|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Legality and Morality
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
A highly paid comedian in the UK has been discovered to have avoided paying Income Tax by making use of a tax avoidance scheme.
Apparently the scheme is quite legal. But the Prime Minister suggested that it was morally wrong to avoid tax.
The comedian has recanted and pulled out of the scheme.
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
I did a Bible study today and by coincidence the set passage was Paul arguing "Let each one look not only to his own interests but to the interests of others" Relevant?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral?
Maybe not in as many words, but we can argue that if something is legal then society as a whole has decided it is OK. Individuals within society may think it is immoral, and they are free to do so, but other individuals may decide that it's perfectly OK and they are also free to do so.
Let's face it - the reason there's a difference between "legal" and "moral" in the first place is because we can't agree about what morality is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Well, several dead horse topics on this site are legal, but proponents of one side of the dead horse debate must certainly view them as being immoral.
Given that you can't define what is moral in the same way that you can define what is legal, I would therefore say that you can't say something is moral because it's illegal.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I was thinking about this today.
I know that when I file my tax return I make sure I pay as little as possible. Isn't that what Jimmy Carr was doing?
The loopholes need closing, for sure. But I don't think you can blame people for using them.
There is plenty of stuff which is legal but immoral, but my idea of immoral won't be the same as yours. So who decides?
One thing is for sure - I don't want religions to be the ones who decide, they get it wrong far to often for comfort!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
There is a widespread consensus that adultery is immoral, but very little desire to see it made illegal.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
There is a widespread consensus that adultery is immoral, but very little desire to see it made illegal.
Why do you think this is?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral?
Maybe not in as many words, but we can argue that if something is legal then society as a whole has decided it is OK.
Are you nuts?????? The laws (at least in this country) are written by people with the money to buy the politicians. We live in a kleptocracy. Th notion that most folks are OK with that at the very least assumes facts not in evidence, as the lawyers say.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Just because a law hasn't yet been passed to make something illegal on moral grounds, it doesn't make it morally right to do it.
Where laws have been repealed to allow what used to be illegal, there's no suggestion that they are now the morally right thing to do.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, the comedian has no moral obligation to pay more taxes than required by law.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
As I read the gospels, it seems to me that Jesus spent time denouncing those who technically obeyed every letter of the law, but who took great pains to do so in a way that was to their own advantage and which completely ignored the spirit of the law.
Isn't that what we're talking about here? And a couple of thousand years on, would Jesus have changed his mind about whom he denounced?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
There is a widespread consensus that adultery is immoral, but very little desire to see it made illegal.
Why do you think this is?
Because contra Marvin the fact that something is legal does not imply that society thinks it is OK.
I think that if something is to be prohibited by legislation the following conditions should be met:
a) it's severely damaging to others in some way
b) the new law should be practically enforcable
c) the new law shouldn't do more harm than good
Adultery would qualify under a) but probably not under b) and c)
[edited for typo (legal/illegal)!]
[ 21. June 2012, 15:17: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
The point is that he was NOT paying the taxes required by law but deliberately avoiding them them by using a scheme designed to circumvent the law.
It just so happens that the circumventing scheme was lawful.
You could say the answer is to close the loopholes. But the man who invented and runs the scheme says that his one aim is to find ways of getting round the law. Thats how he makes his money.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
But by using financial instruments never intended for personal use, he is paying less tax than required by law.
This, when it arrives on the statute books, ought to stop both comedians and politicians from taking the piss when it comes to paying tax.
I've previously made my practice known over on a Hell thread. I work out how much money I've earned, and put that in Box A, work out how much interest I've earned, put that in Box B, sign the form and stick it in the post. It takes fifteen minutes, tops.
That everyone doesn't do this is part of the reason why we can't have nice things.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, the comedian has no moral obligation to pay more taxes than required by law.
In reference to the scheme Carr was using, I disagree. He is receiving the benefit of taxes without contributing though he easily has the wherewithal to contribute.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The point is that he was NOT paying the taxes required by law but deliberately avoiding them them by using a scheme designed to circumvent the law.
It just so happens that the circumventing scheme was lawful.
If it was lawful it wasn't circumventing the law.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That everyone doesn't do this is part of the reason why we can't have nice things.
