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?
|
It is the housing association that has the power to convert the properties if required they are effectively 1 bed properties so nobody least of all prospective tenants are acting fraudulently, there is no spare room subsidy as there is no spare room.
Could you give me an example of how someone could avoid tax on their income and it be in any way comparable?