The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #133044 Message #3020170
Posted By: Richard Bridge
31-Oct-10 - 03:04 PM
Thread Name: BS: Direct Action : UK
Subject: RE: BS: Direct Action : UK
Don, I've walked and worked both sides of the street. This assists me to tell right from wrong.
Exploiting the poor to give to the rich is morally unjustifiable. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is often morally justifiable. If the system cannot rectify the ability of the rich to steal from the poor then the system is wrong. The ability of the haves to exploit the have-nots was reduced by the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury convention, but the trend in this country towards increased inequality is incontrovertible proof that there is still a wrong. Remarkably, it is a wrong that you have yourself suffered, yet you seek to support those who disadvantage you.
Bent accountant and bodyfluids - The principle in IRC -v- Westminster is part of the problem.
The duty to contribute to society is not purely a statutory construct. It is the basis of a workable society. Humans are fallible, but the English principles of statutory interpretation and precedent have ossified the ability of governments to collect the taxes that are part of their manifesto commitments. It is thus the avoiders who undermine a participatory democracy.
The place to start would be a tax code built on the principle that it is the duty of the citizen to contribute - reversing IRC -v- Westminster, and greatly widening the principles in IRC v Ramsay (1981) followed by Furniss v. Dawson (1984) and indeed putting such principles on a statutory footing.
In European VAT law the principle of "abuse of right" may be used to neutralise avoidance schemes. http://www.taxbar.com/documents/Abuse_of_Rights_II_WHA_-_the_Elephant_on_Closer_Inspection_HLM.pdf
This should be brought in generally to UK tax law.