And that Carr doesn't do it is the reason why he does have nice things.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
He contributed what the law said he had to contribute. Why should he pay more just because you think he should pay more? Send me your tax returns. You may not be paying as much in taxes as I think you should be paying.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
A lot of the time the reason why something hasn't become illegal is not that everyone thinks it's ok, but because a country's lawmakers haven't yet got round to figuring out exactly how to make it illegal in a way that does more good than harm, or even if that's possible. Changing laws is a painfully slow process. Every time a new dangerous recreational drug appears on the streets, for example, it takes a while for the lawmakers to do anything about it. Even then there will be people who try to skip around and find loopholes. In the case of tax avoidance, there's a whole industry directed towards finding these loopholes, like hackers trying to find weaknesses in a piece of computer software. And like the people who patch the software, the people who devise tax law largely find out what's wrong with the law by seeing how people get around it without breaking it. Except in a more painfully slow way.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If it was lawful it wasn't circumventing the law.
Its illegal to buy alcoholic drinks in Iran. It is not illegal to buy them in Turkey. It is legal to travel from Iran to Turkey. An Iranian who visits Turkey in order to drink in a bar has behaved entirely lawfully. but could also be said to have avoided or circumvented the laws of Iran.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If it was lawful it wasn't circumventing the law.
Its illegal to buy alcoholic drinks in Iran. It is not illegal to buy them in Turkey. It is legal to travel from Iran to Turkey. An Iranian who visits Turkey in order to drink in a bar has behaved entirely lawfully. but could also be said to have avoided or circumvented the laws of Iran.
The case under discussion would be more analogous to buying alcohol in Turkey and having it piped across the border to your house in Iran. You enjoy all the benefits of Iran's alcohol-free environment, while avoiding the responsibility of having to take part in it yourself.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think the original question was not about taxes per se but about morality versus legality.
In an ideal society, the two concepts would probably coincide, but I know of no ideal society.
Whoever originally proposes a law probably thinks that law embodies some kind of morality, but by the time the proposal is enacted, it has usually been modified by special interests and political expediency. Thus a law is often an inadequate statement of a principle of morality.
This assumes, of course, that there is general agreement about what is moral and also that generally-agreed morality does not change over time. At one time, there were laws, probably considered morally acceptable (or better) at the time, allowing and regulating slavery, not only in the U.S. but also in the British empire and in western Europe. The general understanding of morality has changed and so has the law. There was probably a lag period when people disapproved of slavery but it was not yet illegal.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CSL1
Shipmate
# 17168
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
Depends on whether you approach it from a Natural Law or Legal Positivist perspective.
Posts: 172 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He contributed what the law said he had to contribute. Why should he pay more just because you think he should pay more? Send me your tax returns. You may not be paying as much in taxes as I think you should be paying.
This is a valid point in terms of what the laws state. The laws may themselves be immoral or arguably so, but if it is the law, then it cannot be said to be illegal (obviously). It can only be said that the law is flawed and immoral according to some argument or perspective.
The more general parallel over the past 35 years is the tax systems in western countries have favoured corporations over individuals, and the wealthy individuals over the not as wealthy. Thus we have the point made that the very rich are much richer, while the average person is poorer than a generation ago (I see the graphs frequently these days that purport to show that we are in an inequity situation not seen since the 1920s, don't know if it is accurate, but suspect it is). This might offend us, we might think it unfair, but it may or may not be immoral. If someone can become rich and not have their increasing wealth harm another less wealthy or poorer person, then it is hard to argue its immoral. But this argument does seem to be losing ground, and becoming wealthy is becoming seen as necessarily as harming poor people. A very good question.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
Its pretty easy to construct a law that would be considered (by most) imoral to keep\moral to break.
The nazi regime comes pretty close to having some clear cut examples of it in real life (neurumberg is practially based on that if not might makes right).
So in short morality clearly does not imply legality or any converse. Althoigh youd hope for some corrolation... That you could live legally and morally.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In an ideal society, the two concepts would probably coincide, but I know of no ideal society.
Oh no it wouldn't! Becuase that woudl imply that in your ideal society whatever was illegal was also automatically immoral, in other words that all you needed to do to behave rightly was to obey orders. And that would not be an ideal society.
Of course in our far from ideal society the idea that something becomes immoral merely because it is illegal, is itself immoral. The notion that breaking the law as such is inherently immoral needs to be resisted.
[ 21. June 2012, 16:16: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The notion that breaking the law as such is inherently immoral needs to be resisted.
Although Paul sometimes seems to come scarily close to saying just that...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I wonder if anyone else is using this scheme? Will we hear about them instead of a B list mildly anti-establishment comedian.
I bet they are bricking themselves in Annie's Bar and the gentlemens' clubs.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
I'm not sure I agree with ken. I think maybe breaking the law is inherently immoral, unless there's a good reason for it. I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself. And I think this is deeply unfashionable and not at all something we should be fighting against.
