The Victimal Hierarchy.
Can I pose a question to you? When you go to fill up your car, do you search out the most expensive petrol to buy? No?
Surely you have a moral duty to do so? You earn your money in the UK, yes? Then surely just because the law currently allows you to shop around for the cheapest place to buy your petrol that is no excuse for taking advantage of the law? If you live near the southern ports, do you think it reasonable to cross the channel to buy cigarettes and wine in France?
Are you not exhibiting signs of tax avoidance by shopping around, since certainly VAT increases in direct proportion to the base price – the more you pay for fuel, the more VAT the government recovers? Wouldn’t that be behaving like our MPs who claimed that maximising their expenses was ‘allowed’ by the rules?
So do you think that perhaps you have a moral duty to pay as much into the exchequer as possible, or do you think the government should pass laws that stop you shopping around for the cheapest fuel, forcing you to pay the maximum for fuel that you could, out of the money you earn in the UK?
Or does size matter? Do you only have this moral duty when you reach a certain income bracket? Can morality be adjusted to ‘fit’ like a pair of too long trousers?
I’m sure you have twigged why I am asking – the spectacle of first Google in the UK, and now Apple in the US being forced to take the ‘perps’ walk and be hauled in front of the nation like naughty schoolboys to have their bottom smacked for shopping around and finding the cheapest place to pay their taxes – as allowed by the laws passed by those very same MPs? If they do have a moral duty to pay more than the law says they should, then we need to be told where the cut off point is; shall we have jobs advertised in the Guardian – a vacancy arrives for a new Director of Social Services: Pay scale – ‘off the wall’, morality laws apply! Should Lottery tickets carry a warning that ‘morality laws may apply if this is a winning ticket’. Will we see afternoon TV adverts asking whether ‘you were told or understood’ that morality laws could apply to you if your sister bought you a winning lottery ticket?
Just asking like. Because we seem to be entering a whole new world of laws that only apply in certain emotive circumstances, according to the result of the latest focus group. Pinch a bottom in Gateshead when you are a nonentity and you are a cheeky chappy, pinch a bottom 40 years ago and then become famous, and you are a paedophile. Have sex with 14 Pakistani’s and you are exercising a ‘lifestyle choice’; refuse to have sex with one geriatric entertainer and you are a traumatised victim for life. Shop around for where to pay your fag tax and you are a hard pressed working man, shop around for where to pay your corporation tax and you are an evil conglomerate.
It is not just in the land of law that the victimal hierarchy applies; we have a classic example in the world of hand outs. Specifically hand-outs in respect of sex. This is not to be confused with prostitution, I know both of them involve a payment for sex, but this is totally different. It is understandable if you are confused. One is a voluntary payment made by the purchaser to a hard pressed ‘sex worker’ honestly toiling her way through the beds – or back seats – of the nation’s menfolk; the other is a retrospective payment for ‘closure’ made by the nation’s tax payers 40 years later to people who were too scared to put their hand out up at the time.
We have had Mssrs Pannone & Co complaining that Savile’s estate which had been left to several charities for the benefit of unknown victims of something or other was ‘being stripped out. It’s as if they’ve thought they can make money out of this, as if they’ve viewed the whole thing as a gravy train’.
Wow! We can’t have victims of say quadriplegia viewing Savile’s estate as a gravy train – that money should be going to proper victims. Real victims of groping and pinching and serious stuff like that.
Except that not everybody agrees. A surprising ‘not everybody’. Like The National Association for People Abused in Childhood.
They have ‘concerns about large amounts of money being given directly to victims‘. They think ‘It’s not always helpful to dole money out to individual survivors’, in fact their Chief Executive says: ’I know from personal experience that for vulnerable people, receiving large sums of money is not always the best thing. Money should always come with an offer of help and support. We think survivor organisations are better placed to manage that.’
Or put another way – they think they should be in the first carriage of the gravy train, quite who should be in the second carriage is not clear – the quadriplegics or the gluteus maximus tāctumii?
They’ll be lucky if there’s even standing room – the lawyers are already in the window seats, full English breakfast and an ironed copy of the Times on order. Leafing through their Latin phrasebook to find a suitable term for ‘me first’!
Will the ‘morality laws’ apply to the winners when the train finally comes to rest?
May 29,
2013 at 22:18
-
Worked it out, posted!
- May 29,
2013 at 22:13
-
It may be a function of my not posting there for a while, but either way,
can’t post.
- May 29,
2013 at 17:18
-
Btw, seem to have lost the ability to post over at Moor’s blog. Wants me to
verify who I am or something.
-
May 29, 2013 at 17:40
-
@Mewsical I just tried it and I had no probs
- May 29,
2013 at 15:49
-
Ironic that the acronym is FACT as there is usually very little of that
attached to some of the accusations.
-
May 29, 2013 at 16:45
-
@Mewsical – you are being too kind my dear. I see NO facts at all
attached to the allegations save the FACT that they have been made
- May 29, 2013 at 12:39
-
For everyone’s info – FACT (falsely accused teachers and carers) have now
linked Moor’s blog to their site.
-
May 28, 2013 at 13:28
-
The tax system is being gamed. It has nothing to do with obeying laws. Can
I suggest an alternative approach to taxation called approximate fairness. HMG
passes suitable laws to permit the following behaviour. HMG says to’
international corporation A’ (ICA) ‘If you wish to trade in the UK and make
profits from supplying your services to UK citizens we expect you to pay some
10% of those profits to our exchequer. You will tell us what profits you have
made, and you will send us the tax owed. If we do not believe your account you
will be summarily banned from trading in the UK until you mend your ways. No
further explanations will be given and ICA can decide how to behave. ICA will
realise it is easier to err on the generous side as the uncertain prospect of
a trading ban, and corporations hate uncertainty, would make it not worthwhile
to underpay. The assets of ICA would not be seized, they could make a new tax
payment offer and recommence trading, or they could withdraw from the UK. It
could make collecting cheaper and easier for HMG, and constantly nerve
wracking for ICA. Boot moved to other foot.
- May 28, 2013 at 17:06
-
It is their *profits* that the arguing is about. They cannot evade PAYE
or VAT or Employers NHI contributions so far as I am aware. It’s pinning
down what is “profit” that lies at the heart of the debate. Many UK-based
companies will routinely reinvest into their buildings and capital assets
explicitly to avoid paying Corporation tax, and plough money back into “the
business”. The tax regime is designed to encourage that, just as companies
can offset “entertaining costs”, which often may include wining and dining
local dignitaries.
- May 24, 2013 at 12:47
-
@ Ellen
Aw, big hug. It must be worthwhile in the end.
