Reply to: Fairness

[DodgyAgent]

Hmmm and we do not have that situation now?

we do but the legislators are being made to pay (overcomplicating the tax system is an example)

[SantaClaus]

...If laws can be made that create unintended consequences then it is incumbent on legislators to get things right. As soon as we allow "fairness" to come in and prop up poor legislation then law makers will become lazy, and the interpretation of the law will become entirely subjective to those in power. This will lead to a totalitarian state that would then truly qualify as being "unfair".
...y

Hmmm and we do not have that situation now?

Yep, head over to the BN66 thread. Lazy lawmakers = retrospective legislation.

[original PM]

Maybe but there is no law against it.

for someone who generally likes rules and laws I find it surprising that you now think it right to interfere in matters that are not clarified by law. You seem to think that because YOU see something as unfair that legislation should allow people to be prosecuted on this basis. This sort of "moralising" may in some cases be desirable (such as a murderer being "got off" on a technicality) but it is no way to run any sort of legal system.

If laws can be made that create unintended consequences then it is incumbent on legislators to get things right. As soon as we allow "fairness" to come in and prop up poor legislation then law makers will become lazy, and the interpretation of the law will become entirely subjective to those in power. This will lead to a totalitarian state that would then truly qualify as being "unfair".

You would then have to take your business to another country and we would not want that.

Hmmm and we do not have that situation now?

[DodgyAgent]

Using Tesco in the first place is big error of judgement

Maybe but there is no law against it.

for someone who generally likes rules and laws I find it surprising that you now think it right to interfere in matters that are not clarified by law. You seem to think that because YOU see something as unfair that legislation should allow people to be prosecuted on this basis. This sort of "moralising" may in some cases be desirable (such as a murderer being "got off" on a technicality) but it is no way to run any sort of legal system.

If laws can be made that create unintended consequences then it is incumbent on legislators to get things right. As soon as we allow "fairness" to come in and prop up poor legislation then law makers will become lazy, and the interpretation of the law will become entirely subjective to those in power. This will lead to a totalitarian state that would then truly qualify as being "unfair".

You would then have to take your business to another country and we would not want that.

[original PM]

If you are more or less sure it's a mistake then taking advantage of it is dishonest in this case.

true you have a moral obligation - but no legal obligation I would imagine

[AtW]

Any more than buying 3 hundredweight of cheese to get the points in Tesco?

Using Tesco in the first place is big error of judgement

[AtW]

so do you have a moral obligation to tell someone at Morrisons and pay the correct amount?

If you are more or less sure it's a mistake then taking advantage of it is dishonest in this case.

[Mich the Tester]

the point I was trying to make was that you know those items should cost you something but you have followed the process and it has turned out something was wrong and you did not get charged

so do you have a moral obligation to tell someone at Morrisons and pay the correct amount?

Yes, but one wonders whether the check out girl will be intelligent enough or in fact authorised to do anything about it.

[original PM]

the point I was trying to make was that you know those items should cost you something but you have followed the process and it has turned out something was wrong and you did not get charged

so do you have a moral obligation to tell someone at Morrisons and pay the correct amount?

[AtW]

or to give a for instance - if you go shopping to Morissons and use their self service checkouts and notice that half the items scan at zero price - are you shoplifting?

Maybe not shoplifting but those items can be clawed back by the shop - most T&Cs online also have same provisions.

I certainly won't rush "checking out" zero priced items at supermarket if I see them.

[original PM]

He is right you know - the law should change and perhaps it should make it illegal to provide any tax avoidance services.

I find it amusing how people say that Directors' job is to minimise tax, BS - Directors' job is to run legitimate company and make profits whilst obeying the law - taxes is big part of this.

That is true - the problem is there are too many ways for directors etc to get 'expert advice' which they can follow knowing it is dodgy but they have covered their asses.

And that is the problem - people know it is wrong but legally they have found a loop hole....

or to give a for instance - if you go shopping to Morissons and use their self service checkouts and notice that half the items scan at zero price - are you shoplifting?

[Scrag Meister]

Did Starbucks pay any UK tax?

because surely

<pedant/>

To pay "additional tax" you have to have paid some previously to add it to?

</pedant>

[AtW]

Tax law is anything but clear otherwise this debate would not be happening.

That is true.

[DodgyAgent]

No i'm suggesting he should stfu and do something useful about it. At the moment he sounds like a spoilt kid who's not allowed to have chocolate for his tea.

Obviously he wont because the foundations of his party rest upon allowing the wealthy to dodge tax and screwing the rest of us.

I agree with you. As soon as Cameron brought morality into this debate he is exposing any arrangements he or his family have to charges of hypocrisy.

he is in good company:

Margaret Hodge's family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK - Telegraph

[DodgyAgent]

I'd be ok with that but in my view tax law is pretty clear, it's just there are people who have enough money to hire very expensive QCs who will argue with straight face that black is actually white.

I am all for lower taxes, but everybody should pay them - any smart arse who thinks they can get away with near 0 tax should be made an example for future generations.

Tax law is anything but clear otherwise this debate would not be happening.