Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
no threads on this?
Particularly bad given the 10 o'clock sketch he did ripping into Barclays:
which is surely just asking for loads of shit to be dug up about tory party donors?
Cameron has loads of money stashed offshore, and Downing Street have always tried to deflect questions on it by referring to it as a "personal matter"
But seeing as it seems he's exploited a legal loophole it's more a case of don't hate the player, hate the game
and it's easy to sit here and say that when in all honesty if I was minted I'd probably be doing the same thing.
If everyone did then that would make everything even worse for others, the people that do milk it for all its worth, well, perhaps those are the sort of people they have always been surrounded by.
you think that anyone who sends you their spare old nokia charger for just P&P is a schmuck and that you would respect someone far more if they insisted that you would have to buy it as well?
This is one of them.
Gary is a tory, and Jimmy did that 10 O'Clock leftie thing.
Which says: "I think he should be applauded. I would do the same in his position"
Not "this is a bit dodgy but I can see why he'd do it". Applauded.
This same moron has a website documenting his wedding, from proposal through stag/hen dos up to the big day. It includes a narration of the proposal, in excruciating detail.
He's even registered [hisname]and[hername].com for it.
Aye, a bit rich(!) after the Barclays sketch. But meh. Cameron hitching a ride on the bandwagon is taking hypocrisy to the next level though. Because there's no way that Cameron and his buddies are all paying the maximum possible tax. On top of that, it's a totally hollow expression of anger, seeing as he's unlikely to extend his alleged disgust to the infinitely larger issue of companies like Boots and parent companies of the Walkers, Cadbury, Johnnie Walker, and Grolsch brands. But this is, after all, the best bud of Gideon O, who claimed to be dumbfounded when he worked out that the practice of personal tax avoidance exists.
and he's already weighed in against Carr, so I guess I'll be supporting Jimmy on this one.
but because he was on that 10 0'clock Show (was it called that?) with two Guardian columnists and an Observer columnist feeding us a steady diet of sub-DiS 'O No Toriezzz' fodder, loads of lefties assumed he was one of them. Maybe he is, Ken Livingston likes a bit of the old tax evasion, I'm sure plenty of other monied bleeding heart types do the same. It's a piss-take and I wish they'd shut these loopholes down, but sharp tax accountants are cleverer than civil servants, that's why they're not civil servants.
despite the fact that they brought in many times more tax than the cost of their wages.
beyond the Evening Standard's headlines, had worked out that Livingstone's set up was the right way to do everything to actually maximise contributions to tax and NI.
Although in his case I thought it was more that he trusted his accountants and they did what was best for him financially rather than what was best 'morally'.
It's a really grey area. I think having a go at people for avoiding paying tax is pretty weird: why are the loopholes there if you can even say that someone is avoiding tax because if you know what they are avoiding the logic is that you can stop them avoiding it.
Obviously it is hypocrisy but accountancy is complete black art. No one wants to pay too much tax, which is probably what would happen if you did it on your own. So you're hiring someone to sort this out for you and you're meant to say, "I don't want to pay more tax than I should, but make sure I pay morally as much as I should"?
(Secretaries etc.) And the only way to set them up on a formal PAYE system is to form a company, paying them (and himself) out of the earnings for this entity.
No-one would expect any other employer to do anything else.
So who gives a fuck?
Put yourself in his shoes, you'd be fucking naive to not want to avoid giving hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds of your own money to the taxman every year.
Cracks me up when people who earn on average, say, £20k a year, think that paying tax is no big deal. If you had to hand over £1m a year you'd be fucking fuming.
Yet the lefty brigade still felt fit to defend him.
It'd be like asking your boss to pay personal income tax rates on all of your company's earnings and then paying you cash in hand out of what's left.
You don't need to have many years like that and then there's no real need to ever work again.
It's very easy to be idealistic when you're on the outside looking in.
Imagine if you were suddenly asked to hand over half of your wages when you were previously paying 20%... you wouldn't have it, would you?
Not sure why they seem to be singling Carr out though...
you only have to hand over more of your wages when you earn more.
As a total tax pay, those in the bottom third of the population, by income, pay a bigger percentage of their money towards tax than the top third, btw.
it's not morally wrong to avoid tax, but it is morally wrong to fail to seek to close the loopholes, and it is hypocritical if you have made capital out of other people/companies that have avoided tax.
then you will see that I have shown that what you have posted is not necessarily so. As it is blatently obvious to people who do seek offshore tax avoidance....that the UK authorities are not 'per se' against tax avoidance schemes for the very rich.
