FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Just as it says...
By LRW
#308131
Dont know if you've read about this, but Jimmy Carr has come under a LOT of criticism over the last week or so for using a Jersey-based tax avoidance scheme. Allegedly has £3.2M in an account and is only paying 1% tax on it. Even the PM has come out against it....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18521468

I don't actually blame Jimmy Carr for avoiding tax legally. If I earned £3.2M, I wouldnt be happy to see £1.5M of it go to the tax man!

Im sure Im in the minority on this one, but thoughts....?
By andrew
#308132
He's a British resident who uses British services so he should be paying a suitable amount so that us lowly serfs are not paying for him to use public services. Personally, I'd just not spend enough time in any one country if I had his kind of cash but effectively swindling the system is wrong.

Plus, it's not as if he's funny.
By LRW
#308133
He's a British resident who uses British services so he should be paying a suitable amount so that us lowly serfs are not paying for him to use public services. Personally, I'd just not spend enough time in any one country if I had his kind of cash but effectively swindling the system is wrong.

Plus, it's not as if he's funny.


But If he pays 1% tax on his £3.2M - thats £32,000. I bet you dont pay £32k tax. So I doubt very much you are paying for him to do anything.

If you found a totally easy and legal way of avoiding, say 50%, of your annual tax bill, are you telling me you wouldnt do it?

And he is actually very funny.
Last edited by LRW on 20 Jun 12, 20:42, edited 1 time in total.
#308139
It's a question of proportion in relation to your earnings. He should be paying his fair share like the rest of us.

Unless the British taxation system has changed; it's not proportionate, what most people will pay is 10%, but he would lose 42.5% of his 3.2m because he is a higher earner!
By andrew
#308146
What I mean is the more you earn the more you pay. I'm all for these big earners getting whacked with a huge tax bill. My heart doesn't bleed for someone with earnings of £3.2M having a tax bill of £1.5M. Granted it's a lot but I'm sure he'll still manage to live on £1.7M.
By LRW
#308147
It's a question of proportion in relation to your earnings. He should be paying his fair share like the rest of us.

Unless the British taxation system has changed; it's not proportionate, what most people will pay is 10%, but he would lose 42.5% of his 3.2m because he is a higher earner!


It's worse than that. All earnings over £150k and most people should pay 50%

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
By LRW
#308150
What I mean is the more you earn the more you pay. I'm all for these big earners getting whacked with a huge tax bill. My heart doesn't bleed for someone with earnings of £3.2M having a tax bill of £1.5M. Granted it's a lot but I'm sure he'll still manage to live on £1.7M.


But he has worked hard for that £3.2m, why shouldn't he keep more than 50% of it.
By andrew
#308157
He lives in the UK so should be bound by all the laws and wotnot that the rest of us are. There is no reason why someone should be exempt just for being famous. I don't believe one bit in tax breaks for high earners. Tax breaks for low earners is more justifiable than that for high earners.
#308158
I love this woman, she's running for the senate seat in Massachusetts... I wish I was a resident so I could vote for her. The clip explains it much more eloquently and passionately than I would. Given the choice, I hope I am some day in a position to many millions of dollars in taxes.

The problem is that RICH people are able to work the systems in ways that we the common man cannot. A couple of days ago it was shown that Romney is able to deduct $77,500 dollars through an LLC he created to own a dressage horse his wife owns, and claim it as a business loss... I can't deduct my hobbies as a business loss... Then again I wouldn't be able to afford the accountant that would come up with such a creative (legal) deduction.

[youtube]hOyDR2b71ag[/youtube]
By LRW
#308160
He lives in the UK so should be bound by all the laws and wotnot that the rest of us are. There is no reason why someone should be exempt just for being famous. I don't believe one bit in tax breaks for high earners. Tax breaks for low earners is more justifiable than that for high earners.


And he has operated within every law of the land. He is using a legal tax avoidance scheme.
#308164
What I mean is the more you earn the more you pay. I'm all for these big earners getting whacked with a huge tax bill. My heart doesn't bleed for someone with earnings of £3.2M having a tax bill of £1.5M. Granted it's a lot but I'm sure he'll still manage to live on £1.7M.

But he has worked hard for that £3.2m, why shouldn't he keep more than 50% of it.

I agree, I don't believe that someone should be punished for being successful and in reality, they are less likely to use public services than the average Joe!
#308167
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
By andrew
#308170
He lives in the UK so should be bound by all the laws and wotnot that the rest of us are. There is no reason why someone should be exempt just for being famous. I don't believe one bit in tax breaks for high earners. Tax breaks for low earners is more justifiable than that for high earners.


And he has operated within every law of the land. He is using a legal tax avoidance scheme.


But there is no earthly reason why he should avoid paying what he should be paying. The fact he, and others, are benefitting from a totally moronic law which is a farce. I don't see why I should work my bottom off (probably until the day I die the way pensions are going) just to make ends meet when some celebrity can flout the system and get away with it and live the life of Riley. It is properly screwed up.

I love this woman, she's running for the senate seat in Massachusetts... I wish I was a resident so I could vote for her. The clip explains it much more eloquently and passionately than I would. Given the choice, I hope I am some day in a position to many millions of dollars in taxes.

The problem is that RICH people are able to work the systems in ways that we the common man cannot. A couple of days ago it was shown that Romney is able to deduct $77,500 dollars through an LLC he created to own a dressage horse his wife owns, and claim is as a business loss... I can't deduct my hobbies as a business loss... Then again I wouldn't be able to afford the accountant that would come up with such a creative (legal) deduction.
[youtube]hOyDR2b71ag[/youtube]


The woman makes a good point. No one does it by themselves.
#308173
That's an over simplification of taxation and sadly it's what makes people defend their "someone else is paying less than me" that doesn't work in real life. In life we pay takes on the goods we buy, we pay taxes on the services that are rendered and we pay taxes for our employment, health insurance, disability, etc.

NO ONE PAYS NOTHING IN TAXES... unless you're a corporation. What it means when someone does pay no (federal income tax) in the US, it's simply one form of tax, generally because they earn too little money. That same person doesn't have their sales tax waived or their school property tax waived.

So cut the oversimplifications out, they serve only for simple minded people to get worked up about. :rolleyes:
Hello, new member here

Yeah, not very active here, unfortunately. Is it […]

See our F1 related articles too!