Is Jimmy Carr "Morally Repugnant?

[Marmora Man]

Personally I don?t find Jimmy Carr that funny but I am not sure I can join the howling mob that has persuaded him to withdraw from a legal tax avoidance scheme. He?s been using K2 to allegedly reduce his tax liability last year to about 1% of his ?3.3 million income (?33,000 ? a figure significantly higher that the average income tax take per individual)

Mr Cameron and many others have alleged that, though legal, his tax avoidance was unfair. But why? He has paid the tax required by the law and HMRC regulation / legislation. How can what is morally right be differentiated from what is morally repugnant?

What are the options?

?Everyone should be treated equally? ? but he?s already paying more than the average tax bill. ?Everyone should make an equal contribution to society? ? you could argue that in addition to paying more than the average income tax figure he also contributes by providing entertainment and pleasure to many thousands ? certainly far more of a contribution to society than made by me or most others. ?From each according to his ability, to each according to his need? ? ie taxes should maximise the welfare of the least well off. Is paying more than legally due tax to government, any government, the best way to achieve this nirvana?

Of course the real culprit, as more serious commentators are beginning to recognise, is the fiendishly complicated UK tax system.

Go to the flat tax that Hong Kong uses ? no tax breaks for film rights, forestry, charity, trust funds, loans, business losses or anything else. Set a high threshold (?20,000?) for paying any tax at all and tax the rest at 33% or another figure well below 50% and the whole business of tax avoidance becomes far less attractive and, I would argue, creates a tax system that has a far more moral basis.

[El Pibe]

I find it pretty repugnant to be honest.

I pay roughly that amount of tax on a significantly smaller income and am happy to do so because that's the price you pay to be part of, maintain and enjoy the benefits of a fair, democratic, free nation where I can contribute to a healthy society and help those less fortunate than I.

Those that partake of this scheme are basically saying that that sort of attitude is for the poor dumb schmucks, the rich can afford to laugh at the rest of us.

In other words to have all the benefits without paying his way; cake and eat it.

I bet you the scheme ain't cheap, what do you reckon, 1.5% commission? So he's actually saying he values the fortunes of the rich accountants more than that of his countrymen.

Of course these loopholes and complexity come about for good reasons, to alleviate the burden on charities, on agriculture, to encourage investments and pensiopns etc, schemes designed to benefit society as a whole. These loopholes are taken advantage of and the the proceeds funnelled offshore.

If you close down many of the loopholes it will be society that suffers.

On every level then it is a cold blooded calculation to maximise personal gain at the cost of society.

Call it what you will if it falls within the law, at best it's uncivic minded. If I could afford such a scheme I would not partake, no matter the legality, I would find it morally repugnant.

I loved his comment that he made a judgement of error. Sure his judgement of error was that he could do this without being found out, for he knew exactly what he was doing.

[BrandNewGuy]

Personally I think most people are "uncivic minded", but that doesn't necessarily make them "morally repugnant". Tax evasion that's illegal? Then prosecute with the full force of the law. Tax avoidance that's legal? Then close the loophole, but please don't go on about morals.

[El Pibe]

So you're saying there's no moral difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance?

Fair enough I guess, I guess it depends on what sort of society you want to live in.

I thought there was a moral basis to social democracy and the welfare state, but I could of course be very wrong.

If there isn't then I have to defer to your opinion, if there is then tax is a moral issue, pure and simple.

[Loz]

I was disappointed he didn't have the cojones to tell everyone to sod off, but instead tried to crawl back with his 'terrible error of judgement' tweets. The only thing he is guilty of is a bit of hypocrisy - but a lot less hypocrisy than Cameron, who's father built up a network of offshore investment funds to help build the family fortune. Or the rather sanctimonious Guardian (and no doubt other newspapers), who have used Jersey based off-shoring in the past as well.

Anyway, if the government don't like it, fix the law. Or better, simplify the tax system.

[*Bob*]

Assuming most people would agree you'd be a fool to be paying, say, 50% - but a crook to be paying, say, 1%: what, then, is the correct level of tax avoidance that one should be aiming for?

