|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tax Avoidance is a Sin
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
I'm going to have to quibble with that. Using tax loopholes, in the sense of glaring holes that would have been closed had legislators legislated more effectively isn't moral or ethical. It is, in my opinion, wrong. That can be justified if the government are, say, carrying out genocide against its citizens or committing crimes against humanity but, in other circumstances, I think it's harder to justify.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm going to have to quibble with that. Using tax loopholes, in the sense of glaring holes that would have been closed had legislators legislated more effectively isn't moral or ethical. It is, in my opinion, wrong. That can be justified if the government are, say, carrying out genocide against its citizens or committing crimes against humanity but, in other circumstances, I think it's harder to justify.
Governments that are carrying out genocide and committing crimes against humanity and you are judging its effectiveness by looking at tax legislation?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
Not in isolation, no, but certainly in the context of what is under discussion.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Not in isolation, no, but certainly in the context of what is under discussion.
Ok. To say tax avoidance is a sin is to say that once you calculate what your tax is you should pay even more. I'm not aware of anyone doing that on their sales tax, property tax, groceries, gasoline, utilities, clothes, etc., and have yet to see a reason why income taxes would be any different.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One could say that calculating one's taxes using loopholes was like taking advantage of a cashier who accidentally forgot to bill one for an item. I think many people would do both, but I doubt few people think either is perfectly ethical when not discussing their own conduct.
One would accurately say, though, that calculating their tax using so-called "loopholes" meant that they read the instructions and had a clue what they were doing. It isn't the cashier forgetting to ring something up, it is you using your 50 cents off coupons.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I don't think it helps if paying taxes is seen as 'handing over money to some politician.' At the moment, I'm fairly clear that, as a UK resident, my taxes pay for a health service that I support utterly and a range of other social programmes and benefits that, again, I support wholeheartedly. Were I to try and avoid this payment or in some way grudged it, my right to use these services at some point in the future would clearly be morally circumscribed.
No it wouldn't. Tax avoidance is nothing more than finding out what you are really required to pay and paying it. It is being aware and acting accordingly. Your using services is no more morally circumscribed than expecting to be able to, say, go in to the theater to see a movie because you didn't pay more than the price of the ticket.
A related point is the campaigns of many political parties to reduce taxes. There is a simple arithmetic; the government administers our money to supply the needs of a civilised society - quality health care free at the point of need, quality education for all, a justice system that works with law enforcement and criminal rehabilitation to support it, benefits to all who need them so that no one needs die for lack of basic human needs, etc. The government therefore needs money to supply those services, supplied through the tax system.
When politicians get elected on a platform of reduced taxation then those who vote for reduced taxes are defacto voting to reduce the money we as a society spend on the needs of our society. Yes, there often is scope for savings that don't affect services. But, in most cases, those savings reduce the quality of service to society. Then our society descends to something less civilised; quality health care becomes increasingly the preserve of those who can afford it, quality education becomes less available in areas where parents are less able to prop up the schools with support for new equipment, the legal system contends with more cases for less money and mistakes become more frequent, prisons become places to lock offenders away for the duration of their sentence rather than places to rehabilitate and reduce re-offending.
Voting for politicians who reduce your tax burden is another form of tax avoidance. And, the same moral questions are there. In fact, the moral questions are probably even more evident. It is when we stand in the privacy of the voting booth deciding which name to put our mark next to that we face some of the biggest moral questions in our society.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One could say that calculating one's taxes using loopholes was like taking advantage of a cashier who accidentally forgot to bill one for an item. I think many people would do both, but I doubt few people think either is perfectly ethical when not discussing their own conduct.
One would accurately say, though, that calculating their tax using so-called "loopholes" meant that they read the instructions and had a clue what they were doing. It isn't the cashier forgetting to ring something up, it is you using your 50 cents off coupons.
In my comparison, the cashier corresponds to the government. The person who doesn't tell the cashier they screwed is the one who is the tax payer (or tax not payer.)
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One could say that calculating one's taxes using loopholes was like taking advantage of a cashier who accidentally forgot to bill one for an item. I think many people would do both, but I doubt few people think either is perfectly ethical when not discussing their own conduct.
One would accurately say, though, that calculating their tax using so-called "loopholes" meant that they read the instructions and had a clue what they were doing. It isn't the cashier forgetting to ring something up, it is you using your 50 cents off coupons.