Of course this is no excuse for not breaking the law when it would be immoral not to do so. Because real laws are not perfect.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
We won't always agree on which laws are moral and which are not moral. The question is how we distinguish between laws that we don't like and laws that we truly believe are immoral. Only the individual can make that decision. The distinction might hinge on the willingness of the individual to suffer the consequences of breaking the law.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Just ruminating.
I wonder if 'morality' can be identified with Good and Bad
and if legality can be identified with Right and Wrong.
So non=pacifists might say that going to war might never be the Good but it might be the Right thing to do.
In other words what might be legally right might be morally "bad"
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
In other words what might be legally right might be morally "bad"
Well, sure, we've seen this with slavery, for example.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A highly paid comedian in the UK has been discovered to have avoided paying Income Tax by making use of a tax avoidance scheme.
Apparently the scheme is quite legal. But the Prime Minister suggested that it was morally wrong to avoid tax.
The comedian has recanted and pulled out of the scheme.
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
I did a Bible study today and by coincidence the set passage was Paul arguing "Let each one look not only to his own interests but to the interests of others" Relevant?
Adultery, gossip, and waste of resources are not illegal in most places under most circumstances, but few people would agree that such things were moral.
Sometimes we're even compelled by law to do things which are morally questionable. If I had a client who confessed to murdering someone and hiding the body, I could not tell the victim's family about the crime or the location of the body because to do so would violate my client's confidence and run afoul of the laws governing the legal profession.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CSL1:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Questions. Can we argue that because something is legal it is therefore moral? Ought we to behave on that basis?
Depends on whether you approach it from a Natural Law or Legal Positivist perspective.
Not really. Even a legal positivitst would recognize that a law requiring the murder of certain types of civilians is morally repugnant, even while it is the law.
Natural-law vs. legal positivism has to do with opinions about whether things ought to be illegal simply because they are immoral (natural law) or whether only those things that are specifically outlawed by act of a sovereign ought to be illegal (legal positivism).
Neither has anything to do with the idea that things are immoral by virtue of their being against the civil law. It's the other way around - they fight about whether things become illegal by virtue of their contravening "natural law."
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That everyone doesn't do this is part of the reason why we can't have nice things.
And that Carr doesn't do it is the reason why he does have nice things.
The suggestion that Carr wouldn't have nice things if he paid his full whack of income tax is so spectacularly specious, the astronauts on the ISS just called. They can see your non sequitur from orbit.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I must disagree with Ken. "Obeying orders" and "following the law" are different concepts. Who says that orders will be given at all (or need to be given) in an ideal society?
You might ponder whether legality and morality will coincide in Heaven under God's rule.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
It's clearly immoral for comedians to evade tax. Tax evasion should only be for people who donate to my party.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
If the tax code is written in such a way as to allow some to minimize, or altogether avoid, tax, it seems to be morally OK as well.
The tax code, which is not part of any morals brought to us by God, contains the metes and bounds of what morality is under the tax code. If it is legally OK under the tax code, it is also moral under the tax code. QED.*
As for other circumstances, go figure it our for yourselves.
__________________
*QED is an abbreviation for a Latin phrase that means: There you have it.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
What part does 'intention' have to play in all this.
The intention of the comedian involved was to pay the least tax possible even if that meant subverting the spirit of the law against the letter of the law.
The law about tax was fixed by politicians as representative of the people. It stipulated plainly that tax should begin at 20% after an initial tax free allowance.
The man involved used a scheme in which his earnings were channeled into an off=shore account which then paid him back by way of a "loan!. And such loans are not subject to tax.
All legal. Just. But irresponsible if not immoral.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Here's a case that has some parallels.
Suppose you live in a jurisdiction where, if you assault someone and they die within, say, 366 days, then you're guilty of murder; but if they die after that, you're guilty of some lesser crime. Suppose now that you go to extreme lengths and do a great deal of research to discover how you might - for the sake of argument - administer poison to someone such that you know they will die precisely 367 days later.
Under the law you have, of course, not committed murder. But are you morally guilty of murder?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
orginally posted by shamwari:
All legal. Just. But irresponsible if not immoral.
Who is irresponsible? The politicians because they left a loophole in the tax code? The people for electing incompetent politicians?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I speak as an ex tax planning lawyer.
It can be regarded as irresponsible and even immoral tomavoid tax through exploiting loopholes, because the perpetrator is enjoying the benefits of living in the UK without paying for them.
