|
U-Know! Forum » A cunning plan... |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Jul 12, 2010, 09:01
Jul 12, 2010, 08:31
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: Get real.. this coaltion have their finger on the Nations pulse...and will be round for greater than one term. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! LOL!!! Jeez.... EDIT: Gripped by the windpipe and squeezing fast Geoffers, before the Recuss team arrives over the coming months and kicks the duplicitous venal malevolent and vengeful aristo trustfund bloated maggot scumfucks out, dear boy.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 11:27
|
||
|
geoffrey_prime wrote: I just dont think you can accuse this coalition of favouring the rich and hammering the poor. I think you can. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=102
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 13:16
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: geoffrey_prime wrote: I just dont think you can accuse this coalition of favouring the rich and hammering the poor. I think you can. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=102 I agree with some of that article, as one sided and loaded as it is!! Something I do take issue with is the final paragraph. I may have misread it (happens) but are you saying that benefit fraud, whilst wrong, invoke because many people claiming are very very poor, where as tax fraud is somehow worse as these people already have cash?? Isn't a crime a crime? Would you see someone killing a criminal as less of a crime than killing an innocent?? As I say, I may have read it wrong
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 14:00
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Merrick wrote: geoffrey_prime wrote: I just dont think you can accuse this coalition of favouring the rich and hammering the poor. I think you can. http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=102 I agree with some of that article, as one sided and loaded as it is!! Something I do take issue with is the final paragraph. I may have misread it (happens) but are you saying that benefit fraud, whilst wrong, invoke because many people claiming are very very poor, where as tax fraud is somehow worse as these people already have cash?? Isn't a crime a crime? Would you see someone killing a criminal as less of a crime than killing an innocent?? As I say, I may have read it wrong Which is more morally wrong? to steal to feed yourself, or to steal to afford another house in the country? I know which is worse in my opinion.
|
|||
mojojojo 1940 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 14:22
|
||
|
I don't see how you can't. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/07/12/a-government-intent-on-creating-social-division-injustice-and-poverty-and-set-on-achieving-its-goals/
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 16:44
|
||
But both the same in the eyes of the law. My neighbour stole from the government fir a fat screen tv and booze. Is that equally as bad, no where near, or ok becausecshe was signing on.?.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Jul 12, 2010, 16:44
|
||
|
pooley wrote: But both the same in the eyes of the law. My neighbour stole from the government fir a fat screen tv and booze. Is that equally as bad, no where near, or ok becausecshe was signing on.?. Again, blame iPad for crap typing. But I now quite fancy a fat screen tv
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jul 13, 2010, 11:18
|
||
|
pooley wrote: I agree with some of that article, as one sided and loaded as it is!! Something I do take issue with is the final paragraph. I may have misread it (happens) but are you saying that benefit fraud, whilst wrong, invoke because many people claiming are very very poor, where as tax fraud is somehow worse as these people already have cash?? The final paragraph doesn't cover that point at all; it is written in an ironic voice to explain why a government of the rich would target the poor, that they believe that money is equal to virtue and so the rich should be allowed to retain any wealth that comes through their hands, whereas the poor have in some way failed by not being rich. But earlier in the article, yes, I'm saying that tax evasion is worse. I'm sure there'll be individual cases of benefit fraud that's based on unwarranted greed, and the occasional tax evasion that keeps a family from collapsing, but as a broad principle tax evasion is a worse crime because it is based on greed whereas - as the Joseph Rowntree report cited shows - benefit fraud is largely about keeping someone's head above water. And this is before we get into the scale of cost to the exchequer, with tax evasion costing us 15 times as much. pooley wrote: Isn't a crime a crime? No. I suspect that nobody - not even you - actually believe that. We can all imagine circumstances where it is not immoral to break a law. And even within the bounds of what's criminal, there is a scale of crime, hence sentences being greater for some crimes than others. Furthermore, even within the breaking of the same law there are different motivations and different mitigating factors for that same crime, hence different sentences.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Jul 13, 2010, 14:12
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: pooley wrote: I agree with some of that article, as one sided and loaded as it is!! Something I do take issue with is the final paragraph. I may have misread it (happens) but are you saying that benefit fraud, whilst wrong, invoke because many people claiming are very very poor, where as tax fraud is somehow worse as these people already have cash?? The final paragraph doesn't cover that point at all; it is written in an ironic voice to explain why a government of the rich would target the poor, that they believe that money is equal to virtue and so the rich should be allowed to retain any wealth that comes through their hands, whereas the poor have in some way failed by not being rich. But earlier in the article, yes, I'm saying that tax evasion is worse. I'm sure there'll be individual cases of benefit fraud that's based on unwarranted greed, and the occasional tax evasion that keeps a family from collapsing, but as a broad principle tax evasion is a worse crime because it is based on greed whereas - as the Joseph Rowntree report cited shows - benefit fraud is largely about keeping someone's head above water. And this is before we get into the scale of cost to the exchequer, with tax evasion costing us 15 times as much. pooley wrote: Isn't a crime a crime? No. I suspect that nobody - not even you - actually believe that. We can all imagine circumstances where it is not immoral to break a law. And even within the bounds of what's criminal, there is a scale of crime, hence sentences being greater for some crimes than others. Furthermore, even within the breaking of the same law there are different motivations and different mitigating factors for that same crime, hence different sentences. Sorry I got the paragraph wrong, luckily though it didn't bring out the pedant in you... Phew!! I understand the reasoning in thinking that the poor hard up person has more reason to steal than the rich canary wharf idiot - but does that make it right? Take it to the extreme (an arguing tool I know you are fond of). Say the unemployed mugs and kills someone for their wallet/ Mobile Phone/ Packet of prawn cocktail - whatever. Do you think they should be dealt with more leniently than the rich banker who kills someone for millions? Isnt the crime exactly the same, just the level of reward different?
|
|||
|
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Jul 13, 2010, 14:19
|
||
|
pooley wrote: But both the same in the eyes of the law. My neighbour stole from the government fir a fat screen tv and booze. Is that equally as bad, no where near, or ok becausecshe was signing on.?. Well, when you think of all the MPs stealing from the public purse for things like fat screen TVs (I like that expression too), it kind of puts it in context. But of course your average tory MP would come down on the "scrounger" like a ton of bricks. It's that kind of hypocrisy that does my head in.
|
| Pages: 9 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