In my comparison, the cashier corresponds to the government. The person who doesn't tell the cashier they screwed is the one who is the tax payer (or tax not payer.)
That doesn't correspond to tax avoidance, though, but to tax evasion.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Voting for politicians who reduce your tax burden is another form of tax avoidance. And, the same moral questions are there.
No, I don't agree. "Tax avoidance" via the exploitation of unintended loopholes, arcane accounting structures and so on, is clearly evading the spirit of the law, even if it manages to obey the letter of the statute.
Voting for a political party that has different spending priorities from Alan Cresswell is not the same. Voting for a political party that wants to reduce the number of things done by government is not the same.
Yes, of course there are moral questions attached to who you vote for, and what things governments should do, but they are not the same as the ones attached to tax avoidance.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Does one have a legal obligation to tell the cashier that he failed to ring up a particular item? I would have thought not, and if not then its avoidance.
If I know about it it isn't avoidance. It is shoplifting. Avoidance would be taking advantage of sales, coupons, comparisons with other stores, and the like. You appear to still be treating avoidance and evasion as the same. They are not. If I fail to take advantage of every avoidance technique, I have failed my client. If I, to follow your example, fail to report all known taxable income and treat it in accordance with the tax law then we are looking at evasion.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If I know about it it isn't avoidance. It is shoplifting. Avoidance would be taking advantage of sales, coupons, comparisons with other stores, and the like.
Taking advantage of 2-for-1 coupons and the like is the equivalent of sheltering your savings from tax in a tax-exempt retirement savings account, for example.
Exploiting unintended loopholes, routing all your sales through an unstaffed "head office" in the Caribbean and the like is the equivalent of noticing that the 54" TV has been priced at 99 (cents, pence, whatever) by mistake, and buying ten of them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Exploiting unintended loopholes, routing all your sales through an unstaffed "head office" in the Caribbean and the like is the equivalent of noticing that the 54" TV has been priced at 99 (cents, pence, whatever) by mistake, and buying ten of them.
I can't blame someone for choosing to walk home through a safe neighborhood instead of a dangerous one.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Nor can I, but that isn't the issue.
It is for anyone with a fiduciary responsibility for someone else.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When politicians get elected on a platform of reduced taxation then those who vote for reduced taxes are defacto voting to reduce the money we as a society spend on the needs of our society. Yes, there often is scope for savings that don't affect services. But, in most cases, those savings reduce the quality of service to society. Then our society descends to something less civilised; quality health care becomes increasingly the preserve of those who can afford it, quality education becomes less available in areas where parents are less able to prop up the schools with support for new equipment, the legal system contends with more cases for less money and mistakes become more frequent, prisons become places to lock offenders away for the duration of their sentence rather than places to rehabilitate and reduce re-offending.
Voting for politicians who reduce your tax burden is another form of tax avoidance. And, the same moral questions are there. In fact, the moral questions are probably even more evident. It is when we stand in the privacy of the voting booth deciding which name to put our mark next to that we face some of the biggest moral questions in our society.
spot on.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Voting for politicians who reduce your tax burden is another form of tax avoidance. And, the same moral questions are there.
No, I don't agree. "Tax avoidance" via the exploitation of unintended loopholes, arcane accounting structures and so on, is clearly evading the spirit of the law, even if it manages to obey the letter of the statute.
I wasn't aware that there was much in the way of 'arcane structures' in the form of tax avoidance that the likes of Christian Aid have been campaigning against. It's usually simply having the parent company registered in a country with relatively low taxation, and setting up subsidiary companies in the countries where the majority of the business takes place. Then by routing payments such that those subsidiary companies make very little profit ensuring the majority of the profits are taxed by the smallest amount. It's relatively straight forward.
Unintended loopholes are irrelevant in the big picture, they tend to be closed very quickly.
quote:
Yes, of course there are moral questions attached to who you vote for, and what things governments should do, but they are not the same as the ones attached to tax avoidance.
They are not always the same moral questions, I agree. But, every election time we get the same rhetoric from the politicians. "We will reduce income tax", "we will freeze council tax", "we will increase the ISA allowances". Whether to let that rhetoric influence your vote is exactly the same moral question as whether to invest in an ISA or an account that will incur tax, or whether to relocate your corporate offices to another nation with lower tax rates. It's saying "I consider the possibility of a little bit more in my pocket to be important".
