I found an envelope in the Gym carpark a few years ago with £400 in it and a thank you letter.

I found out who it belonged too and gave it back, they were so pleased and surprised. I think if they had lost it, it would have ruined their Christmas more than it would have made mine better.

No I wouldn’t. And a few years back when in central London for one if the mayday things, no I didn’t and yes I had an opportunity.

Your actions define you, no?

contact the owner and give the wallet back to them. That’s what I would like others to do if I had dropped my wallet so it’s right to act accordingly. It’s also the civilised thing to do.

It’s also the civilised thing to do

Eggxactly – so why is an expensive watch in a shop any different?

How many people bought bikes on the cycle to work scheme, that they never or rarely cycled to work on?
If you ran a business would you set up an offshore parent company, to offset tax?
Stealing from the taxpayer?

Stealing a watch seams a simple case of morality, is it really any different to the many acts of immorality we turn a blind eye to (or have legalised) as you rise up the food chain.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKNBPIMsCwU[/video]

MSP – your are into an interesting area with those comments. Some would say they are all examples of simple cases of morality and there is no difference between the watch.

if you were a multi millionaire and you really needed the wysteria cleaning from your chimney would you get it done on expenses through work?

Of course i would return the wallet, I expect people to do the same for me.

I realise other people probably wouldnt return my wallet though.

Not sure there is any correlation between the tax breaks and stealing. One may be morally questionable, the other is illegal.

I have found money/wallets in the past on more than one occasion, and have returned them intact to their owners (or the local plods). As said earlier, it is what I would hope people would do for me.

If we all had a developed sense of social responsibility it is what we would all do. Suggesting that poor people have a different set of moral standards per se, is insulting. Being poor does not predispose you to crime or lack of moral compass. There is something else going on here and it isn’t simply poverty.

Not sure there is any correlation between the tax breaks and stealing

and perhaps herein lies the problem…?

But morality should be aligned with legality, why criminalise some forms of immorality and legalise others. How can society as a whole develop social responsibility when social irresponsibility is legalised for those with the means to be so.

Perhaps therein lies the intellectual dwarfism of people who equate looting a shop to investing in an ISA. Well done!

How many of us here have a pension, an ISA or even life insurance investment? They all come with tax breaks to basic and higher rate taxpayers. Are they morally questionable? No.

When the super rich do what they can to avoid tax then it can seem wrong to the majority of the population but, and it is a big ‘but’ if they make no call on the financial support system funded by NI, taxes etc, maybe they aren’t so bad after all? Is it ‘wrong’ to work within the Law to enhance (or protect) your financial position? The answer has to be no.

The tax breaks they utilise are available to everyone, the vast majority of us just can’t afford them. The fact we haven’t got the cash to make use of the facility doesn’t make it wrong. To a degree, calling it ‘wrong’ is the politics of envy, just to a different degree than the OP.

I am not an apologist for the super rich but relating their actions to theft is of spurious value. If you steal, destroy other people’s possessions it is illegal, it is morally indefensible. Using the system to maximise your financial security (to whatever degree) isn’t illegal, it may be difficult for ordinary peeps to come to terms with the fact that we don’t have as much money as a banker, a footie ‘star’ or whatever but if we don’t, we don’t.

Should the system be changed to tighten up on the use of overseas banks etc? That is a different question altogether.

I’ve always (since a nipper) handed anything I’ev found into the police. After 3 months, if it’s not claimed, you get it back to keep. Unless it’s dodgy like a weapon or something.

Anyway, the best one was I found a rather nice necklas. I was about 10 or 11.

The owner went to the police station and were very happy to get it back. She made me a home made chocolate Easter egg – it was awesome!
I was well chuffed!

Perhaps therein lies the intellectual dwarfism of people who equate looting a shop to investing in an ISA. Well done!

PMSL! nice name calling, thanks for your intellectually gigantic contribution. Preaching social responsibility while declaring “I’m alright jack”, the fact that you feel “entitled” to tax breaks just proves my point.

So why exactly should earnings from investment be taxed differently to earnings from employment?

