Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I don't like that line of thinking, it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine. Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide is right and wrong, not to define it.

What who decides is right and wrong? Majority opinion? Informed opinion? politicians?

[Robinho]

Let's summarise...

Taxation is immoral - Legalised theft
Tax minimisation via offshores is legal and amoral - It's the government's responsibility to eliminate theft (tax) avoidance loopholes
Tax minimisation via ltds is legal and amoral - It's the government's responsibility to eliminate theft (tax) avoidance loopholes
Retrospective action by the government is tyranny - They are acting above the laws they have set

Points 2 and 3 are identical IMO. If you believe actively using legal forms of tax minimisation is immoral (i don't but if you do) the severity of it makes no difference.

[Old Hack]

I don't like that line of thinking, it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine. Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide is right and wrong, not to define it.

What you are saying is that instead of defining right and wrong with objectively understandable laws, we have to by subjective measures, like a line in the sand of our morality?

Why is it finding a loophole to do something wrong, when it is onlyu wrong to certain people; this is the bit I cannot understand; you're judging people by your own moral toolset, not theirs.

What is right and wrong to you, may be way off what is right and wrong to me, to spod, to SB.

It's why I genuinely cannot understand Gregs viewpoint; he actively avoids paying tax, yet pokes a finger out at others who are doing the very same thing, albeit at a different level.

What is a fair amount of tax? Seriously, what is the figure you can come up with, that is fair, just?

I pay as little as I have to, judged by the rules in play when I come to pay them. Morality? You could argue you did this as you didn't want to aid paying for an illegal war, or that you do not believe in the morality of MP's being able to claim different expenses than business people. What I am saying, is morality is an amazingly bendy item when you want it to be.

I have a very good idea of right and wrong, I believe. It would, I have utterly no doubt, be very different than yours. We have laws, in order this is balanced; I dont agree with some, I agree others shoudl be different, harsher lets say.

I just don't get why morality, or what is what we think is right and wrong comes into it.

[vetran]

I don't like that line of thinking , it suggests that if you can find a legal loophole to do something wrong, you're fine You are in law . Or that right and wrong are defined solely by what is legal/illegal they aren't otherwise people wouldn't believe parking fines are illegal.

The point of the law is to mirror and enforce what we decide and legislate is right and wrong, not and therefore to define it.

FTFY

You are still seeing 'the law' as being interested in Morality. Law doesn't decide right or wrong it just decides what is legal or illegal.

Law makers & Judges should be aware of morality - Law enforcers and those that obey can't be.

If its an immoral law change it going forward and if you wish give people who fell foul of it (not profited from it) an individual pardon or allow an appeal. This is the sort of thing that happened with treason and homosexuality laws. If you can get others that used it abusively (not illegally) under another law that existed at the time then go for it .

If its a bad law it will be opposed, morality may have a part in it but hindsight cannot be assumed in law.


Try this, you invest all your money in an ISA, in 10 years time the government decides ISA's were wrong and wants all you to pay it back, after all getting interest tax free was obviously a fiddle.

That's ok?

Try that again with a pension.
Discounted dental care.
Free Bus passes.
Free school meals. - you later earn above average wage and receive a bill for you the school meals you ate 20 years ago.

[cojak]

Agreed, but we've had 14 pages of SB's voice, I'm just asking what he/she is trying to achieve. Isn't that allowed?

Of course it's allowed.

But expect to be challenged back.

[d000hg]

What who decides is right and wrong? Majority opinion? Informed opinion? politicians?

I don't know, but the point of the law is to crystalise morality into something tangible.

FTFY

You are still seeing 'the law' as being interested in Morality. Law doesn't decide right or wrong it just decides what is legal or illegal.

Isn't that what I said, that laws are passed based on morality but morality is not defined by law? Laws are (ideally) strict rules, but those rules are written based on (somebody's idea of) morality.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I don't know, but the point of the law is to crystalise morality into something tangible.

Isn't that what I said, that laws are passed based on morality but morality is not defined by law? Laws are (ideally) strict rules, but those rules are written based on (somebody's idea of) morality.

But the point is d000hg that morality is personal to the individual it cannot be crystalised except by oppression

[vetran]

I am the law.

Ferguson: Five years?! No! No! I had no choice! They were killing each other in there.
Judge Dredd: You could have gone out the window.
Ferguson: Forty floors? It would have been suicide!
Judge Dredd: Maybe, but it's legal.

Judge Dredd: Emotions. There oughta be a law against them.

Rico Dredd: Guilt, and innocence, is a matter of timing.


Satire but with a grain of truth.

[d000hg]

But the point is d000hg that morality is personal to the individual it cannot be crystalised except by oppression

So it's oppressive to make a law saying sex between an adult and a 13-yo is illegal, because some people would say a 13-yo should be allowed to make that choice?

Laws come from somewhere, and that is an approximation of the average view of morality. Most people think killing someone or beating them up is wrong, so our laws reflect that. Most think sex with a minor is wrong, so it's illegal. Etc.

[vetran]

So it's oppressive to make a law saying sex between an adult and a 13-yo is illegal, because some people would say a 13-yo should be allowed to make that choice?

Laws come from somewhere, and that is an approximation of the average view of morality. Most people think killing someone or beating them up is wrong, so our laws reflect that. Most think sex with a minor is wrong, so it's illegal. Etc.

Yes most people think its immoral, so a law is proposed & passed after due consideration, it is modified and improved in production

Most people think its immoral for someone to earn more than them, maybe we need a law?
Many people think its immoral to commit infidelity, maybe we need a law?
Many people think its immoral that some people get benefits , maybe we need a law?

Some parties think its immoral that businesses pay tax differently to them because the papers say so, maybe we need a law?

Most people think the existing legal system is a mess and there is too much regulation & loopholes , maybe we need a law?