MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Would you pay Brian the Builder in cash?

ShelfStacker_3

bigoggy2007 wrote: »

taxes suck:mad: :mad: . and i ain't paying em

What a delightfully selfish attitude.

As far as I'm concerned, while taxes are unpleasant and nobody wants to pay them, they should be paid, as they fund the things that this country needs. I may not like losing a couple of hundred quid out of my pay packet, but at least I know the money is going to fund schools, hospitals, social welfare, law and order, things that we almost certainly could not do without. Citing examples of top politicians avoiding payment for things is all well and good, but two wrongs most certainly don't make a right. (It's also a curious thing, slamming someone's actions and then stating you intend to follow them. Very odd.)

Put it another way. You may well want to avoid tax, fine, go right ahead. But in that case, feel very free to get the f*ck out of the NHS, get your kids out of the school system we pay for, stop using the roads we pay to have mended, hire your own bodyguard to replace the policing we cough up for but you won't. It'd be the only fair thing to do.

liberty1264

hold on shelfstacker, I am a 72 year old pensioner who has paid my n.h.s. contributions all my life and asked for nothing in return,I am now on a basic state pension and depend solely on interest on my savings to survive and they have been stolen from me Yes stolen, I ask nothing from the government or from you or from anybody else, I will fight my way through this recession and look after my family whilst doing it.

elizabethhull

dbfisokay wrote: »

"Clearly, to give Brian the Builder £1,200in cash knowing full well that he “needn't do any paper work, if you know what I mean?" is to conspire with him in the non payment of VAT – a criminal act. That is not debatable and if one is willing accept the consequences of the act if caught then by all means do it."

My husband is an accountant and runs the risk of being 'struck off' if he is found to have connived at such an illegal act, so our moral stance is rather coloured by potential consequences. I've been offered a cut price for decorating (having already inspected it and found it ok), by people who seem to think one regularly has £100 or so in one's possession. So in neither case have we taken the cheaper option. Do rather tend to feel that as we pay all our financial dues, so should everyone else! But rarely are moral conundrums clear-cut.

englishmac

ShelfStacker wrote: »

What a delightfully selfish attitude.

As far as I'm concerned, while taxes are unpleasant and nobody wants to pay them, they should be paid, as they fund the things that this country needs. I may not like losing a couple of hundred quid out of my pay packet, but at least I know the money is going to fund schools, hospitals, social welfare, law and order, things that we almost certainly could not do without. Citing examples of top politicians avoiding payment for things is all well and good, but two wrongs most certainly don't make a right. (It's also a curious thing, slamming someone's actions and then stating you intend to follow them. Very odd.)

Put it another way. You may well want to avoid tax, fine, go right ahead. But in that case, feel very free to get the f*ck out of the NHS, get your kids out of the school system we pay for, stop using the roads we pay to have mended, hire your own bodyguard to replace the policing we cough up for but you won't. It'd be the only fair thing to do.

It is not the funding of the NHS, road maintenance, etc that the majority object to. It is the non-essential statues in town centres, long ineffective meetings of public officials - often unnecessarily held hundreds of miles away, dodgy expenses claims, non-essential provisions for 'minority' groups, etc etc. I am quite a high earner; I do pay taxes. I have never claimed dole, I don't have any kids burdening the education system and have in the past paid for medical treatment myself to keep myself off the sick. I don't find it odd that I am willing to take advantage of the few financial breaks I do have the opportunity to take when a significant proportion of my earnings are taken from me in tax to pay for things that have nothing to do with a decent, humanitarian welfare system.

youcanthelpbadluck

Absolutely no problem, have you seen the way the government wastes our tax money on luxuries for themselves and their cronies, so why not have a little back?

Hardtofindafreshname

It may sound namist, but I make a point of never employing anyone by the name of Brian, and that includes the ones that don't have beards.
Therefore I would not be faced with the dilema that was posed.

mr-tom_2

Well, whatever people may think of that, it would undeniably prevent this particular iteration of the problem from occurring...

Hardtofindafreshname

Looks like people are finally coming round to my logical way of thinking.

I also recently developed a phobia concerning Malcolms, many of which seem obsessed with technical detail to an unhealthy extreme.

The majority of the ones I've ever met, seem to have more than a passing interest in Airfix Kits, Meccano, lathes, and establishing how the metal strips of heated rear windscreens are moulded into the glass.

After 96 posts following Martin's original dilema, I feel we are finally making progress here.

englishmac

Hardtofindafreshname wrote: »

Looks like people are finally coming round to my logical way of thinking.

I also recently developed a phobia concerning Malcolms, many of which seem obsessed with technical detail to an unhealthy extreme.

The majority of the ones I've ever met, seem to have more than a passing interest in Airfix Kits, Meccano, lathes, and establishing how the metal strips of heated rear windscreens are moulded into the glass.

After 96 posts following Martin's original dilema, I feel we are finally making progress here.

Can we go one step further than phobia and actually have a ban? On Bob. For the simple reason that he is a terrible singer if nothing else.