BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[smalldog]

I just think its laughable that nobody has the balls to ask the question why people are trying to avoid it in the first place....

[Morlock]

Blurring

Tax avoidance and evasion are unacceptable in the best of times but in today's circumstances it is morally indefensible.

MPs have no right nor mandate to preach to us about morality. They are elected to be our lawmakers, period. If they don't like the law they should change it (prospectively, of course), but until then I am more than happy to engage in lawful tax planning, and if other people find that to be "unacceptable" or "morally indefensible", well, they are entitled to their opinion, but tough.

Oh, yeah, and another thing: so the government are thinking of bringing in a lie detector to identify cheats and frauds? They don't need to because they already have one. It's called Hansard.

[SantaClaus]

The governments aren't here to serve us. We are here to serve them.

Apart from the wealthy elite of whom the government approve, the system has been designed to keep the ordinary man in his place.

Here's a fitting book that sums up my mood:
The_Road_to_Serfdom - F. A. Hayek

In this paragraph, simply read the enemy as "tax avoider":

Third, to weld together a closely coherent body of supporters, the leader must
appeal to a common human weakness. It seems to be easier for people to
agree on a negative program -- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of
those better off - than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and
the "they" is consequently always employed by those who seek the allegiance
of huge masses. The enemy may be internal, like the "Jew" in Germany or the
"kulak" in Russia, or he may be external. In any case, this technique has the
great advantage of leaving the leader greater freedom of action than would
almost any positive program.

[normalbloke]

From the horse's mouth... well... his stable girl anyway

Received the following from David Cameron's office girl in response to my request for a constituency surgery meeting with the PM to discuss the topic of "Gauke's views on retrospective taxation: before and after".

"....David (Cameron) has seen the exchange of correspondence and has asked me to write to say that the point is that this legislation is in front of the Courts, under judicial review, and we have to wait the outcome of that before going further. "

..er... no we don't, if he had some bottle.

[Morlock]

The governments aren't here to serve us. We are here to serve them.

Apart from the wealthy elite of whom the government approve, the system has been designed to keep the ordinary man in his place.

Here's a fitting book that sums up my mood:
The_Road_to_Serfdom - F. A. Hayek

In this paragraph, simply read the enemy as "tax avoider":

Third, to weld together a closely coherent body of supporters, the leader must
appeal to a common human weakness. It seems to be easier for people to
agree on a negative program -- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of
those better off - than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and
the "they" is consequently always employed by those who seek the allegiance
of huge masses. The enemy may be internal, like the "Jew" in Germany or the
"kulak" in Russia, or he may be external. In any case, this technique has the
great advantage of leaving the leader greater freedom of action than would
almost any positive program.

Which makes you wonder whether all this recent stuff about hammering tax avoiders might be just another bunch of populist hyperbole, rather than having any serious substance to it. What's the betting that it will all get quietly dropped in due course...
Cleggy: "The electorate scum have got bored of us bashing bankers and tax avoiders. What else can we drum up to keep their tiny minds off the real issues?"
Dave: "How about another war? North Korea's looking promising. Do you think they'll fall for the old 45-minute trick again?"

[DonkeyRhubarb]

"....David (Cameron) has seen the exchange of correspondence and has asked me to write to say that the point is that this legislation is in front of the Courts, under judicial review, and we have to wait the outcome of that before going further. "

Or in other words "we don't give a toss".

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Which makes you wonder whether all this recent stuff about hammering tax avoiders might be just another bunch of populist hyperbole, rather than having any serious substance to it.

HMRC have only just started sending out the PAYE demands and I've heard it could take a couple of years or more to resolve all the errors.

This story is likely to run and run with a lot more fallout to come.

Perhaps all this fighting talk over bashing tax dodgers is a way of placating those who are soon to be on the receiving end of unexpected demands ie. "we're all in it together"

[OnYourBikeGB]

MPs have no right nor mandate to preach to us about morality. They are elected to be our lawmakers, period. If they don't like the law they should change it (prospectively, of course), but until then I am more than happy to engage in lawful tax planning, and if other people find that to be "unacceptable" or "morally indefensible", well, they are entitled to their opinion, but tough.

Oh, yeah, and another thing: so the goverment are thinking of bringing in a lie detector to identify cheats and frauds? They don't need to because they already have one. It's called Hansard.

Damn right. Governments lie and cheat, spin and lie. They'll promise millions to third world nations then sell them guns so they can kill each other. They'll misreport finances and hammer the poor if it suits their election plan. They plunder pension funds, and sell the nations gold reserves like it was scrap metal. They'd sell the country lies to justify egos and pandering to a US Government that really don't give a tulip about us. They can take their morals and shove them up their arse as far as I'm concerned. Tax is a legal issue, not a moral one. If it was anything else, they wouldn't have too many donors. ******* hypocrites.

[SantaClaus]

Which makes you wonder whether all this recent stuff about hammering tax avoiders might be just another bunch of populist hyperbole, rather than having any serious substance to it. What's the betting that it will all get quietly dropped in due course...
Cleggy: "The electorate scum have got bored of us bashing bankers and tax avoiders. What else can we drum up to keep their tiny minds off the real issues?"
Dave: "How about another war? North Korea's looking promising. Do you think they'll fall for the old 45-minute trick again?"

Yep, maybe its time to get the public fearful of terrorism or nuclear war again. That always oils the wheels for further reductions of our civil liberties.

[OnYourBikeGB]

With thoughts starting to turn to Christmas, and whether or not I should be telling my children that Santa may not be generous (not our Santa, the other one), did we ever get any confirmation on whether or not HMRC my seek to collect if they win the appeal, or are they still waiting until at least the Supreme Court?