Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:38:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Jimmy Carr and his tax buggery on 8 Out Of 10 Cats

Started by Neil, June 22, 2012, 03:10:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mark Steels Stockbroker

I don't really think that it's morally ok to illegally download, that was a provocation to get you thinking about the fact that there are different conceptions of morality, some of which don't entail that rich people should feel ashamed of anything. "Value pluralism" is the big issue for modern liberalism, it's why there are the big arguments over multiculturalism, it's why relativism has such great appeal, and its tendency to end up treating "moral questions" (if they're recognised at all) as just coming down to what is accepted overall in a society, and the legal system is the simplest criterion for ascertaining that. I completely agree with you if you say moral relativism is incoherent (or that it just collapses into moral scepticism, in which the topic of "morality" is just rejected altogether), but I don't think you'll get very far arguing this in CaB, as from what I've seen the verbwhores generally reflect the moral relativist mood you find amongst young liberal Guardian readers. Like Stewart Lee espoused in his "that's just facts?" taxi driver routine.

With regard to Jimmy Carr - what is the moral problem? He didn't dishonestly refuse to pay any tax at all. He had a choice between arranging his affairs in method A, and paying x%, and structure B, and paying y%, where y<x. Is it a general principle that you should always choose A over B in such cases? Not many people accept that. Ok, should you always give as much money as possible to charity, and so on and so on? Or is the issue that it's a good thing for rich people to give as much to the state as possible? That's a contentious idea, in any case there certainly are christians and others who can find scriptural basis for keeping wealth private and spending it on causes they approve of, as well as the Randians and libertarians who have non-religious motives for the same idea. You need some sort of meta-argument for your distributive morality over these others, the sort of thing John Rawls tried to do.

So there are really deep problems under the surface here, ones that are right at the centre of all the big problems in modern western societies. I haven't got any great new ideas to help on them right now. But I don't think Jimmy is the only one keeping his tax down, which is why you won't get too much venom off anyone in the industry.

Zetetic

QuoteWith regard to Jimmy Carr - what is the moral problem? He didn't dishonestly refuse to pay any tax at all. He had a choice between arranging his affairs in method A, and paying x%, and structure B, and paying y%, where y<x.

You don't think that structure y involves making claims about Jimmy's personal earnings, his relationship with the shell company and so on that are dishonest?


Dead kate moss

Quote from: Mark Steels Stockbroker on June 28, 2012, 07:12:13 AM

With regard to Jimmy Carr - what is the moral problem? He didn't dishonestly refuse to pay any tax at all. He had a choice between arranging his affairs in method A, and paying x%, and structure B, and paying y%, where y<x. Is it a general principle that you should always choose A over B in such cases? Not many people accept that.

Whatever 'many people' might accept, or do in practice, or espouse about vaguely similar situations, a millionaire - and one problem is he's not the only one, he's a tip of a massive iceberg, right? -  avoiding paying huge amounts of tax through legal loopholes or schemes (and some ways of avoiding paying tax do not come close to Carr's method imo and could be considered somewhat justifiable - haven't got any examples to hand though) IS a moral issue, to me and many others.

It's just wrong to not fund what is suppose to be funded by you paying your taxes, especially when you are not on 20k struggling, but one of the top 1-10% who study after study show know how to pay less of a proportion of their earnings in tax than the average worker. Taxes being avoided leads to less money for schools and hospitals and bombs, and forces the govt to collect the money elsewhere, usually from less loophole-savvy, poorer people. Add to that the fact he is a hypocrite as he is a satirist who has mocked tax avoiders, and again - moral issue. Do you think his (and others similar) actions  are not a moral issue?

Mark Steels Stockbroker

Quote from: Zetetic on June 28, 2012, 07:32:35 AM
You don't think that structure y involves making claims about Jimmy's personal earnings, his relationship with the shell company and so on that are dishonest?

He didn't make any dishonest statements about the stucture. The issue is in whether or not he was morally right to use it, and the meta-issue is whether that question has a meaningful point distinct from the question of legality.

Dead kate moss


Mark Steels Stockbroker

Old example: what's the morality of Mark Steel refusing to pay his Poll Tax? What if a libertarian made a similar principled stand against higher-rate income tax? And so on.

