Bronwyn “An accountant who didn't steal from the tax office. Well, that'd have to be a first.”

I do not prepare tax returns, not even my own. I have a tax accountant/agent who does them for me.

I now expect you to justify your scurrilous assertion that the accountancy profession is riddled with thieves and tax cheats.

You will find some dishonest ones.

I know that because it is the nature of people, as you will find dishonest coppers, lawyers, judges, doctors, even politicians etc.

However, being closely involved with fellow members of the accountancy bodies I am accredited to

I can speak, with some authority, to correct your ignorance.

The vast majority are ethical people who conduct their affairs to a very high standard.

“Col, cut the phony indignation”

Examinator and Anansi both made direct comments of me, not of the opinion I expressed.

Examinator with all his talk of rule changes to curtail the posts of abusive posters comes here
With judgmental slurs

“Obviously you feel that minimum wage laws and paying off the books to avoid payroll tax workers comp etc and hiding income is ok”

An implication which could not be drawn from my post (here or elsewhere)

Similarly, Anansi had her attempt at character assassination in the phrase

“but endorses law breaking from other ranks (employers, most likely deserving entrepreneurs with high ethical standards”

You too were sniveling around with Examinator, like a pack of wild dogs, after anyone who you deemed fell below the “standards”.

You wanted to impose upon thus all YOUR rules.

You complain now when I illustrate and call them on it.

Examinator and Anansis both breached what is supposed to be one of the cardinal rules of debating

“Play the Ball, not the man”

I “bully them” ?

No

I was holding them “accountable” for their posts

but you are ‘bullying’ now

Bronwyn, how is it possible for someone to be as hypocritical as you?

I speculate, if you wear makeup,

it must cost lots and take a long time to apply….

painting and powdering both faces every day.

CJ Morgan

"insidious, surreptitious or subtle" schemes designed to evade paying legally assessable taxes.”

Re

www.tax.law.unimelb.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=988D0DDC-1422-207C-BA698688E98045BD

“TAX AVOIDANCE AND THE HIGH COURT SINCE
SIR GARFIELD BARWICK
By A. J. MYERS

It is also notorious that income taxation law has become more complex since the time Sir Garfield was Chief Justice.

Sir Harry Gibbs has written recently that “the laws relating to income tax are a disgrace”.

He refers to legislation which is “absurdly voluminous”, “which is obscure to the point of being incomprehensible”. He refers to “unacceptably wide discretionary powers, including those given by the anti –avoidance provisions of IVA inserted in an overreaction to some earlier decisions of the High Court”.

Sir Harry also says that many

“practising accountants no longer try to unravel the mysteries of the legislation by reading its provisions. Rather they rely on the various documents and rulings issued by the Australian Taxation Office –

a subordination of the rule of law to the opinions of the Executive.”

I would agree with him that tax evasion is “Stealing”.

However, based on the opinions of Sir Harry Gibbs, I would suggest the line between “Evasion “ and “Avoidance” has been erased where

there is “subordination of the rule of law to the opinions of the Executive.”

The Distinction between evasion and avoidance becomes impossible

and since the onus of our system of justice is the presumption of innocence,

It can reasonably be presumed the innocent pursuit of “Tax Avoidance” is the “sentiment that underlies extreme forms of contemporary libertarianism “ rather than any unproven “Tax Evasion”.

“Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law”

“Tax” is an imposition, by the state upon its citizens.

It is entirely appropriate for every citizens to freely employ whatever means are legally available to minimise that imposition.

The ATO is charged with obeying Tax Laws, not with enacting them.

Or we end up with ATO “Stealing by Statute” from Tax payers, not the other way around.

Houellebecq “I think Col probably didn't read the whole post,”

I did read the whole post but the question Pelican posed was never about how much she got paid.

Pelican was asking us to consider her oan stealing, in response to her pay arrangements.

Therefore “So Col has wrongly assumed the wages were only unfair in pelicans mind. Sloppy? Or perhaps he doesn't believe it's wrong to break this law?”

Is irrelevant.

To put it another way:

I did not bother to answer an unasked question.

As it is, I do not condone either breaking the law or underpaying people at any level and positively cringe when I hear of kids on school sponsored “work experience” being given $5 a day as suggested by the school….

If I were to have a school child attached to my business for work experience, I would pay them something closer to a real wage rate and not $5 for the day for whatever they did.

I note my own daughter when she was doing “work experience” in an accountants office (no one I knew), she was employed by an accountant who, based on the amount she received, held similar values to my own.

Regarding Employers conduct: if you have good staff and want to keep them, be the best employer around.

It is usually the mediocre employers and employees who find it otherwise and end up complaining.

“What would Margaret Thatcher have to say about all this?”

I would speculate, she would say similar to what pelican has already written in her reply to you on that point :- )

Examinator, apology accepted

Just a bit of light relief folks:

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip.
After a good meal and a bottle of wine they laid down
for the night, and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes
awoke and nudged his faithful friend.

"Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see."

Watson replied, "I see millions and millions of stars."

"What does that tell you?"

Watson pondered for a minute.

"Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of
galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically,
I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that
the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically,
I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and
insignificant. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a
beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?"

Holmes was silent for a minute, then spoke.

"It tells me that someone has stolen our tent."

Holmes made a tentative conclusion after canvassing the evidence.

Good one, Foxy - and an oldie. Brilliant response from david f.

Col Rouge - that's a classically fallacious argument. I was specifically referring to people who evade their legitimate taxes, rather than those who legitimately avoid taxes they would otherwise have paid, without (for example) the assistance of a bean counter whose entire profession is dependent upon the existence of financial practices, regulations and laws.

Which, axiomatically, would not exist in the absence of "society".