I also explain how they must sometimes SAY that they are against it, but illustrate how they also KNOWINGLY do not prevent it from happening EVEN WHEN THEY WERE INVOLVED IN PAYING PEOPLE WITH OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS FOR DEALINGS THEY WEREv DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN.
Very Rich people who use these schemes KNOW that the gov will not close the loopholes, because they know the gov covertly deliberately allows them to exist
(As I have proven with my points in my previous posts)
THEREFORE to do something that benefits only you, the rich and is essentially deceitful and you know you are in unspoken cahoots with those that would be able to regulate it
YES THAT IS IMMORAL
unless you are dumb and rich in which case we have to allow them some fuzzyness
Jimmy Carr is not dumb
And historically low levels of tax for the richest, too, during these times of all being 'in it together'.
Some eyewatering figures in ^there for anyone who thinks a 50% top rate is high. It was 136.25% for a time in the late 1960s, and was as high as 147.5% after WWII.
You work, get nothing and then still have to pay more?
They were short term emergency measures, after all.
But probably/possibly not - I'm presuming these were /top band rates/*, with lower rates for earnings below a certain total earnings threshold.
*not saying it's what you've done here, but A LOT of people manage to forget (or don't understand) that the top rate doesn't apply to all earnings.
it would be 50% of everything above a certain threshold, not 50% of everything
a cheeky little Harrison composition underpinned by some nice guitar work from Macca.
if you're earning enough to be taxed that much, my heart bleeds
for the amount i earn. our economy's bankrupt, you might have heard.
but i hear that stuff all the time, same with bono and u2 (even bigger hypocrites) moving their money overseas to avoid tax. while doctors and nurses are getting paid relative pittances. just annoys me. if you make your money in a country, respect that country's tax system. or live somewhere else.
penalising people for being successful makes zero sense to me.
As you make more, you get less benefit for each extra £; a poor person benefits from each extra £ much more than a rich person. And if you don't have as much money, you're going to spend more time worrying about it in the short-term, and less time planning on how to thrive in the long-term, leading to a poverty trap. So we should redistribute and open up opportunities for those who otherwise lack them.
How else is he going to afford taxis for every journey he makes?
would it be a problem? what if he comes out and says he's been giving all the saved money to a charity that is X times more effective at doing a job than the public sector equivalent? (not that he has been)
Does trickle down by any other name taste so sweet?
I'm not gonna argue that charities and the private sector can do everything better.
But there are clear examples where avoiding tax to pay for something else would lead to greater overall benefits. e.g. a cancer victim in the UK might cost £20k. That money could be used to prevent 40,000 schoolkids in developing countries from being infected by tropical worms, allowing them to achieve much more academically and help their country's economic growth.
But those aren't clear examples.
That £20k might be best spent on;
-some postgrad research in a UK uni to find out how prevent 4,000,000 schoolkids in developing countries from being infected by tropical worms; or
-a public health officer tasked with creating an education campaign to prevent 1000 people from getting cancer, and the chance that one of those 1000 people can go on to discover a cure for cancer; or
-any one of a great number of other examples where it could be argued that the phrase "X times more effective at doing a job than the public sector equivalent" is exposed as being the emotive rhetoric it surely is without any supporting data, or at the very least an explanation of the underlying rationale or value judgements.
on donations that are gift aided to charity.
please fuck off
I'm guessing not
i think you have to earn money to be taxed
it's stupid to say it's immoral, or attribute morality to any sort of functional mechanisms of the state, or human interactions with the state that don't involve questions about freedom or whatever.
It's just annoying. That's all I would say. It's really annoying.
Jimmy Carr was a twat anyway so it's nothing new even for that.
do you think legality confers morality?
you are very mistaken if you believe that.
so you believe that the very rich have a right to avoid paying tax in a way that the poorer do not have open to them, do you believe this right is given by them being smarter and taking advantage of opportunity? because if so then some would think that smashing someone over the head to rob them would be the smart thing to do if they knew they were not being caught.
Jimmy Carr IS rich....he doesnt NEED to have the extra money that he is cheating his way out of paying by taking advantage of a loophole.
