The sentences being given to those who have looted are offensive. I’m delighted so many are saying so.
I do, of course, agree that crime must be punished, but what we’re seeing is a rash of sentencing that reflects what might be called ‘moral outrage’ – and very candidly, politically directed moral outrage at that.
But it’s curious – because it least it shows that judges (for many of the magistrates courts handing out these sentences are in fact being staffed by judges at present) can and do use moral judgment.
There is however complete reticence to do so in the case of tax avoidance. Then it is argued that such moral judgement would be wrong.
Why the dual standard?
Because we have this thing called \”the law\”. And in this terribly complicated system we make the difference between what is legal and what is illegal.
Judges only get to sentence people when they are found to have done something illegal. You know, broken the law as laid down by Parliament sorta stuff?
And looting is against the law. Tax avoidance is not against the law. In fact, the very definition of tax avoidance is that it is not against the law. Thus no judge ever gets to express their moral outrage about tax avoidance while sentencing simply because no one is ever found guilty under the law of tax avoidance and thus no one is ever sentenced for tax avoidance.
For the very definition of tax avoidance is that it is legal.
What is it about this reality shit that Ritchie has such a hard time grasping?
I wouldn’t worry too much. Murphy isn’t even too fussy applying a consistent definition of tax avoidance.
He defines it here: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Documents/TaxLanguage.pdf “…as seeking to minimise a tax bill without deliberate deception (which would be tax evasion) but contrary to the spirit of the law.”
In practice he’s quite happy to criticize people and companies for tax avoidance when they have used provisions in the tax code just as they were designed for or for things that are pretty simple and straight forward and well known and hence if HMG wished to stop them they easily could change legislation to do so.
The “reality” part of it.
Mild irony in that tax avoidance is an attempt to escape state-sponsored looting.
The ordinary Joe voter does not understand the difference between avoidance and evasion (left wing education system has seen to that). So the left and the other assorted loons take full advantage of these types of nuances to whip the uneducated masses into frothing indignation against the right to negate rationalism and common sense.
Well I suppose it’s pretty obvious, but he’s arguing that the State should abritrarily punish on the basis of the moral outrage of the mob, rather than according to some predefined tarriff or ruleset. He’s basically arguing for arbitrary cruelty, which is in fact pretty standard for a High Moralist like himself, even if they don’t usually state it so honestly.
Is Ritchie volunteering to spend some time inside to pay for his Trivial Pursuit company in Ireland?
Murphy is a dangerous idiot. There’s a point here, which he manages to totally miss, which is that sentencing in some (not all) of the looter cases is grossly outside what the law – not in terms of what statute says, but what precedent as informed by sentencing guidelines says.
Possession of GBP20 worth of stolen goods, given as a present to someone who wasn’t involved in planning or executing or inciting the original crime, does not carry a six month jail sentence. That sentence is illegal, and will be overturned in the (hopefully likely) event that the woman in question appeals.
However, sentencing law is totally different from determining whether or not somebody is guilty. So the concept of jailing people for things which aren’t crimes is completely different, far more loopy, and far more serious, from what’s happening here.
A closer equivalent would be if it transpired that Fred Goodwin had fraudulently claimed GBP50 of expenses for, say, luxury tickets to the pictures with his mistress.
If he had done such a thing, and were convicted of fraud for doing such a thing, the equivalent to what’s happening now would be if a judge were to send him to jail for 10 years (maximum fraud sentence) on the grounds that he was more generally a wrong ‘un.
Ritchies view of reality – Avoidance, or evasion ?
Tim, your relentless pursuit of this ‘dangerous idiot’ (good phrase, can’t top it without being really rude) is admirable.
Is there anything he thinks he doesn’t know? Perhaps he’s Bono in disguise…
What JohnB says and this is alOng the lines I have been saying.
I suspect that countless thugs and intimidating types have passed through the same courts with only a slap on the hand – and that only being caused by a Ninento DS being handed out “wuffley”.
Richtie is the true Clausewitzian nightmare, an industrious idiot who never stops.
“politically directed moral outrage”.
Holy sweet Jesus. Does he even read his own stuff? Is it ever not politically directed moral outrage?
JohnB – rioting hits just about every agravating factor there is.
Some of the thieves are lucky they are not being nicked for arson via joint enterprise, conspiracy or encouraging/assisting crime.
Dear me Worstofall you are really a cretin (one of your favourite words I notice). I have pointed out before on this blog that tax avoidance is only legal if it works. If it does not work it is illegal. So what punishment would you hand out to people who attempt aviodance which is shown to be illegal?
Tim adds: Well, me, stick in the mud that I am, would suggest that people who move to tax evasion ( by definition, the tax dodging that is illegal) should be punished by whatever the law says is the punishment for that tax evasion.
I’m really not sure that this is a difficult idea to understand.
So Worstofall you say that a company or individual who tries tax avoidance which does not work is guilty of tax evasion? And that the law should recognise this fact? Now, of course, the law at the moment does not do this but can I count on your support for the law to be changed so this will be the outcome?