[El Pibe]

thumbs up smilies are doubtless frowned upon in the drawing room, so I'll jsut do them in my head bob

[BrandNewGuy]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So you're saying there's no moral difference

> between tax evasion and tax avoidance?

Wikipedia: "Tax noncompliance describes a range of activities that are unfavorable to a state's tax system. These include tax avoidance, which refers to reducing taxes by legal means, and tax evasion which refers to the criminal non-payment of tax liabilities." There is a moral difference between breaking and not breaking the law, regardless of what you think the morality of that law is.

If everyone else apart from these wicked rich people minimising their tax liabilities is so moral, then isn't it an amazing coincidence that the level of tax we pay seems to be morally just the right amount to pay for the welfare state. Go and ask HMRC how many people offer to pay more tax than their liable to, because they think that their tax burden is "morally" too low...

[El Pibe]

"There is a moral difference between breaking and not breaking the law"

How can paying 1% without knowing what you're doing be immoral, whilst paying 1% thanks the skills of those who understand how to exploit loopholes in the law is moral, especially given that you don't think tax has anything to do with moralityh in the first place.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

I never siad that the specific level of tax paid was a matter of morality, i said that exploiting gaps in the law to have a lower tax burden than that expected of memebers of society is immmoral. It says to society I can afford to avoid the expectations of our collective responsibilies.

[Jeremy]

He was blatantly trying to wriggle out of paying his fair share of tax. To be honest I was disappointed to read the OP which is apparently condoning this.

The fact that he is a high earner is no excuse, quite the opposite in fact. And the argument that he contributes to society through entertainment is particularly puzzling, it is entirely subjective and impossible to measure. Besides, I don't see teachers and emergency services fiddling their taxes.

But I do believe that the ultimate problem lies with the law - as BrandNewGuy says, if we cannot rely on people to voluntarily do the right thing for society (we can't), then it has to be enforced.

[maxxi]

I also found his 'climb down' apology and seeming bewilderment about what his accountants and advisers had been doing with his money (beyond him being told it was all legal) a disappointment and would have liked to see a robust 'sod you' defence of his actions.

As it is he obviously accepts he has erred and, as it was all legal, erred in a moral manner.

Though we all know that there is a correlation between his earning power and the public's opinion/perception of him.

But surely this kind of thing (cf Take That etc.) has always been with us going back to Harold Wilson's 95% supertax and pop stars and film stars et al leaving the country to avoid it' (Rod Stewart, David Bowie and even the Two Ronnies are among those who have left the country for tax reasons).

So some have now found a way of avoiding it without the air travel - maybe we should be debating whether this is a good thing?

[BrandNewGuy]

I don't suggest tax has nothing to do with morality, though I would suggest that taxation only plays one part in our collective responsibilities to society. Paying the Revenue a sum of cash each year does not make me a good person...

If you really don't like certain legal tax activities, then change the law so that such activities are illegal and chase the offenders by beefing up HMRC... but then Gordon Brown shed some 25% of HMRC staff because more of us are filing online. Smart move, Gordon.

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Besides, I don't see teachers and emergency services fiddling their taxes.

I suspect that is more to do with lack of opportunity than any higher moral standing.

[El Pibe]

"...though I would suggest that taxation only plays one part in our collective responsibilities to society"

Of course, absolutely with you on that.

But the state asks little else of us in terms of duty in all fairness.

Should we have the sort of war that would require us once again to do our bit I wonder how may people would say 'oh he did it legally' when Jimmy Carr's (or whoever is his equivalent come the day, which let's hope it doesn't) lawyers exploit loopholes in the law to keep him out of it.

[Jeremy]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I suspect that is more to do with lack of

> opportunity than any higher moral standing.

Yep, of course it is. But MM seemed to be suggesting that entertainers might somehow be entitled to pay less tax because of their perceived contribution to society. I'm saying that they're not.

[dbboy]

Nope, just unfunny and extremely REPUGNANT

[*Bob*]

I wonder how many close pals Jimmy boasted to about his sweet little Jersey-based accounting number - before he was overcome with contrition / a desire to retain his likeable popular funnyman satirical topical panelshow status?

