So Blairs misses seems to have put her foot in it again with her rant that mothers who stay at home are not very good for society, poppycock, surely a childs upbringing in the safety of his/her home with their mother is the best thing in the world, she Blair brought their kids up well, one rolling around drunk in the gutter. She was lucky, she had pots of money to be able to out to work and use nannies, champagne socialist, which brings me to have a little rant at the Tories/Lib Dems, so we are all in this together, yeah right, we pay all our taxes and have Child/Family tax credits stopped or reduced, and the rich celebrities pay b****r all tax as they do some offshore deal.

God what a choice we have when it comes to electing a Goverenment

Before everyone on here spontaneously combusts with rage, the article says she was specifically talking about 'yummy mummies' who marry rich men and put their energies into raising children rather than concentrating on their careers."

And there is a case for saying that in those circumstances it's probably wise to have some degree of self-sufficiency.

I work with genuinely poor, destitute people and I get somewhat tired of hearing a lot of moaning (I'm speaking in general - not attacking anyone here) from many who are not, by any stretch of the imagination actually 'poor.'

Along with many of you, I'm worse off than I was but I try and keep a sense of proportion about it. And as someone who even on a low income was never entitled to the range of tax credits that were handed out under the last government, what you never had you don't miss.

There are tens of thousands of people who fall into what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation call the 'hidden poor' and they are the ones who have never been a priority, regardless of whether Labour or the Tories are in power.

Indeed seeformiles - agree some of us od moan about being worse off, which some are, yet its still not that bad, well for me its not.

Its just that when you see things like what Jimmy Carr and other celebs have done, it does make the blood boil and maybe I was a bit OTT

I agree with you about Jimmy Carr. I was amazed someone like him was earning 'millions' every year in the first place.

It's not just big business that's completely out of touch with reality in terms of executive pay, so-called TV entertainers are earning ridiculous amounts that bear no relation to their level of talent and contribution to wider culture or society.

I'd regarded him as quite an unremarkable comedian, just another person who crops up on various laddy panel shows. Channel 4 (where he often appears) is ALSO supposed to have a public service remit, believe it or not. This fact is often overlooked in all the controversy over high fees paid to BBC 'personalities'

Hands up on here for all those who would not want to pay less tax (legally) if they were able to!!

I work with a number of self employed people who have next to no idea how their money is managed or tax paid. People rely on experts/advisors for this sort of thing the moment money becomes any harder than earning a 'normal' wage and not having to do tax returns (although I am more than aware that many do look after their own tax returns). I doubt there are many high earners, regardless of their profession, who have asked their accountants to ensure that their finances are handled both legally AND morally.

I suspect there are a number of newspaper, TV and radio people reporting this with slightly squeaky bottoms in case their own finances were ever made public.

I am also surprised that Mr Carr earned so much money. I have never found anything he said remotely funny. One must assume some do and they are prepared to pay their hard earned and taxed income to watch people like this.

Well said Brian. We should also include folk who demand 'cash in hand' in our criticism. They might not be earning millions but they're avoiding paying their fair share...

I actually see nothing wrong about people rich enough to be able to devote their time and energy to their children. If I had the choice I would definitely do that rather than endure certain work situations. Work is often too glamourised. Most of 'work' is repetitive, boring, and you get little thanks. If you are lucky enough to have an opportunity not to have you and instead raise your children, take it. ''Having a career' is more about getting mothers off benefits.

Im a feminist and to me that means people having a choice.

Raising children is hard arduous work but a very important job, not a sideline to be fitted in in the evening or weekends.

PS Managing childcare and all the demands of work is an art form. As well as needing money to stay home, you also need money to be able to afford to go out to work. Sometimes you even have to borrow to do so. Not easy, so Cherie, get back in your box please...

But as far as I can tell, she wasn't aiming this at all mothers, just a select very well off few. And it makes sense (I would have thought) that once the children grow up and leave home, they'd probably be happier if they did have something else to fill their days.

But on the subject of mums working, it did me no harm that my mum worked part time in a factory when I was a kid. It set me a good example. I was taught the value of working for your money.

Yes work can be a drag but it provides a routine and a structure which requires motivation and some discipline. In families where for generations there has never been that structure, things can go badly wrong.

I see this in the young people I support who have no concept of how to behave in order to make themselves more attractive to a potential employer. I agree it would help if there were actually more jobs out there but it's sad that so many people I encounter seem not to have a single idea where to start or even a basic understanding of what work is.

With varying degrees of surprise, I find that none of the comments made so far are particularly disagreeable. Left and Right have from time to time condemned their respective demons in the form of alleged offenders when it was deemed politically astute to do so.

I do not endorse Carr's use of this scheme.

However, our individual liabilities in tax matters in a fair tax regime are probably best kept confidential to such degrees as to be open enough to ensure that we all enjoy a sense of fairness and proportion but exclude us from public opprobrium in all circumstances except where tax laws are broken and where alleged offenders have actually been found guilty.

However there is something of the very dark arts and even darker motive in that "Calamity" Clegg failed to prevent "Calm Down" Cameron from seemingly dipping into confidential and statutorily protected tax records and unilaterally electing to publish the tax affairs of a private individual, without regard to his duty to protect their privacy without exception.