- May 25, 2013 at 12:43
-
- June 1, 2013 at 00:56
-
@Ellen
£212k for Glen Coe I read, despite the papers saying it would
only go for £80k….
That
should help fund a very worthy cause…
Good
fortune with all of it.
Moor x
- May 24, 2013 at 11:36
-
@Ellen – kind thoughts and a big cyber hug to you – chin up gal
- May 25, 2013 at 12:43
-
- May 23, 2013 at 01:19
-
Directors have a duty to pay as little tax as is (legally) possibly so as
to protect the interests of their shareholders. They are required so to do. It
is is indeed a moral issue! They have accepted a duty of care and are required
to act upon it as well as they are able. That governments with all their
powers are unable to outwit them is neither here nor there.
And that Margaret Hodge can show her face and spout her hypocrisy is beyond
parody. “If you are dissatisfied by my behaviour before the law, Madam, please
do, if you are able, explain to me how it differs from yours.”
- May 23, 2013 at 08:19
-
Agreed but we expect much of our MPs, and being in receipt of substantial
expenses and allowances rather takes the sting out of PAYE.
I’m told that
an increasingly common practice in small companies is to allocate shares and
pay staff a share bonus or dividend as a substantial part of their salary.
Avoiding NICs and reducing tax due. Not in a position to do it myself so
haven’t investigated, but if it’s within the rules, why wouldn’t you?
For
all the alleged tax avoidance of the major internationals, I don’t suppose
there are evil gloating CEOs with treasure filled warehouses, and there are
only so many boats and Ferraris one person can use. Those profits, however
they are distributed keep the system going.
And no I don’t like it
either, but governments would make me much happier if they worked on
spending less rather than finding ways to collect ever more taxes.
- May 23, 2013 at 09:10
-
This is drifting off the original point which is not about the making
of profits per se, but more related to where they are accounted for.
I don’t object to any corporation making profits. It is, as you say,
how the world goes round. The problem is that corporations are generating
revenue in one place, meeting the direct costs incurred there but then,
instead of then leaving a reasonable part of the profits generated there,
to help with cover the indirect costs incurred in the maintenance and
general development of the host location, they are repatriating those
elsewhere (or should that be expatriating them?) leaving the entire burden
of the nation’s indirect costs on that host’s local population
They can do it because the legislation is crap, but just because you
can do anything doesn’t make it good, fair, or ‘right’. As for director’s
fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, if the shareholders have
agreed that their corporation should practise ethical investment and/or
trading policies, as many do, one can also argue that if they manipulate
the system on a grossly excess basis, rather than one which seems ‘just’
or ‘fair’ – how anyone measures those is a whole different ballgame – then
they haven’t actually discharged their fiduciary duties properly
either
- May 23, 2013 at 11:07
-
“They can do it because the legislation is crap, but just because you
can do anything doesn’t make it good, fair, or ‘right’.”
But it does make it necessary that the Directors do it! As Yoda said
about taxation, “There is no fair; only legal.”
Google for instance is the very epitome of a global business. What
does it actually do anywhere (that incurs these direct costs) that it
could not do somewhere else? So its Directors have a duty to do theses
things wherever and to report them in such a manner as minimises the
burden to their shareholders. That an international business uses the
margins between national taxation rates should not surprise us. The hype
is just nonsense, and it’s nonsense which cannot be won. Google will
probably through a few hundred million at it – “Aren’t we nice people!”
– and charge it to the PR ledger.
- May 22, 2013 at 23:43
-
@ Ted Treen May 22, 2013 at 23:14
Couple of things.
The speeding issue is not the same. The law is clear. Accidents are
inevitably going to happen. The aim is to ensure that, first of all, everyone,
you, me, my mum, whoever is given a modicum of security by reducing both the
number of accidents that will happen and the level of adverse resultant
consequences. Secondly, those that do cause serious damage to others can get
punished for their bad behaviour. So break the law and you may well get nicked
if they spot you doing so,
That’s no different from what would happen if you are caught in any clear
act of tax evasion. But tax avoidance is more like having ‘Mr Loophole’ (q.v.)
getting you off on a technicality. You know you weren’t supposed to be
speeding, the law says you shouldn’t, but you did and he got you off. It’s not
a perfect parallel, by any means, but it’s as close as makes the point, I
hope
Otherwise, are you really saying that all taxes are bad, and everything
done with them by those that collect them will be waste and misuse? Or can I
assume you had a nice glass of red with the evening meal and got carried away?
LOL
BTW, I’m not sure but what the Norwegian Blue might not be Ms Parrott? –
and as for Ms R’s thoughts, what might they really be? She’s good at dropping
pebbles in the pond, and throwing sticks for the dogs to fetch, but sometimes
it’s difficult to know if it’s merely for the fun of watching the ripples, or
because she’s maybe just a kitten disguised in a raccoon skin, watching, at
her leisure, as everyone else chases the stick for her. As the Cat said in Red
Dwarf: You’d never get a cat to be a servant. You ever see a cat return a
stick? “Hey, man! You threw the stick, you go get it yourself! I’m busy! If
you wanted the stick so bad, why’d you throw it away in the first place?”
- May 23, 2013 at 15:47
-
Sorry, but I disagree. The basic question is observance of the law. Under
the British legal system – different to many others – everything is
permitted except that which is expressly forbidden.
If our lawmakers draft laws requiring payment of a certain percentage of
your (or a company’s) income in a defined set of circumstances, and you can
set yourself outside those circumstances, then they have absolutely no right
to berate you and say that they didn’t mean for that to happen.
They DO have a right (and every justification) for saying “We’ve screwed
up again:- let’s amend the circumstances specified to prevent any
recurrence”, although I’d no more trust them to do that than I’d trust them
to organise festivities in a brewery.
You’re putting words which I did not utter into my mouth: my evening meal
consisted of a couple of rounds of toast and some delightful Ardennes Paté –
£0.69p at ASDA, I haven’t had a glass of wine in several years, in fact the
only booze I have at home is the extremely cheap & weak bitter (again
ASDA) at around £1 for four large cans – and I’ve only had two of those
since Christmas!
I do feel that yes, we are far too heavily taxed: we pay an overall rate
which had it been imposed just a few hundred years ago, would have ensured
the tax-imposing monarch would have been Wat Tylered to death very quickly.
I feel also that far too much of the monies stolen from us are wasted on the
PIMPS’ vanity projects – and before anyone castigates me for not caring
about the less fortunate members of our society;- I DO care – about the
genuine deserving ones. I just have difficulty with others telling me that I
must go against my own beliefs in order to satisfy theirs.
- May 22, 2013 at 23:35
-
Like any of us are going to make a difference to this issue.
