The last week has been a touch hectic, and to be candid I am in need of a bit of a break.
So I am going to take a modest one, from the five or so commentators who like to represent that they know something about tax who in recent weeks have used the comment section of this blog to represent that, firstly, I do not know what I am talking about and, secondly, to suggest that I really am a very bad accountant for not believing in what they consider to be the necessity of minimising tax bills.
That I do know what I am talking about is I think broadly self evident, as is the fact that those making comment do not like the way I put it. I can live with that. Time and again I have made it clear I will knowingly upset vested interests to seek change in the way tax is managed for the benefit of society.
That I am a bad accountant by the criteria they set is also self evidently true. What is also abundantly clear is that those criteria are in my opinion crass at best, undeliverable in all likelihood and deeply anti-social as a matter of fact, which statement I suspect those offering comment will consider a compliment.
And that's enough said. My break will be from responding to their comments. I will simply be deleting them instead. And maybe I will have a bit more time for constructive activity as a result.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
”I am not politcally neutral
I am biased to the poor”
It is this statement which I think *really irritates* some commentators; which is in itself, quite revealing about them, I think.
I heartily agree with your position in this. I follow you assiduously for sense and honest comment in a mad and dare I say a depraved and corrupt world.
Richard, please feel free to edit in any way, post or not post the following comments from someone who spent most of his life paying tax under PAYE. I would prefer you to continue to engage with our opponents but experience tells me it can sometimes be exhausting to do so.
I have been watching the comments here and I am struck by the familiarity of the arguments in favour of tax avoidance. For those who object to it the argument is over the conflation of the terms moral and legal. It is the same argument we saw exercised in the expenses scandal.
‘I broke no law, therefore I did no wrong, therefore I acted morally,’ is the argument put forward.
Logically this only holds true if there is no such thing as society, a point confirmed by the libertarian Robert Nozick. If I owe no responsibility to the person next to me beyond that which is defined in a contract (such as law) it is logical, if I do owe such a responsibility it is not. Tax forms part of the mechanics of a system of government founded upon the assumption that society does exist. Our way of life is not simply a financial competition.
That is why the concept of ‘fairness’ is entailed in the conventions and protocols of our legal system. It is not possible to define such a term any more than it is possible to define “virtue, love, conviction, knowledge, conscience” to paraphrase Marx. In a society, judgement of such issues is a matter of metaphysics, morality, ethics. These are listed in order and below these comes legality.
Kant offered the principle of duty. Kant’s principle deals with duty as the moral basis for actions. What Kant means by duty may not correspond with a more general understanding of the word. For Kant, to act morally is to act from a sense of duty. Duty is not imposed on a person by external forces, when the law ‘imposes a duty’ it is not the same thing.
With apologies for the damage this may do to philosophical discipline, duty is the imperative acting upon an individual’s action regardless of whether they want it to or not. I may wish (have an inclination) to act toward another in a certain way. Duty should determine whether I do act in that way or not and that action may or may not coincide with my inclinations. In essence a moral person knows or can deduce what is good and bad and acts accordingly even when it is to their personal disadvantage or directed toward someone they do not like or even someone who will not treat them with the same moral principle.
The conflation of morality and legality is corrosive to society and leads to a form of quasi-libertarianism bereft of true morality. When the ‘State’ is defined as the ‘Economy’ and contract law is allowed to displace the indefinable concepts entailed in Common Law we will lose many things. Not the least of these are democracy and the protective umbrella of law that aspires to moral validity and which is equally available and equally applied to all.
Well argued
Superbly and concisely put, Bill. Thanks. I shall draw on this in future discussion/debate.
Yes, you have skewered the pro-tax avoidance arguments with eloquence.
It’s clear from recent threads that you need a break. There’s a Priory Clinic at Norwich, which should be quite convenient for you – just over an hour by padded ambulance.
Thanks for your comment, shared here to show the sort of stuff I deal with from those who get angry when they can’t win an argument
You do well, Richard, to let them hoist themselves by their own petards! The profound infantilism of the ‘my-corner’s-alright-sod-yours’ mentality is plain to see.
Dear oh, dear! What a pathetically juvenile comment.
