jenny

awww...thanks guys. sorry about how LONG that post was btw! generally speaking i don't normally actually post things, but just choose to read around on different forums to get a feel of general opinions on things, but when i do make a post on something it has to be important enough too spark me into it, and then i end up writing an essay! lol!

hi. i'm quite new to buzzjacks and this is my first ever post on this website, but you've got to start somewhere. kath, i can't be sure, but i strongly suspect you're the same person who i've seen posting in many other places on the internet, sometimes in different names. i say this because you repeat yourself a lot, and your posts across sites are almost identical, and you CLEARLY have what i would describe as an almost boderline unhealthy hatred of gary barlow. from how you act about him you'd think he'd gone to your house to shoot your cat! i can only imagine that either you were once impartial to this man, and he must have deliberately done something incredibly personal to hurt you, or else you must have one time really loved him and he's done something completely unknowingly and indirect to hurt you. either way, you do seem to treat anything he does as rather personal.... but anyway. my point for posting is to weigh in my views on the whole tax/obe thing. firstly, as has been pointed out before, the scheme that jimmy used is completely different from the one that take that (sans jason orange) used. jimmy placed all of his money into an offshore account in jersey, leaving only a tiny amount behind to "pay himself" with as a salary. it was that miniscule amount which he was taxed on. any other money he needed, he simply "loaned" to himself, as offshore loans are non-taxable. we know for a fact that the end sum of tax that jimmy carr was paying was ~1%. the take that scheme involved three members of take that plus their manager (though according to kath it's only gary who's actually relevant here, because if you are who i think you are, then gary's just a "meanie", while mark's such a nice guy that really shocked you and howard's "nice but thick".....?). [personally i find having multiple affairs behind your partners back aswell as a long running deep emotional affair which carried on in parallel to relationship with said partner and happened to include having sex with her on occasions such as around the time "official" partner was giving birth to second child and a week before their wedding to be slightly more morally wrong than anything that's happening here, but hey ho, that's just me :wacko:] the details of the scheme are as of yet unknown, although we do know that a collective investment between the four guys was made. we do not however know any other financial details, such as how much contribution individuals made, how much they each earn or how much tax as a percentage (or figure) that ANY of them actually paid. we do. not. know. all that's been said so far is that all of them "pay significant taxes". the premiss of the scheme is also totally different. while jimmy tucked all of his money away in jersey to loan to himself when needed, TT made an investment in a uk based scheme which says that it's design is to aid in musical developement in the uk, although the scheme did permit investors to increase their investment value through using an offshore loan. (a real offshore loan - not just taking your own money from another place). none of this is in any way illegal. my own view is that 1% is far too low, and what jimmy did is definately a hell of a lot dodgier than what TT did, although as TT's actual tax figures aren't known yet i shall reserve my judgement. however, lets be frank - tax avoidance is nothing new (off the top of my head...stone roses, beatles, u2, iggy pop, elton, one direction, vodaphone, lewis hamilton, lord ascroft, phillip green, amazon, play, asda(?) and other major corporations, half the mps in parliament (and if memory serves me correctly, wasn't what most of those very mps doing with a certain expense scandal actually illegal?...."give back his OBE" my backside! how about you give up your own seat in parliament and go to prison - you're the one that broke the law!)). basically what i'm saying is that if we were to truelly be so morally outraged about all this as to boycot anyone who'd ever avoided tax....we'd all have to very quickly learn how to do everything DIY, live off the fruit and veg of our backgardens, make our own clothes and our own shoes, pretty much never use phones again, only watch the BBC (and only specific programmes - don't want to subsidise the wage of someone avoiding tax now, do we!!), and be even MORE careful about who's music we dare to like! this thing of singling out indivuals is absolutely ridiculous. the fact of the matter is that what they did is 100% legal, and i guarantee you most people would jump at the chance to do it themselves. the problem lies in the law. it's that that people should direct their anger at, not the individuals who comply with it. and i'm sorry but as for "if they all paid tax there'd be no need for charities".....WHAAATTT??? how on EARTH do you come to that conclusion???!!! there will ALWAYS be charities - FACT! and paying tax does not change the outcome of a charity - infact, charitable donations are non-taxable! what you say makes no sense at all. that is not how the world works. and nomatter what gary ended up paying on his tax bill that doesn't change the amount of millions that he has raised that have actually made a difference to people's lives. the two aren't even related, so i'm sorry but that's got to be one of the biggest grasps for thin air i've seen in a while now...