- May 22, 2013 at 23:49
-
Awww!. A future PM may be reading as you write…
-
May 23, 2013 at 23:23
-
Could that be you?? I’ll give you yes!
-
May 23, 2013 at 23:33
-
BTW, If I had a lot of money and employed a lot of people I wouldn’t
pay tax if it wasn’t written down in the tax collectors bible that I had
to. I can’t see how that is tax avoidance. If the tax office can’t think
of all the ways one has to pay their taxes tough. Why should anyone
volunteer to pay monies that haven’t been asked for. It’s not up to the
tax payer to do the job HMRC is paid for.
As it is I don’t have a lot
of money so just wait for the bill and pay it.
- May 22, 2013 at 20:54
-
It is a tad hypocritical of any UK government, or many of its citizens, to
complain about others taking legal opportunities to minimise their tax
liabilities. This is the same UK government which promotes ISAs as a
‘tax-free’ savings scheme, and those same citizens who hold ISAs – the only
reason for holding an ISA is to avoid taxation on the gains, yet the
government actively encourages this approach amongst its population. Hardly a
surprise then when that same population gets successful and seeks to shelter
its other gains from the tax-man, they’re only following the official guidance
laid down.
If you offer a woman £1m to sleep with you, and she agrees, that’s OK. If
you then offer her 50p and she says “What kind of woman do you think I am ?”,
the answer’s pretty obvious. You’ve already established what kind of woman she
is, you’re now merely haggling about the price. The position with corporate
legal tax-avoidance and ISAs is exactly the same, only the scale is
different.
So if you’ve got any money in ISAs, please don’t bitch about others using
tax-avoidance higher up the tree – you’re all in the same game, just on
different rungs of the ladder.
- May 22, 2013 at 23:01
-
The scope for using ISAs is clearly defined and limited. Presumably they
were introduced to encourage the habit of saving, something that was once
considered a ‘good‘ thing, just as there are taxes on tobacco and
alcohol as ‘bad‘ things, rather than as revenue raisers.
We are now operating in the pyramid scam era of encouraging debt so as to
bring forward sales and encourage ‘growth’, (aside:: what about
‘sustainability’?). Accordingly saving is now discouraged by interests rates
that are way below inflation and this is reflected in the derisory ISAs now
on offer. Indeed it could be argued that the ‘tax free’ element is just a
marketing subsidy to the banks.
Making use of ISAs is NOT tax avoidance, it is just accepting a vestigial
‘nudge’ from government to save.
As to the law makers – well I wish Margaret Hodge lived in a ‘glass
house’ where members of the public could be as free with the slander as she
is as she sits in her seat of privilege and perhaps ask her about the
‘morality’ of her inheritance tax avoidance arrangements.
- May 22, 2013 at 23:09
-
I think I could second all of that…..
-
May 23, 2013 at 12:53
-
“…there are taxes on tobacco and alcohol as ‘bad‘ things, rather than
as revenue raisers…”
I would admire your simple faith, but it seems like extreme naivety.
And before anyone calls me cynical, please remember that a cynic is a
realist with experience.
- May 23, 2013 at 13:56
-
XX please remember that a cynic is a realist with experience.XX
YES!!!! Well said!
-
May 23, 2013 at 20:33
-
Another version: A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist.
-
May 22, 2013 at 19:50
-
If there is a complaint to be laid at anyone’s door, it is surely at the
door of those who introduced and tinkered with tax laws so that they have
become some labyrinthine that it is worth paying the exorbitant fees charged
by the tax boutiques to implement the schemes, namely the members of
parliament who are whinging so much about tax avoidance. When G4S got it
wrong, they had a go at G4S. When newspapers broke the law, they did not just
ask for the law to be properly and equitably enforced, but brought in the
facility to censor the press under the guise of Levison. But when they get it
wrong, it’s everybody else’s fault. Hypocrites to a man and woman all. The
simply want to live life on the high hog on the back of my, and everyone
else’s labour.
Have they forgotten that in one tax case, the judge ruled that it is
perfectly permissable for a person to order their affairs so that they pay the
minimum tax required under the law and no more.
They certainly have forgotten that their rules are much less stringent than
those of the ordinary folks, especially the wage slaves whose expenses, to be
free of tax, must wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purposes of
employment, and should they not understand, I am certain that Baroness
Mallalieu will explain what that ruling meant to her when she was a trainee
barrister.
- May 22, 2013 at 23:06
-
I hate it when people quote decisions that might as well have been from
another time and a different planet as if this justifies things that are so
obviously wrong now that an alien arriving would notice it. Lord Clyde’s
reasoning is shown in full up above. It comes from 1929. While the principle
is fairly reasonable in itself over time, the world has changed beyond all
recognition and the gameplay is so much different. We’re not talking about
some provincial Scottish bus company
Otherwise, it all becomes more like the romantic foolishness that says
that the 2nd Amendment provisions should be unchallengeable because in no
way are they directly incompatible with circumstances today, albeit that
they were written when it took, at best, about 15secs to reload a flintlock
rifle, when today you use an Uzi to fire 50 bullets in 6 seconds, and it
would take about 30 minutes for a terrorist drive from Boston to Lexington
in a truck that has the capacity to hold enough HE to kill almost as many
died in combat the Revolutionary War
As my son told me (seriously), a long time ago, when he was 5, ‘Things
are different now, Dad’
-
May 23, 2013 at 04:45
-
You may know a little about automatic weapon firing rates, you
obviously know nothing about flintlock rifle reloading requirements and
even less about the US constition and the second amendment. Hint, the
constitution encompasses the Bill of Rights those rights are
inalienable.
Since you like the sound of your own voice so much, perhaps you could
expound upon inalienable then move on to the amending formula for
amendments to the constition-that should be fun.
UK Fred -you talked a lot of sense, of course governments have been
remiss in updating tax law.
-
May 23, 2013 at 09:30
-
I knew that. As I also know that people had an inalienable belief
that the Earth was flat. As some now know for certain that there are
shape changing aliens already amongst us.
I’m not mocking the American Constitution. Too long ago now, I read
through it, and the Amendments, in their entirety. It’s something to die
for, with underlying principles that support individual freedom which I
dearly wish we had equivalents here to rely on, and indeed it shows just
what a great deal of sense they had in throwing out the English.
But the laws of the Medes and Persians were unalterable in their time
and where are they now? Things change. Because they have to.
-
May 23, 2013 at 12:50
-
“..As some now know for certain that there are shape changing
aliens already amongst us…”
How else could you account for Peter Mandelson..?
-
May 23, 2013 at 15:45
-
You confuse certainty with inalienable, rather like Obama.
