Quote:
Originally Posted by kirklancaster
Presumably, this could mean; that instead of a 12' x 10' bedroom and a 9' x 10' bedroom if it is an average 2 bed property, the tenant enjoys a rather luxurious 21' x 10' bedroom, but apart from this; how does this 'Bedroom Tax' avoidance scheme differ from 'Income Tax' avoidance schemes?
Both are deliberate manipulations of the regulations by people who believe they are 'legally' justified because their scheme breaks no laws, and 'morally' justified because the regulation they are 'legally' negotiating around is unjust anyway.
In both cases, the perpetrators of such a scheme want to 'protect' as much of their money from the clutches of the state as possible and feel 'justified' in doing so, so where is one 'avoidance' tactic any less reprehensible than the other?
I am expecting responses which are replete with the words; "Benefits" and "Need" (or variations of the same) used as comparators to words such as "Spare Money" and "greed" (or variations of the same) but I'm talking specifically about the 'principle' of both being 'Tax' avoidance schemes - where are they different that one is lauded and applauded and the other detested and berated?
|
Its not avoidance, its using the space available effectively. So if there is only the requirement for 1 bedroom, the space is bigger rather than having a spare empty room. Nothing wrong with that. Although privacy must be a bit lacking