I'm not interested in defending Jimmy Carr, he was a tit, although he just did what a lot of people in the entertainment biz have been doing for years. Ben Elton pays himself a salary from a company, and has done for a very long time, though I doubt that'll change anyone's opinion of him now.

This issue is the tip of another iceberg: the whole question of how talk of "morality" fits in a modern liberal-ish democracy, where lots of different cultures and values might want to make a claim on the public good.

Mark Steels Stockbroker

Quote from: Dead kate moss on June 28, 2012, 09:28:45 AM
Well slavery used to be legal, right?

Yep, that's the paradigm counter-example against the idea that morality is time&culture-relative. That idea was alluded to by Stewart Lee in his routine about the taxi driver who said "but that's just facts, innit?". One of Stew's enlightening opinions that he put to the driver was that morals were relative to culture and can change.

Dead kate moss

Quote from: Mark Steels Stockbroker on June 28, 2012, 09:30:22 AM
Old example: what's the morality of Mark Steel refusing to pay his Poll Tax?

In my opinion, misguided and wrong. He doesn't get to opt out of paying tax because he doesn't care for how fair it is or what it's spent on. and nor does anyone else. I suppose there are imaginary dystopian scenarios where I would support such actions, but it would be positively anarchic and anarchy should be employed sparingly and only in emergencies.

What if I don't give a toss about about anyone else and I'm proud of the fact?

Convince me to pay tax.

Mark Steels Stockbroker

Quote from: Dead kate moss on June 28, 2012, 10:03:19 AM
In my opinion, misguided and wrong. He doesn't get to opt out of paying tax because he doesn't care for how fair it is or what it's spent on. and nor does anyone else. I suppose there are imaginary dystopian scenarios where I would support such actions, but it would be positively anarchic and anarchy should be employed sparingly and only in emergencies.

There were a couple of cases in the 80s of anti-nuclear campaigners getting jailed because they withheld tax that would be spent on defence. And these were actual cardigan-wearing CND types, as I recall, though I could be wrong.

Who's in change of the Anarchy Alarm Button?

Mark Steels Stockbroker

Quote from: Default to the negative on June 28, 2012, 10:06:32 AM
What if I don't give a toss about about anyone else and I'm proud of the fact?

Convince me to pay tax.

Taxes pay for the Met Office. Without it, you'd never know to expect rain in Britain.

Dead kate moss

Quote from: Default to the negative on June 28, 2012, 10:06:32 AM
What if I don't give a toss about about anyone else and I'm proud of the fact?

Convince me to pay tax.

What if I don't give a toss about about anyone else and I'm proud of the fact?

Convince me not to steal cars, rob old grannies and vote Tory.

Well, you possibly cannot be convinced if you genuinely don't give a toss. There are laws in place that are designed to make you do what society has deemed the right thing though. Apart from that last one, that's legal for some reason.

Quote from: Dead kate moss on June 28, 2012, 10:24:50 AM
What if I don't give a toss about about anyone else and I'm proud of the fact?

Convince me not to steal cars, rob old grannies and vote Tory.

Well, you possibly cannot be convinced if you genuinely don't give a toss. There are laws in place that are designed to make you do what society has deemed the right thing though. Apart from that last one, that's legal for some reason.

What if I care about my own car, my own granny, and my own Tory politician, but don't care to send my money elsewhere? You assume malice in tax-avoiders, it seems, but the truth is that people just fundamentally do not trust strangers - especially smug, oleaginous, wanky, careerist strangers - with their money, and there's something quite natural about that.

Dead kate moss

Quote from: Default to the negative on June 28, 2012, 10:36:20 AM
What if I care about my own car, my own granny, and my own Tory politician, but don't care to send my money elsewhere? You assume malice in tax-avoiders, it seems, but the truth is that people just fundamentally do not trust strangers - especially smug, oleaginous, wanky, careerist strangers - with their money, and there's something quite natural about that.

I don't assume malice in tax-avoiders - where have I said that? I think it's 'bad', especially when you are a millionaire. I don't really mind those on low incomes dodging a bit of tax really as they get fucked over mostly. It's still 'wrong' and illegal, like shopllifting is.. but I can't condemn it to the same degree that I am condemning millionaire tax avoiders.

