P.S. Many thanks to pelican and examinator for their kind words. I have no doubt that we can debate these issues at length some time, and I'm sure we can do so politely, civilly and in the absence of malice.

However, I'm not so sure we can do that at OLO :)

Yes CJ, the old sensitivities are hard to avoid on OLO but overall it is not a bad forum. You are right these issues would probably be better discussed around a fire with a few friends and a nice drink (name your poison). Although it is b*y hot here at the moment so maybe not a fire. :)

Great joke foxy - demonstrates how our differences and experiences shape what we ultimately perceive. In essence most people appear to seek the same end it is the manner in which to achieve it that we tend to disagree.

A fabulous witty response from davidf. Great sense of humour there david.

CJ Morgan “that's a classically fallacious argument.”

You claim the observations of the late Sir Harry Gibb, past chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, someone with more authority to speak on and experience of the matter than myself or youself, represent a “classically fallacious argument.” In response to your comment

“'justifies' to its perpetrators any number of "insidious, surreptitious or subtle" schemes designed to evade paying legally assessable taxes.”

What you claim, in hindsight “I was specifically referring to people who evade their legitimate taxes, rather than those who legitimately avoid taxes they would otherwise have paid”

was not particularly clear, from your initial post, but that aside, the point that Sir Harry and I were making is

it should not be up to the ATO to decide, unilaterally or for you to rely on, which tax arrangements are “Evasion” and which are “Avoidance” .

It should be a matter of judicial review through the appeal courts.

And whilst something might be construed, by ATO as prima-facie “Evasion” it should, until proven so be deemed “Avoidance” because the burden of evidence to its illegality has to first be proved.

As to you suggestion “bean counter whose entire profession is dependent upon the existence of financial practices, regulations and laws”

Actually you are wrong there.

The existence and deployment of certain types of accountants might be dependent upon “financial practices, regulations and law” but other types of accountants are employed for their ability to organize interpret and plan the affairs of commerce and government,

Whilst they might be influenced by “financial practices” their employment or the manner in which they provide service is only “incidentally” or nominally influenced by “Regulation” and “Law” , differently to being “dependent” upon them.

Certain prejudices are considered unacceptable. Aborigines, Jews, Muslims and other ethnic minorities are considered out of bounds for derision.

However, Americans, accountants and lawyers are other categories which can be derided freely. Col Rouge has eloquently defended his profession.

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

I suppose I'll have to spell it out for Col. His argument with me is fallacious because he's attributing something to my position that I didn't say. I said that people who evade their taxes are stealing - nothing at all in my original comment about those who legitimately avoid taxes for which they are not liable. I'm sure that Col, as an ethical accountant, would agree that those who have been found by a court to have evaded taxes for which they are liable, have stolen from the State.

My other point relates to Col's frequent quotation from his awful heroine - to the effect that there's no such thing as "society". I merely pointed out that without society, accountancy wouldn't exist. The entire financial edifice upon which his profession feeds is an artefact of society - no society, no money, no finance, no regulations, no laws, no accountants.

Quite simple, really.

CJ Morgan wrote:

My other point relates to Col's frequent quotation from his awful heroine - to the effect that there's no such thing as "society". I merely pointed out that without society, accountancy wouldn't exist. The entire financial edifice upon which his profession feeds is an artefact of society - no society, no money, no finance, no regulations, no laws, no accountants.

Dear CJ,

I agree that Thatcher was awful. However, when she said there was no such thing as society she was denying human caring and interaction outside of contractual obligations and legal structures. She and you have different definitions of what constitutes society. The financial edifice was worshipped by Thatcher. That was not what she meant by society.

My dictionary defines society as: a body of individuals living as members of a community

Thatcher denied community not all human structures.