Leveson Report

[ahinton]

Yes I know but that would better address the phrase "tax often exists largely to address social injustice successfully" which in fairness was not what I said.

I know and appreciate that it wasn't. My point in response to your statement is that the purpose of tax - or the reason for its "existence", as you put it (not least in terms of its possible potential to address social injustice, successfully or otherwise) - has become increasingly less clear to increasing numbers of taxpayers as the taxation régime has become more complex and incomprehensible.

I don't think I agree at all. VAT is the example I would cite in support of my argument.

That would seem to be the least convincing one to cite in support of it! Where do you perceive the addressing of social injustice in the levying of VAT, the sheer burdensome complexity and vacillatory decision making over the years would seem to make it the least likely candidate for such an "accolade"!

[Lateralthinking1]

I know and appreciate that it wasn't. My point in response to your statement is that the purpose of tax - or the reason for its "existence", as you put it (not least in terms of its possible potential to address social injustice, successfully or otherwise) - has become increasingly less clear to increasing numbers of taxpayers as the taxation régime has become more complex and incomprehensible...........That would seem to be the least convincing one to cite in support of it! Where do you perceive the addressing of social injustice in the levying of VAT, the sheer burdensome complexity and vacillatory decision making over the years would seem to make it the least likely candidate for such an "accolade"!

I acknowledge your view on the benefits or otherwise of tax.

I wasn't making a value judgement on VAT either. The point was one about choice, just as household or motor insurance can be a choice. Insurance cannot be ruled out as a tax on the grounds that it involves choices. Some taxes apply to choices.

[ahinton]

I acknowledge your view on the benefits or otherwise of tax.

Thank you.

I wasn't making a value judgement on VAT either. The point was one about choice, just as household or motor insurance can be a choice. Insurance cannot be ruled out as a tax on the grounds that it involves choices. Some taxes apply to choices.

But how can choice apply to VAT? It would be virtually impossible for anyone to live by avoiding the purchase of anything that is currently subject to VAT; it would certainly be far more difficult to do than avoiding liability to motor insurance and the tax levied upon its premiums. Household insurance is also not a matter of choice for anyone with a mortgage.

[Lateralthinking1]

It would be virtually impossible for anyone to live by avoiding the purchase of anything that is currently subject to VAT

In what sense?

[french frank]

... I fear that there may be an as yet insufficiently explored danger in trying to hive off ethical issues with breaches of the law to the extent that they might accordingly come to be perceived as occupying entirely distinct areas of concern.

I think they do, if only because criminal offences are against the criminal law. Ethics may include the criminal offences but more typically don't (cf the censure of The Telegraph for its 'fishing trip' against Lib Dem ministers).

..how many of the events and actions that came within the purviewand investigative remit of the inquiry chaired by Lord Leveson did not involve either breaches of the law or transgressions that ought to have broken the law and indeed would have done had the relevant law been written more tightly and more comprehensively?

Well, parking cameramen on someone's doorstep for days on end and 'rifling' through someone's dustbins might be hard to frame into a specific criminal offence.

Ultimately, decisions made by a regulator with the extensive punitive powers for which one may presume that some who fully support Lord Leveson's findings are now hoping will still be challengeable in Court unless the law determines that said regulator be the final port of call in adjudication of the issues put before it, in which case the powers vested in it will effectively identify it as equivalent to such a Court; that said, however, there would first have to be a viable and acceptable answer to the question of whether any such regulatory decisions may be challengeable in a higher non-British Court such as ECHR and, so far, at least, such a question hasn't even been asked.

I'm not sure that "the Press" have "human rights". An individual journalist might, possibly on the grounds of coercion. But wouldn't that be an employment matter?

...[Parliament's] punitive powers - especially given that MPs are elected - are almost certainly more limited in their scope than those which some would hope a new regulator would possess might be

It's beyond me to speculate on some unidentified people's hopes on what the limitations of a new regulator's powers 'might be'.

personally, were I to be asked my opinion not so much of why the Leveson inquiry was initiated but why it ought to have been initiated, it would most likely be because far too many events and actions appear not to have been sufficiently subjected or indeed even amenable to judicial process and, as some have also observed here, due consideration of the rôle of the police has, in some of these instances, been shown to have been almost as important and worrying as the unacceptable actions of certain areas of the media that came under Leveson's scrutiny.

Well, yes, Leveson may have been a lost opportunity. But it sounds as if some people are saying 'Why bother with media ethics at all when there are more important aspects to consider?' It shouldn't be 'either/or' but 'all'. The fact that the role of the police has been 'worrying' is true: that should not preclude the Leveson inquiry which had a precise(ish) purpose: media ethics.

[ahinton]

In what sense?

In the sense that so few things, apart from most fresh food, are exempt from VAT or zero rated for VAT.