And, for those who find questions of funding for health services or schools to be the fundamental issues, we still have to recognise that that those questions carry a tax implication. And, so, we still face the moral question of what we consider a fair level of taxation - and, if we consider the rate we'd need to pay under the current system to be unfair how best to vote for a fairer system.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'd vote for you Alan.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A related point is the campaigns of many political parties to reduce taxes. There is a simple arithmetic; the government administers our money to supply the needs of a civilised society - quality health care free at the point of need, quality education for all, a justice system that works with law enforcement and criminal rehabilitation to support it, benefits to all who need them so that no one needs die for lack of basic human needs, etc. The government therefore needs money to supply those services, supplied through the tax system.
That, and the rest of your post, makes excellent sense. For the last 25 years or more, the major political parties here, and at both state and federal levels, have campaigned on programmes of lower taxes. There has been an inevitable rundown in public services. Indeed, a half dozen years ago there was a substantial surplus in Federal finds. Was that used on some vital infrastructure projects? New railway lines? New hospitals? No, it was given back to taxpayers, and there was an election shortly thereafter. We took the bribe money and voted for the opposition Labour party - as we would have in any event.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Unintended loopholes are irrelevant in the big picture, they tend to be closed very quickly.
Seriously? Is that really true in your part of the world? Sure makes me envious-- that is very much not the case in the US. In fact, any explicit attempt at closing unintended loopholes (where the loophole is named) generally gets framed as "raising taxes" with all the usual hue & cry. In theory everyone says they want to "get rid of the pork and special interests" but the minute you start naming the loophole it turns out that one isn't really "pork"-- at least not for those who benefit from it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wasn't aware that there was much in the way of 'arcane structures' in the form of tax avoidance that the likes of Christian Aid have been campaigning against.
I would classify routing your income through a shell holding company in a low-tax jurisdiction which "owns" your intellectual property and licenses it to you as an "arcane structure".
As for the morality of taxation, there are plenty of questions to answer. I find it profoundly immoral, for example, that people can face a marginal effective tax rate of greater than 90%, but I am currently unable to vote for anyone who will fix the withdrawal rate of benefits so that that doesn't happen.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
It seems to me we have two intertwined themes here - firstly the old, roughly left/right, discussion on the utility of government spending (is more necessarily better?) and secondly a discussion on the nature of law and how it works in the context of tax law interpretation.
On the second I'm seeing a quite stark distinction between lawyers and non-lawyers, which is quite fascinating.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
It seems to me we have two intertwined themes here - firstly the old, roughly left/right, discussion on the utility of government spending (is more necessarily better?) and secondly a discussion on the nature of law and how it works in the context of tax law interpretation.
I see it as two distinct, but fairly simple questions. There's the old lefty-righty how much should we spend on services and social programmes question, and there's a question of, for a given tax take, is the tax burden distributed equitably - in other words, are you paying your fair share?
If you fall towards the left of the spectrum, it is easy to view someone who uses loopholes, creative corporate structures and the like to pay less tax than he "should" as stealing from widows and children by virtue of reducing the total tax take, but I think it's just as reasonable to complain that such a person isn't paying his fair share, and so ultimately increasing the burden on the other taxpayers, and this latter argument is true whether or not you think we need to spend more money on starving children, healthcare, aircraft carriers or any of the other things governments buy.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is a simple arithmetic; the government administers our money to supply the needs of a civilised society - quality health care free at the point of need, quality education for all, a justice system that works with law enforcement and criminal rehabilitation to support it, benefits to all who need them so that no one needs die for lack of basic human needs, etc. The government therefore needs money to supply those services, supplied through the tax system.
Wow, is that what a civilized society is supposed to be about?! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) And here I thought I was living in the best country in the world! (Or maybe civilization is just something for effete weaklings with low testosterone.)
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
(Or maybe civilization is just something for effete weaklings with low testosterone.)
And perhaps civilisation has nothing to do with testosterone.
I still think a lot of people here are missing the point. Continually to ask, "Is this a sin ... or is this? - Can I get away with this but not this? Can I put my foot this close to the line without being called on it, and how far can I bend this rule without being deemed to have broken it?"
