Part of peoples’ salaries paid by way of “expenses”.

[Betsy Og]

Hi Betsy - That's an interesting rant, but it doesn't change the facts. You can try to pass off the blame onto the Revenue, and the banks and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all - but the tax evader still bears legal & financial responsibility for their actions.

BY GOD THEY DO, YOU CAN CHALK THAT DOWN, YOU COULD SING THAT IF YOU HAD AN AIR TO IT.

There is no reason why Revenue shouldn't pursue such evaders to the full extent of the law.

Well, granted, there is no reason in law why they shouldnt. But ocassionally, not too often mind, the law is an ass. People who turn up in every trawl obviously werent harmless eejits caught up in it. People with offshore accounts, I would guess, knew what they were doing. People who bared all to a tax amnesty (but really didnt) have used up the one free kick you could argue was due to them - and are in dire trouble IMHO as all bets are off re the original amnesty.

However, I do honestly believe, ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth as I occasionally do, that there were and are many innocents (or relative innocents - this is where the 2005 standards applied to the 80's kicks in and people make that argument for the one who cant be named for fear of libel so surely it should apply to the normal Joe who, after all, isnt charged with carrying off a high office of the state demanding impeccable integrity) who are being squeezed for every penny and then hung out to dry because they are vulnerable. Victimising the little man, and imposing penal interest rates, just isnt cricket in my book.

As for the young fella in his first job, even Revenue arent wholly detatched from reality and might come to a reasonable settlement in that case - Revenue do settle plenty of cases, partial waivers of penalties and interest etc., so its not all so scientific and inflexible as you might believe. They can show compassion if they want, but in reality they probably only will when its put up to them on a wet freezing Wednesday in Wimbledon (to borrow a phrase from soccer), like most people and organisations they "dont like it up 'em", but the vulnerable dont feel able to put it up to them so by and large they are cruelly crushed - a bit cowardly in my estimation. Liberal treatment of the harsh cases I say.

 

[daltonr]

I may be wrong about this, but I find that the people who speak most harshly about tax evasion in the 70's and 80's are the people who were in short pants and going to school at the time.

I've yet to find someone who worked a low paying job with kids to raise through the 70's and 80's lambasting others for anything they did.

The ironic thing is that some of the people who speak out most on this were in all probability the beneficiaries of tax evasion themselves. The school books, the school uniforms, the holiday in Rosslare or Mosney, the Raleigh Chopper for Christmas...

Can you all honestly say for certain that your parents never once did a nixer,
never once accepted a portion of their pay under the counter? No you damn well can't.

Anyone who tries to judge people who lived, worked and raised a family in the 80's
from the vantage point of the astonishing wealth of the last 10 years, is a jackass.

-Rd

 

[Purple]

Once again I agree with you Rd. I have no time for tax evasion in the low personal tax environment we are in now but applying today’s moral standards to historical cases is stupid.
To do so in a broader context would categorise the founding fathers of this state as terrorists and the founding fathers of the USA as self-serving racist members of a secret society.