- May 23, 2013 at 11:16
-
XX you obviously know nothing about flintlock rifle reloading
requirements XX
Three per minute…. SAFELY….(?) hmmm.
I average at two and a half per minute, SAFE! (Brown Bess and Baecker
(sp?))
& pounder cannon…. nun, SAFE, one per minute. When no one is
looking….
- May 23, 2013 at
11:17
-
6 Ponder that should read.
I can assure you, I am safer with a cannon than with a key
board!
- May 23, 2013 at 11:24
-
It’s all getting a bit Dallas Book depository now…………….
-
May 23, 2013 at 12:18
-
Mr Larkin, did you know that you can test out the conspiracy
theories by trying the Book Depositary thing for yourself? Do a search
for ‘JFK reloaded’. Albeit electronic bolt action is probably not
quite the same
- May 23, 2013 at
13:43
-
I would like to see him get a canon up there!
- May 22, 2013 at 19:42
-
Suggestion – Let’s have a ‘Law’ that says it is an offence to avoid
speeding fines by deliberately driving at slightly less than the limit?
AND
–
Tax all Lottery WINNERS at 75% – on the basis that everyone who bought a
ticket might otherwise have spent their quid on revenue-boosting ciggies or
booze
- May 22, 2013 at 22:33
-
Ok, and let’s also increase the insurance tax on all those whose premiums
fall because they didn’t hit anyone else
And a tax on using pixels on a screen unnecessarily as well
-
May 23, 2013 at 12:47
-
Let me tell you how it will be
There’s one for you, nineteen for
me
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don’t take it
all
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah I’m the taxman
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax
your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a
walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some
more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman
Written by George Harrison – Performed by the Beatles (Revolver,
1966)
And 47 years on….
plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
- May 23, 2013 at 13:52
- May 22, 2013 at 19:41
-
One question I would love to have answered, do any of the politicians and
left wingers criticising Apple, Google et al ,pay more tax than they
need?
No, did not think so.
- May 22, 2013 at 17:38
-
This part of the UK thinks that Google and Apple (and others) are behaving
exactly as they should. The fault lies entirely with the politicians that set
up the law and those who are currently showing no signs of changing it.
Companies are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders and
volunteering to pay extra tax when they don’t have to is pretty close to not
so behaving.
- May 22, 2013 at 18:01
-
True. And it may not matter what you do when you have a virtual monopoly,
and the fanbois can see you doing no wrong as long as you continue to
deliver the goods to sate their technical desires, but when the novelty
wears off and some serious competetion builds up, a fickle public might well
bite back once it has had time to sit back and think a little harder, and
those who benefited from this now may just wish that they had remembered
that maintaining one’s good name and image over time has a cost. Sometimes
you have to spend short term to gain in the long run. Let’s see what the
picture looks like in 5 to 10 years time. That’s the timescale that matters
here.
- May 22,
2013 at 17:38
-
The Savile Estate is obviously going to fight these claims, and lawyers at
this level don’t come cheap. Although I assume Pannone may be functioning on a
contingency basis, advancing costs for the ’40 clients,’ the clients need to
understand that there will not be much left after the lawyers have been paid –
on both sides – and I’m sure the Estate will request all the information on
all the claims, so that they can evaluate the validity of all of them. By the
time this gravy train rolls into town, there won’t be much left for the
greedy-guts ‘victims’ to ‘rebuild their lives’ with than a mere sop. If they
get anything at all.
And, btw, when are the press going to learn to use the term “alleged” when
it comes to Savile’s rumored actions. He has been proven guilty of absolutely
nothing so far.
And as for these ‘ruined lives,’ don’t get me started. What ‘ruined
lives’??
-
May 22, 2013 at 20:39
-
In truth, the Savile Estate is not the real target for the claims –
there’s not enough dosh in it.
The ultimate targets are the deep-pocketed
BBC, NHS, Police, etc. who may all be accused of vicarious liability for the
‘offences’ and thus open to an infinite range of compo claims (moderate,
although creative) and lawyers’ expenses (outrageous).
- May 23, 2013 at 02:56
-
In other words from the poor taxpayer and maybe from charity, I expect
the charities will put up a fight, they are good at that, but I will be
livid though not surprised, if the rest knuckle under despite there being
absolutely no proof yet that any of the stories are true or grossly
magnified relatively minor incidents that any normal person would long
have forgotten.
- May 23, 2013 at 09:09
-
@carol42
There is indeed no *proof*, but to be fair, unless you
have *pictures*, how could you *prove* it. The more galling thing is
that I have yet to find a single allegation that stands scrutiny under
the simplest of tests: When, where and how. The fact that many of the
tales make the same mistakes firmly corroborates that they are telling
much the same badly organised lie.
In terms of “magnification”, one recent allegation I reviewed was a
woman who claims she was 17 and pregnant in 1966. Savile allegedly
squeezed her boobs when she asked for an autograph. According to the
press this event “scarred her for life” whereas the really sad fact that
three months later her baby was stillborn, is passed over as mere
window-dressing to the tale. The comparisons of ‘importance’ the story
holds up is quite odious.
On the *pictures* front, I was reading a report about a case recently
where a woman claimed assault by three men, but it turned out that one
of them had been videoing the fun on a mobile, and the footage
demonstrated she was anything but unwilling at the time, however much
she might have regretted it later. Remarkably, the case was thrown out.
I was surprised that a further charge of ‘invasion of privacy’ wasn’t
applied. I would ad a lol-smiley, but none of this sort of sordid modern
behaviour strikes me as funny. Thank God I grew up in the more moral
times of the Seventies when people like Jimmy Savile became celebrities
on the back of doing charity work, rather than putting their personal
porn videos on the internet and flashing their privates to the
papparazzi.
-
May 23, 2013 at 21:42
-
Totally agree, I simply can’t believe that any money would be paid
out without the allegations passing even the most cursory test and I
can’t understand why none of the media are even attempting to try and
check their stories.
-
May 23, 2013 at 09:45
-
Unfortunately, it will cost less in both monetary and reputational
terms to buy them off. As I wrote on a previous thread, the plaintiffs
lawyers seem to be applying something like a form of pressure that is
almost akin to a form of moral blackmail – ie ‘Do you really want to be
seen to be contesting claims from such ‘innocent victims’ and making
them suffer even more than they have already? Shame on you…..’
The mud that would stick from the months and months of press outrage
and general public opprobrium that would arise in doing so will stick
much more firmly, and be remembered for much longer, than any credit you
would ever get for the fact that you might have won in the end.
- May 23, 2013 at 09:59
-
This just seems another version of “the ends justifies the
means”.
