BN66/S58 update

[d000hg]

Playing with semantics doesn't make it any better.
In both your examples you are taking stuff you haven't paid for - services from the state in the case of non tax-payers and other services in the case of your client.

Where did I say it was OK to break the law? Semantics are important... calling something "theft" which is in fact evasion or fraud indicates the person making the claim doesn't really know what they're talking about. Just as someone making a mathematical claim based on the "average" shows their ignorance.

[sasguru]

. Just as someone making a mathematical claim based on the "average" shows their ignorance.

How so? Many mathematical claims are based on an average

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Okay so lets see, what if someone cleared your bank account and then defended his action by using a loophole in law ? Would you give up or try and fight this ? By law he has stolen your hard earned money, would you agree to a change in that loophole so you can get your money back ?

Here's an example of a law.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This made it illegal to own Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brasileiros.

Statistics show that German Shepherds account for a large % of dog attacks. Perhaps that is a loophole in the law that should be closed.

Would it be ok to change the law retrospectively to make it illegal to have owned German Shepherds since 1991?

Anyone whose child had been attacked by a German Shepherd might think so.

[stek]

BN66/S58 update

As Dave Allen once said, only 10% of road accidents are caused by drunks, so get everyone else off the road and leave it to them...

[d000hg]

How so? Many mathematical claims are based on an average

You know what I mean, 'an' average not 'the' average

[moira under the stairs]

As Dave Allen once said, only 10% of road accidents are caused by drunks, so get everyone else off the road and leave it to them...

What a sobering thought

[BolshieBastard]

Your argument boils down to: "...other people are being winkers so I will be too".
Which is a crap argument and leads to a country being like Greece.
Did you use the NHS or send your children to school while you were on this scheme?
So why should people who in many cases were earning far less than you have funded this?

Utter rubbish.

Tell me, do you pay say, a 10% surcharge on the tax rate you pay? If not, why not? You are talking up the 'moral' argument here so, why not pay an extra 20% to make yourself feel good? 20 too high? OK, what about an extra 10% or 5%?

Do you break the speed limit on roads? Do you stick to 50, 60 and 70mph on specified roads (you're an absolute minority of motorists if you do!)? Why is it acceptable to break those limits?

Do you religiously sort your refuse for re cycling or do you chuck stuff into the wrong bin occasionally? Is that acceptable or is it one of the things we do but dont bother about because it 'harms no one'?

Did I make use of the NHS and send my kids to state school? Are you serious!? Of course I did. But guess what, I still pay for the NHS despite only using it twice a year for the last 10 to 15 years and even then, have to pay at point of use (the dentist). I still pay for other people's kids to use the local school despite my kids leaving 10 years ago.

I dont use the local library, or the local park. I've called the police out once in 50 years. I've never used an ambulance or fire brigade.

Do you see how ludicrous the basis of your argument is?

I dont begrudge paying these sums now or in the past and I must say, unlike a lot of contractors, dont vote tory either.

The whole argument isnt about using or not using public services or even paying for them. Its about government changing legislation retrospectively 8 years after the event.

[sasguru]

Do you see how ludicrous the basis of your argument is?

.

All this bollux is because you were greedy. That is the basis of your non-argument.
Most people with good judgement would see that paying 3.5% tax was too good to be true and there would be a comeuppance.
And so it has come to pass.
I can understand to a certain extent the retrospective argument, but equally you might say you can't prosecute Jew murderers in Germany because they were within the law at the time.
Doesn't mean they didn't know it was wrong which is why they are being prosecuted.

[moira under the stairs]

Jew murderers in Germany because they were within the law at the time.
Doesn't mean they didn't know it was wrong which is why they are being prosecuted.

When was it ever lawful to murder ? sums up your intelligence.

BB sober up leave this thread for the drunks.

[d000hg]

Most people with good judgement would see that paying 3.5% tax was too good to be true and there would be a comeuppance.

That's a pretty naive, idealistic view of things. It sounds almost like you believe in some kind of superstitious karma nonsense!

People "get away" with exploiting loopholes all the time and have done for decades/centuries. The government close them down as they become aware, just as new drugs start off legal but then get criminalised as they become known about.