|
Guavanaut posted:Counterpoint: There's a lot of cases in employment or benefits where doing something is not only legal but the right thing to do, but people don't because they've been conditioned to not make a fuss or worry they'll 'get in trouble' and that's a very useful mindset for the ruling class. 'course, since the state has proven over the last decade that it absolutely cannot be trusted to look after working class people regardless of whether they play by the rules or not, working class people gouging every penny they can from the state probably is the right thing to do e: last October 171 professional footballers got nobbled for tax evasion, and gently caress those guys Borrovan fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Aug 21, 2019 |
# ? Aug 21, 2019 15:57 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 11:34 |
|
Cerv posted:Why? Because it opens up bullshit middlemen scammers. And to be honest very few laws need to be so complex that regular people will need hours and hours of studying to understand them. You should be able to understand a law when you read it, maybe cross reference once or twice tops.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:00 |
|
Cerv posted:Why? I remember a quip to the extent that Americans never went with VAT because the Republican right saw it as too European, and the Democratic left saw it as too regressive, but if the Dems ever understood how European it was and the 'Pubs ever understood how regressive it was the USA would have VAT in a heartbeat. Borrovan posted:'course, since the state has proven over the last decade that it absolutely cannot be trusted to look after working class people regardless of whether they play by the rules or not, working class people gouging every penny they can from the state probably is the right thing to do Miftan posted:Because it opens up bullshit middlemen scammers.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:04 |
|
Miftan posted:And to be honest very few laws need to be so complex that regular people will need hours and hours of studying to understand them. You should be able to understand a law when you read it, maybe cross reference once or twice tops. No offence but did you think about this for more than 30secs? Are we just not gonna legislate on any topic beyond the purview of a 10year old?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:05 |
|
Miftan posted:Because it opens up bullshit middlemen scammers. And to be honest very few laws need to be so complex that regular people will need hours and hours of studying to understand them. You should be able to understand a law when you read it, maybe cross reference once or twice tops. If you need to know something, the state should just tell you. The law is of the state, so the legal industry should be run by the state.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:06 |
|
Rustybear posted:
I'm from the government and I'm here to help (you pay all this tax we've decided you now owe us.) I have zero confidence in HMRC operating in good faith and genuinely attempting to help people, in much the same way as I think the DWP is systemically dysfunctional. Especially given they have outright flannelled MPs and refused to set up suicide prevention hotlines. Take https://www.hmrcloancharge.info/lcag-press-release-3-july-2019/ as an example, although obviously the source is anti loan charge. Yes, there are undoubtedly smug wankers out there who 'deserve' to get hit by this. There's also a whole lot of preventable damage being done by yet another callous government department who are going after the 'end-user' rather than the actual people who are pushing this stuff in the first place. Always going for the (relatively) little guy, rather than 'proper' fully funded off-shore tax evasion by the big boys.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:07 |
|
It's pretty anarchist to suggest that a society requiring laws that the people living in it can't really understand, suggests that the society is extremely unequal. If you take the view that everyone should be participatory in a society it's not really weird to say that this is at odds with the idea that there should be sections of society that need laws that other parts of it can't understand.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:12 |
|
Cerv posted:Why? Your tax agent is phoning people in hmrc to ask them about your query or issue and then going back to you to claim £100 or whatever the going fleecing rate is these days while the poor fucker who took the call got less than a tenth of that for the hour in which the call took place.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:13 |
|
endlessmonotony posted:So the latest Brexit plan is for the Tories to demand EU pays for the war against Ireland they're going to start to make sure the will of the British people is being obeyed, and that the Liberal Democrats are going to push through the hardest Brexit possible so they can blame Corbyn for what happened and explain afterwards how they had to cause Brexit in order to make it clear post-Brexit how much they opposed Brexit. And that they're planning to avoid the economical impact by making anyone unemployed or disabled homeless, then packing the homeless in shipping containers, then sinking the shipping containers in the Irish Sea in order to create a land bridge to transport all the wood they're clearcutting from Ireland so they can build ships for the British Empire. You forgot the part where we summon the Chaos Gods, but mostly correct, yes.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:14 |
|
RockyB posted:
