You might also be interested in
Replies (10)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
moral dimension!
perhaps the first moral decision PWC should make is to reduce its profits per partner from a recent reporting of £772,000 per annum.
Hmm
perhaps the first moral decision PWC should make is to reduce its profits per partner from a recent reporting of £772,000 per annum.
Jealous much?
not one bit
perhaps the first moral decision PWC should make is to reduce its profits per partner from a recent reporting of £772,000 per annum.
Jealous much?
I have a far better work/life balance to those partners, watching my children grow up and not having to work some 12+ hour days.
my issue is PWC trying to gain press coverage by preaching the moral ground when they are no different to EY.
I am also of the opinion that we would have a better society if we had less extortionate pay and more values placed elsewhere other than money. so definitely not jealous, instead highlighting that thibgs do not need to be as they are.
Press coverage & moral ground
Well they certainly got that. Though perhaps not the type they hoped for, Leave you to judge how moral there actions were. A fine of $25M and a ban does not exactly inspire confidence.
Morality and Tax
Is like trying to mix oil and water, give them a good shake and you get an emulsion that lasts for a short time and then nature takes its course and the two parts separate and return to their natural state.
Try not paying your tax on moral grounds, any moral grounds and see how the State reacts, it will not be pretty!!!
Well said Dennis Nally!
If we all took the attitude in every area of life that we would have no regard to morality but only to legality then the world would be in a very sorry state indeed. The attitude that anything is acceptable behaviour provided that it has not been specifically legislated against and can be interpreted as being within the letter of the law is a dreadful one. In this regard, tax advice should not be regarded as different from anything else.
Morality?
There are rules (Laws) - we abide by them (mostly). If they want to change the Law, they will do that, and we will abide by that.
Discussions like these always remind me of a conversation I had at a General Election Count with a Politcian (he lost). His attitidue to money was quite nicely summed up when, when asked about his Party's attitiude to taxation was, "What's in my pocket is mine. What's in yours is mine as as soon as I pass a law to say it's mine."
If, after persuading us to give them our hard-earned money they did not then carry out immoral acts, looked after it, spend it wisely etc, I might be more persuaded to take a "moral" view to it all, but until then, the less we let them have the better for all concerned.
Enough said?
This is not the first time that this issue has come up:-
Matthew 22:20-22King James Version (KJV)
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
See M Fleming's Matthew quote in context
But Jesus' answer is not as clear as you might think. Because, as Jesus well knew, and any Christian would tell you "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness therein". Psalm 24.
In that case, moral questions are inescapable in any aspect of life.
I think Jesus was playing a trick on his questioners, who were in any event trying to trap him into treason.