- All of that is precisely what Jesus was denouncing when he denounced the Pharisees. Their attitude was, the Law is the Law, but how can I work it to my advantage? And I think that's exactly why Jesus accused them of neglecting the weightier matters of the Law, like justice and mercy. He wanted people to get away from the attitude of "how little can I do, and yet comply with the Law?" and towards an attitude of "how much can I do, and go beyond the Law?"
The thing is, you can tithe mint and dill and cumin. You can measure them out to the last milligram and say, "There! That's my tithe." - At which point, of course, you give not one milligram more, and you go away feeling rather pleased with yourself because you think you've done what God asked.
But you can't tithe justice and mercy. They're intangible, unquantifiable, and precisely because of that they make the pharisaic mind uncomfortable. You can't do half an hour of justice and show twenty minutes of mercy and feel you've done what God asked.
So yes, you can spend hours every day working out how to shave a few more pence off your tax bill, and then go before a Parliamentary committee and claim, wide-eyed, not to have broken any laws. But the point for the Christian ethicist is not whether you've broken the law or not, but that you haven't learned to tell the difference between what's legal and what's right.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Dave W - we drove through Tewkesbury once and I can't think why anyone would avoid it. A lovely town.
Never heard of it. I was talking about Tewksbury. quote:
More seriously (and while I understand your argument, do not agree with it in this context) what do you say about the other examples where I have taken positive action to avoid or minimise tax.
I'd say that "taking positive action to avoid or minimize tax" could reasonably be called tax avoidance, while "taking an action completely without regard to tax implications" cannot. This is a distinction that would have to be more or less clear even before any discussion of ethics or morality; characterizing every choice whatsoever in terms of its tax implications dilutes the term "tax avoidance" beyond recognition.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
(Or maybe civilization is just something for effete weaklings with low testosterone.)
And perhaps civilisation has nothing to do with testosterone.
I still think a lot of people here are missing the point. Continually to ask, "Is this a sin ... or is this? - Can I get away with this but not this? Can I put my foot this close to the line without being called on it, and how far can I bend this rule without being deemed to have broken it?"
- All of that is precisely what Jesus was denouncing when he denounced the Pharisees. Their attitude was, the Law is the Law, but how can I work it to my advantage? And I think that's exactly why Jesus accused them of neglecting the weightier matters of the Law, like justice and mercy. He wanted people to get away from the attitude of "how little can I do, and yet comply with the Law?" and towards an attitude of "how much can I do, and go beyond the Law?"
The thing is, you can tithe mint and dill and cumin. You can measure them out to the last milligram and say, "There! That's my tithe." - At which point, of course, you give not one milligram more, and you go away feeling rather pleased with yourself because you think you've done what God asked.
But you can't tithe justice and mercy. They're intangible, unquantifiable, and precisely because of that they make the pharisaic mind uncomfortable. You can't do half an hour of justice and show twenty minutes of mercy and feel you've done what God asked.
So yes, you can spend hours every day working out how to shave a few more pence off your tax bill, and then go before a Parliamentary committee and claim, wide-eyed, not to have broken any laws. But the point for the Christian ethicist is not whether you've broken the law or not, but that you haven't learned to tell the difference between what's legal and what's right.
Yes, yes, yes. Most helpful post so far. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So yes, you can spend hours every day working out how to shave a few more pence off your tax bill, and then go before a Parliamentary committee and claim, wide-eyed, not to have broken any laws. But the point for the Christian ethicist is not whether you've broken the law or not, but that you haven't learned to tell the difference between what's legal and what's right.
When people want to know what their tax is for a particular year they ask accountants, not Christian ethicists. They want to know someone competent is in their corner doing everything they can to protect their interests and they want to know how much to put on the check, if needed.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So yes, you can spend hours every day working out how to shave a few more pence off your tax bill, and then go before a Parliamentary committee and claim, wide-eyed, not to have broken any laws. But the point for the Christian ethicist is not whether you've broken the law or not, but that you haven't learned to tell the difference between what's legal and what's right.
When people want to know what their tax is for a particular year they ask accountants, not Christian ethicists. They want to know someone competent is in their corner doing everything they can to protect their interests and they want to know how much to put on the check, if needed.