Who cares what the *result* is? It’s the only fight to live
that makes life itself worth the effort most of the time.
mudplugger probably pinpoints those who will most certainly just
*pay up*, and as carol42 points out they are all the same
organisations who never had to “earn” the money they will give to
these deluded or deceitful people. I do wonder about the mental health
of the country when strange weirdo’s like Peter Saunders end up
dominating the *Establishment*. Lizards would seem far moor
welcome.
Easy for me to talk I appreciate. None of it is my money either……….
-
May 24, 2013 at 09:24
-
Blackmail is exactly right………. some days its “bring it on”, others,
its being downright scared. Wish it would all stop. Because his money
was going to Charity, how come that is not good enough for any
ALLEDGED Victim – I do not understand any of this, and need a great
big cyber hug!!!!
E xxx
-
May 24, 2013 at 13:09
-
Ellen,
Re: “Blackmail is exactly right………. some days its “bring it on”,
others, its being downright scared. Wish it would all stop. Because
his money was going to Charity, how come that is not good enough for
any ALLEDGED Victim – I do not understand any of this, and need a
great big cyber hug!!!!E xxx”
Keep your chin up Ellen, it is emotional blackmail, but are THEIR
intentions honorable? I think their just trying to bully anyone who
won’t tow the line, but are THEY right?
I think you are doing the right thing standing up for what you
believe and think is rights regardless of what the bullies, probably
with alterior agendas, try and force you to believe/accept.
The only charity they probably want to see the money go to is their
own pocket really….
-
May 23, 2013 at 10:46
-
@Carol42/Ho Hum/Moor
Worse is to come – the NHS invesigation will no doubt find that JS is
GUILTY – I remember reading somewhere (I think in the Leeds version – oh
yes EACH trust will be doing this) that they not only encouraged
‘victims’ to come forward but ANYONE who just SUSPECTED that JS had
behaved inappropriately ….. oh dear the govt may get it’s wish to sell
off the NHS sooner than it thought !!!!
http://www.speakingoutleeds.co.uk/
- May 23, 2013 at 11:04
-
@rabbitaway
The only ones who might have motivation speak up for
Jimmy are his “Trust”. I hope they do. The millions left behind might
just as well be squandered on worthless lawyers as worthless
‘charities’ or worthless ‘victims’.
Not in his name at least would be my hope. Rorkes Drift and all
that, although at least they had an honourable enemy.
- May 23, 2013 at 11:11
-
Hmmm, I don’t know if all the defendants involved Will be quite the
pushovers that we suspect (fingers crossed here). I just looked at the
Dame Janet Smith BBC Review website and notice that they have been
collecting documentary evidence as to the dates and identity of JS’s
addresses; the same with BBC premises; and program guides etc (Moor
Larkin will find this encouraging). I’m hoping that this signifies a
properly robust attempt to separate BS and rumour from ‘potentially
true’ accounts.
I’m not sure we need to write off the NHS
review/inquiry as a dead loss just yet. West Yorkshire Police made
similar pleas for anyone and everyone to come forward with anything at
all. They duly investigated the tales put forward and found that none
appeared to be factual. Its extremely likely that the NHS situation
will be the same.
- May 23, 2013 at 15:43
-
You are on the button Mewsical —the law of Tort ( lawyers language for
compensation for breach of non contractual rights —think bodily and mental
injury in road traffic accidents, child abuse and much else beside) is in a
mess. There has been a movement, Tort Law Reform that has been trying to
inculcate some sense. As a rough rule of thumb for every £1 paid to a
claimant £3 are paid to lawyers and for other administrative expenses. Sure
there are inflated claims and the law provides for the egg shell skull
principle namely that when you cause harm to someone there is a subjective
test of damage but leaving that aside the whole system of two sides battling
out each and every point of evidence, liability and quantum doubles the
expenses of each claim —and if they can’t agree then there is the court as
well. —-most cases are settled on a commercial basis —-not on legal merit
—basically buying out risks of litigation and irrecoverable legal costs.
Actually leaving money aside what is at the heart of what is wrong is
unfairness or injustice —-something of lawyers benefitting more than the
injured and a feeling of moral hypocrisy. But there is a point that it is
just the system —-Apple avoids taxes coz that is the way our lords and
masters legislate in tax matters —lawyers have to deal with claims in the
best ‘financial’ interests of their clients within the system provided by
the same lords and masters —no political will to change things coz until
there are votes on something no politician is going to take a blind bit of
notice —but the system in relation to tortious loss is every bit as
corrosive to Society as multinational who are seen as not paying tax —–both
appear unjust and unfair. Both are possible of reform but that takes
political will
You may or may not be surprised that educational
institutions lay off the risks of child abuse claims in the Insurance Market
—strikes me as a rather dangerous principle really —-commercial insurers and
commercial lawyers dealing with something that has rather greater importance
than just monetary loss —but hey that is how the system is until its changed
—mind you it provides some pretty good tax revenues for the government and
keeps some people such as some lawyers happy—well those who think its a
worthwhile way to spend their lives doing such things
- May 22, 2013 at 16:24
-
Apropos of nothing moor than mischief, I’ve just reminded myself that there
is no VAT on the sale of newspapers…….. Iniquitous!!…..
- May 22, 2013 at 16:57
-
Free riding Mailites…..
- May 22, 2013 at 17:02
-
And now I think of it, what exactly is this tax dodge where charities
get me to tick a box and it means they get my non-existent tax paid back
to THEM….. How many moor bloody times do I have to contribute?!!…..
-
May 22, 2013 at 17:12
-
And there was me thinking that you might have approved of a
government making it easy for you to contribute towards the support of
the needy, without their doing it for you on a proxy basis of which you
might ideologically disapprove
- May 22, 2013 at 17:17
-
When the *savage cuts* were first being implemented a year or two
back, I was staggered to read in one report of Charities who were
getting 60% of their revenue from the government and being told there
would be no more. Presumably this sort of unsustainable economic model
was one reason Childline was sold to the NSPCC.
-
May 22, 2013 at 17:34
-
‘Fake charities’ are nothing new. The Devils’s Kitchen produced a
list long long ago. There’s all sorts of info around on them.
- May 22, 2013 at 17:36
-
Are you referring to Childline?……………
-
May 22, 2013 at 17:48
-
I was thinking more of dust to dust etc…..
- May 22, 2013 at 22:41
-
If you don’t pay UK income tax you shouldn’t be ticking the ‘gift
aid’ box. The charity can’t legally claim back tax that you haven’t
paid.
