[ForKicks]

(Original post by MrNucleon)
Thats just... as sholery!

Sometimes being one pays off

[AK0001]

(Original post by placeboeffect)
This is a joke, right? When it comes to the Tory government and privatisation, the BBC are complete sycophants. Watch News Night etc, there is bias towards corporatism and little support for the public sector. If you're telling me you haven't noticed, then I really don't know what to say to you...

You're living in a dreamworld.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by placeboeffect)
This is a joke, right? When it comes to the Tory government and privatisation, the BBC are complete sycophants. Watch News Night etc, there is bias towards corporatism and little support for the public sector. If you're telling me you haven't noticed, then I really don't know what to say to you...

Really? First Tory related BBC article I came across today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18575453

I would hardly say that is sucking up to the Conservatives! This BBC article is pretty standard too.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
This makes absolutely no sense. There is no such thing as "legalised theft." Theft is the illegal taking of someone else's property. If it's done legally then it cannot be theft, by definition.

So I guess when the Nazis rounded up the Jews and stole their belongings, that wasn't theft? When they systematically murdered them, that wasn't murder? Come back to reality pal.

Theft is the taking of one's property without consent.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
So I guess when the Nazis rounded up the Jews and stole their belongings, that wasn't theft? When they systematically murdered them, that wasn't murder? Come back to reality pal.

Theft is the taking of one's property without consent.

I'd advise you not to use that argument. The actions of the Nazis were in no way consistent with principles like those held by Rawls which stipulate a level of taxation for the provision of public goods. Theft is not the taking of one's property without consent. To say so is to beg the question, to assume your conclusion in your argument. You are presupposing an ideological, non-neutral definition of property.

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
I'd advise you not to use that argument. The actions of the Nazis were in no way consistent with principles like those held by Rawls which stipulate a level of taxation for the provision of public goods. Theft is not the taking of one's property without consent. To say so is to beg the question, to assume your conclusion in your argument. You are presupposing an ideological, non-neutral definition of property.

I'll give you a neutral definition of property.

My bloody money. The money people work to earn from their employers.

Tax is nothing but legalised theft. It is departing me from the money and thus property I have earned. I do not wish to be stripped of this money, and so it is theft. Because the leaders of our country say it is okay that they can steal 4 times a year from us makes it 'legal'.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
I'll give you a neutral definition of property.

My bloody money. The money people work to earn from their employers.

Tax is nothing but legalised theft. It is departing me from the money and thus property I have earned. I do not wish to be stripped of this money, and so it is theft. Because the leaders of our country say it is okay that they can steal 4 times a year from us makes it 'legal'.

Way to misunderstand the point. I am opposed to most taxes and would love to see income tax abolished or severely cut, but there is no such thing as 'legalised theft' and tax is certainly not theft, nor do you have the right not to be taxed. You did not give a neutral definition of property since you assumed that the money you own is rightfully yours and that nobody else has a claim on it. This is begging the question. It's a logical fallacy.

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Way to misunderstand the point. I am opposed to most taxes and would love to see income tax abolished or severely cut, but there is no such thing as 'legalised theft' and tax is certainly not theft, nor do you have the right not to be taxed. You did not give a neutral definition of property since you assumed that the money you own is rightfully yours and that nobody else has a claim on it. This is begging the question. It's a logical fallacy.

Sorry, I don't understand why you think someone else has a claim to the money I have earned? Should they render me a service or give me a product then I transfer my right to have that money to them.

Why do I not have the right to be taxed? Because the government says so? Does that make it right?

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
Sorry, I don't understand why you think someone else has a claim to the money I have earned? Should they render me a service or give me a product then I transfer my right to have that money to them.

Why do I not have the right to be taxed? Because the government says so? Does that make it right?

To say that you are entitled to 100% of the money that you have earned is to ignore other normative rights that may exist in a society where your right to earn money is guaranteed and protected by a state. If the state provides the legal and political means for the free market to exist and for people to earn money, it is reasonable to suggest that the state has the right to tax people to fund the institutions that protect the free market.

[King Kebab]

John Redwood had a good article on this back in April where he talked about scenarios of tax avoidance.

Tax avoidance helps drive the Big Society

It has become politically fashionable to attack tax avoidance. Many try to lump it in with illegal tax evasion, condemning both. The Chancellor tries to draw a necessary distinction between aggressive tax avoidance, which he dislikes, and run of the mill tax avoidance which many undertake. It is time politicians and the government recognised that a lot of tax avoidance is common sense, much of it is actively encouraged by the government, and some of it has a moral purpose.

