As I think I've said previously, I don't often blog about current affairs, mostly because while I may be interested, I'm remarkably ignorant about a lot of the issues and I'd rather not weigh in on a topic and make a complete arse of myself. Having said that, I feel the need to weigh in on a topic and make a complete arse of myself.
From a distance of 6,000 miles, I've been mildly amused by the whole Jimmy Carr/tax avoidance story and largely baffled the amount of hypocrisy involved, seemingly on all sides. Let's leave to one side the fact that Carr lampooned and criticised bankers for avoiding tax whilst doing much the same thing himself. There's no law against saying one thing and doing another and there is, I suppose, an argument that when performing, Carr is effectively portraying a character, not being himself.
No, what bothers me is the reaction that this revelation (oh, and by the way, who even gives a monkey's what Carr does with his money, anyway? Why is it even news? Is there any kind of public interest involved here?) seems to have provoked. In particular, the suggestion from David Cameron that what Carr has done is "morally wrong."
At what point did morality enter the argument? What place do morals have in paying taxes? Other than the fact that, I believe, everyone who lives in a society is "morally" (and, more importantly, legally) obliged to pay the tax they owe there is no moral obligation to pay more than you are due to. If the law allows for loopholes that can be exploited by those clever enough to identify and take advantage of them, this is a failing in the law, not in those doing the avoiding.
As far as I'm aware, what Carr was doing was perfectly legal. People may not like it and might not have behaved in the same way if they were in his position but that is, frankly, irrelevant. He's done nothing wrong and while I have no great love for the guy, the fact that he's felt forced to change his financial arrangements merely after being found guilty in the court of public opinion (a court notorious for the capriciousness of its judgements) is appalling.
Why doesn't Cameron (and it's not just him; the left have been equally as guilty) make as much fuss about Vodafone as he did about Carr? That seems infinitely more important and a subject on which one might have expected the Prime Minister of the country to speak out. Until that day, it seems convenient that this whole storm arose at the same time as the GP strike in the UK, thus providing a handy distraction. Or am I just too cynical...?