After all there are loads and loads of things which are currently unlawful which you think should be lawful. And many things which are currently lawful which you and your liberterian mates think should be unlawful.
“I have pointed out before on this blog that tax avoidance is only legal if it works. If it does not work it is illegal. ”
This is, of course, complete bollox. Suppose I submit my tax return, which includes disclosure of what I consider to be a legal tax avoidance measure. If the tax Commissioners, or the Court, decide it is not permitted, they just disallow it and adjust the tax bill accordingly. No illegality has taken place. No punishment is due,
“And many things which are currently lawful which you and your liberterian mates think should be unlawful.”
Like what, exactly? You may be confused about what “libertarian” means.
Unless this is one of these Judean People’s Front moments and “liberterian” is some dodgy splitter philosophy that thinks we need more laws.
I think we need a law against making any more laws.
Tax on ciggarettes is intended to change people’s behaviour by making them stop smoking. If you stop smoking though you are not buying ciggarettes. You are actively avoiding paying the tax. Illegal?
Now that’s a consequence of Ritchie-world I hadn’t thought of.
[email protected]#19
Tax on ciggarettes is intended to change people’s behaviour by making them stop smoking. If you stop smoking though you are not buying ciggarettes. You are actively avoiding paying the tax. Illegal?
FFS Rob – Don’t give Ritchie ideas, he’s a big enough collectivist tax looter as it is.
Murph is silly. His ideas of law are ludicrous and dangerous, suggesting ideas that look much like the old Soviet state of law. His ideas that judges should use their morality to determine issues is mad in the extreme simply because he believes they will all agree with him.
He has caught the ‘law’ bug, but knows nothing about it. His exchanges with someone called Webb showed that he was completely unable to substantiate his ideas. Alas, it looks like Webb has now been censored and branded a ‘troll’. Typical scared actions from someone who can not support his ideas.
Further, he is a hypocrite. He used to advise on avoiding tax and has used companies to avoid further tax. His beloved Tax Justice Network for which he is a senior advisor hosts their servers in…SWITZERLAND…you guessed it. Hope they find a way of giving that VAT to governments they are based in, like Britain and the Netherlands. Self serving Hypocrites.
Sadly, there are just so many of these idiots out there and they never give up. They are like the Terminator but without the Intelligence, artificial or otherwise.
Some of the thieves are lucky they are not being nicked for arson via joint enterprise, conspiracy or encouraging/assisting crime.
They’re the ones who’ve been remanded. The ones who’ve been sentenced just now are the ones who’ve done fuck all.
Try actually reading the stories – for example, the flatmate of the woman who got six months for wearing stolen shorts has been referred to the Crown Court for sentence. In other words, she’s going to get well over a year for under a grand’s worth of shoplifting, for all the reasons you rightly suggest.
freemarketblogging
He’s worse than that – he’s nothing other than a coward. He backs away from every argument in which his stance is being exposed to make him look foolish, either by closing the thread or by blackballing the poster.
He keeps dabbling in areas that he doesn’t understand and then has to keep digging himself out of a hole.
There’s a saying out there that you should never run a blog if you clearly know less than the people who post onto it!
Richard Murhy: So Worstofall you say that a company or individual who tries tax avoidance which does not work is guilty of tax evasion? And that the law should recognise this fact? Now, of course, the law at the moment does not do this
What are we imagining here with tax avoidance that doesn’t work, but yet the law does not recognise? Does Richard Murphy believe that the Home Office is in the habit of collecting taxes from people even if the courts have ruled (rightly or wrongly) that what they are doing is perfectly legal?
I have this mental image of ninja tax accountants, like Batman, operating beyond the limits of the law. When the Home Office runs into a case they can’t handle, they send up a signal in the sky, of a pocket protector.
Surely, strictly speaking the revenue has already moved the goalposts so that the definition of *avoidance* is that it it is tax planning which – while still legal – does not work? If a transaction is deemed to be undertaken for no purpose other than to avoid tax it is liable to be set aside, and HMRC may expect to be paid the tax anyway, but without necessarily treating it as fraud.
This only applies to schemes invented in the wild, apparently. Mass-marketing of artificial financial products to take advantage of tax breaks deliberately created by the Treasury OTOH is encouraged. Insurance companies and banks doing that sort of thing tie up the punter’s money neatly and traceably, and end up recycling a lot of it through HMG (and a little of it in retirement consultancies for former senior tax officers).
There’s a saying out there that you should never run a blog if you clearly know less than the people who post onto it!
That’s a pretty fucking stupid saying. Part of the reason I run a blog is because the comments from informed people in the areas I write about it help my understanding of the issues that I talk about.
john b
That’s fair comment but I suspect you have a willingness to actually accept and embrace the fact that others may know more than you. Contrast that with a tosser like Murphy who believes he knows everything about everything and simply blocks anything which disproves his views!
Yup, agreed. And apologies for the harshness of my response – there wasn’t any real need for that.