But morality should be aligned with legality

No, no it shouldn’t. It would be a shit world to live in if peoples actions were only based on a legal status.

why criminalise some forms of immorality and legalise others

Morality varies between religions, cultures, philosophies etc. To try and align these under law would be attempting to create one homogeneous society, you could even say this act would be immoral in its self.

Legality of actions is there to create a society where all can get along regardless of their individual morales.

So why exactly should earnings from investment be taxed differently to earnings from employment?

They are not, if they are earned in this country and qualify for taxation in this country.

intellectual dwarfism

I prefer gnomicism but still..

have a biscuit anyway.. you deserve it..

This will make the dilemma slightly harder.

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2011/aug/shops-looted-rioters-hit-camden-town-and-chalk-farm

Evans cycles in Chalk Farm got looted. So there is £6ks worth of bike just begging to be ridden away? Would you?

Sorry for the insult MSP, I hadn’t noticed your comment and was actually insulting Yunki for his sixth form relativism. Feel free to feel insulted now though if you share his views, and especially since you seem to have inferred an entire socio political credo I don’t subscribe to from my post.

In answer to your question, there are many excellent reasons why investment income should be taxed differently to employment income. For example, there may be a benefit in promoting investment via the tax system at a given point in the economic cycle.

It might also be worth you thinking about the underlying differences between income generated by employment, and income generated by investment. They are fundamentally different and therefore require different treatment under the tax system.

Given your previous comment, what is your view in relation to taxation upon dividends? Dividends are by definition paid out of the post tax profits of a company. In other words, the dividend income I receive from a share in BP is my share as an owner of the amount of profit left over after BP has paid employee PAYE, NI, and corporation tax at various rates. The dividend payment I receive is then subject to further taxes beyond these, unless I have the shares in an ISA etc. What possible legal or moral argument is there for equalising the tax I pay on dividends with that I suffer on the remuneration received from my employer?

Taking this argument further, as an entrepreneur such as Philip Green I already generate a huge tax take for the UK by paying PAYE and NI on behalf of my employees, paying VAT, and through my companies paying corporation tax. I have also risked my own capital and livelihood to create this business. Why is it therefore morally wrong for me to retain as much of the post tax profit to myself and my wife as possible? Is it just a matter of the amounts involved or is it the principle you object to?

On the other hand, taking this further from another perspective, I pay no tax whatsoever on the increased value of my primary residence. This is despite the fact that I have benefitted from nothing more than the inflation of house prices due to supply and demand and easy credit. There is demonstrably an economic issue caused by excessive house prices, therefore why shouldn’t I be taxed to some extent on the income I have derived through no effort of my own? Do you agree that increases in house prices should be taxed?

ok.. fair enough.. you have strong feelings and are well versed on the subject..

why the devisive insults though..?

herein lies another problem perhaps..?

The evidence for the defence is stacking up surely..?

If some of you feel that the removal of other peoples property is a moral dilemma perhaps you could list your bikes on here, what time you are out followed by your home address. We could then conduct an experiment on the morality of STW posters. Personally I prefer to “do as would be done too” but I’m sure there will those that would pleased if certain practices from Saudi were used.

Taking this argument further, as an entrepreneur such as Philip Green I already generate a huge tax take for the UK by paying PAYE and NI on behalf of my employees, paying VAT, and through my companies paying corporation tax. I have also risked my own capital and livelihood to create this business. Why is it therefore morally wrong for me to retain as much of the post tax profit to myself and my wife as possible? Is it just a matter of the amounts involved or is it the principle you object to?

Just taking this section for now, employees pay tax on earnings not employers, they sell their skills to the employer for a price, and pay tax from that price. The NI burden is shared.
VAT is payed on purchases, on the goods sold, that is payed by your customers, you pay VAT on the goods you buy.

Don’t confuse the system of collection with who is actually paying the taxes.

That leaves the company paying corporation tax, and the money you take out after that should most definitely be taxed as earnings just like my income from employment, which could also be claimed to be the final trickle down from other taxed transactions, are.

MSP, my point was simply that a company employing staff pays taxes on their behalf. The taxes would not be paid should the employee not be employed, therefore the entrepreneur has generated a tax take for the economy by creating a job. For this, he deserves to be rewarded and incentivised.