- May 22, 2013 at 15:01
-
What IS ‘moral’? Last Sunday (19 May) BBC2 broacast a ‘documentary’ about
the racing driver Jackie Stewart. Some of it featured his current home in
England. Some had footage from when he moved to Switzerland – with a comment
that he had (in 1968) been paying “93% tax” and if he got killed- his widow
would have had very little to inherit.
[ @ 31:00 – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pw9c4/Racing_Legends_Jackie_Stewart/
]
- May 22, 2013 at 15:22
-
The tax mans taken all my dough,
And left me in my stately
home,
Lazing on a sunny afternoon.
And I can’t sail my yacht,
Hes
taken everything I’ve got,
All I’ve got’s this sunny afternoon.
Save me, save me, save me from this squeeze.
I got a big fat mama
trying to break me.
And I love to live so pleasantly,
Live this life
of luxury,
Lazing on a sunny afternoon.
-
May 23, 2013 at 12:39
-
Kinky!
- May 22, 2013 at 14:22
-
Some more morality tales
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/21/tim_cook_apple_senate_testimony/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/21/apple_tax_ireland/
and, while this is fun, there are other things to do…
- May 22, 2013 at 14:18
-
This makes for some more mind bending. A sale where you were, a sale here
and now, and a sale in a place yet to come. Maybe in future you may even have
to pay different VAT rates whilst enjoying yourself on the move…….
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/22/pan_european_music_streaming_bmw/
-
May 22, 2013 at 13:58
-
I have no morals. I win the lottery, then FUCK YOU ALL!!!
- May 22, 2013 at 14:12
-
That makes Vettel and Schumacher sound positively hilarious. Please don’t
mention the war, or I’ll die laughing
- May 22, 2013 at 15:20
-
Vettel might be hilarious, but Schuey was merely sublime. Vroom
vroom.
-
May 22, 2013 at 23:17
-
I wouldn’t dream of it:- the German sense of humour is no laughing
matter…
- May 23, 2013 at 00:48
-
EXACTLY!…..
BUT, you MAY be surprised.
-
May 22, 2013 at 12:38
-
I read this morning that an independent Scotland will “create 27,000 jobs”
by having their corporation tax a few percent lower than England (or whatever
we’ll call {UK-Scotland}. I think they mean “move 27,000 jobs northwards”.
So.
Corporation tax, UK = 23%
Ireland = 12.5%
You’d be barmy to make your sales out of the UK if you can legitimately
make them out of Ireland.
So what do we do, A) twist ireland’s arms to raise their corporation tax?
Or B) reduce ours? I can’t see A) working, so the obvious solution is B). Then
we’ll be able to scoop up some of that revenue.
Another possibility – change our tax rules so that somehow the UK sales are
taxed, even if the sales are made from Ireland. How to do that? Maybe increase
VAT rates? Would that work? I don’t know. I’m not a tax expert, but I feel
sure that they have tax experts in the UK Treasury.
VAT rate UK = 20%
Ireland = 23%
The fault is with out taxation legislation. Not with the people who are
obeying it. The “smoke and mirrors and evil” comes from our politicians. Not
from Google and Apple, Starbucks and M&S..
Sources:
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx
http://www.vatlive.com/vat-rates/european-vat-rates/eu-vat-rates/
- May 23, 2013 at 12:56
-
As just quoted in the BBC Live text on the Woolwich event
’1228: Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond condemns the murder of the
soldier in Woolwich as extraordinary brutality. He tells the Scottish
Parliament at Question time that the purpose of terrorists is to divide
communities, adding he will continue to try to hold communities together.
It’s a real pity it comes about from such a barbaric event, but if he
really said that, the inherent irony is almost beyond parody.
-
May 23, 2013 at 13:03
-
@Mr Hum – well said – it really is all very well to be ‘independent’
when the going is good
- May 22, 2013 at 11:48
-
Most of what Ms R says sounds fairly sensible. I have a query about the
corporate tax issue, though.
For this purpose, please let’s leave aside the issue about what resource
the state, on our behalf, decides are legitimate benefits than can, and should
be, paid to individuals on a ‘supportive’ basis, as if we confound this issue
by muddling that into the equation, the whole point I want to explore will be
lost in the resultant quagmire
Otherwise, I would venture that globalised corporate bodies do duck out of
their responsibilities at points, especially in respect of contributing to the
national finance of the countries where they are based. In short, they
benefit, but don’t contribute. They benefit from the infrastructure that is in
place, nationally created and funded transport systems; in some places, the
education and welfare systems that produce the staff they can use and help to
maintain their health; and so on. Most of these things are funded by general
taxation, VAT and Income Tax being the main contributions, as paid by you and
me. (And please don’t think that if they pay local taxes, that gets them off
the hook as a significant part of local services is funded from national
taxation anyway)
But if they only pay national minimum wage, and I think you will find that
some are very close to doing that, it is arguable that they are making their
profits on the backs of the rest of us, as their employees sure as hell aren’t
paying the amount of tax that is necessary to support the rest of what they
benefit from. If their profits were retained in the country of origin, and
distributed to shareholders there – which is in a large part you and me,
insofar as the major investors are the institutional investors who pool
whatever funds we have, directly or indirectly, for investment purposes – if
these profits were retained, fine, there is an argument that the money is
retained and, as spent here, is used to the benefit of that nation’s economy
insofar as some of that will contribute to the overall tax take. However, all
sorts of shenanigans are used to transfer the profits elsewhere, transfer
pricing, management charges, all sorts of artifices that while legal, really
don’t necessarily result in real income and real costs being accounted for in
the same place, with someone somewhere seeing a drain of funds out of their
economy into another.
Now it may be legal within the law as it stands, but if you rented part of
your house to someone who then whored themselves out in it, albeit very
successfully, paid a large chunk of their earnings to their pimp, and then had
the cheek to refuse to contribute to their share of the house running expenses
because of a poorly worded tenancy agreement, you’d probably be pretty mad and
I’d bet you would think that something was wrong with a world where that could
happen
So it’s not a moral issue, it’s a real issue. But I bet the corporations’
professional advisors and PR people are happy to see it portrayed as such, as
no-one likes moralists, especially those seeming to support any government
which might look like it’s trying to screw anyone
- May 22, 2013 at 11:56
-
“then had the cheek to refuse to contribute to their share of the house
running expenses because of a poorly worded tenancy agreement”
Some good points there Ho Hum – but surely those who poorly worded the
tenancy agreement should get on with rewording it rather than grandstanding
and labelling as ‘immoral’ those who are abiding by the terms of it?
- May 22, 2013 at 12:12
-
Isn’t the problem more that the worldly-wise tenant is so well off by
now that if you tell them you’re changing their tenancy agreement, they’ll
whistle up the Removals Van………….