Which proves exactly what?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So yes, you can spend hours every day working out how to shave a few more pence off your tax bill, and then go before a Parliamentary committee and claim, wide-eyed, not to have broken any laws. But the point for the Christian ethicist is not whether you've broken the law or not, but that you haven't learned to tell the difference between what's legal and what's right.
When people want to know what their tax is for a particular year they ask accountants, not Christian ethicists. They want to know someone competent is in their corner doing everything they can to protect their interests and they want to know how much to put on the check, if needed.
Which proves exactly what?
Something along the lines of 2+2=4. Not 2+2=sin.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So yes, you can spend hours every day working out how to shave a few more pence off your tax bill, and then go before a Parliamentary committee and claim, wide-eyed, not to have broken any laws. But the point for the Christian ethicist is not whether you've broken the law or not, but that you haven't learned to tell the difference between what's legal and what's right.
When people want to know what their tax is for a particular year they ask accountants, not Christian ethicists. They want to know someone competent is in their corner doing everything they can to protect their interests and they want to know how much to put on the check, if needed.
Which proves exactly what?
Something along the lines of 2+2=4. Not 2+2=sin.
But 2 + 2 = (or ≠) sin is what we're discussing. 2 + 2= 4 tells us only what we all already know: that most people like to avoid paying taxes. It does not tell us whether or not that desire is moral or ethical-- which is the question we're actually discussing.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But 2 + 2 = (or ≠) sin is what we're discussing. 2 + 2= 4 tells us only what we all already know: that most people like to avoid paying taxes. It does not tell us whether or not that desire is moral or ethical-- which is the question we're actually discussing.
In the OP Sentamu says Tax avoidance was "definitely a moral issue", the archbishop said and asked whether it was sinful, he replied: "It is sinful, simply because Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
Tax avoidance is nothing more than wisely considering and using the rules that determine how to pay Caesar to figure out how much to pay Caesar. I believe it is immoral and unethical for someone to use their position of authority in one realm to try and speak authoritatively about others areas in which they lack competence.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But 2 + 2 = (or ≠) sin is what we're discussing. 2 + 2= 4 tells us only what we all already know: that most people like to avoid paying taxes. It does not tell us whether or not that desire is moral or ethical-- which is the question we're actually discussing.
In the OP Sentamu says Tax avoidance was "definitely a moral issue", the archbishop said and asked whether it was sinful, he replied: "It is sinful, simply because Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
Tax avoidance is nothing more than wisely considering and using the rules that determine how to pay Caesar to figure out how much to pay Caesar. I believe it is immoral and unethical for someone to use their position of authority in one realm to try and speak authoritatively about others areas in which they lack competence.
An archbishop isn't qualified to speak about morality?
You seem to be confusing morality variously with legality, financial management, and popular opinion. It is none of those things. Whether the archbishop was right or wrong in his assessment is the subject of this thread-- obviously a complex & debatable matter, which is why it's made a good discussion. Whether or not morality is within his jurisdiction I would have thought to be indisputable.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But 2 + 2 = (or ≠) sin is what we're discussing. 2 + 2= 4 tells us only what we all already know: that most people like to avoid paying taxes. It does not tell us whether or not that desire is moral or ethical-- which is the question we're actually discussing.
In the OP Sentamu says Tax avoidance was "definitely a moral issue", the archbishop said and asked whether it was sinful, he replied: "It is sinful, simply because Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
Tax avoidance is nothing more than wisely considering and using the rules that determine how to pay Caesar to figure out how much to pay Caesar. I believe it is immoral and unethical for someone to use their position of authority in one realm to try and speak authoritatively about others areas in which they lack competence.
An archbishop isn't qualified to speak about morality?
You seem to be confusing morality variously with legality, financial management, and popular opinion. It is none of those things. Whether the archbishop was right or wrong in his assessment is the subject of this thread-- obviously a complex & debatable matter, which is why it's made a good discussion. Whether or not morality is within his jurisdiction I would have thought to be indisputable.
"Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
Yet he also seems to be saying it's a sin to competently figure out Caesar's cut.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
OK, so you disagree with the archbishop. Fine. That's the basis of this discussion. But it's quite a different thing than suggesting that an archbishop is not competent to discuss morality. Disagreeing with you does not necessarily equal incompetence.
[ 02. July 2013, 18:13: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, so you disagree with the archbishop. Fine. That's the basis of this discussion. But it's quite a different thing than suggesting that an archbishop is not competent to discuss morality. Disagreeing with you does not necessarily equal incompetence.
