5 ms·

Jimmy Carr had this happen to him[0] and basically handled it pretty well. He stayed in public, took the ridicule and admitted his wrongdoing. He had an account

by mabbo 11y ago

Jimmy Carr had this happen to him[0] and basically handled it pretty well. He stayed in public, took the ridicule and admitted his wrongdoing. He had an accountant take things too far, and he went along with it because hey, more money. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carr#2012_tax_avoidance_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carr#2012_tax_avoidance_...

TillE 11y ago
I was surprised how much vitriol was directed towards Jimmy Carr. He even got a scolding from David Cameron. Despite (apparently) doing nothing illegal. It's certainly a dishonest thing to do, but you've got to fix the laws; a moderately popular comedian is very far from the biggest offender.
- Loughla 11y ago
  Why is 'because it's legal' a valid argument for nearly everything? Whatever happened to civic duty and moral obligation?
  - pc86 11y ago
    Do you donate additional money to the treasury every year when you file your tax return?
  - krapp 11y ago
    It's a perfectly valid argument when someone is implying you've committed a crime.
  - AndrewGaspar 11y ago
    They did their civic duty and moral obligation by paying the exact obligation asked of them by society. If they don't use the number they got by following the tax law as written, which number do your propose is the ethical one? Rule by moral indignation of upper-middle class software developers is not a scalable system. If the tax law is written unsatisfyingly, try to fix the tax law. Don't claim immorality on the part of those who are working within it. Or colloquially, don't hate the player, hate the game.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > If the tax law is written unsatisfyingly, try to fix the tax law. Don't claim immorality on the part of those who are working within it. Why not do both? Especially to the extent that the actor being criticized is undertaking an immoral action which is insufficiently disincentivized by the tax law?
    - beefield 11y ago
      I am a bit curious, does this "Exploit all the loopholes you can find in the law and as long as you follow the letter of the law you have done your civic duty and moral obligations towards the society" apply only to tax laws or is that a more general view?
    - astrobe_ 11y ago
      > Rule by moral indignation of upper-middle class software developers is not a scalable system That's a quite unwise ad hominem argument. > Don't claim immorality on the part of those who are working within it. Let's simplify things a little bit. You decide to share a flat and the rent with a friend, but despite you are friends you make a contract anyway (because, say, you legally have to). A little detail: for technical reasons you don't split the rent 50/50 and you don't know its exact total amount. All you know is how much you contribute. Next, you discover that your friend uses a loophole in the contract to pay less than his/her share. To your dismay, there is no doubt that it was a deliberate "exploit". Is he/she still your friend?
      - aninhumer 11y ago
        In your example, there is an obvious moral argument for an even split. When you're talking about a wider social contract, the morality is less clear. How are people supposed to work out what's an intentional tax incentive and what's an immoral loophole? Although honestly, what are you doing signing such a dubious contract, even with your friend? If I saw something like that, I'd at least query it, at which point we've probably established a verbal contract for an even share.
        11y ago
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Because people have different opinions on morality. Civic duty is not an objective, quantifiable constant. It is a matter of personal opinion, with a great deal of variation, and those sorts of things should not be legislated. If you reduce your tax burden from 30% to 20% using legal avoidance loopholes, and you think that one's moral obligation to support the community ought to be around 10%, that's still another 10% worth of loopholes to find before you'll ever feel like picking up litter at the local park.
  - treehau5 11y ago
    > Whatever happened to civic duty and moral obligation? Went out the window in the age of moral relativism.
joshstrange 11y ago
Interesting line in there: > British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the issue: "People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes And now > David Cameron admits he profited from father's Panama offshore trust [0] [0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-ad...
- retube 11y ago
  The two situations and structures involved were very, very different. Cameron did not achieve any tax benefit from his investment: had the fund been UK registered his tax liabilities would have been no different. It was a simple investment fund which paid dividends like any other, with those dividends and any realised capital gains being subject to uk tax like any other. The Carr scheme on the other hand, which involved the vehicle making loans to investors to offset their gains and thus reduce tax liability was described by hmrc as being at the very aggressive end of avoidance. Cameron was not avoiding or reducing tax liability, Carr was.
  - raesene9 11y ago
    That's not necessarily entirely true. David Cameron's father set up offshore trusts in ways that would avoid UK taxes (offshore), David Cameron inherited money from his father and had funds in the trust (which he sold prior to becoming prime minister). So it's a not unreasonable position to suggest that he inherited more money due to his father's trust avoiding tax.. Citation for the trust avoiding UK tax - http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-da... Citation for David Cameron having received financial benefit from that trust http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-ad...
    - 11y ago

by mabbo 11y ago

TillE 11y ago

I was surprised how much vitriol was directed towards Jimmy Carr. He even got a scolding from David Cameron. Despite (apparently) doing nothing illegal. It's certainly a dishonest thing to do, but you've got to fix the laws; a moderately popular comedian is very far from the biggest offender.