Its no good saying that its authorities fault for allowing these loopholes to exist and that it is up to them to close them, because that is bollocks......the top authorities ALLOW loopholes like this to exist so that the rich (them, their freinds and doners) CAN take advantage of them. ,,,,need convincing of this? OK....
why are tax laws so unfathomable?
why are so many ex gov tax people involved in being accountants and advisors to avoiding tax
why is tax not done on a simple formula that is calculable by using o level maths, without recourse to reading through reams and reams of indescipherable tosh, that regularly changes and which you are menat to know about when it changes even though you might not know its changed?
why does HM customs and excise (the collectors of tax) rent its property (which it sold to an offshore firm (with very obscure untracable parenthood) based in a tax haven) from a relative company (offshore obscure parentage enjoying offshore tax avoidance) of the very same firm that it sold it to in the first place?
I think that the last one shows the intent and where the authorities heart truly lies
Cameron is making a noise about this one small instance because
66 it's stupid to say it's immoral, or attribute morality to any sort of functional mechanisms of the state, or human interactions with the state that don't involve questions about freedom or whatever. 99
This is an odd view. Surely we have moral obligations towards one another that aren't to do with freedom. So why are only the latter class relevant to the morality of what the state does or how people interact with it?
For example, I find it difficult to believe that questions about taxation, welfare, health policy etc have no moral dimension. In fact the implications are pretty scary if they don't.
I met with a financial advisor and he said to me “Do you want to pay less tax? It’s totally legal.” I said “Yes.”
I now realise I’ve made a terrible error of judgement.
Although I’ve been advised the K2 Tax scheme is entirely legal, and has been fully disclosed to HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs),
I’m no longer involved in it and will in future conduct my financial affairs much more responsibly. Apologies to everyone. Jimmy Carr
I'd have more respect for him if he stuck to his guns and carried on.
but I have to go to these extremes to make people see that legality does not absolve one morally.
in nazi germany it was not illegal to take stuff by force from jewish people or hurt them in other ways.
therefore we can see that EGAL STATUS DOES NOT EQUATE WITH MORALITY.
I am therefore using this bit, in capitals (not the nazi bit) to apply to the UK today.
Just because the law does not say something is illegal, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS NOT IMMORAL
it does indicate that defending somebody who is rich and avoiding tax in a way that is exclusive to the rich, with the argument 'ITS NOT ILLEGAL SO ITS NOT IMMORAL' is provably not true.
they attempt to continue in a predictable and controllable manner with a limited set of principles which can impose on those that it considers it has juristiction over (if it also has the burly power to enforce it)
although it has limited success in attempting to sustain stability and certainty as it has limited influence ability or understanding on that which is outside of 'its authority'
the head of authority. (yes they do have overseas/foreign offices...but these seem segregated to a curious degree from domestic attitudes....seen as a dual role innit?)
Although authority is not a moral body, if it deems that donning the garb of morality suits it purpose of continuing control and predictability then it will wear the clothes of morality for as long as it suits that purpose.....e.g. when criticising jimmy carr.....but when it no longer suits the purpose of its control then it will take the garments of morality off (not particularly exposing how little of the suns profits are paid in tax in uk.....cos murdoch threatens politicians.....ot not revealing doners tax avoidance schemes and condeming them outright (cos otherwise party funds would dry up and then control is made less certain)
- cheating on somebody
- you can tell a child it's ugly TO ITS FACE and a policeman would just shake his fist at you at the very most
- Evil Sean Adams
if the child really is ugly, surely it's morally correct to set them straight, otherwise you're falling foul of point 1?
and it is somehow, if not easily quantifiable, more morally wrong than some other morally wrong things. I don't understand how this story got so big though, or what Cameron thought he might achieve by mouthing off about it. Did he ever do any work when he was still in PR?
thus removing the need to actually read the article and speeding up the public kicking process.
and they're all running lead stories about a comedian's personal finances, with coverage of a cabinet minister's personal endeavor to re-introduce stratification in the English education system, so Cameron probably did do some work in PR. EVIL work.
The coverage of the important story is much lower down. Oh, if only I'd taken an O Level in Sentence Completion.
The important story is the doctor's strike. There are rumours going around that the O-level story was leaked last night to distract from the strike and to ward off the press highlighting Cameron's rank hypocrisy in criticising Carr.
It openly flouts IR35 entirely, as every single one of the self employed entities that i work with could be replaced by an employee doing the exact same thing. Tax avoidance get's me turning my turn to the side quizzically wondering how I should approach it.