Yeah I'm sure it's being handled badly I'm just deeply suspicious of how it always ends in '...and that's why we should have a blanket amnesty'. I just get a bit salty at all the 'I'm the real victim here' stuff; spent years being told I'm an idiot for not dodging tax and now suddenly 'woe is me we can't all be as smart as you, they should be out catching murderers and rapists and bankers etc etc'. Yeah they absolutely should, but there's plenty of space for you to pay what you owe also. Rustybear fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Aug 21, 2019 |
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:14 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It's pretty anarchist to suggest that a society requiring laws that the people living in it can't really understand, suggests that the society is extremely unequal. It's got nothing to do with inequality, and everything to do with fascism.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:17 |
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:There is literally no reason whatsoever for a shipping container to be involved at any point in that process. Fine, build prefab homes to TEU dimensions to make delivery easier. but you either have to modify the shipping container so much that it'd be cheaper to just start from scratch or you have something completely uninhabitable that will have costlier maintenance and a shorter shelf life than post-war Orlit homes. *At least that was the case for the last project I saw where container vs. prefab was part of the discussion.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:18 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It's pretty anarchist to suggest that a society requiring laws that the people living in it can't really understand, suggests that the society is extremely unequal. Right but society has progressed to the point where large areas of knowledge are not easily accessible to the layperson. For example, I think there should be laws surrounding stem cell testing and I'd be surprised if they can be written in a way that is both effective and also accessible to someone with no education in biology.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:23 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It's pretty anarchist to suggest that a society requiring laws that the people living in it can't really understand, suggests that the society is extremely unequal. It's wrong to say the laws cannot be understood by any part of society, it's just most people don't have the time or inclination or honestly the need to understand them. The bible ain't written in Latin anymore.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:24 |
|
Jedit posted:It's got nothing to do with inequality, and everything to do with fascism. I'd suggest that fascism is a subset of inequality But even if you take the position that there are specifically laws that only need to exist to regulate certain sections of society, like say, big businesses, that's still a problem because the question could also be phrased as "so why do we allow them to exist in the first place?" If big businesses work in such a different way to the level that we as people operate on, that they need their own laws that make no sense to everyone else, then aren't they necessarily alienated from us and we them? Are we really part of the same society at that point? Aramoro posted:It's wrong to say the laws cannot be understood by any part of society, it's just most people don't have the time or inclination or honestly the need to understand them. You know as well as I do that enough soft barriers are just as effective as a hard barrier, and that there are, arguably, only degrees of hardness anyway. Rustybear posted:Right but society has progressed to the point where large areas of knowledge are not easily accessible to the layperson. And wouldn't you know it society has also progressed in an extremely unequal fashion. Maybe there's a correlation, there. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Aug 21, 2019 |
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:25 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd suggest that fascism is a subset of inequality Replace 'big business' with 'the practice of medicine' and repeat the question.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:28 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd suggest that fascism is a subset of inequality Do you feel car drivers and non-car drivers live in a different society? There is a big section of law that only covers one of them, some of the time. Laws very rarely apply to groups of people, they apply to actions.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:28 |
|
Rustybear posted:Replace 'big business' with 'the practice of medicine' and repeat the question.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:30 |
|
Genuinely don't understand the argument here; is it that in an equal society we would all understand every aspect of every field of knowledge because uh... Or is it a primitivist thing that the division of knowledge/specialisation automatically creates hierarchies or summat. Getting strong empty the cities vibes here.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:31 |
|
Guavanaut posted:That's a good question, because laws relating to medicine may require specific terminology, but if they're so opaque that the average patient can't understand them, then who are they protecting? The patient and the doctor? Would it be better if we didn't have these laws or...?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:32 |
|
