blonde poker forum

Two things up front :

I've a liking for Jimmy Carr's brand of stand up comedy.
I had tickets for his gig tonight (Sat night) in Derby.

Therefore I was a little bit concerned when I saw him in the news this week.
My first thought wasn't 'How is the country going to cope without that tax revenue?', it was more like 'I hope this doesn't spoil the gig at the weekend!'.

Pretty selfish, I know, but what do you expect from a non tax paying poker player.

Anyway, been to his little show tonight, and excellent as expected, but also handled himself in great fashion with regards to the tax issue.
Topped and tailed the set with reasonably humble, honest stuff, and most of the people there are decent fans of his, so aren't going to give him anything but support.

Some tax related heckles, right from the start though, which he handled very well, and worked in some stuff which was poking fun at himself on the subject.

One point he made, was that it wasn't every day that the PM interrupts his day to day business, to call out an individual, so it was a pretty massive issue for him.
Fair play to him carrying on with his tour in the face of that (pretty massive issue for me obv), and he has gone up a little bit in my estimation as a result.

he did the same in 8/10 cats this week.

Done nothing legally wrong.

Morally maybe but ffs who wouldnt if you had the chance?  its immoral the footballers get paid more than nurses...its wrong a sales rep gets paid more than a solider...etc etc

anything said about that?

never understood the reasoning why Cameron got involved and at Carr so personally?  obv a reason but i havent heard anything?

most rich people do the tax loop hole....its wrong, abusing the system, when people are struggling big time, but it'll always happen.

I wonder how many people who are criticising him buy products from Channel Island based companies to avoid paying a little bit of tax on their DVD/CD's? It's not just rich people who look for tax loop holes.

Not that there are a lot of people criticising him - if you take out politicians and journalists I think it's just a handful of people.

Wtf is the Prime Minister singling him out for. Hope he turns his attentions to more politicians and Carr comes up with some material he can use to get back at him

Carr bent over and took it like a man on 8 out of 10 cats. He certainly has been scapegoated for something a vast majority of rich people do, albeit he was one of the more extreme examples.

I reckon Cameron singled him out because politicians see media as the enemy, and I think a tv comedian who pokes fun at politicians is even bigger an enemy.

I actually think Carr will end up being more liked after this, he has handled he situation so well.

......and he's accountants will just rearrange his affairs using another tax efficient scheme.

Good luck to him.

Carr, above a lot of satirists, has been vocal in his sketches and jokes about MPs, the rich and News international. When the chance for a bit of revenge came, the press weren't going to miss their chance.

Cambridge poshboy is just as bad as those he satirised etc etc

Cameron - just like the other leaders of course - loves a good bandwagon. Once it made the front page of the red tops, our PM was sure to pipe up to express the vox populari. It's this week's pasty.

Of course as well, he has timed an Xmas biography perfectly now too. Give it some funny tax evasiony name and it'll be this year's best stocking filler.

I realise you have said extreme, but vast majority is clear nonsense.  As you say this is at the extreme end of the spectrum, as it appears he was going to be paying barely any tax on this money. 

This really is a big step from your average rich person indulging in salary sacrifice on pension contributions, working through a limited company or buying a few CDs via the Chanel Islands.  I think it is wrong to link these things to a scheme that meant he was going to be paying a tiny proportion of his income as tax.

I suppose if you are talking about the super rich, you'd be closer to the vast majority.

I'd say this scheme is clearly on the borders of tax evasion/tax avoidence.  You can see that from some of the quotes.  Jimmy Carr says he was told it was legal, and not "it was legal" etc.  The tax authorities are clearly going to try and get this tax back from Jimmy Carr and the others in this scheme, and it is unclear whether they will succeed.

Of course Cameron made a mistake in singling him out, because he has opened himself up to questions on every single individual's tax affairs by doing so.  He realises he shouldn't have commented already.  I really think he could just as easily have made the same mistake if he was asked about the Gary barlow scheme or countless others, and it is nothing to do with any personal grudge against Jimmy Carr or the media.

