Quote: zooo @ June 19 2012, 10:52 AM BSTI'd rather give a few million to a cat charity. Humans can f**k off.
In that case I'm with you. MONEY FOR OUR CAT OVERLORDS! Uh oh, they're glaring at me for typing too loudly and ruining nap time..
I read the news today oh boy! Page 892
Quote: zooo @ June 19 2012, 10:51 AM BSTIt was ridiculous that he had to leave.
I imagine half the rich celebs do it. At least. Jimmy's just the one who's made the news for some reason.
Well 2 reasons
1 He's evading the largest amount
2 He made a sketch slating Barclays for doing the same.
Hypocrasy is the nemesis of all satirists.
And RCP has posted eloquently about the humbuggery around charitable donations from the super rich. I don't want the weak cared for, the hungry fed or my sickness treated because Bill Gates had a good shit this morning and is feeling beneficent.
I want it because the taxes I contributed to are being administrated as well as possible by an accountable government.
In truth he's probably managed to get it down to between 10-15% ( No-one gets away with 1% !)
So he's paying somewhere between £300-400k a year,
Which is about £399.9k more than the average yurt-dwelling anti-capitalist contributes.
Tax is a way of raising money, not punishing the wealthy.
If it's legal, he should do it.
If the collective opinion is that it's wrong - change the law.
Quote: sootyj @ June 19 2012, 10:56 AM BST2 He made a sketch slating Barclays for doing the same.
Ahh, I didn't know that.
That was a very silly move!
Quote: Lazzard @ June 19 2012, 10:56 AM BSTIn truth he's probably managed to get it down to between 10-15% ( No-one gets away with 1% !)
So he's paying somewhere between £300-400k a year,Which is about £399.9k more than the average yurt-dwelling anti-capitalist contributes.
I am inclined to agree with Lazzard.
I think the government work for free scheme should be rebranded as a sort of labour tax. E.g. if you can't pay tax, you contribute a few days work a month.
For tax payers.
Like tidying my bedroom or something.
Quote: Lazzard @ June 19 2012, 10:56 AM BSTIn truth he's probably managed to get it down to between 10-15% ( No-one gets away with 1% !)
So he's paying somewhere between £300-400k a year,Which is about £399.9k more than the average yurt-dwelling anti-capitalist contributes.
Tax is a way of raising money, not punishing the wealthy.If it's legal, he should do it.
If the collective opinion is that it's wrong - change the law.
Check out the Times, but it's very low.
In essence he works for a company in Jersey who recieves all of his earnings.
Then they pay him a £100,000 a year. And give him the rest as a loan, on which you don't pay tax.
So his taxable income according to the Times is £100,000
We're all on the fiddle in it together.
Quote: zooo @ June 19 2012, 10:48 AM BSTI'd rather give the same amount directly to charity.
Barely anyone ever gives "directly to charity". People donate to "charities", which are registered companies (with tax breaks), most of whose employees are salaried.
You think that your £1 is going to reach the mouth of the needy, untouched? You think that, on its way, it's going to avoid all the pitfalls of employees' salaries, landlords' rent demands, political corruption and backhanders, commodities pricefixing, theft etc., and find its way to the people who need it?
That LiveAid photo: the one of the sacks of grain labelled "LiveAid" lined-up at an african market, being sold by men with kalashnikovs, as dirt-poor starving women look on helplessly.
Way to go.
Yes, best not to ever give to charity.
Quote: sootyj @ June 19 2012, 10:51 AM BSTWorking for a charity 90% of our funding is from the government.
So essentially you are.
But charity as an alternative to state funding is pretty awful. I mean you'd get billions for the hospital for "blameless kiddies with sympathetic illnesses who aren't fat."
and nothing for mental illness, homelesness or unapealling sick types.
Absolutely. A charity I used to work for of the 'blameless kiddies' type, did quite well on the donations front. The charity I fundraise for now (unappealling sick types) has been in line for sizeable donations from big companies, only to have the plug pulled at the last minute. One Company's reason was 'no-one has heard of it.' I assume that meant they thought they wouldn't get any kudos for it.
Quote: zooo @ June 19 2012, 11:48 AM BSTYes, best not to ever give to charity.
Better to give it directly, yourself, to those who you want to help.
Do you think that might be why I used the word 'directly' in my original post? 
I don't think you're telling anyone anything they didn't already know happens with some charities.
Don't give money directly to cats- they'll say it's for tuna when really they'll just spend it on catnip and end up under a bridge again.
Quote: zooo @ June 19 2012, 12:00 PM BSTDo you think that might be why I used the word 'directly' in my original post?
I don't think you're telling anyone anything they didn't already know happens with some charities.
Well I don't want to give to "sympathy for paedos" or even "burn the paedos"
I do want to know some governmental dept is keeping an eye on the paedos. And in an effective (and not unduly cruel manner) keeping them on the straight and narrow.
Quote: zooo @ June 19 2012, 12:00 PM BSTDo you think that might be why I used the word 'directly' in my original post?
I don't think you're telling anyone anything they didn't already know happens with some charities.
I didn't get that impression from your posts.
..and BTW: some charities? Are you kidding?
Sigh. Okay, Stylee.
Quote: Nat Wicks @ June 19 2012, 12:00 PM BSTDon't give money directly to cats- they'll say it's for tuna when really they'll just spend it on catnip and end up under a bridge again.
