So, if every pheasant beater was a shareholder in "beaters and Pickers up PLC" which evaded tax as a corporation its a contemptible crime, but the fact that they do it as individuals makes it okay?
Even though the life saving operation is still denied
That seems to be the point you are making or do I have it wrong?
I didn't say that taking "food instead of pay" was illegal - thats a judgement for HMRC to make. I did say it was immoral in the same way.
It appears, according to your argument, that if the amount is small or involves a single person, avoiding tax is a good thing, but if carried out by a group of people (a company) it is a bad thing.
Can we extend that logic to all morality and crime?
Red
Probably not 'cos you're right in what you're saying. I guess to go back to the OP that Mark Boyle is making a point about the way our current system is apparently flawed, and I think we would all agree there are many flaws with it, and certainly through his book purports to be trying to encourage debate and a degree of action. He has certainly encouraged debate.
I suppose it's all a matter of degrees, you are of course right in that the individual with a small avoidance is no more moral than the large corporation, but I doubt the majority of people are really that moral. i supect if we all rummage around at home we'll find the odd pen permanently borrowed from our employers etc but does that make each of us as immoral as, say, a professional fraudster? Technically it does, but morally I suspect we would bend on that one. Dunno, What do you think?