However, you could argue that those who are able to exploit legal loopholes to avoid tax are also rich enough to pay for private education, private healthcare and even private security, so they don't take as much from society as the average non-avoidant taxpayer.
However, regardless of what direct benefits the tax avoider takes from the UK social structure, he or she still benefits from the general health of our society and should therefore pay the full amount required by the law, which morally should be read on an intentional level, given the inherent complexities that make loopholes inevitable.
When I was practising in this field, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the lengths to which we would go, stretching the meaning of the legislation to its limit to justify avoidance schemes such as the one Jimmy Carr was involved in. I have been out of it for a few years now and having some distance has made me feel that I wouldn't now go back to it. I just couldn't feel proud of my work at the end of the day.
Incidentally, an MP client asked us to advise on the tax implications of declaring his actual main home as his second home for Parliamentary expenses purposes. Apparently a lot of other MPs were doing this. We advised him not to do it, on the basis of how bad it would look if the Press ever found out. Bet he's so glad he took our advice now.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
However, you could argue that those who are able to exploit legal loopholes to avoid tax are also rich enough to pay for private education, private healthcare and even private security, so they don't take as much from society as the average non-avoidant taxpayer.
At the same time, though, the rich have more private property to protect, more legal contracts to enforce, than the poor. So it can be argued that they take far more from the system than those at the lower end of the scale.
Furthermore, whether or not they take advantage of public education, health care, or police is a matter of choice. They may choose not to participate, but there are no restrictions I assume barring them from using those services, they are available to rich and poor alike.
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The point is that he was NOT paying the taxes required by law but deliberately avoiding them them by using a scheme designed to circumvent the law.
It just so happens that the circumventing scheme was lawful.
You could say the answer is to close the loopholes. But the man who invented and runs the scheme says that his one aim is to find ways of getting round the law. Thats how he makes his money.
Welcome to the legal arms race. Every time a new law is written by the likes of me, someone is out there trying to find the gap between what we said and what we meant. Or just to find the crazy arrangement we didn't think of.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Orfeo is irresponsible. That settles that. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
David Cameron was quoted as saying the scheme used by Mr. Carr, although legal, was "morally repugnant".
The job of the Government, in this case embodied by Mr. Cameron, is to enact legislation.
If something is legal and the Government thinks it shouldn't be, it's up to them to do something about it.
Most of us give our income tax papers to someone who knows how to pay as little as possible on this side of the law; Mr. Carr (who has now withdrawn from the scheme) was doing the same.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Orfeo is irresponsible. That settles that.
Or my instructors...
But it is a serious issue, and one that is virtually impossible to solve. If you make laws into broad principles, there's a bunch of people that spend all their time figuring out how to break the spirit of the principle while staying in the letter of the law. So you start spelling out the law in excruciating detail, and then everyone complains about how overbearing and nit-picking the law is.
If people weren't out to deliberately circumvent the spirit and intention of the law all the time by exploiting 'loopholes', then we could have much simpler and shorter laws and people could get on with the rest of their life.
For example, by spending only a brief amount of time on their tax return. That one resonates with me. Do I pay more tax then I absolutely have to? Quite possibly. Do I want to spend large amounts of time organising my life and my finances around tax minimisation? No. Do I have far better things to do with my time than obsess over saving a bit of tax? Abso-bloody-lutely.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
Most of us give our income tax papers to someone who knows how to pay as little as possible on this side of the law
Really? I sure don't. I do my own tax return every year, in one afternoon.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
There is also a difference between asking a professional to advise on the benefits and tax breaks to which you are entitled - things that the legislators have knowinly built into the system, and taking advantage of a mistake or ambiguity to avoid paying tax. I believe it is immoral chiefly because of this exploitation of weakness, as well as the deprivation of wider society from funds (that said, many wealthy tax avoiders are generous philanthropists and arguably do more good by focussing all their social contribution into one charitable channel, rather than it getting absorbed into the big pot and wasted on wars, MP's duck ponds and the like.)
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
... Missed edit window...
But that's not to say that these guys shoukdn't be paying the full whack of tax AND doing their do-gooder bit too. Some of these folk have obscene pots of money.
Jesus said much more would be required from those who had a lot and I can't imagine Him being very pleased with the guy who squirrelled £millions away in offshore LLPs but salved his conscience by endowing his Cambridge college with £5m to build a new block named after him.*
*this is a fictitious person and any resemblance on the facts to any person alive or dead is purely coincidental.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think maybe obedience to legitimate authority is good in itself.
I can go with that. When you find one, let me know.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