I want to give four examples of people who lower their overall Income Tax rate or Vat bills for good reasons.

The first is a retired accountant called Charity. She has a decent private pension from a tax sheltered pension fund. Her retirement income is bigger than she needs, as she lives modestly. Her leisure pursuits of listening to the radio, going for walks with her dog, and attending the local theatre are not expensive. She works one day a week as a volunteer for the CAB, is a JP, and is actively involved with a local animal charity. She is a very generous regular donor to the charity, using the government’s tax saving scheme for her donations. Both she and the charity benefit from the tax relief or tax avoidance on offer.

The second is a working mother called Prudence. She had ten years off work to bring up her children. When her husband left her she got an administrative job with the local Council. She is now making accelerated payments into her pension fund, as she wants to provide for her own old age, thinking it wrong to rely on means tested benefits as a pensioner if you can save for yourself. Her tax charge is lowered thanks to the pension tax reliefs available.

The third is a senior teacher called Mr Reader. He believes in good levels of public spending, especially for education, and has devoted his life to teaching, even though it used not to be that well paid. Following Labour’s good pay rises, he now has something spare each month to save. He lends it to the government through tax privileged national savings. He pays PAYE Income Tax. Because he does not want the hassle of having to declare savings income he takes advantage of the tax breaks on offer. He feels his savings contribute to higher state spending and think the tax breaks are moral.

The fourth is a successful small business owner called Ed. He now mentors local small businesses, and gives time as a volunteer to help start ups in his town. He has decided he should always try to employ sole traders to do any work he needs doing at home – plumbing, building, electrical work or help with the garden. He decides he will only employ small businesses that are not registered for VAT, saving himself and them the VAT burden. It means he can spend more on what he needs, and give them a bigger boost to their turnover as a result. He is therefore avoiding substantial Vat sums.

The government rightly welcomes the Big Society. That requires charities and volunteer activity to flourish. Tax breaks drive much of this generosity of spirit, and help furnish the charities and other institutions with the cash needed to organise the volunteers and create the work programmes. Politicians need to be careful lest in their enthusiasm to lump tax avoidance in with tax evasion they do damage to that strong UK tradition of volunteer work and giving, and undermine some of the government’s own tax saving schemes which have been designed to influence our conduct. They also need to be aware that tax savings drive much of the savings and pensions efforts of people, a bulwark of a free society. It is these savings which keep many people away from needing more benefits from the state in hard times and old age.

It was a very Interesting piece.

[ArcadiaHouse]

(Original post by Otkem)
What are your thoughts?

I think people on this website get more stupid every day.

[noobynoo]

I suppose morally, if you felt you were spending your money to help mankind more than if you gave it to the taxman then it is morally good to avoid tax.

[rwoodhard1]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Who honestly lives by strict morality? It is simple common sense avoiding tax! If you have the option to pay a higher amount or a lower amount, why on earth would anyone choose the higher out of a sense of 'moral duty'?

You're absolutely right, they wouldn't pay the higher amount. But that doesn't mean to say that they shouldn't, especially if a far lower proportion of their income is being taxed compared to those on lower incomes.

[coopsyy]

(Original post by Scumbaggio)
Blah blah blah.

BTW tax evasion is illegal not questionable.

This.

[kopite493]

(Original post by Hipster)
Was it not that well-known leftist newspaper, the Times who broke this story?

Calling the BBC leftist because they are reporting on an issue that even our leftist prime minister has been moralising about.

when a tory starts questioning morality you know its royally ****ed up, i mean they sell there own nan to save thier own skin

[coopsyy]

(Original post by Sir Fox)
Ever thought of how an economy would work without a dense network of streets built from taxes? The rich can send their children to private schools, build their own wells, attend private hospitals etc., but I have never heard of private streets, police etc. and if large proportions of the population impoverish because tax cuts render the government unable to finance the healthcare and education system the purchasing power decreases and the economy declines.

There is a reason for taxes, especially in an age of high national debts which one day should be paid back

Well said!

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
To say that you are entitled to 100% of the money that you have earned is to ignore other normative rights that may exist in a society where your right to earn money is guaranteed and protected by a state. If the state provides the legal and political means for the free market to exist and for people to earn money, it is reasonable to suggest that the state has the right to tax people to fund the institutions that protect the free market.

This is what I was going to say. The only reason people are able to make that money is because of the free market and the society that the state fund; without the taxes, society wouldn't be able to run properly and the free market would not be able to exist (so people couldn't make the money they feel they are 100% entitled to).

[callan]

In these times of economic distress, shouldn't everyone pay their taxes in full?