With apologies to DerbyHillTop (with whom I have used this allegory previously in correspondence) and with reflection on the moral repugnance that "Calm Down" Cameron has engendered in his probably illegal publication of data that was gained from his very questionable access to a private taxpayer's circumstance:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me"

Substitute taxpayer into this parable and ask the question "who will protect me ?"

The potential answer provides no comfort - and absolutely no protection, particularly if "Calm Down" deems you to be beyond the pale of his political acceptability. ("Calamity" - watch out on this one - your party is doomed at the next election to be reduced to its former rump and old "Calm Down" will need a new whipping boy for his failures)

I openly admit that I have no information as to how "Calm Down" came to have info on Carr's use of the apparently legal K2 Tax Avoidance scheme and as to why he made his best and maximum effort to blacken the character of the individual.

He might have better adopted the at-least legal approach of condemning the K2 scheme directly and avoided any allegation of illegality that his actions in the form of the personal attack on Carr has attracted.

What I am sure of is that he has elected to ignore the widely held equivalent moral repugnance toward every Tory tax avoider, best exampled by former Tory Chairman and alleged man-of-broken-promise to "regularize all my tax affairs within the UK", the Right Honourable, The Lord Ashcroft, KCMG.

I think it is wrong to single out Jimmy Carr for criticism. (I am NOT a fan.) If what he did was legal, the Government should make it illegal

I have taken measures to reduce my tax liability.

If something is legal it would be a duty of advisor to explain it to client if it is applicable. So when avoidance is employed I am angry with government which is allowing for these schemes to exist.

Now coming to Jimmy Carr. He’s paid his taxes due. He's also made money making jokes out of bankers for doing similar thing himself. Not as funny now.

PM was misguided to comment on Mr Carr's tax affairs, but that only shows his lack of judgment on yet another issue.

To: jgdoherty
You (indirectly) raise issue of tax being private a good thing. I'd much rather it being public one. In Norway (albeit a country with a lot smaller population) it's publicly accessible information. What is interesting it is not just the final figures that are on-line, but the whole computation if I am not mistaken. There are some embarrassing stories every year once the data becomes available, but the sheer openness makes people more responsible in paying their dues. I admit that such data on UK's records may be too much of a hot potato. Just imagine the positives that can come out of it within a couple of years.


Mrs Blair has been misquoted. What she said seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I am sad but I think that feminism is rather misunderstood and it would be difficult for me to explain it well. I’ll try to illustrate few points:
1 – Women seek financial independence from their partner. This is because we do not live in perfect world where you can guarantee that if you marry well you will still be married 30-50 years later (divorce rate is about 50%, not sure about bereavement rate).
2 – Mrs Blair talked about collective aspirations that yummy mummies were projecting not necessarily their individual choices. This ideal norm then filters down to the rest of the society. The choices exercised once the financial implications are removed. (Lots of families have very little choice once the finance comes into play)
3 – They chose not to continue their careers even though they could afford to employ all the necessary help. They choose not to be independent of their husbands. Seems like a step back in feminism.

So our perfect family: man is at work and mother at home raising children. Why not one parent at the time at home and both parents having a career?

I can hear the pips of the various avoiders and evaders squeak at any possibility of an open accounts based system like Norway's being introduced in the UK.

But with even a minimum of reflection it may have huge advantages in providing some insight into the real and probably scandalous extent of the divergence in tax payments by those millions who are disadvantaged by being locked into PAYE and for those fewer numbers who benefit hugely by not being constrained by a PAYE regime.

Equally if an open system is not adopted universally across nations, we might see that oft quoted "I cannot stand this country anymore and I am off to tax haven x,y or z", become a more frequent reality, with evaders and avoiders departing these shores.

But then, given a little more time, some disadvantages in the proposition might be found.

What does that tell us?

The absence of TAX returns (who has left) will show clearly who is not contributing to this country. In money terms they were probably avoiding taxes in the first place, so no loss for us, just an embarrassment for them.

How difficult was for a sitting Lord to be exposed in the current system? Would there be more scandals to come out?

As for being universally open, it has to start from somewhere. Norway is one, why couldn't UK be next? I seem to remember that we were the first country to introduce civil partnerships. How many countries followed us?

the article says she was specifically talking about 'yummy mummies' who marry rich men and put their energies into raising children rather than concentrating on their careers."

Rich family or poor, any child would benefit having his/her mother around in the first few years and it is up to us to decide what to choose career or family. So, mind your own business, dear Cherrie!

I agree . My children are young and I have worked a year after the first birth and 5 months after the second due to necessity. It has been very hard and many compromises have had to be made. We have had to subsidise the work part in order not to get locked out of the jobs market. Work from my experience isn't particularly considerate of parents with young children. Legislation helps but it's not robust enough and employers just get round it all by being devious. If you can afford not to have to work in the early years then don't. The children can still benefit from nursery , playground etc but overall it could be less stress for all concerned.

Second income would be great for our household. Even if I would find something, it would come to pay childminder and travelcard, so it does not make much sense for me until my younger one will start the reception.
Talking about ambition, I do know what I would like to do, but I am currently drained and cannot really afford to pay oversees tuition fees.