Whitey Grandad

Hmm, pay them not to riot?

I read a great quote the other day: 'By the time I realised my dad was right I had a son telling me that I was wrong' I can't find the source, David Schwimmer?

In fairness (to me) I was referring to the rich in general. Jimmy Carr is obviously a special case. Why is it that everybody loves Ken Dodd and finds his tax arrangements a great laugh whilst Jimmy Carr is a target for vilification? Is it because he's not as funny?

But only 0% if it is spent, that might work. So might putting in a bank that could then lend it to entrepreneurial entrepreneurs.

Bloody heck! How much did they weigh? What purity was it?

I sometimes think that teenagers are genetically programmed to be obnoxious just to ensure that they are thrown out of the nest.

If true, we're in trouble.

The first of many, I would expect. Are they running scared already?

Hence the drive towards higher indirect taxation in recent times.

Agreed, although whether the savings should be spent on doctors I'm not so sure about.

Exactly, which is worse the 50,000 or the one? The 'offence' is the same. There's an old joke: A man asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million pounds. She thinks about it and says yes. He then asks if she will sleep with him for a pound, She says 'of course not, what do you think I am?' He says 'We've established what you are, now we are merely arguing over the price'. The flush of accountants started after Rolls-Royce went bust. Then we got Thatcher and her lot trying to put a price on everything.

I'm all for it. Perhaps it will discourage all these single mothers.

There were a lot of very average players out there tonight, and even they were playing below average.

Morally they're the same. 50,000 people saving £20 or one person £1,000,000. More than that, the former is illegal, the second isn't, although perhaps it ought to be. One of the consequences is that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any industrialised country.

Pompey's new ground?

This 1% business. Surely it's only delaying the tax, not avoiding it. If you don't repay the loan promptly then the Revenue jump on you.

'slashed' to far higher rates than most people pay.

It all depends on whether you think that the government spends the money more wisely than the earner. You could make an argument that leaving the money in the bank would do more good for the health of the economy.

Drainage is important, and regular raking and cutting. For cats you need a catapult, for dogs it's a dogapult.

Tax avoidance is not wrong, by definition. The right to minimise one's tax is enshrined in law.

there not lining their pockets at our expense. We are not actually putting money in their pockets. 'Not paying their fair share' maybe. It wouldn't matter if the government didn't spend so much. Cut government spending by half, slash tax rates and nobody would bother trying to avoid it.

In this case 1% is too low, but I do think that the principle of a percentage is wrong. Once you've paid some threshold, say £50,000, then the rate should reduce to around 10%. As I once said in a private meeting with Nigel Lawson (ooh, get him!) the intention is to get these people to stay and pay the tax rather than avoiding it, and he readily agreed.

The last series was crap. They changed the format and moved production to somewhere west. Mick Aston left in disgust and I don't blame him. The new presenter Mary-Ann Ochota has also left. They meddled with a much-loved product.

No you're not. You're thinking in percentage terms, not absolute amounts. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html (Daily Mail but still valid)

It's simple really. 1% is way too low and %50 is way too high. Make it flat with no allowances, and anything over 20% is too much. The difference between benefit cheats and tax avoiders is that one takes money but the other just doesn't give it. And one is illegal, the other isn't.