Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
Admitting that the Barclays' tax planning is legal and then questioning whether it is “moral” is one of the worst bits of “journalism” in this programme. Let me put it another way. Given that we know how hard it is for hard working people to earn some money these days, particularly in the severe recession we are in (of which, I might add, there is no end in sight, and which is only going to get worse), with all the regulation there is in the UK — 'elf 'n safety, employment law, yuman rites law, VAT, etc. etc. — given how high the taxes are in the UK, but particularly given the obscene way the Government there spend their money — much of it goes to financing initiatives such as the Common Fisheries Policy (which would perhaps be better described as the “drive all the species of fish in our waters to extinction by throwing 2/3 of all the fish we catch dead overboard” policy), hundreds of billions of pounds go towards bailouts of corrupt nations and to the EU, 10% of whose budget is squandered on fraud and payouts to organized crime (such as the well-documented massive subsidies to wind farms owned by the Italian mafia), whose auditors have qualified their accounts for 18 years' running because of the said fraud — is it morally right to pay a penny in tax to these people if you don't legally have to? Is it right to finance people who spend the money on fraud, environmental destruction, financing corruption and organized crime — any more than you are forced to — if you can spend the money in more productive ways such as growing employment and the economy, giving it to charity, or even just burning it? If the Barclays were (lawfully) paying more money in tax than they are legally obliged to, knowing how Sweeney operates, I'm sure he would have just accused them of (indirectly) financing the killing of innocent fish, fraud and organized crime, built up a story around their immoral behaviour from that angle and the programme would have been full of dead fishing floating in the sea. You can't ask people to abide not only by the law, but also by every Tom, Dick and Harry's moral framework, if for no other reason, because there are a million different ways to look at every legal question from a moral angle, and 20 different answers to every such question from every 10 people you ask. After all, you could even argue (and some do) that tax itself is legal but immoral because it is the taking of money from the unwilling by force and therefore robbery. If you adopt that point of view, than engaging in any less legal tax avoidance than you legally can is immoral.