The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
- Thread starter Art
- Start date
This is more a matter of personal ethics than a legal one. If one thinks it's OK to facilitate tax evasion then what can I say, go for it. Personally I think it's not OK and people who do it loose the right to point the finger at corrupt developers etc who (morally) are doing the same thing. IMHO from an ethical perspective the big fish are just smarter and have more balls than the "cash price, nod and a wink" brigade.
Yes - but if they try to encourage, excuse or promote tax evasion here then they are likely to be challenged by many posters. On a more general note AAM does not encourage, excuse or promote any illegal activity so such posts may even be deleted.Purple said:
Betsy Og said:
Didnt mean to imply that at all Betsy. My post was a general comment based on the top post of the thread.
I <shame> didnt read after the third post on the thread before I posted.
I'm sorry that I seem to have implied that you <shudder> Worked For The Revenue. I have no reason what so ever to think that this is the case.
One of my best friends is an ex Revenue inspector. ....Am I a Troll ? Does Clubman really not suspect me ?
Purple said:
While I think this is a bit of a side issue so I dont intend getting into a huge debate on it - do you not take on board the notion of proportionailty? i.e. that there are degrees of law breaking. Many people wouldnt have a moral concern about being a few miles over the limit on a motorway, but would think it disgraceful to drive at 100kph around a housing estate. Both are breaking the same law but to greater or lesser degrees.
The point about major tax evaders Vs 'bob a job' guys is the former could well afford to pay their taxes whereas the latter may or may not be stuck for money but are not exactly eroding the tax base of the country due to their personal actions.
Isnt legal sentencing another example of proportionality - the sentence follows the severity of the crime and all related factors. You seem to see things in very black and white, and while something is wrong if its wrong, the degree of culpability varies.
This sort of apologia for tax evasion is asinine. If a sole trader/small business can't cover their costs (including tax liabilities) then they should not be in business in the first place. If I can't afford a fancy car does that mean that I should be allow steal one? No. Same goes for tax evasion (i.e. stealing from the state and its citizens).Betsy Og said:
ubiquitous
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,782
Most major tax evaders ARE 'bob a job' guys.
Tax evasion of 100 euro a week (roughly, 47% tax & prsi on 200 euro of black economy work per week), will add up to 5,000 euro per year or 50,000 over ten years.
If/when Revenue catch up, and assuming full interest and penalties are imposed on eventual settlement, the total Revenue settlement could be easily be 150,000 or 200,000 euro. This is exactly the sort of case that grabs the headlines as "major tax evasion" when the Revenue quarterly settlement lists are published.
Tax evasion of 100 euro a week (roughly, 47% tax & prsi on 200 euro of black economy work per week), will add up to 5,000 euro per year or 50,000 over ten years.
If/when Revenue catch up, and assuming full interest and penalties are imposed on eventual settlement, the total Revenue settlement could be easily be 150,000 or 200,000 euro. This is exactly the sort of case that grabs the headlines as "major tax evasion" when the Revenue quarterly settlement lists are published.
I'm not condoning or encouraging tax evasion but I am to take it from your posts that ye would punish all equally, blind to the degree of the offence or any surrounding circumstances?
If so ye are tougher nuts that the current Revenue Commissioners.
Maybe its those darn semantics again but when one proposes that there are differing degrees of tax evasion its automatically taken as apologia for tax evasion.
...off to fetch my dictionary for asinine, but I expect its not good !!....
If so ye are tougher nuts that the current Revenue Commissioners.
Maybe its those darn semantics again but when one proposes that there are differing degrees of tax evasion its automatically taken as apologia for tax evasion.
...off to fetch my dictionary for asinine, but I expect its not good !!....
You quite clearly are equivocal about and rationalising (as per definition 3) certain forms of tax evasion. This is tantamount to excusing or condoning it in my personal opinion.Betsy Og said:
ClubMan said:
jay, I'm still reeling after checking out asinine
Well its your opinion that what I have said is tantamount to excusing or condoning tax evasion - I wouldnt deny you your opinion but I would beg to differ.
Its black and white thinking I'm against, and tax evasion of course. All I am trying to tease out is that there are varying degrees of offence and the righteousness with which all offenders are tarred with the same brush around here is a bit simplistic. Thats it.
I think its Bush that has set me against the "with us or against us" mentality.
Revenue rules have some flexibility in terms of how they deal with offenders as far as I know. Where the cost of collecting liabilities (even with interest and/or penalties) outweight the benefits then I would imagine that they don't bother. In my opinion it's sufficient to recognise that this sort of pragmatic flexibility exists but to still condemn all forms of deliberate tax evasion equally. Equivocation and rationalisations about certain forms of tax evasion serve no useful purpose in my opinion. I am black and white on that and leave the Revenue rules to deal with the shades of grey.Betsy Og said:
I see we're back to the meaningless, irrelevant and distracting analogies again...
ClubMan said:
Wow, we have an acknowledgement that there may be shades of grey (even if we couldnt possibly dirty ourselves with them) - result.
Re the maligned analogy - its just holding up a mirror to simplistic stuff that the intial poster complained about - its dangerous to see everything in black and white - embrace the grey (my follicles have). Black and white views lead you to some bad conclusions.
I personally find this sort of sarcasm to be unnecessary, distracting and undermining of any serious point that you are trying to make.Betsy Og said:
If you want to open a separate thread on this sort of philosophical stuff then feel free. I don't find it relevant to this specific thread. In particular what "bad" conclusions does my b&w view of tax evasion lead me to?
ClubMan said:I personally find this sort of sarcasm to be unnecessary, distracting and undermining of any serious point that you are trying to make.
If you want to open a separate thread on this sort of philosophical stuff then feel free. I don't find it relevant to this specific thread. In particular what "bad" conclusions does my b&w view of tax evasion lead me to?
Firstly, its Friday evening, I'm packed to go, dont take things too seriously or personally.
The bad conclusion is that everyone who engages in any level of tax evasion is equally guilty, and if that should be held true then isnt the logical conclusion that all should be punished equally?
I would contend that the guilt is not equal, and that perhaps this is borne out in the fact that all punishments are not equal, i.e. it is matter of fact that there are varying degrees of offence, guilt and punishment in relation to tax offences.