would find every method for getting out of tax as well
Depends what you mean by 'wrong'.

He's not done anything illegal, but it's morally dubious.

Although yeah, if you're rich enough to be able to afford an accountant smart enough to know about these things and they say to you "do you want to pay less legally" it's not massively unreasonable to say yes.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

dont blame him, anyone would do it.

[Joker]

Taxation is part of the social contract; countries like Sweden have high marginal rates of taxation but don't seem to have such a problem in terms of avoidance or opposition to taxes. They can subsequently fund their large welfare state, and consequently have a higher quality of life with better infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. Since the 80s here we've become much more invidividualistic in this country, and more willing to think of ourselves in isolation from our social obligations. I blame Thatcher tbh; she promoted the "there is no such thing as society" mantra and we're now reaping the benefits.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

Taxation is part of the social contract; countries like Sweden have high marginal rates of taxation but don't seem to have such a problem in terms of avoidance or opposition to taxes. They can subsequently fund their large welfare state, and consequently have a higher quality of life with better infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. Since the 80s here we've become much more invidividualistic in this country, and more willing to think of ourselves in isolation from our social obligations. I blame Thatcher tbh; she promoted the "there is no such thing as society" mantra and we're now reaping the benefits.

countries like sweden see a return through better hospitalisation procedures, improved public transport and general improvement in cleanliness in all aspects of life. sweden is notorious for having some of the best healthcare in the world so in return pay higher taxes. there's no problem with that. in this country the NHS is on its legs and much of our taxes go towards funding failed policies. even when they seem to work, most are imperfectly targetted towards the rich when they should be helping the poor.

[Joker]

countries like sweden see a return through better hospitalisation procedures, improved public transport and general improvement in cleanliness in all aspects of life. sweden is notorious for having some of the best healthcare in the world so in return pay higher taxes. there's no problem with that. in this country the NHS is on its legs and much of our taxes go towards funding failed policies. even when they seem to work, most are imperfectly targetted towards the rich when they should be helping the poor.

I agree with that, the UK governments (of all political stripes) don't help themselves by failing to use the tax revenues effectively. However, the NHS has seen a fair amount of improvements since 1997, although more should be done.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

I agree with that, governments don't help themselves by failing to use the tax revenues effectively. However, the NHS has seen a fair amount of improvements since 1997, although more should be done.

i think its more the issue of poverty than anything else but the trend of inefficient spending has been at the heart of government policy for years. for example they introduced the national minimum wage and it seemed to be working but it really wasnt. it was so imperfectly targetted it became almost embarrassing; middle class children who were seeking work during summer term became richer, adding to their families wealth. this only increased the polarisation between rich and poor. policies like the NMW also encouraged housewives from middle class families to get back into employment because the higher wage made it more attractive to find work, but this only increased competition in the labour market and made it harder for lower class individuals to get jobs. see the problem? negative multiplier effects everywhere. then the government have the cheek to wonder why child poverty increased and the core poor have worsened.

[Coney]

When I was a contractor, I became aware of the extent to which some people go to avoid paying tax. Sure, it might be legal but there is a moral angle too. If you expect to have police, fire, ambulance, education, etc. etc. then the funding has to come from somewhere. (Yeah, inefficient government, blah blah - that is a separate issue). If people like Carr and these contractors go around avoiding tax, those of us who do not do that end up with a higher bill. These people are NOT fiddling the tax man. They are fiddling you and me in the end so they are selfish ****s. Other contractotrs seemed to regard me as a commie because I did PAYE on my stuff, rather than paying dividends - tricks like paying yourself a salary just low enough to avoid National Insurance and then paying the rest as a dividend is a classic trick. Worse are what are called the FtoMs. They leave a company on the Friday and start again on the Monday as a contractor, so the company saves on the NI and the contractor saves on that and uses other avoidance tricks.

