Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

The burden should be on those in power to demonstrate they place aside their own personal interests from decision making - not the other way round.

Bad government leaves a massive cloud of incompetence where someone could reasonably hide nefarious decision making. Nobody is saying he’s sleeping at the wheel - so ‘attention diverted’ isn’t required. He could reasonably have two decisions in front of him with good and bad evidence to support both outcomes and lean more into the ones that generate personal wealth for his own interests. This could be extremely difficult to evidence - I’m certainly not making an accusation but that’s why we call for higher standards and ethics in public life - so even the appearance of being potentially grubby is avoided.

I wonder if - anywhere in the world - there’s evidence of a democratically elected politician supporting a policy or outcome where someone can directly point to it costing their own financial interests that predate their lives in politics.

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

To the New Seph, you need to wind in the hyperbole here. Your words, disgusting and rabid, are so over the top as to be humorous

To the Old Seph, you deliberately deflect into tax evasion. I am not addressing this here, rather I am addressing the moral position of an ultra-wealthy person paying a lower effective tax rate than a nurse (or similar). Saying that the ultra-wealthy should not pay the same tax as the rest of us because the laws that were created from their sponsorship allow them to is not a cogent argument.

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

As long as it’s legal, what’s the problem?

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

No one said it isn't legal, they are saying the tax system should be changed.

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

I thought Ian was suggesting it was immoral that a wealthy person should pay so little tax. I was merely highlighting that morality shouldn’t come into it. It’s ether legal or it isn’t.

As it’s legal, I see no reason to change it.

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Well, people are going to pay as little as legally possible in tax. It's not immoral for someone not to overpay their taxes.

The fact it's legal is the reason to change it if you want them to pay more.

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Actually, most of the tax avoidance cases are usually firms trying to find loopholes in existing legislation, which are later proven not to exist, thus they/their customers have to pay back the tax they tried to avoid (often with interest and/or fines)*.

So, often, they were never legal in the first place, it was just people trying it on…

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...oidance-scheme

*this info comes from a close friend, who is a Senior Tax Partner in one of the Big Four accountancy firms, so I’m pretty sure he knows what he’s talking about

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

It’s not immoral for someone to not overpay tax - I don’t think Pierre claimed it was.

However the question of who pays tax, where and when in a country does result from the morals or values that have driven policy making.

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Just because it is legal does not make it right. Just look back into history for all the proof you need to validate this point.

But on a wider point here, those small number of people who think that they should not contribute to this society in the same way the vast majority do, specifically rely on people, like Pierre here, to parrot lines like:

- it's legal, where's the problem
- they "earned" their money, they should be able to keep it
- if we upset the rich people they will leave and we will be doomed

This line of thinking by a population groomed over the centuries is exactly what is needed to be challenged.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

You misunderstand the definition of morality here:

"morality"

The distinction between right and wrong over the years has always been a societal one based on the consensus at the time. I am confident that a significant majority of the population would agree with the proposition that an ultra wealthy individual should contribute, at a minimum, the same as a Nurse.

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

A good summary

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

Here is some interesting data on UK Wealth Inequality:

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-e...-inequality-uk

One of points made is this:

Is this "Moral"?

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

That’s all I was after.

I’ve just been fishing over here and I knew it wouldn’t be long before I caught what I wanted.


Now, if everyone can apply the above sentence to the Huw Edwards thread, I’d appreciate it. My work here is done.

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Well, since not everyone* applied that philosophy in that thread, why should everyone do so?

*in fact, very few did…

Re: The Chronicles of Rishi
 

Nope, that was New Seph! Old Seph would listen to the logic of the argument and try and reason based on worked examples rather that generic, unsupported, statements.

---------- Post added at 20:38 ---------- Previous post was at 20:34 ----------

Not quite Mr Holmes. When you come back with the supporting evidence that Huw Edwards did something wrong, people might listen to you.

When you rant & rage based on an incorrect clickbait article from a Tabloid Rag then I am not surprised no one took you seriously.