See, I earn quite a lot. But, people beside me who have similar levels of experience are earning 150-200% of what I earn GROSS yet pay around 9-20% tax on it because instead of being paid PAYE they are taking a nominal salary and the rest as dividends from their private company.
I am unsure if I will head this route; I am unconvinced that I can morally allow it. However, I do feel the pain of knowing that I am being underpaid within my profession - I'd happyily take the 100% uplift, of course, and still pay my fair share of tax. I am on the Higher Rate (Lower Band) and it would push me into the Progessive Rate (according to Wikipedia). And I am fine with that.
I just feel like I should be making more of a stand when I hear of people I know, trust and respect, avouiding tax.
...but with people committing Benefit Fraud.
Now, if the same energy was used with people who were avoiding tax...
but it's worth remembering that a not insignificant chunk of the 150-200% of your gross that contractors get paid is to pay for a bunch of things that your employer is outsourcing, such as holiday pay, pension contributions, employer (not employee, remember) NI, etc, etc. Then there's the lack of job security. Not saying that a contractor can't earn a decent wage, but it's easy to get a little over grass-is-greener about it.
My father's been a contractor all my life, so maybe I am being hypocritical about it too. Full disclosure.
I just was offered £58 an hour, 40 hours a week job there. You'd wonder why I wouldn't take it...
I don't think there's any black and white here. Obvious point maybe, but showing that it's morally wrong to avoid tax requires showing that you have an enforceable moral duty to pay the tax to the state. Whether that's true will depend on (amongst other things) whether it's just for the state to impose the tax. So I think it's untrue to say that tax avoidance is always morally wrong.
That said, the state is usually in a better position than individuals to understand the information relevant to the levels of tax that are justifiable. And the fact that an authority picks one of several permissible taxation schemes usually obliges people to follow that particular scheme. So probably, in reasonably just states, people (prima facie) ought to pay taxes.
Also it might make a difference if you have taken advantage of the schemes that others have funded by paying their taxes, etc...
Basically - the government needs to pay for shit, so it collects taxes in order to do so. Those earning loadsamoney™ pay obscenely large amounts of tax on these earnings. The tax bands also seem to be set rather arbitrarily, so a lot of people like Jummy Carr can feel hard done by and attempt to funnel money back into their pockets. It's nothing to do with morals/morality.
That said, feel free to use plenty of other negative frames of reference for these people. Tax, as an individual, as very simple. Every year, you earn a certain amount of money. It is reasonably clear how much tax you have to pay on that money. Any individual who does anything to avoid paying the correct amount of tax is a fucking cunt. It's dead simple. Dead simple.
tax policy surely isn't actually set with moral considerations in mind.
But it's true by definition that whether you *ought* to pay tax is a moral question. It may well be right to judge Jimmy Carr a fucking cunt over not doing so. Again though, whether or not failure to pay taxes justifies that label seems to me to be an irreducibly moral judgement. Would be pretty harsh if it weren't, surely?
I guess I was just trying to avoid getting hamstrung by this semantic cul-de-sac that we seem to be drifting down. We'll just ultimately end up talking about tax in a `Yes, but, what IS morality... in essence` kind of way, which is neverendingly tedious.
But, sure, I think we're on the same page largely.
The only point I was making really is that the extreme views usually taken in these debates are false: i.e. either "all tax avoidance is wrong" or "anything goes so long as it's within the legal loopholes".
Obviously whatever moral get-out clauses there may be are unlikely to apply to Jimmy Carr - or, indeed, David Cameron.
are defined by them having more privilage (power, money or just having powerful freinds) then yes it can be defined as immoral.
Other methods of not paying all tax are part of an overly complicated gov financial setup whereby they attempt to recompense people they have disadvantaged in another way, but some of these will not be only available to people because of their 'advantage' but because of their otherwuise percieved disadvantage.
If he's legally allowed to do it, that says more about the tax system than it does about Jimmy Carr.
Jimmy Carr knows how much tax he should be paying, he chooses not to because he can pay people to help him get around the obscenely complicated tax laws we have.
I choose to judge him as a fucking cunt for doing so. But we're all different.
If the government wants people to pay a certain amount of tax because they need them to, they need better laws to be able to reinforce that otherwise people will carry on doing this until someone pulls them up on it through moral grounds.
