"I live without cash – and I manage just fine "

[Manacles]

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?

 

[Manacles]

I would rather it was openly talked about though. I'm cynical as to why it's not in the mainstream media yet (even though PO articles are appearing more frequently now). I'm trying not to sound conspiricist here but my fear is that the corporations and governments (who, lets face it are pretty interchangeable nowadays) are dragging it out long enough for them to sort out their finances and contingency plans (stripping civil liberties etc), and once that's done, the rug will pulled from beneath us.

The main reason for the absence of action from our leaders (apart from making themselves unelectable) is that there is no profit in sustainability, thus no interest from anyone with any power. That's heartbreaking.

My theory in this is that the "green lobby" have become a business in themselves rather than an enabling force for change and somewhere along the line the message has changed from "we can all work together" to something along the lines of "if you don't go green we all perish". I like to think that there is a middle way. I will pin my colours to the mast here and confess to being skeptical about climate change being wholly man-made, but at the same time I am quite anti-consumerist as I am only too aware that the Earth's resources are finite. I like British Red's approach to the future. For myself I would like to see us taking the best of modern technology to move forward and maybe losing some of the less good things. Looking back to Victorian times, for example, they had much that we have today only manufactured from different materials (wooden toys, tinplate trains, wooden handles on kitchen utensils) and today we have much that is good such as modern medicine, electricity, sewage systems etc. These things we can keep regardless of peak oil (solar panels, a return to glass petri dishes etc). It will take work but I think it's out there. We as individuals will certainly have to reappraise our own lives to do it though

 

[British Red]

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?

I think my ability to the control the world ends at the end of my nose.

I'm reminded of a debate I once had about how proud and fortunate I am to be English. A person replied that we should abandon "tribalism". My response was, for that to be a logical moral point, the poster should consider giving to charity that portion of their income that was above the average world income. The person replied that to do so "would make no difference". If they had done that, and sponsored a child say, would it really make no difference?

I’m reminded of the story about the man who sees a beach full of starfish that had been washed ashore. He notices a little boy picking up starfish, one at a time, and throwing it back into the sea. The man looks at the boy, looks at the thousands of starfish and comments to the boy, “Compared to the amount of starfish dying on the beach, what you are doing isn’t making a difference.” The boy picks up a starfish, throws it back into the sea and says, "It made a difference to that one."

I think it was Ghandi who said "You must be the change you want to see in the world". My interpretation of that is perhaps different than many. I don't see that as meaning "lead, inspire, seek for others to follow", but rather "the only change anyone can actually make, is a change in themselves and their own behaviour".

To some extent it could be argued that the subject of this discussion tried to do that - but he also acknowledges that if everyone did it the system of care, benefit for the needy and poor would collapse.

That is not a change I want to see in the world, so I personally will not pursue it. Money and taxation exist to suppport what is still one of the best and most universally safe lifestyles that exists in the world and has existed throughout history. It is worth considering what a return to a simpler life actually involves. In most simple, low tech societies, especially our own in earlier times, the life of societies less fortunate was, "nasty, brutal and short".

Red

 

[Manacles]

In most simple, low tech societies, especially our own in earlier times, the life of societies less fortunate was, "nasty, brutal and short".

Red

Yes, indeed, the life expectancy in the UK only a couple of hundred years ago was pitifully low. Hopefully though, as you say, if we all do our bit things may turn out okay in the end, it's a many hands make light work situation. There's an irony to this thread though Red in that although it has been way off bushcraft as a topic, those who are involved in bushcraft or similar will have a greater awareness of the environment in which we all live and I suspect that will filter through their entire lives and they are already doing their bit for the future (or maybe I'm just a hopeless dreamer )

 

[Swallow]

I have been known to disagree with British Red on occasion (politely, I trust!), but I agree with 99% of that. However.....

Another phrase that I see bandied about on here and elsewhere endlessly is "corporate greed". What exactly does that mean? A company legally optimising its profitability for its shareholders (and the biggest shareholders still tend to be pension providers)? And as any company knows, keeping its workforce happy and motivated is worth its weight in gold (or improved profitability to be more accurate!). And a profitable company looks to expand, helping not only its existing staff and new recruits, but also third=party service providers and their workforces. And any operating decision should also be made with the future in mind - no good having a bumper year if you go into liquidation the next!

True, they should stay within the laws of the lands they operate in, and in most cases it makes sense to do so from an economic standpoint. And sometimes they screw up big-time through ineffective oversight by their Board, auditors and/or the government - Barings bank being one classic example, the recent banking fiasco another. Does that make it all bad? did anyone object to the banks pouring in hundreds of billions to the UK economy over the last few decades, before it all subsequently went horribly wrong? Would anyone have preferred to have no NHS because some bankers got big bonuses?

One part of "Corporate Greed" would be a phenomena that has been called "Privatising Profits and Socialising Costs". I have seen this first hand. Where companies are obsessed with cutting FTEs (Full Time Equivalents) to "Maximise" profits. There was zero concern about what would happen to these FTEs (or People as I prefer to call them) once cut, let alone any investment in making sure these people would be OK after the event. They were simply handed over to the taxpayers to sort out. Any investment in the corporate world in people is usually about making them more useful to the corporation and not about them developing as people. Any recent shifts in that direction have still been about making them more useful to the corporation.

The picture you paint above is very rosy in the sense that Corporations are "providing" employment for people, but that does not seem to be a primary goal, it seems to be a side effect or means to an end of going after profit. A necessity rather than is something that is cared about. There are people based companies and in small companies or departments these goals are not in conflict, but the bigger the company the more the disconnection between "Human" and "Resources". (though I personally don't like that phase at all). Companies seem to have the primary goal of profit (often at the expense of caring*). Society has the primary goal of Caring* (often at the expense of a solid balance sheet).

* please feel free to substitute your own value here.

People instinctively understand that Corporations are taking more out of society that they are putting in and this also goes outside the measure-ables like money. You still get money for doing a soul destroying job. The phrase that probably comes easiest when trying to express that instinct is 'Corporate Greed".

I may be mistaken but lurking underneath you post seems to be the idea that Society is a bunch of people (children?) need to be looked after and the Corporations are the Saviours (responsible adults) that will do this looking after, that's not what I mean by "Caring". I watching each other's backs and fair exchange. I prefer to see society more that way.

Red talked about shouldering your fair share of the "burden". I find that quite odd. If a fair society is something somebody genuinely wants then surely paying for it is the same as buying cool stuff and I've never seen somebody buying cool stuff talking about it as a burden.