Just to stir the pot, has anyone noticed...

[Phil Pascoe]

If the law had a loophole that allowed you to occasionally steal from children, would you do it?

That's the point. The law should be simple and not have loopholes.

It's rather like "interpreting" the law - it should be written that it can't be interpreted. Something is either legal or it isn't.

 

[sploo]

That's the point. The law should be simple and not have loopholes.

It's rather like "interpreting" the law - it should be written that it can't be interpreted. Something is either legal or it isn't.

True; though the problem is that as soon as you have a really simple tax system then some people will point out that it unintentionally punishes them (because they have specific circumstances that don't fit within those laws). As soon as you create exemptions for those people, others will work out how to abuse the exemptions in order to also reduce their taxation

 

[TRITON]

I'll wager a pound to a penny that all the dodgy tax law staff was penned by someone working for the tory party.
They are by far the most corrupt organization in the country. They put despotic leaders to shame.

 

[Jake]

That's the point. The law should be simple and not have loopholes.

It's rather like "interpreting" the law - it should be written that it can't be interpreted. Something is either legal or it isn't

OK - have a go. Let's ban something hypothetically, you pick and write it.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The courts make judgements based on precise analysis of agreements. If this is inconclusive they may examine evidence about the intention of the parties. Moral judgements will be inconsistent.

Complexity arises as "tweaks" to improve fairness and change behaviours have been made without changing the basic structure. It needs radical overhaul - but the result will not be simple.

We rely upon legal agreements to govern our obligation and protect our rights - eg: contract of employment, mortgage, house deeds. pension expectations etc etc. If there is a dispute we expect the courts to base their decision on that which we signed, not make moral judgements.

Similarly taxpayers should expect to arrange their affairs having regard for the precise terms of the law, not subject to the uncertainty of moral judgements. Disputes arising tend to be because of omission, or the law is inadequately drafted leaving it open to interpretation.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

OK - have a go. Let's ban something hypothetically, you pick and write it.

Not my job.

 

[Jacob]

The courts make judgements based on precise analysis of agreements. If this is inconclusive they may examine evidence about the intention of the parties. Moral judgements will be inconsistent.

Complexity arises as "tweaks" to improve fairness and change behaviours have been made without changing the basic structure. It needs radical overhaul - but the result will not be simple.

We rely upon legal agreements to govern our obligation and protect our rights - eg: contract of employment, mortgage, house deeds. pension expectations etc etc. If there is a dispute we expect the courts to base their decision on that which we signed, not make moral judgements.

Similarly taxpayers should expect to arrange their affairs having regard for the precise terms of the law, not subject to the uncertainty of moral judgements. Disputes arising tend to be because of omission, or the law is inadequately drafted leaving it open to interpretation.

Juries should, and do, make moral judgements. Generally regarded as a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-of-causing-criminal-damage-to-hsbc-london-hq

 

[sploo]

Similarly taxpayers should expect to arrange their affairs having regard for the precise terms of the law, not subject to the uncertainty of moral judgements.

That, I understand (admittedly only in layman's terms) is part of the problem. For example, if I run a business in one jurisdiction (e.g. UK), and license some technology or processes from a business in another jurisdiction I pay them a royalty/fee/percentage for that license.

However, the other business is also part of my overall group, and in a low tax jurisdiction. That business is (deliberately) charging my UK entity a licensing fee that's so large that it means by UK business effectively makes zero profit on sales. As such it pays almost no UK tax. The business in the low tax jurisdiction makes massive profits (based on the licensing fees), but by virtue of its location it pays little tax on those profits.

I've not broken any precise terms of the law; I've just used the rules that allow trade between international entities. So... how do you legislate for clear cases of (legal) "taking the p!ss"?

 

[Jacob]

That, I understand (admittedly only in layman's terms) is part of the problem. For example, if I run a business in one jurisdiction (e.g. UK), and license some technology or processes from a business in another jurisdiction I pay them a royalty/fee/percentage for that license.

However, the other business is also part of my overall group, and in a low tax jurisdiction. That business is (deliberately) charging my UK entity a licensing fee that's so large that it means by UK business effectively makes zero profit on sales. As such it pays almost no UK tax. The business in the low tax jurisdiction makes massive profits (based on the licensing fees), but by virtue of its location it pays little tax on those profits.