- May 22, 2013 at 12:30
-
Yes. But getting the letter sorted takes time, and if it then just
continues for the hereafter as a battle of the words, the tax specialists
will have the next trick up their sleeves in no time. Some measure of
consensus from the outset as to how something suitable as a measure of
appropriate contribution could be developed and put in place would be
sensible, as well as some recognition that, if that’s OK, in its presence
absence a voluntary contribution might not go amiss.
I wouldn’t hold out much hope overall though, because while some
agreement might be reached now, as soon as new Pharoahs arise, who knew
not Joseph, it will all degenerate into fighting over the words again
But, like you, I’m not sure that anything’s going to be best effected
by a public slanging match initiated by a bunch of MPs, who the public see
as themselves being a shower of moral miscreants, liars and cheats.
There’s too much scope for this to slide into the territory of ‘Yah, boo,
sucks, you’re worse than us’
- May 22, 2013 at 13:59
-
I think the problem regarding companies like Google, Amazon, and
Microsoft is that there are other UK multinationals, for example BP,
Barclays that do the same kind of thing with the profits they make
overseas. BP owns a fleet of tankers, but are they registered in the UK?
What do you think? Oil companies like BP insure their tankers via wholly
owned subsidiary insurance companies based in places like the Cayman
Islands and Bermuda. What do we think of that?
So it isn’t quite so easy to change the rules without shooting the home
team in foot.
- May 22, 2013 at 12:39
- May 26, 2013 at 10:29
-
HO HUM has put the case succinctly and in a nutshell.
The great unfairness in the taxation system that is inherently unfair to
the majority and favours the minority: shareholders.
The waged earner
cannot organise his tax affairs so that his wage is paid in Vanuatu or
Ireland even though he works behind a chip counter in wapping.
When he
can base himself in cyberspace or The Caymans, only then will it be
fair.
But then of course who will pay for the ports and the roads in
Knighstbridge or the street lighting and police force and so on etc ect so
these greedy scrounging shareholders can enjoy to live in this splendid
country.
Of course people will avoid tax if they legally can. Who would
blame them ?
But there is something morally repugnant with the likes of Google who
fantasise they are saving Western civilisation despite the fact that produce
nothing except an internet portal and at the same hoover up advertising from
around the world putting millions of people employed in publishing and all
the add-on industries out of work, employ a tiny workforce that will get
tinier as each decade goes on and give nothing back to a country that for
5000 years has built up the necessary infrastructure and a civilised country
in order for it to prosper.
Anna Raccoon correctly points out that craven politicians bleat about
this yet do nil. My first choice and favoured option is to tar and feather
all politicians and run them out of town on a burning hay wagon but they may
be illegal so the second option is this :
After 9/11 the UK, USA and it’s
allies combined to threaten and demand the various tax havens like the
Bahamas, Switzerland and so on, to abandon the hosting of corporate entities
that posed as charities that supported terrorist organisations and these tax
havens caved in fearing the might of the USA : In other words motivated
politicians can do it if they want and indeed they should. The bastards.
- May 22, 2013 at 11:44
-
Saunders’ attitude to his own perceived abuser seems very different to what
he is recommending for the ‘abusers of others’ these days.
“And he doesn?t hate his abuser now; he feels sorry for him: I would love
for the guy who molested me to come and say sorry and admit it all. Because I
would say yeah, what you did was unforgivable, but I forgive you. I would also
tell him to get help. People who do that sort of thing need help. We can’t
just chop off their balls – there wouldn’t be many people left on the streets.
They need help before they’re let back into society. They can’t enjoy what
they do. The man who abused me is a sad, pathetic lonely character and he
needs help.”
http://www.nickryan.net/exhibition/survivor.html
It also sounds possible he could become subject to some historical
allegations himself:
“I was brought up to look at women as purely sex
objects. In my head, women were basically there for screwing. ”
It seems that like taxes, the sex abuse of others is to be treated very
differently to your own sex abuse.
-
May 22, 2013 at 10:57
-
“No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so
to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the
Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland
Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open
to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer’s
pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent,
so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland
Revenue”
James Avon Clyde, Lord Clyde KC DL (1863 – 1944)
Lord Justice
General and Lord President of the Court of Session from 1920 to 1935
- May 22, 2013 at 12:08
-
‘so far as he honestly can’
So it is a moral issue then?
Try defining what is and what’s not ‘honest’ in doing this sort of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_pricing
If only life were so simple as it was in 1929…………
-
May 22, 2013 at 14:24
-
In the case of tax, ‘honest’ is merely compliance with the law as it
stands, surely?
It could be argued that there is a general benefit to multi-national
companies minimising their tax liability, as that will result in lower
prices for the consumers and higher dividends for the shareholders, which
many of us are indirectly through pension funds and collective
investments. It could also be argued that the less of other people’s money
governments have to waste, the better.
There is a point regarding the differential tax treatment of
multi-nationals and smaller, locally based companies. Perhaps the law
should allow all companies, however small, to benefit from the free-trade
rules of the EU, and base their business in whatever country suits them
from a tax point of view.
Our legislators cannot have it both ways – allowing EU free trade
rules, then crying foul when companies do what those rules allow. Maybe
the UK should turn the situation to it’s advantage, and reduce corporation
tax rates to a level at which multi-nationals find it acceptable to base
their tax affairs in the UK.
-
May 22, 2013 at 14:35
-
A US Senator…see ‘morality tales below……Levin, ‘described how, during
the years from 2009 to 2012, Apple in the United States declared profits
of $38bn, while its Irish subsidiaries took in $74bn. In 2011 alone, he
said, 64 per cent of Apple’s global pretax income was recorded in
Ireland, despite just 4 per cent of Apple employees and 1 per cent of
Apple customers being located there.’
Honestly honestly honestly, sir, the accountants worked out that that
was absolutely true.
In other news, the Lower Liffey Icky Lizard Spotters declared that
the real reason for this apparent anomaly is that money is poured into
Ireland because the leprechauns there apply a magical economic
multiplier effect, and have transformed it into the richest country in
the world by ensuring that its capital is always Dublin…..
-
May 22, 2013 at 14:49
-
Well, if that’s legal, good for Apple and their customers and
shareholders. If it isn’t legal, throw the book at them.
- May 22, 2013 at 14:58
-
Bad governments are usually big governments and it is our duty to
help our countrymen and our descendants by reducing (bad) government.
The best way of doing that is:
– Pay as little tax as you can
legally get away with.
– Vote for parties that want smaller
government.