No one really has a right to moan if he, anyone else, or any company, are actually and legally able to do this.
And I can moan all I like even if he is legally able to do this. Doesn't stop me making a judgement about him, and my judgement is that he is greedy, selfish and shirking his societal responsibility for his own greater gain. I find these things vulgar and disgraceful, and I will moan away about it.
I can judge both the people who exploit the loopholes, and the government who don't do enough to close them, equally thank you very much.
when Jimmy Carr is ABLE to do this. Isn't this meant to be some big society? Yes, he is shirking his societal responsibilities but these responsibilities are dictated by what laws are set out for us. Major things that are morally wrong are illegal, so why not this? If it wasn't a possibility for these guys to do it in the first place, they wouldn't. People avoid doing stuff like this because they will face prison and fines, like being a benefit cheat is. How is this any different?
This is what I'm saying. I understand that you are allowed your own opinions on people and the situation but if they were not allowed to do it in the first place, due to consequences, I would get it and would be equally annoyed. But there are no consequences of his actions other than he is shamed by people. Wow. He's still got millions of pounds, a nice house and doesn't have to go to prison.
...but there are consequences of people like Jimmy Carr's actions. The less tax that is being paid by people like him - the bigger the drain on the welfare state. Therefore, if more people like Carr paid their way (crudely put) then society as a whole would benefit. And maybe people wouldn't be forced off benefits, who need them, simply to make the books balance. For instance.
I mean you can postulate that no-one is harmed by it if you like but, I think people are.
The bigger the welfare state, the better the society. Calm yourself there, Lenin.
I don't believe that, nor did I claim it. But you can carry on with that misinterpretative rhetoric if you like, just be safe in the knowledge that you're as bad as The Lefties™ you so despise in doing so...
Thanks for ruining my day.
but there are no direct consequences to him, or anyone else, therefore they will keep doing it. Yes, thats very selfish and greedy of him but thats not really the issue here. Some people are greedy. Some people aren't. But if people are given the option to easily and legally be greedy and not give a fuck about giving back to the welfare state, that's something that needs to be sorted.
David Cameron can't just moan at how morally wrong it is and not do anything about it as he's allowing it to be done. Not sure what kind of tax he pays though...
Now go kick your boyfriend in the shin for me, please.
in fact if you read the one at 7:55 (which is a bit ranty) then the more reasoned ones at 08:35 and 08:41 and 08:44 and 08:50 and taken these in then there would have been no need for you to post this.......crikey ist as if no one reads and takes in my posts ;)
not by whatever loopholes exist in them
'spirit of the tax law' is too fuzzy a conceopt to enforce in law (or the law will chose to see it that way) but what you say is an excellant barometer to measure moral obligation in these matters
But if everyone, including Dav Cam, is soooo hung up on morals etc, sort it out, yeah?
....crikey sometimes it seems like you people dont read and take in all my posts ;)
I suspect Vodafone, Tesco and Amazon are now quaking in their boots.
I wonder how many billions of unpaid taxes those 3 put together owe?
As they were basically threatened with a lawsuit so big that they couldn't press on any further as the costs of the case would have bankrupted the company essentially. They got several top lawyers on it though and found that Tesco had made it so hard to track who owed what and in which company that it just wasn't worth anyone's time trying to work out where the missing millions had gone.
Last year Amazon sold £3.3bn worth of goods in the UK and allegedly paid no corporation tax - because it is based in Luxembourg, though that office employs just 130 staff, and the UK delivery business has over 2,000 employees.
Carr - you're small fry
I'd much rather the moral ire of the papers was aimed at the companies rather than a small celebrity (I know DiS's ire is pointed at he companies already). The amount they ''avoid'' is massive in comparison.
That 20 year old DJ who owns 15 CD's or Jimmy Carr?
is that Ed Milliband seems to be the only one talking any sense.
Shame you have to dig around for it because the press still take the piss out of his silly voice LOL.
Same with Vince Cable, whatever happened to the Lib Dems golden boy?! Is he dead?
The grown up news that is
I get all my news from DiS and this thread is reporting his death.
so as far as he's concerned it's just another piece of used toilet paper to file away into the bulging file of used toilet paper that is his career.
If I were him I'd be preparing the biggest diatribe ever on the subject of why it is morally repugnant for him to avoid tax and not for David Cameron's family. Generally speaking singling out a comedian for your facesmackingly hypocritical attempt to grab a few headlines is a bad idea, but then I suppose Cameron has already calculated that Carr is the least capable comedian in the country to make the most out of it.