I have to work through a limited company and make a tax free profit from poker, but don't think I am been immensely hypocritical here.  I am pretty sure I'd never indulge in anything like this.

 rotflmfao

Paying less tax is paying less tax.

If you pay 1% instead of 60% or if you pay 0% instead of 20% you're still doing exactly the same thing - legally finding a way to avoid paying as much tax as was originally envisioned.

Using my example before, anybody who has ever bought a DVD from Amazon Jersey instead of Amazon UK has avoided paying the tax that it was intended to be paid - conceptually and morally the 'amount' makes no difference, the trying to avoid paying what you 'should' be paying is exactly the same.

It's a lot harder to defend when you're making demands on people and governments to hand over their own cash to your causes

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/ontherecord/2011/06/07/taxing-questions-for-bono-and-u2/

Totally different.

Jimmy Carr's used an aggressive strategy exploiting loop holes unknown to the HMRC to minimise his tax bill.

I doubt 10% of the public would be aware that buying a CD from amazon has any tax saving, this approach is well known by the HMRC and they have made no attempt to shut this down.

No the difference is if they tried to shut it down they wouldn't raise very much money because people would find other VAT free places to order from - or does something only become immoral when it involves more money?

And the point of a tax loop hole is that it's either unknown to the HMRC or they haven't closed it yet - the whole of that first sentence is true of, or similar to, any tax avoidance scheme.

I have to work through a limited company.

Maybe your comprehension skills are bad?  I used to be a sole trader, but now I am forced by my clients to go down the limited company route.  This is not the same as aggressively trying to pay 1% tax on my income as Jimmy Carr did.  It is about 2 or 3% of the tax rate I paid on my income last year.

You are picking on the wrong target, I really could have paid a lot less tax over the years if I chose to.

and FWIW I think the government are actively trying to close the CD tax loophole too.

If the HMRC know about the tax avoidance strategy and do not close it down by changing the rules then it cannot be a loop hole it must be legitimate tax planning as the a) the rules allow you to do it and b) the HMRC have made attempt to change the rules hence it must be acceptable.

The Jimmy Carr case seems to be a little different, otherwise by your definition virtually everything you do would be a loop hole.

I was just talking about the principle, not specifically you.

You were suggesting that some ways of avoiding paying as much tax as you 'should' is just good financial management, whereas other ways were more morally suspect.

Unless you equate money with morality I don't see how this can be the case.

And HMRC are constantly looking at closing all loop holes (unless closing them would lose more than they would gain) - that's why you need the best accountants to keep on finding new ones.

I don't think 'loop hole' is really a technical term and hasn't really got an exact definition. Every tax avoidance measure - is a loop hole, unless you want to define a loop hole in a way you want.

Some of them are more sophisticated and complex than others - but the underlying principle of paying less tax pretty is pretty simple though isn't it?

Either it's good financial management - or it's avoiding paying your fair share

Tax avoidance will never be closed down by this government because it would alienate a very large number of Conservative party donors.  Similarly if Cameron had been asked about Barlow he would have declined to comment.  It was a cheap shot by Cameron and one which is very likely to backfire on him.

Great start to the diary mate, looking forward to your work.

subscribed.

I see a big difference between earning £3m and paying £30k in tax and paying £1m in tax.  Jimmy Carr seems to have accepted that one of these looks bad to a lot of people.

I could never be a lawyer, as though I recognise the right of everyone to have the best defense possible, I think it is more important that the guilty get punished.  One person's good financial management is another's bad financial management etc.  

I guess we all have different moral codes and see things differently.  Anyway best get off for another dose of immorality at the WSOP.
  

Which was precisely my point.

You should pay a million in tax

Paying £990,000 - good financial planning
Paying £30,000 - morally suspect

So what about £800k, £300k, £100k - at what point does it stop being good financial planning and start being morally suspect?

How expensive is your morality?

The day I start a diary, will be the same day that you go on a diet...........

I thought your point was paying less tax is paying less tax with the "funny" man rolling around on the floor.  Good to see we now agree, and Jimmy Carr is "morally suspect" if the figures are to be believed.