For Jimmy Carr to do what he does and then slag off politicians shows what a **** he is. I recall any number of MPs saying that they didn't realise you should claim a second house, pond or whatever then did the 'oh sorry - I'll pay it back' and then assume it is OK - like a thief saying he'll give the loot back to the victim and assume that is that.

The attitude of 'OK to fiddle the taxman' needs jumping on just as much as scroungers at the other end. It might be a legitimate fiddle, but it is still a fiddle and you are still pissing on the rest of us. ****.

[Coney]

I agree with that, the UK governments (of all political stripes) don't help themselves by failing to use the tax revenues effectively. However, the NHS has seen a fair amount of improvements since 1997, although more should be done.

Sort of. But I'd say "the UK governments (of all political stripes) don't help us by failing to use the tax revenues effectively"

The treasury is a store for OUR money that the politicians are supposed to look after. People on the fiddle, whether tax or benefits, are taking OUR money.

[Letters]

When I was a contractor, I became aware of the extent to which some people go to avoid paying tax. Sure, it might be legal but there is a moral angle too. If you expect to have police, fire, ambulance, education, etc. etc. then the funding has to come from somewhere. (Yeah, inefficient government, blah blah - that is a separate issue). If people like Carr and these contractors go around avoiding tax, those of us who do not do that end up with a higher bill. These people are NOT fiddling the tax man. They are fiddling you and me in the end so they are selfish ****s. Other contractotrs seemed to regard me as a commie because I did PAYE on my stuff, rather than paying dividends - tricks like paying yourself a salary just low enough to avoid National Insurance and then paying the rest as a dividend is a classic trick. Worse are what are called the FtoMs. They leave a company on the Friday and start again on the Monday as a contractor, so the company saves on the NI and the contractor saves on that and uses other avoidance tricks.

For Jimmy Carr to do what he does and then slag off politicians shows what a **** he is. I recall any number of MPs saying that they didn't realise you should claim a second house, pond or whatever then did the 'oh sorry - I'll pay it back' and then assume it is OK - like a thief saying he'll give the loot back to the victim and assume that is that.

The attitude of 'OK to fiddle the taxman' needs jumping on just as much as scroungers at the other end. It might be a legitimate fiddle, but it is still a fiddle and you are still pissing on the rest of us. ****.
:gp:

[Cripps_orig]

This threads been a good read :popcorn:

[Master Splinter]

His dad is an awlsome scout.

[Niall_Quinn]

Taxation is part of the social contract; countries like Sweden have high marginal rates of taxation but don't seem to have such a problem in terms of avoidance or opposition to taxes. They can subsequently fund their large welfare state, and consequently have a higher quality of life with better infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. Since the 80s here we've become much more invidividualistic in this country, and more willing to think of ourselves in isolation from our social obligations. I blame Thatcher tbh; she promoted the "there is no such thing as society" mantra and we're now reaping the benefits.

No such thing as a social contract. It's just a buzz phrase that has zero weight in law. Contracts can't exist unless all parties concerned are in agreement to the terms, contracts are null and void if any party has to be coerced or otherwise compelled. The very fact the state claims jurisdiction over all the land and all the people living on it and gives no alternative to compliance with their "social contract" means everything the state does is illegitimate. The natural assumption we are all too dumb to organise our own infrastructure and services is too insulting to take seriously. All of your views seem to be absent any thought and based purely on assumptions the status quo is valid and without viable alternative. In effect you condemn human beings as the lowest form of life on the planet rather than the highest. Stupid beasts of burden to be marshalled, branded and worked. Your politics are that of the farmer with you being the willing (and I sense grateful) livestock. Incidentally, examining one criminal enterprise to find validity in another is dishonest.

[Niall_Quinn]

Sort of. But I'd say "the UK governments (of all political stripes) don't help us by failing to use the tax revenues effectively"

The treasury is a store for OUR money that the politicians are supposed to look after. People on the fiddle, whether tax or benefits, are taking OUR money.