I've not broken any precise terms of the law; I've just used the rules that allow trade between international entities. So... how do you legislate for clear cases of (legal) "taking the p!ss"?

If your scenario is worth the bother I'm sure it could be tidied up. Where there's a will there's a way.
Just don't believe a word of it when people say taxation, especially of the rich, is impossible!

 

[Jake]

Not my job.

So maybe don't talk down how complex the job is for people who actually can, and do, do it.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

They don't, though, do they? No one should have to interpret a law, no matter in what sphere - indeed no one should be able to.

 

[J-G]

They don't, though, do they? No one should have to interpret a law, no matter in what sphere - indeed no one should be able to.

I've been led to believe that 'Legal Documents' refrain from using punctuation because that then leaves them open to 'interpretation' by the profession, depending upon the prevailing circumstance.

 

[sploo]

If your scenario is worth the bother I'm sure it could be tidied up. Where there's a will there's a way.
Just don't believe a word of it when people say taxation, especially of the rich, is impossible!

That's the problem though isn't it; the "will" is to maintain the status quo, because the people in power (and their backers, and their mates) benefit from it.

 

[Jacob]

That's the problem though isn't it; the "will" is to maintain the status quo, because the people in power (and their backers, and their mates) benefit from it.

Well yes that is what we are talking about - and how to change it. Maintaining the status quo is traditional tory policy (there's a clue in the name "Conservative").
At the moment we also have an inert "conservative" Labour opposition so things look a bit bleak.
But in theory we have the power a.k.a. "democracy".

 

[Jacob]

I've been led to believe that 'Legal Documents' refrain from using punctuation because that then leaves them open to 'interpretation' by the profession, depending upon the prevailing circumstance.

Certainly was a method used. We had the deeds to our last building and I copied the text of one of them. Not a single punctuation mark, though the bold Whereas, Doth, etc work a bit like punctuation but would be difficult to edit in or otherwise alter.
http://www.owdman.co.uk/joinery/chapel.html#deeds

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Juries should, and do, make moral judgements. Generally regarded as a good thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-of-causing-criminal-damage-to-hsbc-london-hq

Jurors can make whatever judgement they want irrespective of the facts of a case. Judges have very little right to overrule juries.

In the case of the climate protestors causing criminal damage, the jury clearly supported their actions and chose not to convict. Similarly with those who tipped the Colston statue into the river.

This is very dangerous ground. Jurors are (broadly) selected at random and may hold views on environmental, religious, political or social issues which influence their deliberations. Accepting the supremacy of the jury may equally result in:

• criminal behaviour, mostly regarded as morally reprehensible, going unpunished. This may occur where public opinion is polarised (eg: illegal immigration, assisted dying, political bias) but the law is clear.
• conviction for actions which are not criminal but morally reprehensible. CPS would normally filter such cases, but if it reaches the court I assume the judge would halt the trial denying the jury the opportunity to pass judgement.

Legislation seeks to remove uncertainty. In its absence rights, responsibilities and obligations are enforceable only following the unpredictability of judge and jury unfettered by a framework.

IMHO those responsible for the climate and Colston crimes should have been found guilty, although their justification may/should have mitigated the sentence passed.

 

[Jacob]

......

This is very dangerous ground. .....

Not as dangerous as giving unlimited power to judges, magistrates, etc who are quite able to make major errors and to be swayed by prejudice. Just look at the total failure of the legal processes at every level around the Post Office scandal.
My personal experience of the law involved a JP who was arrogant, drunk (Friday afternoon) sarcastic and in a hurry. They are not perfect!

 

[evildrome]

The economy is NOT a closed system.

MV = PQ

Money x Number of transactions = Price x Production

The fallacy you re-iterated depends on Q being fixed. Which it clearly is not.

Have you heard of the Witcher Conjecture?

I have not heard of the Witcher conjecture - nor it seems has Google in an economic sense - can you enlighten me.

The proposition that production is not fixed is absolutely correct - in the longer term technological change, education and training has (and probably will) continue.

However the current problem besetting the UK is that productivity is relatively low compared to other developed economies, and growing very slowly (if at all).

