It's not the same principle as an ISA is open to all.

I'm not aware of any nationwide government scheme that aims to lower the tax bill for comedians or pop stars.

Has he been 'caught' though, if he hasn't done anything illegal? I find it funny that people expect comedians and such to be for the people on stuff like this. Michael Floppy Fringe Skippy Guy was seen eyeing up a ridiculous car a few years back but he's still regarded as the common deonminator because he makes jokesa bout man drawers and getting on the bus. Do people expect that Jimmy Carr was really down with the proles just because he made some jokes about the government being shit? These guys live on beds of money.

Ho-hum.

I'm not getting into the moral side of things, just the fact that the public still get shocked that a comedian who sells out arena tours isn't living in a a flat in Bristol or something.

Tempy wrote:

Has he been 'caught' though, if he hasn't done anything illegal? I find it funny that people expect comedians and such to be for the people on stuff like this. Michael Floppy Fringe Skippy Guy was seen eyeing up a ridiculous car a few years back but he's still regarded as the common deonminator because he makes jokesa bout man drawers and getting on the bus. Do people expect that Jimmy Carr was really down with the proles just because he made some jokes about the government being shit? These guys live on beds of money. Ho-hum. I'm not getting into the moral side of things, just the fact that the public still get shocked that a comedian who sells out arena tours isn't living in a a flat in Bristol or something.

If that is the case then why is he back tracking and saying he is leaving the scheme. He got caught doing something that while legal, is going to effect how the public view him. So I stand by say 'he got caught'.

revelthedog wrote:

Tempy wrote:

Has he been 'caught' though, if he hasn't done anything illegal? I find it funny that people expect comedians and such to be for the people on stuff like this. Michael Floppy Fringe Skippy Guy was seen eyeing up a ridiculous car a few years back but he's still regarded as the common deonminator because he makes jokesa bout man drawers and getting on the bus. Do people expect that Jimmy Carr was really down with the proles just because he made some jokes about the government being shit? These guys live on beds of money. Ho-hum. I'm not getting into the moral side of things, just the fact that the public still get shocked that a comedian who sells out arena tours isn't living in a a flat in Bristol or something.

If that is the case then why is he back tracking and saying he is leaving the scheme. He got caught doing something that while legal, is going to effect how the public view him. So I stand by say 'he got caught'.

But plenty of others have been 'caught' and not lynched because the public is a fickle beast. Carr's job means that he has to placate the gibbering masses who can't grasp the fact that he has done something legal and been branded, despite the fact there are probably a large swathe of comedians and TV personalities shuffling their feet and staring wistuflly at the sky because they've done the same shit. I'm not advocating it but I'm not sure Carr needs singling out either.

Tempy wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Tempy wrote:

Has he been 'caught' though, if he hasn't done anything illegal? I find it funny that people expect comedians and such to be for the people on stuff like this. Michael Floppy Fringe Skippy Guy was seen eyeing up a ridiculous car a few years back but he's still regarded as the common deonminator because he makes jokesa bout man drawers and getting on the bus. Do people expect that Jimmy Carr was really down with the proles just because he made some jokes about the government being shit? These guys live on beds of money. Ho-hum. I'm not getting into the moral side of things, just the fact that the public still get shocked that a comedian who sells out arena tours isn't living in a a flat in Bristol or something.

If that is the case then why is he back tracking and saying he is leaving the scheme. He got caught doing something that while legal, is going to effect how the public view him. So I stand by say 'he got caught'.

But plenty of others have been 'caught' and not lynched because the public is a fickle beast. Carr's job means that he has to placate the gibbering masses who can't grasp the fact that he has done something legal and been branded, despite the fact there are probably a large swathe of comedians and TV personalities shuffling their feet and staring wistuflly at the sky because they've done the same shit. I'm not advocating it but I'm not sure Carr needs singling out either.

Its going to be awkward for everyone when he turns up at the gentleman's club tonight anyway..

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this..

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10"
"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me"
"That's true" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

Top 20% of earners pay over 80% of the income tax collected in the uk (the top 10% pay over 50%).

Lord_Griff wrote:

Top 20% of earners pay over 80% of the income tax collected in the uk (the top 10% pay over 50%).

People who earn a lot pay a lot non-shocker.

Mod74 wrote:

Lord_Griff wrote:

Top 20% of earners pay over 80% of the income tax collected in the uk (the top 10% pay over 50%).

People who earn a lot pay a lot non-shocker.

Apparently footballers don't pay a lot of tax either.

revelthedog wrote:

I'm guessing that you are a contractor of some sort then. I know a lot about this as well and how tax can work. I'm guessing you still pay more than the 1% the dodgers pay.

Correct on both counts. 

I_R, this is not the same as cheating on benefits.

It is a very difficult topic to address correctly. Political parties (especially Labour and Libs) talk about fairness - typically when addressing the lowest common denominator (low earning, reactionary, relatively uneducated). But, irrespective of any moral obligation to society and to those who it is comprised of I fail to see how it is fair for an individual who has studied hard for 17/18 years, managed to obtain a high paying job (pay as a function of contribution to GDP), has successfully progressed in their job (very difficult due to competition), works excessively long hours and has a burden of responsibility to numerous people working below them has an obligation to give away half of their earnings, over a certain limit, with no cap.

Griff none of that was achieved in a total social vacuum.

Brooks wrote:

Griff none of that was achieved in a total social vacuum.

Appreciated, are you saying that society's contribution to an individual's success requires that level of repayment?

....and that the subsidising of those who truly cannot be arsed, justifiable?

Brooks wrote:

Also the "they'll just fuck off" line underestimates the draw of certain cultural factors that make people stick around even when the state's grab on one's pennies rises.

Some people like angry handjobs.

Meanwhile, people that "can't be arsed" are an indication of systemic failures - consider a fall in their ranks one of the prizes of successful reform. The burden they place on the national coffers should agitate payees to press their captains - political and economic - harder to undertake that reform, not to opt out of the conversation.