They use the tax revenues very effectively, only not on your behalf. The tax system is just the other shoe dropping in favour of the banking system. Neither are at all necessary however they are extremely lucrative for the few. The tax system and state infrastructure provides you with nothing you couldn't obtain yourself and in conjunction with others for a fraction of the cost, both in terms of money and resource. How much more could be done with the fruits of your labour (for yourself and others) if half that effort did not disappear on interest repayments to debt that was created on a computer screen? This massive wastage is applauded, it's truly unbelievable.

[Letters]

The natural assumption we are all too dumb to organise our own infrastructure and services is too insulting to take seriously.

You know that people vote based on what the nation's most popular paper 'The Sun' says and that the most popular shows are things like X Factor and Eastenders? And you think people can be trusted to organise their own infrastructure? :lol:
Good luck with that.

[Coney]

They use the tax revenues very effectively, only not on your behalf. The tax system is just the other shoe dropping in favour of the banking system. Neither are at all necessary however they are extremely lucrative for the few. The tax system and state infrastructure provides you with nothing you couldn't obtain yourself and in conjunction with others for a fraction of the cost, both in terms of money and resource. How much more could be done with the fruits of your labour (for yourself and others) if half that effort did not disappear on interest repayments to debt that was created on a computer screen? This massive wastage is applauded, it's truly unbelievable.

Cobblers. It is a kind of insurance. We all pay the same amount in case one of us needs en entire house/car/whatever replacing after a fire.

We collectively club together for mutual benefit. The other factor that people like the Tories appear to overlook is that a large chunk of the population are simple crap at trying to organise things and need the system to help them do it. Failing to help the weaker ones in this (and other areas) means we reduce the country to the law of the jungle - survival of the fittest and the weak can go hang. I'm afraid I find that not acceptable. If my neighbour's house is on fire, I will lend him my hose and perhaps even help to put out the fire.

[Niall_Quinn]

You know that people vote based on what the nation's most popular paper 'The Sun' says and that the most popular shows are things like X Factor and Eastenders? And you think people can be trusted to organise their own infrastructure? :lol:
Good luck with that.

What do those people do in order to watch X-Factor and Eastenders? Do they ring up government and ask them to stick their favourite programs on the box? In fact the truth is bizarre. Turns out there's a company out there, independent of government (I know, I could hardly believe it myself) and if you buy a TV (made and sold by a private company) (the government won't do this for you, you have to go to the shops and buy it yourself), plug it in (you'll have to deal with another non-governmental organisation to get electricity), switch it on (again, no government help with this), call up the cable company (private company) (using telephones operated by yet another private company) and hand over money (earned by your labour and residing in a private bank that you have a contract with, independent of government) then (as if by magic considering government isn't involved at any step) you can watch your TV show. Note again, you have to watch it yourself, government won't watch it for you.

Of course we both know the above is not strictly true because government does provide a string of valuable services that ensure X-Factor can be delivered to you. First they tax the cable company, both in terms of providing a piece of expensive paper called a license and also general taxation on labour and profits.

They tax the shop you bought your TV in. They tax the electricity company. The tax the bank you hold your money in. Then they tax all these companies again by coercing the companies into accounting for tax on their behalf (nice freebie if you have the troops and paramilitary and courts to enforce it).

Finally they tax you. Four times. They tax you on your labour. They tax you with inflation. They tax you with interest and then they tax you on the tax with VAT. You'll need a license to watch the program too.

So even though it may be argued government plays no part whatsoever in the provision of services between you and other private individuals and companies, as you can see they still play a significant role. One we are delighted to see them play it seems. A role it would be "immoral" to disagree with.

Now as we know, it's simply impossible that other forms of infrastructure could be arranged between private individuals operating together in absence of government. There's just no way such a thing could be achieved (unlike in past times and all throughout history where such arrangements were standard). Everything would fall apart and everyone would die if government did not intervene in every aspect of our lives in order to extract the wealth required to sustain itself. If this snake stopped eating its tail we'd all be doomed to find other and much more efficient ways to manage our lives.