VAT is paid by the customer admittedly, but Topshop in this example owes that VAT to HMRC, offset against the VAT it recovers on its inputs – you are right that this could be a net receipt by a company rather than a payment, but this will vary according to circumstance.

The method of collection is therefore irrelevant to my point. You seem to think that post tax income generated through the efforts of an entrepreneur should be taxed at the same rate as employment. I don’t understand the legal or moral argument for this arbitrary position. However, we appear to disagree on whether this rate is sufficient rather than whether it should be taxed at all.

Incidentally I think dividends are now taxed at 42.5% if you are a higher rate tax payer, and 10% otherwise (might be wrong here). Therefore in reality the tax system almost agrees with your stated objective and contradicts mine.

If I lived in englandshire, i’d probably have a few new things kicking about, all from big chain stores mind that you know will be insured up to the max, i wouldn’t go near smaller outfits.

looter with a conscience! 😆

I’m pretty deficient on the moral front, but theft makes me sick to the stomach.

I was on Sauchiehall St in Glasgow years ago, waiting in the queue at the ATM (I was last).

It was a monday afternoon and the girl in front of me was faffing about like nobody’s business (seriously, why don’t women use their time standing in a queue to get their cards out??!!), and eventually walked off in a strop (i thought she’d had her card declined).

As I walked up to the machine, it spat out a fair whack of notes (around £200-£300) and started doing its usual “beep beep beep your money is here beep beep beep”.

I was a poor student at the time and there was no one else around. My instant reaction was to take the money from the machine and chase off down the street after the girl.

When I caught up with her, I tapped her on the shoulder and said “you left that in the ATM!”. She just took the money, scowled at me and stormed off!!! I couldn’t **** believe it. I honeslty started looking around for TV cameras, I thought it must have been some crap Channel 5 experiment.

I walked back to the ATM in disbelief that I just saved that woman a few hundered quid and she was an arse about it. But then realised that my gut reaction wasn’t to pocket the cash, which, in all honesty, I was quite surprised about. I thought that there might have been some thought about it before arriving at the morally correct decision, but it just sort of happened. That made me feel good.

So now, if I deal with all the other stuff (corruption, deceit, drugs, sex with drunk girls, gambling etc etc) I MIGHT actually be able to be able to call myself a decent human being! 😀

Would never take money off an individual, I’ve chased a few people down the street in the past and gave them money/wallet that they’ve dropped in the past..but ye walk by the likes of halfords and there’s a shiney new £1000 bike sitting there, well I doubt my angelic side would be showing through, just being honest it’s fairly easy to get all moralistic on a forum..

all from big chain stores mind that you know will be insured up to the max

Don’t kid yourself that this would be ok. Insurance companies need to make that money back, and they’ll get it back from you and me and small shops the country over.

What possible legal or moral argument is there for equalising the tax I pay on dividends with that I suffer on the remuneration received from my employer?

I guess one moral argument would be that if you can afford to hold shares then you can afford to contribute more to society financially. And the amount you can afford to contribute whilst still maintaining a decent standard of living can easily be related to your main income.

I think that’s what sticks in people’s throats over the creative accounting examples too. What Phillip Green contributes to the UK economy is evidently a great deal. The fact remains that he could contribute more and still be impossibly wealthy. You can’t blame him for that though, it’s down to the government to set the rules.

How about another dilemna which is a bit closer than using an ISA (in more senses than one). If you bought a bike in the US and imported it into the UK, would you try and hide it from customs to avoid paying import duty?

Given the original scenario. The younger me would probably have taken something from the smashed in shopfront. The current me wouldn’t consider it for a moment.

If I ever did do something dodgy as a youth, and I’m admitting to nothing here, the feeling of constantly looking over your shoulder and making sure your tracks were covered just isn’t worth the benefit of seemingly getting something for nothing.

Aracer – done that a lot. I am not sure it’s justifiable. Raises a few questions about the concept of tax though.

I thought my reference would be obvious, but it appears lots of people separate bike and chat forums rather than having the lot as one, so haven’t got it…
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/import-tax-on-bike-from-usa