Increasing money supply - whether printed by the BoE or by transfer from the mega wealthy - will only increase the volume of goods available if imported. Even wholly automated production requires scarce resources - labour (install, maintain, run machines), energy, packaging, transport etc.

I subscribe to the very simplistic view that national finances are not dissimilar to the personal - albeit with more zeros, different timescales and terminology. Spend more than you earn/produce requires borrowing on which interest is payable and ultimately needs to be repaid.

Do this for too long and (a) the interest rates charged by lenders will increase, (b) lenders become increasingly nervous - credit rating suffers, (c) finally when the house is mortgaged to the hilt, credit cards maxed out etc you go bankrupt.

Pffft.


The accounting of the currency issuer has no relation to the accounting of the currency user.

Do not confuse the umpire with the players.

All Fiat currencies are unencumbered, irredeemable tokens.

Go to the Fed and them what you can swap a dollar for. They'll tell you, another dollar.

Go to the umpire and ask what you can swap a point for.

Same thing because they're issued the same way, ex novo... from nothing.

Fiat currencies are points systems but they look like money to you and me because we're currency users, not issuers.

The umpire has at all times zero points but the unlimited ability to issue new points.

How was WWII financed? Every significant economy was at war.

Where did they get all the money to finance it?

The Martians?

They all just created as much currency as they needed and they could because currency, for the issuer, is just points.

Can the issuer issue too many points? Of course! Argentina, Hungary, Zimbabwe... all concrete examples.

Can the issuer issue too few points? Of course! That's what we call Austerity.

Does it make any sense to issue too few points? Not really. You should run your economy at maximum output at all times.

Do Fiat currency issuers borrow money? No. The accounting mechanics for such a thing do not exist.

Does the umpire borrow points from the players? And if he did, where would they go?

You can deposit money at the Central Bank. You can swap £s for a certificate of deposit (a bond) but that's not the government borrowing.

Think of it as a security deposit box that pays interest... nice.

There is no path from the BOE selling bonds to the Consolidated Fund.

When you buy a bond, the BOE debits your bank's reserve account and credit your bank's securities account.

Like moving money from a checking account (reserves) to a deposit account (treasuries).

All the BOE is doing is holding your money and paying you interest.

Its like the coat check girl. You hand in your coat, you get a ticket, you redeem the ticket, you get your coat back.

The government does not need to make you a new coat. It already has your coat.

When Fiat currency governments want to spend they just instruct the Exchequer to instruct the BOE to mark up the reserve account of the bank of the payee.

Boom!

All done.

 

[John Brown]

I never owned a Fiat Currency, never heard of it, TBH. I did own a Fiat Argenta about 35 years ago, and since Argenta means silver, I reckon that's close enough. Nice car, but some w@nker drove into the back of it, and the insurers wrote it off. Oh well, I suppose if it could be conjured into existence by "Fiat", it's only fitting that it could be destroyed in a similar fashion.

 

[spiritburner]

They don't, though, do they? No one should have to interpret a law, no matter in what sphere - indeed no one should be able to.

Please dont let us ever go down that road, the Law should be able to be interpreted, I live in Spain and its not allowed to be here and its a bloody nightmare.

A very simple example.

Youre doing 30 kmh, ambulance behind you, you accelerate and move forward to allow the ambulance through as there is no other option open to you , in doing so a camera flashes you and you get a ticket, in the UK a judge would interpret that after argument as a valid reason to break the law and throw out the penalty.

In Spain. You broke the law and you have to pay the penalty.

Another one.

Your Spanish vehicle is on the back of a Andorran low loader being transported from Andorra back to Barcelona, its 1 metre up in the air, the Andorran driver gets flashed by a camera, there are no agreements between Spain and Andorra on car penalties, the Andorran driver goes scott free, but the authorities here issue a ticket to the owner of the towed vehicle and you get a fine and points in the post even though you were not driving the car, were not anywhere near the car and the car was on the back of a low loader and your cars tyres are not on the road!

Those are just two real work stupid examples of what happens when interpretation is barred from the law in the last year over here.

Imagine what would happen in other situations , contracts, employment disputes, debts, crime, you name it