But with Carr, Mack and Jones only excelling in the singular line form of the art, then he knows he's safe...
Surely loads of famous people do it?
is still a fairly useful expression
Den whats the problim?
Markets are NOT happy about this.
it might be the weather, its looking very grey outside
So that should be that. We can all stop vilifying him.
but this week's "8 Out Of 10 Cats" is being filmed today, for showing at the weekend. That's going to be interesting.
when they crucified Angus Deyton on HIGNFY.
Probably won't be though.
Man's a twat.
Jimmy Carr is demonstrably mentally agile and therefore culpable
there's no way he comprehends finances in any meaningful way.
so i dont know if he does his own finance or if he has a freind or mother that does it or what, he might have an iq of 70 as far as I know
this latest revelation isn't that big
Most people that are famous have accountants to take care of the money side of things for them. Accountants believe their role is to make as much money for the client as possible. So... who for one minute doesn't think there's an awful lot of famous people nervously awaiting the headlines?
I'd love to see a correlation between people who have avoided taxes through schemes such as this, with their publicly stated views on, say, the recent parliamentary expenses scandal.
so it's no surprise they're trying to fiddle their tax.
Jimmy Carr had a go at people for doing this then got found out = hypocrite.
so he's basically worse than hitler.
and said "Look, sign this and you'll get an extra fifty sheets a week", every single one of you would do it.
As usual, you're all hypocrites.
that's really not how tax avoidance works at all
(in most cases anyway)
lots of people are guilty of double-standards, clearly.
When, say, MPs fiddle loads of kippers, they should be treated like any normal person would, apparently, face the same consequences, etc. Yet a rich person fiddling their taxes is seen as more morally reprehensible than the many low-earning self-employed people who do the same.
but MPs (and to a lesser extent, the 'wealthy') could be said to have a greater social responsibility to set an example, no?
(I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way)
It is worse, they are the ones benefiting most from our society due to their privileged position (trickle up seems a much more accurate concept than trickle down) so it is worse when they shirk their obligations
I totally emapthise, my jacuzzi's broken at home...
a) the posts are moronic (in this thread)
b) because of past experiance with my posts you just dont bother reading them
c) cos they are too dense and difficult?
Im asking cos of posts subsequent to them which I believe I have addressed in my posts, and so I am curious as to why the subsequent poster has not replied to my posts contradicting what i have said and explaining why they still believe what they have posted and why what I have posted has not had a bearing on it.
I only ask because i want to know how my arguments in this thread are not correct, I want to know why the logic (which seems sound enough to me) does not seem sound to others...im talking specifically about my posts at 07:55 (a bit ranty) then 08:35, 08:41, 08:44, 08:50 10:15 and 10:26.
I thought my arguments about this issue and addressing the commonly held responses in defence of tax avoideers were actually fairly accurate rational and comprehensive, but there have been no comments, and people have been posting defenced that I though Id shown to not be a defence.
Please let me know where I have gone wrong with my arguments on this subject
and that reminds me why I usually never bother
this is exactly why govs and legal systems write everything so complicated and long, cos they know people dont have the capacity to read everything
and this isn't the only page on the Internet. Then I started to wonder how I could possibly address everything that I might want to address on every page on the web relevant to me.
Then I started weeping into my tea, then I went back to work.
this is what govs legal systems and authorities and companies rely on, make everything really long, because people cant read everything
Jimmy Carrs Tax avoidance was immoral - and I can back that up with logical argument
is it wrong for me to put my savings in an ISA rather than a normal savings account, as I puting it so that it attracts less tax.
If it isn't, where is the line between what I'm doing and what Carr is doing?
from those in favour of using as many loopholes as possible.
I guess the argument goes that things like the ISA system and Gift Aid relief are clear intentional things in the tax system. Loopholes such as the one that Carr and most of Take That have apparently using are just that - unintentional loopholes in the way the tax laws have been drafted and not something that any government arguably intended to leave to be exploited by any schemes.
Where the line is? Somewhere in the middle I guess. Bit of a grey murky area there.
In which case that controversy has, tellingly, lasted rather shorter than the Lord Ashcroft tax story.
Or is he just doing the classic 'I'm very sorry I got caught' routine?