It's a known fact that if you place any given number of self-employed people in a room together, give them a few drinks and bring the conversation round to tax, it'll be a game of one-upsmanship as to can lay claim to having the most crooked accountant.

[Marmora Man]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I suspect that is more to do with lack of

> > opportunity than any higher moral standing.

>

> Yep, of course it is. But MM seemed to be

> suggesting that entertainers might somehow be

> entitled to pay less tax because of their

> perceived contribution to society. I'm saying that

> they're not.

What I was trying to suggest is that our "duty" toward society encompasses more than just the tax we pay. We are all, collectively and individually, more than just units of society that generate tax. As someone else pointed out nurses and teachers contribute more than just their taxes - as do police, service personnel, entertainers, charity workers and so on. Taking the amount of tax paid as a narrow measure of contribution is too limited an approach.

[El Pibe]

WHich is fair enough, but to suggest that Carr can be justified in his tax avoidance because he's an entertainer is taking that argument to it's absurd logical conclusion.

Besides, you have to factor in the how much he annoys people into that equation, which probably means he should pay more tax than most!!

[saleem]

As opposed to the notion of fair play, that's compounded by the economic climate we find ourselves in, all he's done is exploit an existing loophole that's only divulged to people who have an income that can be profitable for both parties. Civil servants and the emergency services don't earn enough to reap worthwhile returns for the facilitaters: they aren't worth it. I suspect the reason the government takes such umbrage at these schemes is because it draws attention to their complacency and highlights the prolateriat's naivity. For instance, the TV Licensing Authority took exception to my refusal to buy a TV license on the grounds that I wasn't recieving a transmitted signal, which are the grounds for buying one in the first place. They expected me to just roll over and pay up. I didn't, I stuck to the law, and profitted from it. Just because I own a TV, that doesn't mean I have to buy a TV license. I just watch DVDs, not live or recorded transmissions.

The fact that Cameron himself painted Carr as "immoral" is indicative of how embarrassed they are over the K2 tax avoidance scheme, which is entirely legal. They've given Carr both barrels because they've correctly predicted that he won't want his reputation to be sullied by negative publicity, and because he runs the risk of being bankrupted by launching a defamation claim through the courts. Exploiting legal loopholes to avoid paying the accepted threshold of tax is big business in the UK. The difference being is that a lot of these avoiders contribute a disproportionate level of GDP, and have the means to coerce those who weild influence at the top into silence. Carr stood to sustain serious and visible damage if he didn't roll over and accept his 'punishment' like a snivelling, supplicant bitch.

[El Pibe]

Right on brother, they shall not pass! ;)

"highlights the prolateriat's naivity"

I find it an odd populist move to draw attention to the prolateriat(sic) voters just how naive they are.

[saleem]

Apologies if my termonology implied that Carr was sticking it to 'the man', or I oppose all forms of government. But this all boils down to control. Instances like this are the anithesis of what the government wishes to istill and foster among the populace: supplicancy. Carr was made aware of profitable small print, applied by the judiciary and supported by the ombudsman. He sought clarification for himself instead of relying on the powers that be to spell it out for him, and he (legally) profitted from his insight. The real fear is the majority taking the same course of action. That's why he's being condemned the way he is.

[El Pibe]

Mind you, all this talk of morality.

Breivik has just finished his self-serving soliloquy where he apparently decried the effect of Sex & The City on the nation's morals.

Whereas gunning down 70 people of course....

Jimmy Carr may be many things, primarily annoying, but at least he can appreciate the irony of the situation. Breivik I think no. Not to subvert the thread, but it's interesting that psychosis is proof of insanity but psycopathy apparently correlates to sanity.

Anyway, as you were.

[*Bob*]

I just spoke to him on the phone and he's explained everything.

It turns out that HMRC's allowances for moral repugnance were significantly changed before the end of the last tax year and - quite unknowingly - poor Jimmy had exceeded the threshold.

[saleem]

"Poor Jimmy" should of stuck to his guns and reiterated the circumstances surrounding his involvement with K2. That being that he's paid the amount of tax he's legally obliged to pay the taxman, and that there isn't a man, woman or child watching events unfold who wouldn't consider exploiting the same loophole if they had the means made available to them. I know I would!