Bolitics The New Condem Government

[VillaChris]

I avoid Tax aswell....well last time I looked winning 20 quid on the pub machine jackpot a couple of times a week isn't taxable.  

[MakemineVanilla]

If it is immoral not to pay tax to the government, is it also wrong that people take from government?

 

More importantly, is it morally acceptable for people to vote in governments which promise to give them other people's money?

 

Anyone in the bottom three quintiles votes in governments out of pure self-interest, knowing that they will never have to foot their share of whatever that government spends.

 

[chrisp65]

that looks like the crude beginnings of a fair and workable system to me

[blandy]

If it is immoral not to pay tax to the government, is it also wrong that people take from government?

More importantly, is it morally acceptable for people to vote in governments which promise to give them other people's money?

Anyone in the bottom three quintiles votes in governments out of pure self-interest, knowing that they will never have to foot their share of whatever that government spends.

If that's aiming to make a comparison, I don't think it's a valid one, MMV.

First the use of the two words "immoral v wrong" skews it - to se how you could rephrase your question like this -

"If it is wrong not to pay tax to the government, is it also immoral that the government gives to some people?"

Any you can (hopefully) see the answer.

the last comment

"Anyone in the bottom three quintiles votes in governments out of pure self-interest, knowing that they will never have to foot their share of whatever that government spends." that's just imagined or made up and utterly wrong..

Not all of the "anyones" in the bottom chunk vote out of self interest. Some vote tactically, some vote on what they see as the greater good, some vote for their children's futures, some vote for themselves. All are lied to. But regardless of all that, they don't all "vote in Governments", they don't all know they will never have to pay their share. Most Governments have had at least as many people against them as for them.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

If it is immoral not to pay tax to the government, is it also wrong that people take from government?

More importantly, is it morally acceptable for people to vote in governments which promise to give them other people's money?

Anyone in the bottom three quintiles votes in governments out of pure self-interest, knowing that they will never have to foot their share of whatever that government spends.

If that's aiming to make a comparison, I don't think it's a valid one, MMV.

First the use of the two words "immoral v wrong" skews it - to se how you could rephrase your question like this -

"If it is wrong not to pay tax to the government, is it also immoral that the government gives to some people?"

Any you can (hopefully) see the answer.

the last comment

"Anyone in the bottom three quintiles votes in governments out of pure self-interest, knowing that they will never have to foot their share of whatever that government spends." that's just imagined or made up and utterly wrong..

Not all of the "anyones" in the bottom chunk vote out of self interest. Some vote tactically, some vote on what they see as the greater good, some vote for their children's futures, some vote for themselves. All are lied to. But regardless of all that, they don't all "vote in Governments", they don't all know they will never have to pay their share. Most Governments have had at least as many people against them as for them.

 

 

The argument surrounding tax 'avoidance' is that although it is not illegal it is wrong and the word 'immoral' is often used.

 

So it invites the question whether someone voting out of self-interest for a party which promises to benefit their quintile, is in a position to claim moral superiority to those who vote for a party which promises to lower taxes for the rich?

 

Both vote out of self-interest.

[chrisp65]

I don't think the situation is helped for the relative closeness of the terminology, 'avoidance', 'aggressive avoidance', 'evasion' and so on.

It's also not helped by people very cleverly going for the moral monotone right or wrong of it. All cheating is wrong, cheating me out of a million is, in my simple world, worse than cheating me out of 57p. Both are wrong.

 

It's also not helped by the complicity of government and it's advisers allowing or even inventing 'loopholes' and avoidance strategies. We are being distracted with semantics whilst some spectacularly rich people, millionaires, multi-millionaires and billionaires think so much of their money that they would rather have it driven around europe in a van to act as venture capital for a hopefully loss making British film, than contribute to employing hospital cleaners. That is just as warped as the scrote that thinks hospital staff are there to be abused and it's ok to vandalise the bogs whilst on a regular Saturday evening visit to A&E.

 

But it's not for government to spend our tax writing up and selectively enforcing a tax system that includes loopholes and then suggesting to people that there is some nebulous line over which it becomes morally wrong to pursue self interest whilst staying within the rules. That's quite wrong and either incompetent, lazy, or deceitful and possibly all three.

[blandy]

The argument surrounding tax 'avoidance' is that although it is not illegal it is wrong and the word 'immoral' is often used.

So it invites the question whether someone voting out of self-interest for a party which promises to benefit their quintile, is in a position to claim moral superiority to those who vote for a party which promises to lower taxes for the rich?

Both vote out of self-interest.

who people vote for is generally not an indicator of morality (partly because morality isn't a universal standardised thing).

.

A poorer citizen voting for (say) Labour, on the basis they feel they generally try to help the poor slightly more and a richer citizen voting (say) Tory on the basis they look after the rich more - what's that got to do with tax avoidance or evasion anyway? I don't see the connection that you seem to be trying to link in, there.

Propensity to financial crimes and misdemeanours isn't as far as I know, linked to who (if anyone) a person votes for.