– Buy goods as cheaply as possible, as quality
allows.
or as Old Holborn succinctly puts it:
“Starve the beast”
Paying more tax than you are expected to is irresponsible and only
encourages the PIMPS (Political/Intergovernmental/Media/Public
Sectors) to expand and thrive at our expense and towards our
childrens’ ruination.
-
May 22, 2013 at 15:04
-
Out of curiosity, Mr Engineer, do you believe that everything that
is legal in the eyes and writ of the law is therefore morally right,
and that everything has been made illegal, and punishable, by the writ
of law, is therefore, by definition, also morally wrong? And is
morality something that is legitimately subject to polarity changes
when you cross from one country’s legal jurisdiction into that of
another?
-
May 22, 2013 at 16:18
-
In the case of tax, Mr Ho Hum, I do not think that moral arguments
apply, except for this. Governments have a moral obligation to use the
resources they take from people to best effect, for the common good.
In other words, they have a moral obligation not to squander public
money. They have no moral right to take the money of others, merely a
tacit agreement with the public to use some of the public’s own money,
collectively, for the common good of the public. There are plenty of
other ways in which the public could use it’s money; mutual societies,
charities, private enterprises and so on.
Paying tax is a legal requirement, not a moral one.
-
May 22, 2013 at 17:05
-
So, Mr Engineer,
anyone using a mere loophole in the letter of the law, to negate its
spirit and intent, to avoid paying the tax that they were expected to
contribute towards the welfare of the nation as a whole, is merely
making an amoral decision? I am reminded of Pharisees and Sadducees,
straining out gnats and swallowing camels. And let’s not even
contemplate what that can imply, as lying behind the phrase “I was
only obeying orders….”
- May 22, 2013 at 17:09
-
A colleague of mine suggested the principal ‘moral’ justification’
for businesses paying their “state” taxes was that the state hosting
them gave them a secure and safe environment in which to make their
profits. It remains the best piece of simple reasoning I’ve come
across.
So if Starbucks should complain, we should just tell them to coffee
off to Somalia……..
-
May 22, 2013 at 17:14
-
@ Moor Larkin May 22, 2013 at 17:09
Yep. That makes for a nicely succinct summary. I’d second that
- May
22, 2013 at 18:51
-
The lady from Oxford social services, who utterly failed to protect
the young girls she was responsible for, despite in all probability
knowing what was happening to them, was apparently paid the
staggeringly high salary of £180,000 a year. As long as the tax payer
is abused in this way, I feel a moral responsibility to pay the
absolute minimum in direct taxation.
-
May 22, 2013 at 19:14
-
Well, Mr Ho Hum, if there’s a loophole in the letter of the law,
it’s legal to use it, is it not? By all means campaign to have the
loophole closed, but don’t blame companies for doing what the law
allows. As for all this stuff about camels and gnats, I don’t see what
point you’re trying to make. Finally, tax law and the legal observance
of it is not quite in the same parish as state sponsored genocide, so
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make there, either.
It’s very simple. If you take on the responsibility of spending
someone else’s money on their behalf, you have a moral responsibility
to do so wisely, in their best interests, and with their consent.
Governments spend our money on our behalf, so they carry the moral
responsibility, not us mere taxpayers.
-
May 22, 2013 at 22:28
-
I’m afraid, Mr Engineer, that you’re possibly missing the point,
and I’m truly sorry that you can’t see the parable, or the parallels
Complying with the letter of any law, and feeling in any way self
righteous for having done so, when you know that the intent of the law
was something else, or perpetrating any outrage, just because the
letter of the law didn’t say exactly that you couldn’t do it in that
precise way, is amoral. In other words, the person doing so is
basically saying to the rest of humanity, I’m alright Jack, you can’t
touch me, so GFY…..a bit like our Teutonic colleague said
elsewhere
If people can live with that without their conscience troubling
them at all, well, being a psychopath may be related to more than just
direct personal violence, and there may be more of them about than we
ever realised..
BTW, here’s Google’s CEO’s latest on the matter
‘Executive chairman Eric Schmidt said governments, not firms, were
responsible for setting tax policy’.
Absolutely true
‘Mr Schmidt, who did not attend Mr Miliband’s speech, was later
asked about the comments, telling the audience: “I don’t think
companies should decide what tax policies should be. I think
governments should. “All of us are operating in a very, very
longstanding tax regime which was set up for various reasons that
don’t necessarily make sense to me or anyone else. But they are the
way the global tax regime works.” He added: “We are trying to do the
right thing. We are not trying to do the wrong thing.”
Also absolutely true. But isn’t the fact that he states that the
tax regime is longstanding and doesn’t make sense – (ie, and reading a
bit between the lines, it’s probably pre globalisation, and certainly
pre globalisation of electronic media revenue streams) – acknowledge
that even when anyone, such as he himself, doubtless, is trying to do
the right thing, it is actually getting the answers wrong? Not
‘morally’ wrong, just wrong.
-
May 22, 2013 at 23:14
-
I’m with Mr Parrot and our esteemed Landlady on this. I am obliged
to comply with the law – and permit the thieving PIMPS to help
themselves to a ridiculer proportion of my hard-earned which they will
then squander, lose or generally misuse.
If I were to take the same nebulous idea of “the spirit of the law”
and apply it to hmmm – motorway driving say, then when nabbed by Mr
Plod for doing 85-90mph on an otherwise deserted M54 at 0515hrs on a
fine July morning, I attempt to explain to him that “the spirit of the
law” is to safeguard others and prevent dangerous driving, neither of
which I was bringing about by driving a well-maintained motor car on
an empty motorway, I wonder if he’d say “You’re quite right Sir,
please continue and mind how you go.”
Somehow, I think the response is rather more likely to be “Don’t
get smart with me, matey – you’re nicked”.
There really is something totally unedifying about lawmakers
writing laws, then berating those who abide by them.
They’re ALL (the lawmakers, that is) rogues, thieves, charlatans,
incompetents and hypocrites!
- May 22, 2013 at 10:46
-
@ shop around for the cheapest place to buy your petrol that is no excuse
for taking advantage of the law? If you live near the southern ports, do you
think it reasonable to cross the channel to buy cigarettes and wine in France?
@
Not so long ago “we” were popping across the channel to buy our petrol AND
our cars………….. ;-D
That’s the “royal we” you understand, I myself always filled up my car
within enough juice to get back with, before I left these shores, since lord
knows what Johnny Foreigner had in those pumps…….
-
May 22, 2013 at 20:07
-
Funny that. I do the same thing going the other way. It’s not my fault if
mine comes cheaper.
- May 22,
2013 at 10:17
-
“We think survivor organisations are better placed to manage
that.”
Or as a 80s philosopher put it, ‘Gissa job!’
{ 109 comments }