I wouldn't want to draw the actual line though, but in the Jimmy Carr vs me case I think it is easy enough.

Anyway am in Vegas ffs, best put this thing down.

So you really do think morality is a question of money?

I always had it down as being whether something was right or wrong - but if you think it can be allocated a sterling value then good for you.

It is also nice to see him get his week in the press as he used to take the royal piss out of people doing exactly this. Avoiding paying tax.

Posh boy, privileged position, highly educated, blames it all on the accountant..gg fuking joker. Moral compass of a thief.

Lets hope the times 'out' one of these a week.

Hmrc are a disgrace!

Only when you have been on the wrong side of them do you realise just how disgraceful their tactics are!

The fact that the media have picked on 1 person and 1 scheme is laughable! There is only 1 solution, flat rates for everyone, and that will never happen!

Millions of people avoid tax. Anyone using any form of tax avoidance for any amount is in the same moral bracket!

The govt and hmrc are the worst culprits knowingly turning a blind eye as they see fit

Oh and don't think hmrc don't use rediculous legal loop holes to screw joe tax payer too!

One thing's for sure. Any rich people who didn't know about this legal loophole certainly do now and they'll be having some pretty serious words with their accountants as to why they aren't in it as well.

There is a very simple solution that is fair to everyone - publish the amount everyone pays in tax.

With public transparency - there is no secrecy.

Playing poker for a living is tax avoidance?

Discuss

(http://rlv.zcache.com/can_of_worms_postcard-p239597468385925260envli_400.jpg)

And how much they earn?

On balance no - because taxable "income" for non PAYE taxpayers is a accounting fiction, the amount of tax paid is a fact.

One of the purposes of tax openness is to embarass people into paying a "fair" amount - including a % age would muddy things.

No not avoidance at all.
Very grey area poker winnings aint taxed simple as that in my book

How can you avoid something that you don't have to do?

+1

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/voices/2012/06/tax-avoidance-isnt-left-or-right-issue-its-cancer-eating-our-democracy

I wonder if he has an ISA - because that's legal tax avoidance, just like every other form of tax avoidance

It's a bit different to be fair. An ISA only stops you paying tax on any interest earned on the money that's in there. You still have to pay tax on the money you put in there in the first place.

What we're talking about is avoiding tax on your salary.

For Joe Public to put £10k in to an ISA he probably needs to earn around £13k

For Mr 1% tax to put £10k in an ISA he needs to earn around £10100

Its a pointless discusion

The article outlines the problem nicely - tax legislation that you can drive a bus through. Everytime another 100 pages are added to close a loophole  - the lawyers and accountants  open another.

The only way it will be stopped is by operating a flat rate of tax. This will never happen as the govt dont want to upset high earners who can benefit from it (and most of them are at it).

I long for the day when I have a difficult moral decision to make!

For Mr 0% tax to put £10k in an ISA he needs to earn exactly £10000

Wow

I think HMRC read this thread!

today I got a letter telling me I owe them £500  - I dont - some of it dates back to 2006 (i was PAYE no assets)

Good luck tax dodgers you have my support!

The whole point is that it is a game of balance and it really is treated as a game.

They will never clamp down on the loop holes, they are there for a reason. They make the UK appealing enough to profitable individuals/companies to remain in the UK and pay some tax.

If everything was water tight overall tax goes down due to the amount of people who realise they are better off living elsewhere.

These schemes can't be done year on year and there is also a huge risk that they will not be successful.
Jimmy Carr would have to fully disclose to HMRC which scheme he had used, and the HMRC would have the full details on file ready for when they decide if they will fight the scheme as a whole.

They dont want to win them all though as that would cost them money in the long run.

I actually thought about using the game analogy but cba to post.

1% is an extreme example obviously but 1% tax on Jimmy Carrs earnings is a lot more than most people earn, let alone what they pay in tax.

The more normal tax avoidance schemes wouldn't save quite so much, and the principle is the same, if you get a smaller percentage of a lot of money - you're going to raise a lot more money than if you got 0% of it - which is what would mainly happen if you didn't allow any of the loopholes through.