I'm getting worried about your habitual references to violent criminals and law enforcement agencies!Betsy Og said:Next we'll have to start denying we were the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll!
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:If one thinks it's OK to facilitate tax evasion then what can I say, go for it.
Betsy Og said:....... I'm not Revenue in disguise (which seems to be olddogs point)......
olddog said: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.
With you there 100% CM.ClubMan said: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: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.
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: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.
"For" is a common enough preposition isn't it?hjrdee said:I swear I learn new words everytime I read one of Clubmans posts!PHP:This sort of apologia for tax evasion is asinine
Good point. See [broken link removed].ubiquitous said:Most major tax evaders ARE 'bob a job' guys.
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: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?
...
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.
ClubMan said:"For" is a common enough preposition isn't it?
ClubMan said: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.
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: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 see we're back to the meaningless, irrelevant and distracting analogies again...I think its Bush that has set me against the "with us or against us" mentality.
ClubMan said: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.
I see we're back to the meaningless, irrelevant and distracting analogies again...
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:Wow, we have an acknowledgement that there may be shades of grey (even if we couldnt possibly dirty ourselves with them) - result.
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?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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?