Rustybear posted:Replace 'big business' with 'the practice of medicine' and repeat the question. Yes it works both ways, medical practicioners are, fundamentally, at odds with the notion of accountability to the people they treat. And the answer to "why do we allow them to exist" is "because they generally, for a variety of reasons you could argue about, are a net positive contribution to society" But, as you so astutely noted, you can repeat the question. And if you repeat the question, I think you'll run into quite a few instances where the "why" doesn't have a satisfactory answer. "Why do we have complicated tax laws" for example might be answered with "because people have wildly different degrees and methods of acquiring wealth" and then the question becomes why do we want that? Aramoro posted:Do you feel car drivers and non-car drivers live in a different society? There is a big section of law that only covers one of them, some of the time. Yes, and I think we shouldn't have cars, that reason being among the reasons why. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Aug 21, 2019 |
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:32 |
|
Rustybear posted:Genuinely don't understand the argument here; is it that in an equal society we would all understand every aspect of every field of knowledge because uh... It's an access thing. The more clearly and simply a law is set out, the easier it is for the general public to understand it, use it, and/or work around it. Laws that are only understandable by specialists are weaponisable by those rich enough to hire specialists. Obviously, you can't make every law perfectly clear and comprehensible to everyone at every level of education, but it's a good guiding principle to aim towards as best you can.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:36 |
|
Rustybear posted:The patient and the doctor? Would it be better if we didn't have these laws or...?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:36 |
|
The other reason you allow medicine to be a complicated thing is because simplifying the human body isn't an option. The same is not true of all things we deal with in society, if society itself can be simplified to put everyone on a level footing, then it should. It is wrong to equate economics with medicine for that reason.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:38 |
|
Guavanaut posted:How do they protect the patient if the patient cannot understand them? An assumption that the doctor will obey them because they exist, or an assumption that a tertiary body will exist who understands both the meanings of the laws as a patient should understand them and the meanings of the laws as a doctor should understand them and has the ability to act as a go-between but somehow not the ability to parse the laws into a form understandable by the patient? I'm trying to parse what your point could possibly be? Don't have laws that patients cannot understand if they're not doctors? What is the patient is also a doctor? Are you just pitching all your laws at the lowest common denominator dipshit?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:39 |
|
Guavanaut posted:How do they protect the patient if the patient cannot understand them? An assumption that the doctor will obey them because they exist, or an assumption that a tertiary body will exist who understands both the meanings of the laws as a patient should understand them and the meanings of the laws as a doctor should understand them and has the ability to act as a go-between but somehow not the ability to parse the laws into a form understandable by the patient? You have a specialist who helps the patient seek redress if they believe they have been wronged. Like society is a thing, we're here to help each other out! It shouldn't have to be structured in such a way so as to make it up to the individual to know everything all the time - very bleak view imo.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:40 |
|
If I understand this tax-dodging loan thing correctly, the only reason HMRC are able to reach back so far is because the loans are never paid off (by design), so the liability for all past years' loans is held in the current tax year - which means it's technically not retrospective, it only applies to currently outstanding loans. It's a pretty impressive self own.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:40 |
|
If somethings complicated then its illegal the end.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:41 |
|
Rustybear posted:You have a specialist who helps the patient seek redress if they believe they have been wronged. Society is a thing in so far as we make it one, if we create divisions between people then we damage society and that inclination to help each other out. Again in some instances this may still be the desirable choice, and in some cases it may not be a choice at all, but you don't have to accept every division as good because it exists right now. Aramoro posted:I'm trying to parse what your point could possibly be? Don't have laws that patients cannot understand if they're not doctors? What is the patient is also a doctor? Are you just pitching all your laws at the lowest common denominator dipshit? You could interpret it as perhaps the reason doctors don't go around murdering people isn't because the law protects the patients by giving them accountability but possibly more due to other factors, such as most doctors not wanting to kill people. Sort of like laws against murder in general. Being able to theoretically prosecute a murderer doesn't really do much to prevent murder, your main defence against being murdered is other people not wanting to murder you. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Aug 21, 2019 |
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:42 |
