Taxation by moral blackmail? Huh?

[jacey]

Is it just me?

The BBC news this morning said the Jimmy Carr had agreed to cease using LEGAL tax avoidance schemes to reduce his tax bill because HM government is saying that to LEGALLY avoid paying tax is morally reprehensible.

But surely the law is the law. When I was on a business course many years ago it was the accepted theory that you use every legal trick in the book to avoid paying taxes because - well - they're LEGAL. The mantra was that 'tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is not'. People pay accountants to find legal ways of reducing their tax bill.

I'm sorry, but if there's a tax loophole the government doesn't like, they should plug it - legally.

I know Jimmy Carr is probably pretty wealthy, and that those of us who are not sometimes really like the idea of a wealthy person being forced to part with money, but if the law applies to one person, it applies to all.

I want to know how the government has the right to name and shame people who are not actually breaking the law. When has the government agreed to set aside the law of the land in order to take a decision which was morally right?

I'd like to see the government looking at a low income family and saying: "Ah, Mr and Mrs Smith, I see that we took £2,556.78 from you in tax last year and that having paid this your five children had to wear shoes that were too small for them because you couldn't afford new ones. We agree that we had the law on our side, but we feel it was morally wrong to take this money from you, so we're giving it back."

Yeah, right!

Comments

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

The existence or non-existence of a legal code that allows people with lots of money to pay less tax than people on minimum wage is one issue - but the choice of people to use those tax loopholes and ask people on lower incomes to subsidize the public services they use is another, and I feel that people *do* have a right to be outraged about this - just because something is legal does not make it morally right.

And you can make a case for people who legally circumvent the tax system and reinvest the money into causes they feel are more relevant - a philantropical system - even though that has other problems, too - but at least those people are putting the money back into society _somehow_.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long response to this and then lost it when BB came in with a question and I hit the wrong button. Duh, but basically it was a rant to the effect that since the government deals with us on the basis of the law is the law, then why should anyone be surprised when individuals deal with the government on the same basis?

I abhor what has turned into a media witch hunt. I abhor the dual standards applied by Conservative and Lib-Dem politicians in fuelling that witch hunt.

I abhor David Cameron's application of double standards depending on whether the person in question is Carr (immoral, burn him!) or Barlow (It wouldn't be right for me to comment).

Charlie's right, we really do hate rich people in this country, don't we? Is it jealousy?

If we put morality above the law of the land then it would be nice to see it being applied in the opposite direction - from the government to the people.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I agree with all of your points re: singling out people (I don't see David Cameron condemning his father or offering to put a good chunk of his own money into public services) but just because the government is run by rich people who like to give other rich people tax breaks doesn't make it _right_ for rich people to pay less tax than poor people pay.

And I don't think this country 'hates rich people' - but many people get rich by exploiting others, and that is not something most people can - or should -feel comfortable about.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

This, absolutely and I feel I have a right to at least some moral outrage at such rank hypocrisy. I was born on a council prefab estate and my grandads were colliers- a job that killed them both comparatively young even though the pit didn't. I flunked school at 15 and got an education via a uni grant.

Would I get that opportunity today? I doubt it. Government is far too busy seeing to their own needs and those of their wealthy friends.

And people still wonder why I'm a Socialist.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

In a system where a) everybody gets a share of the good things and b) it's possible through sheer hard work and a spot of luck to move up the ladder, rich people aren't a problem. But in a system where they use their power to exploit others - pay them a pittance, hire-and-fire-and oppress their workforce (I'm sure you've seen the Independent article about call centre workers who get assigned four minutes a day toilet breaks... and the people who *support* this system) - well, then there Is A Problem.

I found a letter from my grandmother's (rich) employer saying 'times are hard, everybody is struggling, I'm giving you a raise'. That completely knocked me for six because I cannot IMAGINE any rich person in today's economy to even consider this.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Absolutely, cmcmck. I was incensed by the removal of student grants with virtually no warning (my daughter was the first year to miss out!) and the subsequent application of student fees. My children - now in their 30s - still have their student loans around their necks

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

Green Knight, exploitation is not what I'm talking about. You aleady know my views on that, especially if you followed my Zulu posts of 2010.

What I'm talking about is putting people in the pillory who have not broken the law and letting our senior politicians selectively throw rotten tomatoes at the ones they do not count as personal friends.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

The politicians should remain silent - that's very much a case of 'casting the first stone', and in any case, it's unprofessional for them to comment on individual cases. The tax-paying public, on the other hand, has a right to point out that it's not right for rich people to pay less taxes than poor people have to pay.

And as I said, just because an unjust law exist does not mean that keeping within that law is an ethical act. It's the politicians' duty to close those loopholes (much less for them to use them - cough, expenses and employing family members and getting paid for years' wage for a couple of hours work.

The only acceptable thing for a politician to say when it is pointed out that certain members of society elect not to pull their weight is 'we will try and fix this.' They're *very* quick when it comes to the little guys, but not so quick when it comes to their cronies.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

I find it difficult to differentiate the tax paying public's protest from a media witch hunt when this is expressed by vilifying an individual on the frint page of the broadsheet press. The public has been worked up to an indignant frenzy by the media and seems more incensed than when Ken Dodd was actually brought to trial for tax evasion - though later acquitted.

The figures don't matter. The law does. We'll have to agree to differ on that point, but it seems we agree on the unprofessionalism of the politicians who comment inappropriately.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I didn't see the media frenzy, so I don't know how bad it was. There's a line I'm not certain how to balance. On the one hand, I feel that public figures ought to be scrutinized more closely than ordinary citizens - hence when David 'rant against broken families' Cameron leaves his daughter at the pub, that's worth reporting, whereas if Jane and Joe Bloggs had misscheduled picking up theirs, it's not.

On the other hand, letting celebrity culture - whatever you report - drown out actual news (like the whole GCSE/O-level mess is a Very Bad Thing indeed, and focussing on one particular person instead of the thousands of possible targets is not fair on a purely personal basis.

[birdsedge.livejournal.com]

The BBC news on Radio4 this evening had as a postscript to a report on the Jimmy Carr affair a question that asked if politicians' tax returns should be made public. Oh no, was the (hasty) governmental reply. Some things should be kept private. You wouldn't want your tax return shoving through your neighbour's letterbox, would you?

Yeah, right!