Ok, fine. I believe the moral way to figure out how much tax to pay is to figure out how much tax to pay. He seems to think it is a sin. Maybe next we can ask him how many teeth are in a horse's mouth.
"In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day, a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this, their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth; and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him, hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same writ down.
—Francis Bacon, 1592 (?)."
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
OK, so you disagree with the archbishop. Fine. That's the basis of this discussion. But it's quite a different thing than suggesting that an archbishop is not competent to discuss morality. Disagreeing with you does not necessarily equal incompetence.
Ok, fine. I believe the moral way to figure out how much tax to pay is to figure out how much tax to pay.
Have you read thru this thread at all? You are doing an injustice to some of the thoughtful issues that have been raised. Whether you agree with them or not, there are a number of valid and significant factors that have been discussed here, which your flippant dismissal completely discounts.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Adeodatus
Continually to ask, "Is this a sin ... or is this? - Can I get away with this but not this? Can I put my foot this close to the line without being called on it, and how far can I bend this rule without being deemed to have broken it?"
Asking myself "is this a sin ... or is this ?" is how I go about deciding what is right and wrong. It's about what action I am comfortable with rather than what I can get away with. Some people who are strong supporters of some ism, whether political or some other school of thought, often have quite general principles which they find good for deciding right and wrong, but not everyone does. I don't, so looking at individual actions to see whether they cross my line is how I choose what to do.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Assumptions of moral authority by Archbishops would be much more convincing if there was any sign that they had a working knowledge of the many and varied purposes of the tax system and the way in which it works.
In any case, since we should not tithe justice or mercy, you can increase the amount you pay to the state not only by merely arranging your affairs in the least tax effective manner possible (which would probably undermine the intent of the state in passing the tax legislation in the first place), but also by simply donating extra money to the Treasury. Do it today! It would be sinful not to.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Assumptions of moral authority by Archbishops would be much more convincing if there was any sign that they had a working knowledge of the many and varied purposes of the tax system and the way in which it works.
Finally, someone who gets it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Assumptions of moral authority by Archbishops would be much more convincing if there was any sign that they had a working knowledge of the many and varied purposes of the tax system and the way in which it works.
Finally, someone who gets it.
Has anyone suggested that the Archbishop doesn't have a working knowledge of the tax system? He presumably doesn't know the details of every bit of legislation about what is, or is not, taxable and to what extent - that's what accountants specialising in tax are for. But, apart from those tax specialist accountants, who does - and even those accountants are probably as ignorant as I am of the equivalent tax legislation in other countries.
Put simply, if the archbishop needs that much knowledge to discuss the morality of taxation then by rights this thread should sink to the bottom of Purgatory as no one else here has the right to comment on the morality of taxation. And, all other threads in Purg would do the same if we apply the same level of "must have a working knowledge of specialist subject" criteria.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
I'd say that "taking positive action to avoid or minimize tax" could reasonably be called tax avoidance, while "taking an action completely without regard to tax implications" cannot. This is a distinction that would have to be more or less clear even before any discussion of ethics or morality; characterizing every choice whatsoever in terms of its tax implications dilutes the term "tax avoidance" beyond recognition.
I'm afraid that my eye read the known Tewkesbury for the until-now-never-heard-of Tewksburys (there seem to be at least 2). My apologies.
As to the real substance of your post, it is getting some considerable distance along the path to a rational discussion of the real questions. But is all action taken deliberately immoral tax avoidance? There are actions taken deliberately and in accordance with the wishes of the relevant government. Demas gave the example of investment in the local film industry, and there are countless others. Back in 60s Britain, there were major tax benefits given to companies such as Rootes who set up manufacture in areas of Scotland where there was considerable unemployment. Similar benefits were given in Italy to those investing in the South. They are instances of avoidance of taxation liabilities had the investment been made elsewhere. Indeed, investment in traditional areas was probably more sensible. Were Rootes, Alfa Romeo and other immoral?
Or the example I gave of investment in our house, where any capital gains are not taxable. Is that deliberate action immoral?
[ 03. July 2013, 08:12: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
donating extra money to the Treasury. Do it today! It would be sinful not to.