|
I keep forgetting that this thread simply cannot understand the Fixed Term Parliaments Act no matter how may times it's explained, despite it being one of the simplest bit of legislation we have. That's something to consider when thinking 'Laws should be understandable', understandable by who.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:44 |
|
OwlFancier posted:You could interpret it as perhaps the reason doctors don't go around murdering people isn't because the law protects the patients by giving them accountability but possibly more due to other factors, such as most doctors not wanting to kill people. ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Shipman ??? It reads there like we shouldn't have laws governing medicine because doctors are good people? Is that what you're saying there? As if quacks and charletons that plagued the medical community for centuries never existed? Aramoro fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Aug 21, 2019 |
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:45 |
|
I'm not sure a guy famously murdering a lot of people is a very good argument either a: for the efficacy of law in preventing murder or b: against the idea that most doctors aren't murderers?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:47 |
|
OwlFancier posted:
Aramoro posted:I keep forgetting that this fucboi simply cannot understand the word "most" no matter how may times it's explained, despite it being one of the simplest bit of words we have.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:47 |
|
Like surely if anything that suggests that if doctors wanted to kill you they probably could and get away with it about 250 times lol.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:49 |
|
Aramoro posted:I'm trying to parse what your point could possibly be? Don't have laws that patients cannot understand if they're not doctors? What is the patient is also a doctor? Are you just pitching all your laws at the lowest common denominator dipshit? Aramoro posted:I keep forgetting that this thread simply cannot understand the Fixed Term Parliaments Act no matter how may times it's explained, despite it being one of the simplest bit of legislation we have. That's something to consider when thinking 'Laws should be understandable', understandable by who.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:50 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure a guy famously murdering a lot of people is a very good argument either a: for the efficacy of law in preventing murder or b: against the idea that most doctors aren't murderers? We only have the medical profession that we have today because of the laws governing it though. We went through centuries of doctors just doing what the gently caress they liked, to the point literally anyone could call themselves a doctor. That would seem to be an excellent case for the laws working as intended.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:51 |
|
Aramoro posted:I'm trying to parse what your point could possibly be? Don't have laws that patients cannot understand if they're not doctors? What is the patient is also a doctor? Are you just pitching all your laws at the lowest common denominator dipshit? Are you saying that's not a sensible thing to do (insofar as you can do it without significantly damaging the usefulness of the law)? I feel like the guiding rules of your society are the last things you should be getting elitist about, and it's a long-standing movement in lawmaking.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:51 |
|
Brutal
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:52 |
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:They're a bad solution to a bad solution. The basic motivation is generally (presented as) creating affordable housing for people who don't need that much space - but their design basically forces small units that are incredibly inefficient use of land. So not only do you build something that's thrice* the price, you also need more space compared to building just a regular boring rear end prefab building. See also: "3D printed housing", the other big "solution" to the "problem". At best, Orlit/LPS* which have a lot of flaws but if you want to build a lot of houses fast are pretty hard to beat (just look forward to the maintenance bills), at worst literal houses made out of thermoplastic for some reason. All of course assume the real reason there's a housing shortage is that for some reason bricks and mortar (and the labour to put them together) are the major cost in house building, not that it is tot he advantage of the people with all the money for there to be a shortage of housing. In fact i wonder how many of these "innovations" are funded by housing developers to keep people thinking there's an actual reason beyond housing developer profits why we can't have a post-WW2-style house building programme. * There's about a dozen different variations on the same basic theme of "Make reinforced concrete walls offsite, put them together onsite", with the variations mostly being how they're put together. If the joints are well-designed and properly maintained there's no reason at all why they can't last a hundred years or more, but of course they rarely are and there's no sexiness in improving that.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:52 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 11:34 |
|
Cheap construction is simple: Inflate house-shaped balloon. Spray with concrete. Concrete dries into house shape Deflate balloon. Move and repeat. This was suggested by a small child some years ago and I stand behind it
|
# ? Aug 21, 2019 16:55 |