egafd.com

YOur post on Labour sleaze had nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Another sign of Slipmania. The subject of the initial post is a bit of a giveaway - "Jimmy Carr tax avoidance"

If you want to rattle on about New Labour sleaze instead of tax avoidance, start your own thread instead of making a fool of yourself attacking Sam Slater for something he did not say or imply.

David Johnson wrote:

> If you want to rattle on about New Labour sleaze instead of
> tax avoidance, start your own thread instead of making a fool
> of yourself attacking Sam Slater for something he did not say
> or imply.


Pompous-assery.

Another classic Johnson's Syndrome symptom. !ambulance!

- Eric

Flat Eric wrote:
Easy to be generous and charitable when you're minted isn't it?

Yes.

It is.

Which is why when things were going good for me in the salad days of porn that I was more than happy to take mates out for lunch. Donate to various charities and help finance a health scheme that would standardise the health system in our business and bring it in line with Europe and the USA amidst the accusations of being a do gooder with a hidden agenda by those who didnt do anything or couldnt care less except line their own pockets.

Probably why a lot of celebs (including people in our business) are loathe to reveal their donations in fear of being rebuked

You think that its ok to pay 90% of their money if they are earning 100 million because they can live comfortably on the 10%

Theres a helluvva lot of things I could and would do with 100 million and I'd be a screaming meemie if I had to give up 90% of 100 million if I'd earned it!

one eyed jack wrote:

> You think that its ok to pay 90% of their money if they are
> earning 100 million because they can live comfortably on the
> 10%

> Theres a helluvva lot of things I could and would do with 100
> million and I'd be a screaming meemie if I had to give up 90%
> of 100 million if I'd earned it!


I agree and I'd be the same.

But I'm not saying that they *should* give it up. I'm saying that they could *afford* to give it up and still be in clover. See the difference?

All I'm saying is that they should pay their fair whack (25%, 30%, 40% - something in that ball park) like every other fucker who's struggling to make ends meet with 2 kids and a modest mortgage has to, and not be allowed to salt it away in offshore tax havens and pay maybe 1 or 2%.

It may be perfectly "legal" to do that, but by any standard it's not morally right.

- Eric

If you really want to examine the government and greed then you should look at the real cost of petrol/ diesel and see how much tax is already on the top of it.

Cigarettes and alcohol too.

Im not saying it is ok to avoid paying tax but I can understand why those who are in the money wil find their progress impeded because of the higher tax brackets.

Film production is hindered because of heavy tax. Heavy tax = dead money to investors. it doesnt surprise me one jot why most companies would rather go off shore to invest in other countries

one eyed jack wrote:

> If you really want to examine the government and greed then you
> should look at the real cost of petrol/ diesel and see how much
> tax is already on the top of it.
>
> Cigarettes and alcohol too.


I'm perfectly aware of that OEJ and agree entirely.

I also agree about the tax burden being a barrier to investment for companies.

What gets my goat though is when millionnaires and billionnaires indulge in aggressive "tax avoidance" purely to line their own pockets and accumulate obscene amounts of personal wealth.

All this guff we sometimes hear about 'ah yes but they're "wealth creators"' only washes with me up to a point. Yes the Philip Greens of this world do help to create jobs. But nevertheless, I think that the whole argument that if we let a comparatively few individuals amass massive personal fortunes, somehow some of it will trickle down to the rest of us (like crumbs off the table) is to a large extent bogus.

The bottom line is that the bastards should be made to pay their fair share in tax, not be allowed to salt it away in Jersey of the Cayman Islands with a nod and a wink from the taxman - who will let's face it hound Joe Average to the ends of the Earth for a poxy hundred quid.

- Eric

Hunt the lawyers that contrive such schemes not just the smucks that exploit them !

As much as I dislike Jimmy Carr, I don't find the smug faced twatt at all funny, at all at all I don't, but, what he did was perfectly legal, and who if they could wouldn't partake in such a scheme?
Any self employed person in the UK can partake of such a scheme, which is readily accepted by HMCR, so, Camerons "outrage" and others snide remarks are to me totally unwarrented.
I see in one Sunday paper that questions are being asked about the ?10m that Camerons father was worth with only ?2.5m being declared in his will. So, where was the rest squirreled away?
People who live in glass houses is a phrase that is coming to mind.

To me, what is repugnant is the ?Billions wasted by the government, and not just this one, on crackpot schemes that are never completed. Prescotts wasted ?500M on an integrated Fire Service Control. Blairs ?12B NHS computer system thet wasn't to be. The list is not endless either.

I have been hit by the taxman, unfairly as it turned out due to their incompetence, and it took me years to get final redress. If I could I would do just what Carr did and raise two fingers to HMRC.

You are right.

I'm more pissed with the enormous waste from this government and previous. This ridiculous saga with the aircraft carriers and the planes to go on them is another. First they scrap our STOVL harriers and the yanks buy them for peanuts. Then the government wants to buy American f35 jets and use a catapult system. Now they want to go back to using F35 STOVL as the catapult system is too expensive.


To be fair to the politicians they are only making decisions on the advice they are given from the so called experts. Some civil servant with a job for life and a gold plated pension. Whichever government is in power it's the same civil servants giving them the bad advice and costing us tax payers.

Yes, the Sir Humphreys' and their ilk have a lot to answer for.
But, they won't will they?