Loughla 11y ago
Why is 'because it's legal' a valid argument for nearly everything? Whatever happened to civic duty and moral obligation?
- pc86 11y ago
  Do you donate additional money to the treasury every year when you file your tax return?
- krapp 11y ago
  It's a perfectly valid argument when someone is implying you've committed a crime.
- AndrewGaspar 11y ago
  They did their civic duty and moral obligation by paying the exact obligation asked of them by society. If they don't use the number they got by following the tax law as written, which number do your propose is the ethical one? Rule by moral indignation of upper-middle class software developers is not a scalable system. If the tax law is written unsatisfyingly, try to fix the tax law. Don't claim immorality on the part of those who are working within it. Or colloquially, don't hate the player, hate the game.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > If the tax law is written unsatisfyingly, try to fix the tax law. Don't claim immorality on the part of those who are working within it. Why not do both? Especially to the extent that the actor being criticized is undertaking an immoral action which is insufficiently disincentivized by the tax law?
  - beefield 11y ago
    I am a bit curious, does this "Exploit all the loopholes you can find in the law and as long as you follow the letter of the law you have done your civic duty and moral obligations towards the society" apply only to tax laws or is that a more general view?
  - astrobe_ 11y ago
    > Rule by moral indignation of upper-middle class software developers is not a scalable system That's a quite unwise ad hominem argument. > Don't claim immorality on the part of those who are working within it. Let's simplify things a little bit. You decide to share a flat and the rent with a friend, but despite you are friends you make a contract anyway (because, say, you legally have to). A little detail: for technical reasons you don't split the rent 50/50 and you don't know its exact total amount. All you know is how much you contribute. Next, you discover that your friend uses a loophole in the contract to pay less than his/her share. To your dismay, there is no doubt that it was a deliberate "exploit". Is he/she still your friend?
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      In your example, there is an obvious moral argument for an even split. When you're talking about a wider social contract, the morality is less clear. How are people supposed to work out what's an intentional tax incentive and what's an immoral loophole? Although honestly, what are you doing signing such a dubious contract, even with your friend? If I saw something like that, I'd at least query it, at which point we've probably established a verbal contract for an even share.
      - 11y ago
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Because people have different opinions on morality. Civic duty is not an objective, quantifiable constant. It is a matter of personal opinion, with a great deal of variation, and those sorts of things should not be legislated. If you reduce your tax burden from 30% to 20% using legal avoidance loopholes, and you think that one's moral obligation to support the community ought to be around 10%, that's still another 10% worth of loopholes to find before you'll ever feel like picking up litter at the local park.
- treehau5 11y ago
  > Whatever happened to civic duty and moral obligation? Went out the window in the age of moral relativism.

joshstrange 11y ago

Interesting line in there: > British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the issue: "People work hard, they pay their taxes, they save up to go to one of his shows. They buy the tickets. He is taking the money from those tickets and he, as far as I can see, is putting all of that into some very dodgy tax avoiding schemes And now > David Cameron admits he profited from father's Panama offshore trust [0] [0] http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-ad...

retube 11y ago
The two situations and structures involved were very, very different. Cameron did not achieve any tax benefit from his investment: had the fund been UK registered his tax liabilities would have been no different. It was a simple investment fund which paid dividends like any other, with those dividends and any realised capital gains being subject to uk tax like any other. The Carr scheme on the other hand, which involved the vehicle making loans to investors to offset their gains and thus reduce tax liability was described by hmrc as being at the very aggressive end of avoidance. Cameron was not avoiding or reducing tax liability, Carr was.
- raesene9 11y ago
  That's not necessarily entirely true. David Cameron's father set up offshore trusts in ways that would avoid UK taxes (offshore), David Cameron inherited money from his father and had funds in the trust (which he sold prior to becoming prime minister). So it's a not unreasonable position to suggest that he inherited more money due to his father's trust avoiding tax.. Citation for the trust avoiding UK tax - http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-david-cameron-father-tax-bahamas http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/panama-papers-da... Citation for David Cameron having received financial benefit from that trust http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama-papers http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-ad...
  - 11y ago