[ahinton]

I think they do, if only because criminal offences are against the criminal law. Ethics may include the criminal offences but more typically don't (cf the censure of The Telegraph for its 'fishing trip' against Lib Dem ministers).

I wrote
"I fear that there may be an as yet insufficiently explored danger in trying to hive off ethical issues with breaches of the law to the extent that they might accordingly come to be perceived as occupying entirely distinct areas of concern".
I should have written "hive off ethical issues from, not "hive off ethical issues with"; faute de mieux and very careless at that - sorry! That said, criminal offences are against criminal law and civil offences are against civil law, but each may be tried in the Courts, which is what I was trying to say.

Well, parking cameramen on someone's doorstep for days on end and 'rifling' through someone's dustbins might be hard to frame into a specific criminal offence. I'm not sure that "the Press" have "human rights". An individual journalist might, possibly on the grounds of coercion. But wouldn't that be an employment matter?

The victim of the privacy intrusion arising from the parking of a camera person on his/her doorstep for days on end and the rifling through that victim's garbage bins might indeed be hard to frame into a specific criminal offence or series of offences, but the latest laws on stalking might help here and there might in any case be a case for breach of the victim's human rights, never mind those of the camera person! Lots of events and actions might be hard to frame into specific criminal or civil offences but that doesn't either make them impossible to do so or undermine the need to try to do so.

It's beyond me to speculate on some unidentified people's hopes on what the limitations of a new regulator's powers 'might be'.

And likewise beyond all of us, perhaps but, given how little exercise of Parliamentary power was initially done against those MPs who had habitually transgressed over expenses claims, it might not be beyond the wit of some of us to assume that most people who reckon broadly to support Leveson's recommendations would likely expect a new regulator to have a good deal more teeth than Parliament appeared to have or to show on the expenses scandal until The Daily Telegraph started to muscle in on that particular act with irritating regularity.

Well, yes, Leveson may have been a lost opportunity. But it sounds as if some people are saying 'Why bother with media ethics at all when there are more important aspects to consider?' It shouldn't be 'either/or' but 'all'. The fact that the role of the police has been 'worrying' is true: that should not preclude the Leveson inquiry which had a precise(ish) purpose: media ethics.

I agree; the only problem with which we're all still left, however, is that, in all cases where perceived breaches of ethics are not actually contraventions of the law, there's very little that can be done about them without running the risk that those accused of unacceptable ethical behaviour will rush to expensive lawyers to seek to defend themselves against such charges and, if the law then finds in their favour, they could successfully demand vast sums in compensation for attempted defamation - and who pays for those? Ultimately, only the full force of the law and judicial process can really bring offenders to book and punish them appropriately and proportionately, provided that the law is or is made to become tough enough to enable this to happen.

[Lateralthinking1]

In the sense that so few things, apart from most fresh food, are exempt from VAT or zero rated for VAT.

I wouldn't call that the virtual impossibility of living.

[Serial_Apologist]

I wouldn't call that the virtual impossibility of living.

You will end up resembling Scottycelt, Lat! :yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes:

[Lateralthinking1]

You will end up resembling Scottycelt, Lat! :yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes:

Eh? In what way? I am defending VAT by saying that it principally applies to choice and is not mainly applied to life's fundamentals.

If household and motor insurance are choices, as Alistair suggests, then VAT is not less of a choice, surely?

[Serial_Apologist]

Eh? In what way? I am defending VAT by saying that it principally applies to choice and is not mainly applied to life's fundamentals.

You have to pay VAT on clothes, though!

[Lateralthinking1]

You have to pay VAT on clothes, though!

I am 50 later this month.

Other than socks and shoes, my clothes will see me through. Unless I become obese.

It isn't ideal. I hope it won't get to that point but it could be done.

I haven't bought any clothes for 18 months. I'm still here - just.

[ahinton]

You have to pay VAT on clothes, though!

Indeed so; I suggest that Lat has a good look through what can and cannot be purchased legally without VAT. Likewise, registering for and charging VAT on all non-exempt and non-zero-rated products and services supplied is no more a choice for most SME's and self-employed sole traders than it is for their customers who require their products and services.

[Lateralthinking1]

Likewise, registering for and charging VAT on all non-exempt and non-zero-rated products and services supplied is no more a choice for most SME's and self-employed sole traders than it is for their customers who require their products and services.

But that is no different from insurance companies and their customers picking up the tab for building on flood plains.

Or Government and taxpayers forking out for a Leveson Inquiry where adequate regimes are rejected largely on cost grounds.

That second one is a big point actually.

We are all talking as if press freedom is the key question and money doesn't come into it.

[amateur51]

Dragging this thread away from our resident tax enthusiasts, I am pleased to report a fine old ding-dong regarding Leveson's proposals re regulation between Shami Chakrabarti and Lord Falconer on one side and John Humphrys on t'other in this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4 :biggrin:

It's too early to get the link but it occurred before Thought For The Day at around 07:40 :ok: