Gérard Depardieu - Tax dodger

[leicsmac]

This has gone way off track. I don't think anyone is saying that extreme right or extreme left is the way to go. Extremism and dictatorships are BAD. Ok?

Churchill was right to say - power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is right. And as mentioned before, in today's era money = power. Too many unelected people with too much political influence due to the vast amount of money they have either inherited or made. Lack of accountability is a bad thing.

[Zingari]

That quote ( power corrupts etc) wasn't Churchill it was Lord Acton

edit;

but i'm just being pedantic

[Jon the Hat]

This is right. And as mentioned before, in today's era money = power. Too many unelected people with too much political influence due to the vast amount of money they have either inherited or made. Lack of accountability is a bad thing.

So back on topic, you think Obelisk has too much influence? He doesn't like it so he takes his tax money elsewhere. Voting with his feet! I dont see how anyone who believes in liberty can condemn this in any way. It is a simple freedom of movement.

[Deucalion]

So back on topic, you think Obelisk has too much influence? He doesn't like it so he takes his tax money elsewhere. Voting with his feet! I dont see how anyone who believes in liberty can condemn this in any way. It is a simple freedom of movement.

So is rats leaving a sinking ship but it's hard to have much respect for them.

[Vacamion]

So blood in the pursuit of profit is ok whereas blood in the name of a better world isn't?

Whilst I wouldn't always agree with them, many capitalists and their governments thought they were acting 'in the name of a better world'.

I just thought that describing the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism in the same terms as modern capitalism was not proportionate and that you had understated the wrongs they perpetrated.

Greedily awarding oneself an undeserved bonus (or allowing it to happen), whilst morally wrong, does not equate to setting up gulag camps and deliberately murdering one's compatriots.

[leicsmac]

So back on topic, you think Obelisk has too much influence? He doesn't like it so he takes his tax money elsewhere. Voting with his feet! I dont see how anyone who believes in liberty can condemn this in any way. It is a simple freedom of movement.

Nah, he's not malicious or politically motivated. He's just taking advantage of the system, just like Sean Connery et al.

You could say...not all rich people are power-mongers, but all power-mongers are rich.

[Deucalion]

Whilst I wouldn't always agree with them, many capitalists and their governments thought they were acting 'in the name of a better world'.

I just thought that describing the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism in the same terms as modern capitalism was not proportionate and that you had understated the wrongs they perpetrated.

Greedily awarding oneself an undeserved bonus (or allowing it to happen), whilst morally wrong, does not equate to setting up gulag camps and deliberately murdering one's compatriots.

Do I have to list the atrocities committed in the name of capitalism?

Civilians killed by drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Vietnam

World System Theory

Guantanimo Bay

Global Warming

The Great Depression

The Credit Crunch

The list is endless and many of the above are ongoing. Far more have died, been tortured, imprisoned, starved, been discriminated against or suffered in the name of a few rich people than ever in the name of communism.

[Rincewind]

Maybe most people would do the same given a chance. Even myself. The thing that gets my goat thogh is how somebody who may do a bit of work on the side for cash is highlighted across the front pages of newspapers and all those in the same income bracket are targeted. Even though he may have done it to pay an outstanding bill or give the kids a holiday. But in truth both the top and bottom of the ladder look for ways to bring in a little cash. Some of it iffy some of it illegal and I want both to be treated the same which is not always the case because of the ones drawing up the rules know where to make the line.

It is easier to stop someones benefits than to spend money investigating a tax scam.

[Vacamion]

Do I have to list the atrocities committed in the name of capitalism?

Civilians killed by drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Vietnam

World System Theory

Guantanimo Bay

Global Warming

The Great Depression

The Credit Crunch

The list is endless and many of the above are ongoing. Far more have died, been tortured, imprisoned, starved, been discriminated against or suffered in the name of a few rich people than ever in the name of communism.

Utterly numerically and factually incorrect.

As if only capitalists burned carbon?

As if the great depression credit crunch were deliberately unleashed in the first place and killed 10s of millions of people once underway.

And how many millions have been starved to death at Guantanamo?

Slavery, which you didn't mention, I would concede is the only thing approaching Stalin / Mao, but capitalist countries took the lead in its abolition.

Your argument is less than convincing.

[leicsmac]

Maybe most people would do the same given a chance. Even myself. The thing that gets my goat thogh is how somebody who may do a bit of work on the side for cash is highlighted across the front pages of newspapers and all those in the same income bracket are targeted. Even though he may have done it to pay an outstanding bill or give the kids a holiday. But in truth both the top and bottom of the ladder look for ways to bring in a little cash. Some of it iffy some of it illegal and I want both to be treated the same which is not always the case because of the ones drawing up the rules know where to make the line.

It is easier to stop someones benefits than to spend money investigating a tax scam.

This is true, and the double standard is deeply annoying.

[leicsmac]

Utterly numerically and factually incorrect.

As if only capitalists burned carbon?

As if the great depression credit crunch were deliberately unleashed in the first place and killed 10s of millions of people once underway.

And how many millions have been starved to death at Guantanamo?

Slavery, which you didn't mention, I would concede is the only thing approaching Stalin / Mao, but capitalist countries took the lead in its abolition.

Your argument is less than convincing.

Do I have to list the atrocities committed in the name of capitalism?

Civilians killed by drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Vietnam

World System Theory

Guantanimo Bay

Global Warming

The Great Depression

The Credit Crunch

The list is endless and many of the above are ongoing. Far more have died, been tortured, imprisoned, starved, been discriminated against or suffered in the name of a few rich people than ever in the name of communism.

Lines between right-wing/left-wing and authoritariansm/libertarianism getting blurred here.

Authoritarian governments, both right and left wing, have been responsible for the worst human atrocities...because they put a number and value on the life of a human being.

[Jon the Hat]

Do I have to list the atrocities committed in the name of capitalism?

Civilians killed by drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Vietnam

World System Theory

Guantanimo Bay

Global Warming

The Great Depression

The Credit Crunch

The list is endless and many of the above are ongoing. Far more have died, been tortured, imprisoned, starved, been discriminated against or suffered in the name of a few rich people than ever in the name of communism.

If am not much mistaken we are trying to segment the misery caused by the pursuit of power into the tools used. Pointless. People are people, and they will act as such.

[Captain...]

You seem to think skill is the only reason people are well paid. Reputation & the confidence that brings, fame & market appeal are all important factors in a huge range of jobs. In the movie example, people go to see great actors the like, if you took half of them out of the equation, you might see the film industry nose dive. That is not good for anyone.

This is exactly my point we don't live in a meritocratic society, where the person with the best skill set for the job gets the job, there are so many other influences such as fame, reputation, status, neoptism and the old boy network, that people very often at the top end of things end up in positions they don't deserve, doing jobs they have no right to be doing and have no ability to do it. Just look at Tony Blair as Peace Envoy to the middle east. Not to mention good old arse licking and bullying.

Whilst I wouldn't always agree with them, many capitalists and their governments thought they were acting 'in the name of a better world'.

I just thought that describing the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism in the same terms as modern capitalism was not proportionate and that you had understated the wrongs they perpetrated.

Greedily awarding oneself an undeserved bonus (or allowing it to happen), whilst morally wrong, does not equate to setting up gulag camps and deliberately murdering one's compatriots.

No defending what the likes of Stalin have done in the name of communism, but as Deucalian said capitalism has just as much blood on its hands, if not more, and not just economically fuelled wars and conflicts, but less directly too, every homeless person dying in the street, every over stressed worker that has taken his life, every industrial accident due to proper safety regulations being too expensive to implement, every person that has died from polluted water and other natural resources, and every person that has died because they cannot afford food, heating, health care that is readily available and in abundance is a result of a society that cares more about money than the modern man,

[Jon the Hat]

This is true, and the double standard is deeply annoying.

There is a difference - the law on working for money while claiming benefits are 100% clear. When you are managing investments, assets and companies it is a lot less clear, because the law cannot keep up with the reality. The fact is though, while these reduce the effective tax rate for the rich and for companies, this is taken into account and understood by HMRC and companies. If we tighten up this is effectivley a tax increase, and the rich and companies may move elsewhere. The media like to make out this is some great scam or horribly unfair on the benefit cheat, but it really isn't.