When it comes to people paying tax, you are right that the majority feel a bit annoyed that some of their hard-earned/inherited via no hard-earned money goes in taxes. That's when they start reducing the issue to 'giving the money to George Osborne', as if he gets to pocket it. It goes on things we need, and often on things you may not agree with. Harping on about how you don't trust the people who decide where the tax goes is a valid debate, and one we should be able to change via who we vote for (if both parties weren't virtually identical, although it's becoming increasingly clear that flawed as New Labour were they were Harold Shipman compared to the Tory's Pol-Pot) - nevertheless however 'natural' it may be to resent paying tax is neither here nor there. Stuff has to be paid for and that's how we do it til some nice aliens turn up and do it all for us.

Quote from: Dead kate moss on June 28, 2012, 10:52:35 AM
I don't assume malice in tax-avoiders - where have I said that? I think it's 'bad', especially when you are a millionaire. I don't really mind those on low incomes dodging a bit of tax really as they get fucked over mostly. It's still 'wrong' and illegal, like shopllifting is.. but I can't condemn it to the same degree that I am condemning millionaire tax avoiders.

When it comes to people paying tax, you are right that the majority feel a bit annoyed that some of their hard-earned/inherited via no hard-earned money goes in taxes. That's when they start reducing the issue to 'giving the money to George Osborne', as if he gets to pocket it. It goes on things we need, and often on things you may not agree with. Harping on about how you don't trust the people who decide where the tax goes is a valid debate, and one we should be able to change via who we vote for (if both parties weren't virtually identical, although it's becoming increasingly clear that flawed as New Labour were they were Harold Shipman compared to the Tory's Pol-Pot) - nevertheless however 'natural' it may be to resent paying tax is neither here nor there. Stuff has to be paid for and that's how we do it til some nice aliens turn up and do it all for us.

I don't think it's a case of reducing it to "giving the money to George Osborne". If it's reduced to anything, it's "where are the benefits of this money?" When do you see them? Is it when you're getting your head kicked in down a subway, or seeing 19th century landmarks being torn down for supposedly practical reasons, or when comprehensive schools refuse to lease books out to keen students? Is it when the police show a practiced disinterest in housebreakings, or when the Jobcentre forces people into unpaid labour? Or is it when we have Jubilees and royal weddings and trident missiles and every imaginable extravagance that can possibly be extended to those who collect our tax?

When was the last time you felt satisfied by seeing your tax money at work?

Dead kate moss

Quote from: Default to the negative on June 28, 2012, 01:31:18 PM
When was the last time you felt satisfied by seeing your tax money at work?

Most recently when the NHS successfully removed a cancerous tumour from my brother's wife's throat, meaning she will live (two weeks ago to be exact). Also the help both my parents are getting from the NHS for their serious illnesses. Also when my ex-gf was diagnosed with a form of mental illness she was ascribed free help. I too have received much help via the NHS. Going way back, as an adopted, the very start of my life was due to the creation of a welfare state that didn't force unmarried mothers to risk their lives with backstreet abortions, instead tax money was spent putting me with a carefully vetted family. And of course I also had all that free education and access to parks and beaches that were kept clean, and my rubbish gets taken away as if by magic and ooh there's just loads when you think about it isn't there?

greencalx

Every time I leave the house and am glad I don't have to pick the crap off the streets, or empty my neighbours' bins.

MSS - I am reminded (not for the first time) of a preface to a re-release of an Ian Rankin novel in which the writer, having sat in incognito on an English Literature degree class on the book in question, queried whether a book could be more clever than its author. I certainly feel that about what I thought was a somewhat facile post and what it's engendered.

If I may pick out one point, though, it's the "what's the moral issue regarding trying to minimise one's tax burden". I guess the answer, to the extent that I can formulate it, is that it's clear that tax on income is supposed to be paid at a rate of 20-50%, and that seeking a rate of 1% is not really cricket. I don't like analogies, cos they never really work properly, and people just argue about how it's a shit analogy, instead of thinking about the point that's being made hamfistedly with it. But I'm not going to let that stop me, and suggest it's a bit like going to an office party or something and the directors insisting that everyone in the firm, down to the work experience kids, contribute an equal amount to the wine fund. (See also Winston-Salem in the Meaning of Liff). Of course part of the reason that the analogy doesn't quite work is that 1% of 4m or whatever it was is still more than most people even earn.

