Shocking Lapse at the Telegraph

[pjclarke]

Peter Oborn ludicrously tries to equate the looting chav scum with the shining moral example set by those quite reasonably arranging their tax affairs to minimise their tax burden ....

Yet Sir Philip [Green], who a few years ago sent an extraordinary £1 billion dividend offshore, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this. Why does nobody get angry or hold him culpable? I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?

Really, one expects better of the Torygraph. Anyone know how the Monaco thing works, btw?

[Spacecadet]

“What the looters wanted was for a few minutes to enter the world of Sloane Street consumption.” This from a man who notoriously claimed £5,900 for eight laptops. Of course, as an MP he obtained these laptops legally through his expenses.

They must have been crap bargain basement laptops at that price

[EternalOptimist]

Peter Oborn ludicrously tries to equate the looting chav scum with the shining moral example set by those quite reasonably arranging their tax affairs to minimise their tax burden ....



Really, one expects better of the Torygraph. Anyone know how the Monaco thing works, btw?

Monaco's Banking Sector - Monaco Private Banking - Private Banking, bank and finance in Monaco Monte-Carlo

Madoff’s yacht is the talk of Monaco - FT.com


Monaco Financial - Professional services - Newport Beach, CA | Facebook




Monaco Financial Consultants & Advisors - AngloINFO, in Monaco



Modern Monaco puts responsibility ahead of capital gains | World news | Guardian Weekly

[Mich the Tester]

Peter Oborn ludicrously tries to put across an alternative point of view to persuade readers to look a bit further than the ends of their own noses.

ftfy

[DodgyAgent]

Peter Oborn ludicrously tries to equate the looting chav scum with the shining moral example set by those quite reasonably arranging their tax affairs to minimise their tax burden ....



Really, one expects better of the Torygraph. Anyone know how the Monaco thing works, btw?

What is ethical about paying tax. Until it is spent wisely everyone has a duty to deprive the exchequer of as much of it as possible.

[Old Greg]

What is ethical about paying tax. Until it is spent wisely everyone has a duty to deprive the exchequer of as much of it as possible.

Thus spake the amoral blood-sucking scumbag.

[pjclarke]

A modest proposal

Nonsense Old Greg. If anything Dodgyagent does not go far enough. What more enlightened readers know is that tax is the exact same thing as theft - demanding money with menaces, and that all those tiresome whinging nurses, doctors, teachers and other public sector 'workers' are in fact living off the proceeds of crime.

Our clear moral duty, until it is proven beyond doubt that not a penny of public tax money ever gets lost, wasted or embezzled , is for everyone to follow the example of these brave pioneers and reduce their 'tax' to around 5%.

Of course, we would all have to organise our own private police forces to protect ourselves (and our hard-earned property!) next time the idle feckless benefit parasites decide to riot, (and BUPA would have to start doing A&E, naturally) but this would be a small price to pay for the freedom to keep ALL the fruits of our labours.

You know it makes sense.

[Old Greg]

Nonsense Old Greg. If anything Dodgyagent does not go far enough. What more enlightened readers know is that tax is the exact same thing as theft - demanding money with menaces, and that all those tiresome whinging nurses, doctors, teachers and other public sector 'workers' are in fact living off the proceeds of crime.

Our clear moral duty, until it is proven beyond doubt that not a penny of public tax money ever gets lost, wasted or embezzled , is for everyone to follow the example of these brave pioneers and reduce their 'tax' to around 5%.

Of course, we would all have to organise our own private police forces to protect ourselves (and our hard-earned property!) next time the idle feckless benefit parasites decide to riot, (and BUPA would have to start doing A&E, naturally) but this would be a small price to pay for the freedom to keep ALL the fruits of our labours.

You know it makes sense.

'Give them their social reform, or they will give us their social revolution.'

Lord Hailsham

[sunnysan]

Peter Oborn

Peter Oborn ludicrously tries to equate the looting chav scum with the shining moral example set by those quite reasonably arranging their tax affairs to minimise their tax burden ....

I think he has a point, considering that many of the politicians dishing out condemnation and sombre statements regarding the moral health of society, where not so long ago, pilfering from the public purse by abusing their expense accounts.

What actually makes their "crimes" worse and that by serving the state they have a implicit mandate to uphold moral standards, unlike their socio-economically deprived counterparts on the streets of London.

With regards to businesspeople I think his statements are a bit more dubious although, considering the article is about morality, the question can be asked that at what point have you become materially wealthy enough to be morally obliged to give something back to the society that enriched you?

In general though I am trying to understand from what utopian level PO thinks moral standards have dropped from, as as he insinuates we are no longer as moral as we used to be which I think is a strange assumption to make.

Politicians have always been corrupt, businessmen always serve their own interests first, and the dispossessed have always used violence to express their frustration owing to lack of other means and so the wheel turns....

[Old Greg]

I think he has a point, considering that many of the politicians dishing out condemnation and sombre statements regarding the moral health of society, where not so long ago, pilfering from the public purse by abusing their expense accounts.

What actually makes their "crimes" worse and that by serving the state they have a implicit mandate to uphold moral standards, unlike their socio-economically deprived counterparts on the streets of London.

With regards to businesspeople I think his statements are a bit more dubious although, considering the article is about morality, the question can be asked that at what point have you become materially wealthy enough to be morally obliged to give something back to the society that enriched you?

In general though I am trying to understand from what utopian level PO thinks moral standards have dropped from, as as he insinuates we are no longer as moral as we used to be which I think is a strange assumption to make.

Politicians have always been corrupt, businessmen always serve their own interests first, and the dispossessed have always used violence to express their frustration owing to lack of other means and so the wheel turns....

Why don't you clear off to a sensible forum?