So some of the discussion on this thread would have us believe. I wonder how many of the "you're supposed to give as much as you can, not as little as you have to" posters voluntarily give more money to the taxman than they have to?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Put simply, if the archbishop needs that much knowledge to discuss the morality of taxation then by rights this thread should sink to the bottom of Purgatory as no one else here has the right to comment on the morality of taxation. And, all other threads in Purg would do the same if we apply the same level of "must have a working knowledge of specialist subject" criteria.
If he is going to use his position and authority to speak on a matter then, yes, he should only use that position and authority to speak about things about which he actually has a clue. It would be a completely different matter if it was just a random pew warmer from his congregation giving an uninformed opinion about something.
This is about like an Amish preacher using his position to try and speak authoritatively about what kind of car I should buy.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Put simply, if the archbishop needs that much knowledge to discuss the morality of taxation then by rights this thread should sink to the bottom of Purgatory as no one else here has the right to comment on the morality of taxation. And, all other threads in Purg would do the same if we apply the same level of "must have a working knowledge of specialist subject" criteria.
If he is going to use his position and authority to speak on a matter then, yes, he should only use that position and authority to speak about things about which he actually has a clue. It would be a completely different matter if it was just a random pew warmer from his congregation giving an uninformed opinion about something.
This is about like an Amish preacher using his position to try and speak authoritatively about what kind of car I should buy.
But what exactly does it mean for the Archbishop to have sufficient knowledge? It seems to me that what is meant by those making this charge is that "the Archbishop doesn't know how to manipulate the tax code to economic advantage" and/or "the Archbishop is advocating a position I don't agree with (possibly because it would be disadvantageous to me"."
I don't know the Archbishop and am not part of his denomination, so I have no basis for determining his ability to make moral judgements. But the basis for such an assessment would be based on far different factors than what is being used here to discredit the man.
[ 03. July 2013, 14:25: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Assumptions of moral authority by Archbishops would be much more convincing if there was any sign that they had a working knowledge of the many and varied purposes of the tax system and the way in which it works.
Finally, someone who gets it.
Has anyone suggested that the Archbishop doesn't have a working knowledge of the tax system? He presumably doesn't know the details of every bit of legislation about what is, or is not, taxable and to what extent - that's what accountants specialising in tax are for.
That argument looks like it would hold water for Rowan (I presume the 90:10 rule applies in some form)...with Justin it seems a bit redundant.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
In fact I can't see where this supposed gnostic knowledge seems to be required to comment on the morality, we can always restrict our examination to the simple cases.
But considering say the Jimmy Carr (as the details are public and he's taken action)tax avoidance. It seems a 3 minute read gives sufficient evidence of the financial facts (enough to say e.g. that the excess money isn't going to the film industry) and the only debatable issues I can see are pure morality [or rather we can give the benefit of the doubt on the trickier financial ones, and the questions still remain].
A 5 minute think might give reasons why we can't blame the government for not closing the loophole (aside from the cynical), but then that's putting the emphasis back on him and suggesting the archbish is going one step deeper than the accountants here are arguing.
I'm also still not happy about the "doing what the customer wants" is the moral requirement, as a absolute claim it's been judged false (even including "and legal") since '45. So you then need to argue the case beyond that, if you wouldn't mind.
[ 03. July 2013, 17:32: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Put simply, if the archbishop needs that much knowledge to discuss the morality of taxation then by rights this thread should sink to the bottom of Purgatory as no one else here has the right to comment on the morality of taxation. And, all other threads in Purg would do the same if we apply the same level of "must have a working knowledge of specialist subject" criteria.
If he is going to use his position and authority to speak on a matter then, yes, he should only use that position and authority to speak about things about which he actually has a clue.
The thing is, to me it seems he does have a clue. He knows, for example, that several multinationals use legal means to move money around such that they a) reduce their total tax burden and b) pay more of that tax in nations where the government has less need for the revenue (naive assumption being if they needed more revenue tax rates would be higher). He also clearly recognises that in many cases this reduces the amount of tax multinationals pay in countries where they do considerable business, and those countries struggle to fund education, health care and other programmes that benefit their people. He then points out that the (perfectly legal) practices of these multinationals directly or indirectly affects the lives of the poor to their detriment. That is a moral issue. We don't need to know the intricacies of the various tax codes in question to recognise the moral question. We just need to see the effect these practices have on the poor.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