The thought of people wanting to benefit themselves and at the same time relieving themselves of a ever increasing burden is ridiculous. Government for the sake of government is the only way to go.

[Niall_Quinn]

If my neighbour's house is on fire, I will lend him my hose and perhaps even help to put out the fire.

Exactly.

[Letters]

Now as we know, it's simply impossible that other forms of infrastructure could be arranged between private individuals operating together in absence of government. There's just no way such a thing could be achieved.
Of course it's possible. In America there's no NHS so you have to pay for private medical insurance.
If you can't afford to then screw you, you're left on the side of the road.
That would be loads better.


The one part of your rant which makes any sense is the different ways we're taxed. That does annoy me, we shouldn't be taxed at every step. I accept that we need a taxation system in order to run things like the NHS and other infrastructure but IMO they should just take what they need from my salary and then leave me alone after that.

[Coney]

Disgraceful how fascists, nazis, anachists, and communists are treated on here.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course it's possible. In America there's no NHS so you have to pay for private medical insurance.
If you can't afford to then screw you, you're left on the side of the road.
That would be loads better.


The one part of your rant which makes any sense is the different ways we're taxed. That does annoy me, we shouldn't be taxed at every step. I accept that we need a taxation system in order to run things like the NHS and other infrastructure but IMO they should just take what they need from my salary and then leave me alone after that.

I just explained to you in my rant (translation, outside your conditioned spectrum) why tax is counterproductive to the aims you claim you want to achieve. Tax and the fractional reserve system it supports means everything is at least twice as expensive. You confuse a different manifestation of corruption in the States with the system we have in the UK, mistakenly imagining each as polar alternatives. Both are simply systems worked for the same purpose, sustenance of the few. In America the insurance industry owns healthcare, here the pharmaceutical industries run it. Everything from the medicines on the shelves to the research grants are all bent towards the profit motive. Besides, the kicked to the side of the road bullshit often raised by those desperate to defend outrageously obvious corruption is only a recent event in the States. But that's another argument. Going back to the farmer - does he care for his animals because he respects them? The cow wouldn't be in the warm barn for long if it stopped producing milk. There's a certainly lack of equity in an arrangement, don't you think? You say you agree we "need" a taxation system and yet a couple of posts back you lamented the "X-Factor" crowd.

[Letters]

You haven't explained anything.

You said that the infrastructure was arranged between private individuals "in past times and all throughout history where such arrangements were standard". It may have been standard, doesn't mean it was any good:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/nhs_at_50/special_report/123511.stm


Prior to the reforms, the poor often went without medical treatment, relying instead on dubious - and sometimes dangerous - home remedies or on the charity of doctors who gave their services free to their poorest patients.

Access to a doctor was free to workers, who were on lower pay, but 'national health insurance' often did not extend even to their wives or children.

Hospitals charged for services, and although poor people were reimbursed, they had to pay upfront first to receive treatment.

The need for free healthcare was widely recognised, but it was impossible to achieve without the support or resources of the state.

Throughout the 19th century, philanthropists and social reformers working alone had tried to provide free medical care for the poor, but, without government backing, they were destined merely to scratch the surface of need.

The hospitals established by these pioneers dealt mainly with serious illness.

Other demands, such as care of the elderly and mentally ill, were met - at least partially - by local authorities which often ran local municipal hospitals.

Provision, however, was patchy, and people were often locked away in forbidding institutions, not always for their own benefit, but to save other people from embarrassment.

[Niall_Quinn]

You haven't explained anything.