I often wonder why the tax system has to be so complicated[nb]I presume it's all to do with incentivising different types of transactions[/nb]. At some level, one would expect the "duck principle" should apply. It if looks, smells and tastes like income, then it should be taxed as income, even if it's been funnelled through the vagina of a Himalayan mountain goat.


Mark Steels Stockbroker

greencalx, I can't make it any simpler: people do not agree about morality nowadays. That's why any politician who drags "morality" into any debate isn't going to get very far. It doesn't work when anyone says "abortion is morally wrong, regardless of what the law states".

There really are people living today who write things about "the moral case for low taxation" and so on. You need to come up with something to say to them. Just waving the M-word about, and assuming everyone agrees with what it means, is just playing it like Nadine Dorries.

Zetetic

The point I was trying to make about the dishonesty about (or, more neutrally, misrepresentation of) income in Jimmy's scheme is that it seems that there is a broadly moral point there that the vast majority of people do agree on. The vast majority of people really do draw very similar lines between tax avoidance and tax mitigation, holding the former to be immoral but not the latter.

Quotepeople do not agree about morality nowadays.
Might be more interesting in the various hypothetical and historical contexts you've gestured towards, but I'm not sure that it really is here. Jimmy hasn't tried[nb]At least not for very long.[/nb] to justify his involvement in the scheme on any moral basis.

(I'd suggest that tax avoidance by others is actually likely to be one issue that people are liable to mostly agree about for the foreseeable future, because it's a fairly direct failure to act in a reciprocal trustworthy fashion with society at large.)

QuoteThat's why any politician who drags "morality" into any debate isn't going to get very far.
Is this why Cameron hasn't got very far on this issue? Isn't it more that the party he stands for, and perhaps unfairly he himself, are tarnished by association with precisely the same moral violations?

Quote from: Dead kate moss on June 28, 2012, 01:56:59 PM
ooh there's just loads when you think about it isn't there?

Not enough for my burgeoning sense of entitlement.

Dead kate moss

Quote from: Mark Steels Stockbroker on June 28, 2012, 09:56:06 PM
greencalx, I can't make it any simpler: people do not agree about morality nowadays. That's why any politician who drags "morality" into any debate isn't going to get very far. It doesn't work when anyone says "abortion is morally wrong, regardless of what the law states".

There really are people living today who write things about "the moral case for low taxation" and so on. You need to come up with something to say to them. Just waving the M-word about, and assuming everyone agrees with what it means, is just playing it like Nadine Dorries.

I don't think Greencalx did anything like simply waving the word 'morality!' about. I don't think many if any people have reduced the argument to that. Nobody has ever agreed on morality, so this is nothing new. But enough of a majority agree the tax system is necessary, if annoying or unfair, and crucially no better solution is likely to be agreed upon instead. Those people who write about 1% tax have as much chance of changing policy as anti-abortionists. Sure, they might change views of millions somehow, but I think it's unlikely.

greencalx

Has there ever been widespread agreement about morality? I could envisage a scenario where the appearance of widespread agreement about morality might be established, for example, by being coerced to display overt religious practices.

In the present case one could gesture vaguely towards a sense of "fair play", but even that's relative. You could equally well decide that the practice of handing taxes over the government is "unfair" on the individual; or that not doing so in proportion to one's income is "unfair" on society.

So we're fucked basically.

dr_christian_troy


Jamie Oliver is fat

Probably warranting it's own thread now, but;

Channel 4's Dispatches (tonight) alleges:


  • HMRC ethics chief Phil Hodkinson earns more than £125,000 a year from a company based in the  tax haven of Guernsey.
  • John Spence, until recently the Revenue's audit committee chief,  is the chairman of a major estate agents chain whose staff offered advice on avoiding stamp duty.
  • The Revenue has awarded a contract for collecting millions of pounds of unpaid tax to a firm owned by a group based in Guernsey.

Rotten to the core