BN66/S58 update

[d000hg]

Everything.

How? My quick research shows nothing that made murdering Jews legal under German law.

[Old Greg]

I'll make it easy for you d000hg. Retrospective legislation is not always unjust. However, it should rarely be used, and only in cases where obvious wrongdoing (civil or criminal) took place but without the contemporaneous legislative framework to deal with it.

The argument them comes down to whether retrospective legislation is just in this case, but without argumentative recourse to a position of retrospective therefore wrong.

[Old Greg]

How? My quick research shows nothing that made murdering Jews legal under German law.

But I was talking about the crime of genocide. Research that.

[d000hg]

I'll make it easy for you d000hg. Retrospective legislation is not always unjust.

That does make it easy. I don't need to put any thought into the matter and wear myself out forming an opinion, I can just parrot what you tell me to think.

Thanks!

[Old Greg]

Here's an interesting piece of retrospective legislation from Australia:

Bottom of the harbour tax avoidance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[sasguru]

That does make it easy. I don't need to put any thought into the matter and wear myself out forming an opinion, I can just parrot what you tell me to think.

Thanks!

Phew! The tedious working of your tiny brain was beginning to bore the vast majority I suspect.

[Old Greg]

That does make it easy. I don't need to put any thought into the matter and wear myself out forming an opinion, I can just parrot what you tell me to think.

Thanks!

Ooooooh!

[sasguru]

So to summarise pages and pages of gumph:

A minority of greedy IT consultants with very poor judgement thought they could get away with paying 3.5% tax on their earnings, arguing that was technically legal at the time, while ignoring the rectitude or otherwise of not contributing to the society they lived in.
Now they are being asked to pay their proper share, and I for one am glad about that.
While the argument is that this is retrospective, I see no other way to retrieve ill-gotten gains.
And while others have said that retrospectivity sets a precedent, I don't see this happening on a large scale since unfair retrospective legislation that impacts a majority will be punished at the polls.

[d000hg]

Now they are being asked to pay their proper share, and I for one am glad about that.
While the argument is that this is retrospective, I see no other way to retrieve ill-gotten gains.

If you cock up and forgot to invoice your client for some hours and bill them for it two years later, what do you think would happen (actually what IS the legal position here)? Maybe the fact the government were so slow to act in closing the loophole means they should suffer the loss as a fault of their disorganisation? It's not like this is chasing people from a year or two back, but closer a decade. Regardless of fault, it's crazy to expect people to be able to cough up such sums after such a long period.

For the record I too think it was a dumb idea to invest in such schemes BUT two wrongs do not make a right.

[fullyautomatix]

So to summarise pages and pages of gumph:

A minority of greedy IT consultants with very poor judgement thought they could get away with paying 3.5% tax on their earnings, arguing that was technically legal at the time, while ignoring the rectitude or otherwise of not contributing to the society they lived in.
Now they are being asked to pay their proper share, and I for one am glad about that.
While the argument is that this is retrospective, I see no other way to retrieve ill-gotten gains.
And while others have said that retrospectivity sets a precedent, I don't see this happening on a large scale since unfair retrospective legislation that impacts a majority will be punished at the polls.

Agree with the summarisation SAS. Sounds logical. Also to add, the minority of greedy IT consultants were offered this scheme "exclusively". This means the dog on the road like you and me could not access this scheme.

The BN66 crew and the muppets who support them like Dh00g and NotAllThere and Cojak etc keep arguing that this sets a precedent which means the govt will keep changing laws retrospectively, which is simply bollox. If someone interprets the law differently and commits a crime the govt will change laws to nab the culprit, those of us who abide by the law will never ever get affected.