Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
No it's not ,we are talking about tax law not matters of health in society .It's ridiculous to suggest that the application of law deciding what will or will not harm society is remotely the same as tax law.
|
It can be argued that going around tax law costs billions and that directly affects the health of our finances, and because the NHS is paid for by tax, the health of our society as well.
So yes, they are comparable, even with your bizarre bar of comparison. Frankly, I did not consider, nor care for such an arbitrary point. On a legal basis, both ideas, whether to evade tax (Again, not bona-fide, accepted tax avoidance scheme) or to evade drugs laws, the outcome is the same. Exploiting a loop-hole with the knowledge that you're likely going to find it closed is questionable ethically and legally, whether you think the impact of society is. Tax evasion is not a victimless crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
No it's not ,we are talking about tax law not matters of health in society .It's ridiculous to suggest that the application of law deciding what will or will not harm society is remotely the same as tax law.
---------- Post added at 11:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 ----------
No it's not,i will elaborate.
In reply to my statement of ".You really can't blame people for doing something that was legal"
Hero replied "Exactly"
You then commented "so you approve of legal highs then".
In the context of this thread abiding by tax law is all that matters, morality has no bearing .If it is legal then anybody can avail themselves of the benefits of abiding by the law ,only when it has been determined that a certain scheme is illegal do people have to stop using it .
If we where discussing the pros and cons of drug abuse then your comment would have validity.
|
No, I was making the point that if you support "Legal until proven otherwise", you must support ALL other examples of this, including legal highs etc. It also means that you support the letter, rather than the spirit of the law. While that is a legitimate point of view, and a totally fine one to hold, it is not one I agree with. People wanting to exploit the law will only be encouraged to do so if everyone thought that as long as they can get off on a technicality, then their actions can go unpunished.
As Osem pointed out, there are lawyers who specialise in this for things like drink driving, and I find that reprehensible that you can break the law, and get away with it thanks to a clever lawyer. This is similar. If you can show that you are exploiting a technicality, unintended for tax evasion but not envisaged as such then you're no better than those who evade tax outright.
One of the biggest "things" the Tories correctly pointed out under the Labour Govt, was the amount and length of legislation passed by Labour over their rule of the country. This is because people saw the "letter of the law" as a target of exploitation, rather than the intentions of the law behind it. The pledge to "reduce red tape" was thus pretty much abandoned when the Tories got into power because for each layer of red tape to remove, there was someone ready to jump into the loopholes left. A sad situation to be in but reflects the reality of how our nation is governed. If it's not written down in cast iron, someone will use that, even if it's obviously not intended to be legal.