There are saints and sinners across the board*

*(that said, never trust a tory)

[snowychap]

I avoid Tax aswell....well last time I looked winning 20 quid on the pub machine jackpot a couple of times a week isn't taxable.  

 

avoiding tax by winning at baccarat.

[Xann]

Nearly 100,000 of the poorest children in the UK went hungry last year because their parents’ benefits were stopped or cut, according to a report by a coalition of churches.

 

Independent

Edited March 3, 2015 by Xann

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Nearly 100,000 of the poorest children in the UK went hungry last year because their parents’ benefits were stopped or cut, according to a report by a coalition of churches.

 

Independent

 

 

But typically, just to prove how out of touch middle-class journalists are, the article is illustrated with a child eating a croissant.

 

Where's the flipping Monster Munch?

 

Don't they know that every child needs their tartrazine?

[meregreen]

Only a Tory could make a joke out of such a shameful thing.

[chrisp65]

whooah!

 

let's not ban sarcasm and humour from the thread

 

unless of course I've been double bluffed....

 

anyway, for what it's worth that looks more like a bagel than a croissant to me

[MakemineVanilla]

Only a Tory could make a joke out of such a shameful thing.

 

If you have never seen a kid eating Monster Munch or equivalent for their breakfast, you either live in a bubble or just don't look.

 

Don't you remember when Jamie Oliver tried to improve kids' diets and parents defied the scheme by pushing junk food through the school railings?

 

Isn't universal free school-meals for infants just the government acknowledging that parents don't feed their kids right?

[meregreen]

 

Only a Tory could make a joke out of such a shameful thing.

 

If you have never seen a kid eating Monster Munch or equivalent for their breakfast, you either live in a bubble or just don't look.

 

Don't you remember when Jamie Oliver tried to improve kids' diets and parents defied the scheme by pushing junk food through the school railings?

 

Isn't universal free school-meals for infants just the government acknowledging that parents don't feed their kids right?

 

You still sought to make light of something that shames our nation. It's not that sarcasm and humour should be banned, there is a time and place for it. This subject isn't it.

[Xann]

 

Jail those who turn a blind eye to child abuse, says Cameron

Professionals face five years in prison for turning blind eye under new plan set out by prime minister

Teachers, social workers who work with children and councillors could face up to five years in prison if they turn a blind eye to child abuse under proposals to be set out on Tuesday

Grauniad

 

No mention of Tory grandees then.

 

[snowychap]

 

 

Jail those who turn a blind eye to child abuse, says Cameron

Professionals face five years in prison for turning blind eye under new plan set out by prime minister

Teachers, social workers who work with children and councillors could face up to five years in prison if they turn a blind eye to child abuse under proposals to be set out on Tuesday

Grauniad

 

No mention of Tory grandees then.

 

Not sure about the implications of this 'national threat' business.

I fear that it will turn out to be something beyond just about strategic planning by the police. Terrorism/national security/severe public disorder/economic crises all appear to be the common opt out in legislation for ministers, government, authorities and officials.

Does this then get the same treatment? If so, surely that's not what we want.

 

Edit: Also the rest sounds a bit knee jerk. I guess it's not going to make it anywhere, though, is it - as it'll fizzle out in the run up to the election?

Edited March 3, 2015 by snowychap

[bickster]

Only a Tory could make a joke out of such a shameful thing.

There we go again labelling people

[tonyh29]

Only a Tory could make a joke out of such a shameful thing.

If you have never seen a kid eating Monster Munch or equivalent for their breakfast, you either live in a bubble or just don't look.

Don't you remember when Jamie Oliver tried to improve kids' diets and parents defied the scheme by pushing junk food through the school railings?

Isn't universal free school-meals for infants just the government acknowledging that parents don't feed their kids right?

You still sought to make light of something that shames our nation. It's not that sarcasm and humour should be banned, there is a time and place for it. This subject isn't it.

Real world I'd agree , but this is a football forum where gallows humour and in appropriate posts are par for course

If it's too sensitive for you may i politely suggest you sign up to mumsnet

[tonyh29]

Jail those who turn a blind eye to child abuse, says Cameron

Professionals face five years in prison for turning blind eye under new plan set out by prime minister

Teachers, social workers who work with children and councillors could face up to five years in prison if they turn a blind eye to child abuse under proposals to be set out on Tuesday

Grauniad

No mention of Tory grandees then.

Not sure about the implications of this 'national threat' business.

I fear that it will turn out to be something beyond just about strategic planning by the police. Terrorism/national security/severe public disorder/economic crises all appear to be the common opt out in legislation for ministers, government, authorities and officials.

Does this then get the same treatment? If so, surely that's not what we want.

Edit: Also the rest sounds a bit knee jerk. I guess it's not going to make it anywhere, though, is it - as it'll fizzle out in the run up to the election?

That was kinda my reaction when I heard it on the radio this morning .... We could well be moving from turning a blind eye to over zealous accusations for fear of prosecution... Children need to be protected but so do the adults as well so I hope this law works as its intended to. Edited March 4, 2015 by tonyh29

[bickster]

Tony, history tells us it won't