[Finnegan]

I never thought I'd have to say anything this horrific but give me Thatcher's Britain over Communist China any day of the week.

Ugh. I'm going for a shower.

[Rincewind]

But they can afford accountants to explain it all or in Jimmy Carr's case not.

[leicsmac]

If am not much mistaken we are trying to segment the misery caused by the pursuit of power into the tools used. Pointless. People are people, and they will act as such.

So it's just the way things are and we shouldn't try to change it? Are we that slavishly devoted to self-interest and the evolutionary principle?

There is a difference - the law on working for money while claiming benefits are 100% clear. When you are managing investments, assets and companies it is a lot less clear, because the law cannot keep up with the reality. The fact is though, while these reduce the effective tax rate for the rich and for companies, this is taken into account and understood by HMRC and companies. If we tighten up this is effectivley a tax increase, and the rich and companies may move elsewhere. The media like to make out this is some great scam or horribly unfair on the benefit cheat, but it really isn't.

Then maybe some clarification of the law is called for? The law should apply equally to each individual, group of individuals or company. That's what it's there for.

[Jon the Hat]

So it's just the way things are and we shouldn't try to change it? Are we that slavishly devoted to self-interest and the evolutionary principle?

Then maybe some clarification of the law is called for? The law should apply equally to each individual, group of individuals or company. That's what it's there for.

My point is that tax law constantly evolves. And HMRC could be more on top of it if they chose to spend the money, but then they might have to reduce tax rates to remain attractive to the rich and companies as a country to live & operate in. So people need to accept that at the bottom tax is simple, and at the top it is not. This is never going to change, so might as well get used to it.

[leicsmac]

My point is that tax law constantly evolves. And HMRC could be more on top of it if they chose to spend the money, but then they might have to reduce tax rates to remain attractive to the rich and companies as a country to live & operate in. So people need to accept that at the bottom tax is simple, and at the top it is not. This is never going to change, so might as well get used to it.

Yeah, I agree with you. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy with the status quo, nor not feel that something should be done regarding it.

[Webbo]

What a good debate and all without unnecessary abuse.

[Rincewind]

Yes this is why GD has a thread all to himself and the father who is claiming for 30 kids is dumped in the Greatest Cvunts thread

[leicsmac]

What a good debate and all without unnecessary abuse.

Indeed, and now for something we can all agree on....

Peter Taylor is a horribly poor manager.

[Jon the Hat]

Yes this is why GD has a thread all to himself and the father who is claiming for 30 kids is dumped in the Greatest Cvunts thread

You've lost me again. How is someone who pays millions on tax moving countries becuase he is fed up with being fleeced by his government being mentioned in the same breath as a bloke who is costing the taxpayer a fortune through his inconsiderate disregard for the cost of raising his vast offspring?

[Captain...]

Yes this is why GD has a thread all to himself and the father who is claiming for 30 kids is dumped in the Greatest Cvunts thread

Well to be fair GD is complaining about paying tax on money he is earnt, whereas a man claiming for 30 kids is receiving money he hasn't don anything to earn, a bit harsh to call him a cvnt, and the net result is the same, less money for the state....

...but I do sympathise with GD, not that he shouldn't pay taxes, but he is paying an exorbitant amount on what he has worked hard (arguably) for, and as much as I don't agree with him earning that amount of money, if could save a couple of million quid by living in Belgium or Russia, I probably would, although the Cayman Islands would also be nice.

What does surprise me about his decision is why not move to Monaco?

You've lost me again. How is someone who pays millions on tax moving countries becuase he is fed up with being fleeced by his government being mentioned in the same breath as a bloke who is costing the taxpayer a fortune through his inconsiderate disregard for the cost of raising his vast offspring?

Because both are depriving the state, just in different ways.

[Zingari]

What a good debate and all without unnecessary abuse.

Since you’ve been running this place with an iron fist in a velvet glove they wouldn’t dare do otherwise .