Printable View
So it seems we're agreed, it's up to the government to work in our favour and stamp out both of these behaviours. Unless you're planning a bit of death wish style vigilantism. So....I beg the question again, why does the one that effects you least (and by a huge margin) clearly bother you more?
I'll refer to my first answer on this one, you are being told what to think mate.
Told by who? I don't read tabloid press, I stopped reading the comics long ago. But living in the area that I do, I see face to face and unfortunately have to associate with the scroungers on a regular basis. So it does effect me almost daily, not greatly financially, but morally having your nose rubbed in it on a regular basis is annoying. Whereas big business, although financially more damaging, is a distant entity that doesn't come on the TV every day saying 'we're screwing you'.Quote:
Originally Posted by triz
On a personal view, I cannot get my head round the fact that there's people out there living in my area who think that I should pay, so they don't have go to work. If we were shipwrecked on a desert island, they would expect me to build shelter, catch and cook their food while they sunbathed on the beach, is that how society works?
Thats good by me but considering Crawley is in Sus*** it may not work to cut costs in Surrey!Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
Ah...knew there'd be a flaw. Fair point...all the same to me...seen one southerner seen them all.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by roger_ramjet
Ram59, unsurprisingly I'm totally with Triz on this one but although your final paragraph is fair you're still missing the point. Why, when you accept that the tax evasion/avoidance folk are costing us all a great deal more than the 'benefit cheats' do you still get more offended by the latter?
You've touched on it yourself by suggesting only the 'benefit scroungers' are seen on TV every day saying 'we're screwing you'. Surely you now have to ask yourself why that might be?
Triz isn't defending 'benefit cheats', he's just saying let's have a sense of proportion...morally there is little, if any, difference between benefit cheats and tax avoiders. Both are parasitic but the latter group damage society a whole lot more and still continue to thrive.
I concur wholeheartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
The only reason for me they get away with it is, that the corporations are here employing people, who then pay tax etc.
If they went elsewhere, those same people would be claiming benefits.
The scroungers don't actually do anything but take. What grates people, is when they openly brag about it and live on the same street as you and I.
Both are worthy of vilification but the benefit cheats are an easier target to visualise, meet and slag off. Go down your local pub and you could meet one and get pissed off with him/her. Youre not likely to come across the finance director of a global multinatiknal so often so its more difficult to express that resentment.
Of course you can go on your march against capital, break some windows at a McD or trash as small breakfast bar in Brick Lane but that wont make a toss of a difference apart from antagonise joe public who is inconvenienced (similar to Southern Rail strike really).
I dont think Triz's observation that the media is brainwashing us to view one as worse than the other (and I can only speak for myself) is particularly valid at all. The underclass benefit cheats are a soft accessible target so you dont need to be told to despise them.
I can understand what your saying but look at things in a different way, my friend has terminal breast cancer,does that not allow me to moan when I've got a nagging tooth ache. It's not so serious but it's annoying and constantly in your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
I have to take issue with your statement that they're both parasitic. They both are immoral and don't pay enough to society, but if a scrounger family did not exist, we would be better off. However, if Amazon, for example, didn't exist then we would lose millions in employee taxes, employer ni contributions, business council tax contributions and then the money their employees spend would not be available. So we do benefit from amazon's existence, but not by as much as we should.
All you, and now Tricky, are really saying is you both get more enraged by the 'scroungers' you actually come into contact with although you accept that the bigger people/corporations actually make more difference to our current economic plight.
I really don't understand that. In a professional capacity I've come into contact with individual *****philes and victims of *****philia, I'm not, for instance, a Catholic but it doesn't stop me being enraged when I hear accounts of institutionally based *** offending just because I haven't actually met the perpetrators.
I understand that Amazon, Google, Starbucks etc employ a great many people but they're not doing that out of any sense of altruism, they do it to maximise profit - fair enough - but they then avoid paying they're dues to society - imo not fair enough - and you've completely avoided the cases of all the individual tax evaders.
By the way...all those opposed to tax evasion/avoidance are not likely to start breaking windows and attacking banks or McDonalds...that bit really is just bollux.
Sorry...'their dues' not 'they're dues'...the latter makes absolutely no sense at all.:? Tired, been working all week. ;D
Tricky, the only reason you don't know about tax evaders living nearby to you is because, sad to say, they're cleverer and more discreet about their dishonesty. That's the point...tax evasion/avoidance is little less that institutionalised greed that many parts of the establishment are, I suspect, complicit in.
Let us discuss tax evasion, which is illegal, I think we have established that if a trader turns up on our doorstep and quotes £100 plus £20 vat or £100 for cash, we would go for the cash option. Why? We do not NEED that £20 and would probably try to justify it by saying everyone else gets away with it. So lets be honest with ourselves we are being greedy and as a result , we are illegally avoiding paying £20 in tax. As a result the trader is also avoiding paying income tax and employees and employers NI, which results in about another £50 in tax. Now we have shown that we are greedy and are willing to illegally avoid paying tax, wouldn't it be logical to assume that if any of us were to rise to the fortunate position of earning large sums of money, that we would also find ways of not paying tax, but importantly legally not paying it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
Just because we do it in small amounts, it doesn't make it right. If it does, please let me know the exact figure at which it's not right.