Remember the discussion about tax avoidance being legal on the benefits thread?

[LadyBiscuit]

I was shouted down by a lot of people who said that it was okay because it wasn't actually illegal and benefit fraud cost the UK a lot more. The HMRC estimates it costs us £14bn a year. Kind of puts benefits cheats into perspective a bit doesn't it?

Chil - strangely the lure of becoming a tax adviser and earning £1m+ a year is a lot more of a lure to ex-HMRC staff than the other way round. I wonder why that is ... :o

I find talk of loopholes just wrong. If you are allowed to claim X (such as set your contributions to charity against your tax bill) then you're exploiting a loop hole and that's fine. If the Government were so stupid as to ensure there is no tax on say earnings from selling carpets and you sell carpets then what's wrong with that? In fact if you think a lot of what Governments do with our money is very wrong and the less moeny Governments have the better because private individuals do better with their money than the state you have a moral obligation to pay the minimum tax necessary under the law and no more.

It's a very simple distinction. You pay what is legally due. It's worked well for generations or from whenever income tax came in to fund the Napoleonic wars or whenever it was.

"The second example (the benefit cheat) - is it wrong just because it breaks the existing laws?"

Sorry got caught up in something yesterday so only answering you now.
I'm assuming by "wrong" you mean morally wrong, in which case I would say that it's not automatically morally wrong merely because it breaks the law but rather it could be classed by some as morally wrong as you would be dishonestly appropriating money from other (namely other tax payers) which is essentially stealing from other people which definitely is morally wrong. There are things which break the law which aren't morally wrong in themselves such as speeding, however it can also be argued that if it were acceptable it would endanger many lives so it has moral implications or parking violations which in themselves are fairly amoral but as a whole viewed as necessary for the societal harmony as if noboday obeyed them it's be chaos.

Here it becomes more subjective as people will often blur the lines with their own perspective. So for example lets say we all agree that your most straightforward example of stealing is wrong. A directly takes X from B.This is both illegal and morally wrong and most will agree on this. But what about parents say lieing about a childs age by a couple of weeks to get a discount at the cinema or a theme park, they too are gaining something they otherwise wouldn't have by their own deception. Are they as morally culpable as benefit cheats?some would argue it is equally as immoral to steal a million pounds as it is to steal a penny
So it will all depend on your view point of what constitutes morality. For someone like Hobbes he would argue that all morality is merely social contract man has constructed to protect himself from other man.

Most religions suggest I most cases you should obey the law and for good reason so lying about the child's age is morally wrong (as indeed is lying in most cases).

However tax avoiders are totally different from evaders. They engage in a lawful activity which shoudl be encouraged. They are morally good not bad.