As a committed reader of your blogs, and so one who notices the insults and criticisms leveled at you, this is a totally understandable position to adopt, Richard. Indeed, on some days, when your blogs have proven particularly contentious or upsetting to what seem to be your fellow (but neoliberal) accountants, and others – such as the pursuer of your accounts, “Tyler”) I do wonder how you find any time to get any work done in between constant responses to the ongoing nagging of those who feel offended.
I am behind with the book….
Richard you experience shows that to be fair to this lot is not worth it. I would have deleted them years ago. Your patience is laudable You should be celebrating this week by continuous prime time media coverage of tax. Very well done for the years of hard work and sacrifice. We could not be here without your work.
Thanks!
I’m worn out by it all
But it’s worth it
Tax Research UK keeps me informed and thinking – a remarkable achievement. As a curious scientist, I found Tax Research UK a couple of years ago, in desperation to find decent and witty (Simon) comment, debate, clear thinking (Horrocks et al) and links on daily economics and politics. There is robust debate between oppositional views, maybe not enough but then you are a one-man show! I still read Tax Research UK avidly, as well as favourites – FT, Guardian, Huff Post, Telegraph (yes – keep informed) and BBC most days.
I too find the largely anonymous stymying time wasting and unhelpful. If you’ve worked with people who practice stymying, sophistry etc. it is depressingly tiring. Agreed. Keep going — “Hwyl”.
Thanks
Appreciated
I’ve been irrtiated by the comments that make out that those of us who agree with you Richard are known as ‘followers’ which is really insulting to people like me who can think for themselves amd lack the necessary herd mentality required to operate (or even suffer) in current market orthodoxy.
Even you and I have not always agreed on what issues take precedence for example but I share many of your viewpoints and are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder (online) with others who do so. Even the so-called Left wing media are no where near as brave as you are in putting forth alternatives (I’ve stopped reading the Guardian/Observer because they come across as toothless to me now).
What has struck me about people like ‘Ironman’ and ‘BrianB’ (to name a few) is that they always wade in with objections that are never really argued with facts or deeper underpinning – they just use neo-lib mythology and have this attitude of ‘that’s the way it is’ and decry trying to change things as a matter of course.
They are reduced to offensive stuff like questioning your own probity on your tax affairs or calling into question your professionalism. All this really means is that they nothing else to fall back on.
Swimming against the tide is a tiring thing to do anyway, and as you have been doing this publically for sometime, you have every right to make your journey easier by getting rid of these misled people who are over represented elsewhere in the media.
If the neo-lib followers are to be deleted or not responded to, then perhaps we could make the ways and means of realising the ‘Courageous State’ central to the blog (but then again as a newcomer, you may have already done this in the past).
However you make the blog work in the future, I believe that you are justified in your course of action.
Thanks
Richard, there are people ready to troll any argument. Just remember that the number of your supporters is a hundred times greater than the number of trolls.
My guess is the thousands who come here each day aren’t all trolls!
Hi Richard
I have spent over 20 years looking at tax planning. When your comments first started getting traction in the press, I found them irritating and generally dismissed them.
Gradually (sorry) I have come to realise my error. You can still get under my skin but that is one of the points of the blog. Your contribution to the debate has been invaluable in getting people to think about what sort of tax system we have and what sort we want.
I disagree with you on some fairly fundamental points but it is clear that your view is an honestly held and consistent one. Its your view that I read the blog for, not people trying to score points off you.
Thanks
Same for me really. Yes you do irritate from time to time and I don’t always get what you’re saying (especially on economics) but I’m on pretty much the same ethical/moral page as you on tax.
I could probably nit pick at times, but seems counter productive espcially when i can see the point you’re making, and quite frankly I have better things to do with my time – I am surpised other donlt have better things to do.
Anyway keep your chin up (not I think that I need to say that) 🙂
I am human
I think
And I have no doubt the comments are intended to grind down
Richard, you are to be commended for having a strong view and sticking to it. You (and others) have moved the debate on considerably, so 2015 is not quite the same “wild west” where egregious tax avoidance can continue like it did the 1990s and 2000s.
You are a bit of a lightening rod for adverse comments – no doubt triggered by your sometimes (and I suspect on occasions deliberately) provocative statements – but it is a shame when people resort to invective rather than reasoned argument.
I hope it is possible to disagree with you, without saying you are a bad accountant or don’t know what you are talking about. That said, everyone has limits to their knowledge or experience, and everyone gets things wrong from time to time.
I do get things wrong sometimes
I admitted doing so on the blog this morning