Murphy's Law #4
I have pointed out the egregious stupidity of Richard Murphy on a number of previous occasions but, as I am always happy to keep kicking the very stupid (a sitting target is very easy, you see, and I am lazy), I see no reason not to point out his latest piece of idiocy.
There are many laws that some of us feel no guilt in breaking. I feel, for instance, no guilt about breaking the laws on buying and ingesting Class A drugs.
Erm, the crime is tax evasion, you pillock, and I imagine that the penalty is a very stiff fine and possible incarceration, as any fule kno. Admittedly, we are talking about a man who, whilst a professional accountant, apparently doesn't understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, so we must make allowances.
Richard, no one feels guilt about tax avoidance, and morality does not come into it; company directors are bound to avoid as much tax a possible: it is their legal fiduciary duty to maximise their company profits. Believe me, you get a load of pamphlets from Companies House pointing this out.
What they are not allowed to do is evade tax, i.e. break the law. But, as has already been pointed out, you don't understand the basic difference, do you? Fuckwit.
Take this from a partner is [sic] E & Y South Africa:It is my view that morality has no place in the application of tax law since morality is largely subjective.
Which is terribly convenient. Because if there is no morality in the application of tax law it means there’s no right or wrong. And so there need be no guilt for breaking it.
There are many laws that some of us feel no guilt in breaking. I feel, for instance, no guilt about breaking the laws on buying and ingesting Class A drugs.
And it can be claimed no penalties are due when tax law is broken, because what is the crime?
Erm, the crime is tax evasion, you pillock, and I imagine that the penalty is a very stiff fine and possible incarceration, as any fule kno. Admittedly, we are talking about a man who, whilst a professional accountant, apparently doesn't understand the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance, so we must make allowances.
You can then claim that the application of tax law (which is all tax practitioners do) is victimless when abuse takes place (as it does). You can see why accountants, lawyers and bankers like this view.
Richard, no one feels guilt about tax avoidance, and morality does not come into it; company directors are bound to avoid as much tax a possible: it is their legal fiduciary duty to maximise their company profits. Believe me, you get a load of pamphlets from Companies House pointing this out.
What they are not allowed to do is evade tax, i.e. break the law. But, as has already been pointed out, you don't understand the basic difference, do you? Fuckwit.
| 3 blogger comments
| links to this post
3 Blogger Comments:
DK
I found this link and thought you might find it interesting.
http://www.progress.org/geonomy/
Murphy is "so" Great Britain with his moral approach. Hardly surprising we're a laughing stock on the Continent.
I'm sure millions are and have been squirrled away by various individuals and companies which should or could have been paid in tax. But the Government and types like Murphy like to refer to their silly little rule-books and "morals".
Who cares whether it's tax avoidance or evasion. Let's have an amnesty. That way the PSBR could even be paid off!
Campaign for Common Sense
Homer Simpson came up with a concept that might suit Murphy. Avoision.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home