Does one have a moral duty to Pay tax?

[AtW]

any comments?

Thatcher did not finish her job with the Unions IMO: I look at some of them now (like London tube drivers union) and christ, they must have been aweful in the 70s and 80s when they were actually strong.

[Bradley]

Really?

BTW I wouldn't read too much into the TUC report either. Its author has already disowned it, plus it is looking at the Phillip Greens, not the average wage slave. It's political posturing masquerading as informed criticism

I don't know if Richard Murphy would agree with you ...

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2...tax-avoidance/

[AlfredJPruffock]

Excellent article.

Put another way, why is there such a bias against earned income in our tax system when the rules on investment income and capital gains tax are so readily open to abuse, and are abused as a matter of fact, apparently without concern arising?

That M'Lurd is the question before us today.

[expat]

Yes. One has a moral duty to pay precisely the amount of tax that is laid down by statute, interpreted by HMRC, and finally ironed out by case law.

I am afraid that you are not all there. There may well be a moral duty to pay tax, but what you have expressed here is a legal duty, not a moral one.

[ASB]

Bradley quoted Denis Healy. There was another quote - around the same time I think - which I cannot turn up.

It was along the lines of "a man has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to set his stall such as to give the inland revenue the biggest slice of the pie" It was from a senior judge, possibly the lord chief justice of the day.

Ones moral requirement is to pay the correct amount of taxes, and that is defined by legislation. It is perfectly reasonable for a government to update legislation to remove what it perceives as abuse. In the meantime it is perfectly reasonable for people to use whatever facilities are legally available to them to reduce their bills.

The greater ones affluence the more potential benefits become available. It may be unfortunate that some can't take advantage because they do not have enough to make it worthwhile. That doesn't make it wrong that those can afford it may choose to do so.

I can't afford a lear jet. But that doesn't mean that anybody who can should not because it's unfair on me.

[Churchill]

Bradley quoted Denis Healy. There was another quote - around the same time I think - which I cannot turn up.

It was along the lines of "a man has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to set his stall such as to give the inland revenue the biggest slice of the pie" It was from a senior judge, possibly the lord chief justice of the day.

Ones moral requirement is to pay the correct amount of taxes, and that is defined by legislation. It is perfectly reasonable for a government to update legislation to remove what it perceives as abuse. In the meantime it is perfectly reasonable for people to use whatever facilities are legally available to them to reduce their bills.

The greater ones affluence the more potential benefits become available. It may be unfortunate that some can't take advantage because they do not have enough to make it worthwhile. That doesn't make it wrong that those can afford it may choose to do so.

I can't afford a lear jet. But that doesn't mean that anybody who can should not because it's unfair on me.

Wot 'e said!

[expat]

Originally Posted by Bradley View Post
The fact is that you have a moral duty to pay tax if you're going to live in and benefit from this society.

What moral duty is that?

I was born in a place that happens to be in this country, of parents who were likewise. Does that mean that I was born having already agreed to a social contract with the organisation that calls itself the government of this country?

From where comes the government's right to demand that I am "living in and benefitting from this society"? IMO it can only be from the people, from where come all the powers that the government justly exercises. If the people do not have such a power, neither does the government.

By what right do the people, no matter how many of them, demand that I contribute to their projects?

PS the same argument applies even if you attach "... or get out". Why should I?

[AlfredJPruffock]

If there is a Legal Obgligation and you choose not to comply then there are legal penalites.

If there is a Moral Obligation and you choose not comply then - well then what ?

Apart from Legal Penalties - hence Legal Obligation - surely it is a question of legal rather than moral obligations - eg if it were moral then one would have a choice not to pay the portion of taxes that may fund an immoral War.

[AtW]

You wouldn't believe, Comrade, you really wouldn't believe.

Chances are they were, at least in part, funded by USSR: certainly anything related to communist party, but generally any strikes were welcome by USSR.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Chances are they were, at least in part, funded by USSR: certainly anything related to communist party, but generally any strikes were welcome by USSR.

Except of course in the USSR itself where there was no possibiilty of strikes in that former worker's paradise.

Karashow Comrade ?