You said that the infrastructure was arranged between private individuals "in past times and all throughout history where such arrangements were standard". It may have been standard, doesn't mean it was any good:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/nhs_at_50/special_report/123511.stm

Good grief. If you stuck the current government 200 years in the past it wouldn't turn into a golden age. It's technology that has improved the world, not poxy governments. In fact a lot of innovation has come despite government and its vested interests. The question is what are our options now, not 200 years ago. There's no such thing as free healthcare and there never was. In fact healthcare in this country is ridiculously expensive hence the outrageous rates of taxation. There are no free schools either, nothing is free, it all costs an absolute fortune. Because government endorses corporate abuse and profits from it the illusion is created that you either have big government or a rapacious plutocracy. This is just scaremongering that serves both the state and their business friends. The revolving door between government and big business is all you need to examine to see this nasty alliance in play.

Capitalism is NOT the act of centralisation and yet that's what we have in this country in the form of a bloated state that interferes in every aspect of our lives and a layer of corporations that are even bigger than the state. Capitalism is about competition, competition drives innovation and innovation is behind the technological advances that have genuinely improved things across the board (and not just in favour if the mega rich). You control the cancer of state and the monopolistic corporation that has undue influence and you can get genuine progress. Right now progress is limited to come **** in blue slagging off some **** in red. It's childish and has nothing to do with lifting people up.

Fear of change is what restricts most people, even as they are shouting for the Goldman Sachs stooge who runs on a ticket for change. But if you take away these bastard's tax system then the fiat money and fraction reserve system collapses and with that goes debt and manipulation of the money supply. At the same time production increases (due to money being freed into the economy rather than being recycled in an inflationary way to bankers) and the economic cycle gets tied to labour and manufacturing rather than a faith based system dictated by the few.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. We are a million miles away from doing anything sensible as human beings are are evidently restricted to this wasteful, degrading and criminal system for the foreseeable future. Because almost everybody point blanks refuses to contemplate an alternative, they refuse to believe an alternative is even possible.

[V-Pig]

I agree with Joker/Coney.

And Carr is a twat. He's claimed ignorance to what he was party to, but that's his own fault. Can't forgive a man for such worthless incuriosity. Not that that's a real word, but y'know.

Nevertheless there are bigger twats out there.

[Marc Overmars]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a388987/jimmy-carr-mocked-on-8-out-of-10-cats-over-tax-avoidance-scheme.html

:lol:

[Coney]

I agree with Joker/Coney.

And Carr is a twat. He's claimed ignorance to what he was party to, but that's his own fault. Can't forgive a man for such worthless incuriosity. Not that that's a real word, but y'know.

Nevertheless there are bigger twats out there.

The ignorance of financial matters is just a cop-out. Sure, there are details that need an accountant who specialises in such areas but the broad sweep of what is going on is clear even to the most stupid. When I was a contractor, I had to operate as a company. (It was not a choice, btw - agencies you work through are geared up to dealing with you on that basis.) Now while I did not understand the ins and outs of corporate tax, rollover of losses and loads of other crap, fundamentals such as whether to pay a salary avoiding National Insurance and using dividends and the like is obvious - again not in detail, perhaps, but you would know damn well that you were using a tactic to avoid paying the kind of tax that a normal employee would pay. Contractors regularly boast about how they are avoiding tax, claiming every cup of coffee and biscuit and so forth. The ignorance excuse is complete bollocks - the kind of weasel words a politician would use to try and squirm out of it. Carr was caught out being a hypocritcal ****. End of story.

[the easter bunnie]

I think it's good that people like tax havens. we go to the haven caravan park at camber sands every easter. I have to wear armbands in the swimming pool but have to get out when the water turns purple

[IBK]

The PM singling an individual out is IMO itself morally reprehensible. What next, witch hunting? Politicians stoop to new low.

[Coney]

The PM singling an individual out is IMO itself morally reprehensible. What next, witch hunting? Politicians stoop to new low.

Politicians deflecting the media by pointing them at a story they can use to sell more column inches? Whatever next?

[GP]

Cameron is in no position to speak, after abandoning his baby in a brothel or whatever.

[Coney]

Cameron is in no position to speak, after abandoning his baby in a brothel or whatever.

Was he really shopping or was he in a tapas bar?