Attention to detail in toys

**Phurrball** · 23rd December 2006, 13:37

Originally Posted by stanko

Isnt it normal to pay the minimum amount of tax owing, anything above that is charity. I can decide how best to spend that without giving it to that idiot Cullen.

I think you know what I mean.

What I'm doing is drawing a parallel between those that work the benefit system to their advantage and those that through their clever-dick accountants and/or lawyers reduce their tax liability to an extent counter to the spirit of the law, even if it may be within the letter of it. I am suggesting that they are a different kind of bludger, avoiding paying their 'fair'* share, rather than taking more that their 'fair' share. Is there a substantive moral difference??

*I use inverted commas, as what is 'fair' is not a settled matter as it depends on ideology, and I don't want to go there.

Of the demonised professions, I aplaud their ingenuity, and recognise that they are only acting in their role as fiduciaries with respect to their clients, it is the clients that have the ultimate responsibility for what is done on their behalf. [That, and I will belong to the latter profession in the not-too-distant future, so I wouldn't want you to think they are all bad, would I?

]

**car** · 23rd December 2006, 15:35

Originally Posted by McJim

we are now considering moving out of our house and into the play house due to some of the advantages offered by the superior build quality of the toy house.

Oh, McJim, at least the English aren't stealing your oil any more. They might tax your pole if you let them, though.

**Laava** · 23rd December 2006, 15:42

I feel sorry for anyone who HAS to deal with WINZ. BUT back to the thread topic, as a builder I disagree with some of these statements. These days the building code is MUCH more stringent, methods of construction are different in some areas and the supply and choice of materials is very different. End result? New house are better built with, arguably, inferior materials. Older houses in particular state houses,railway houses and generally anything built post war up to 1960's were built with generally very good quality native timbers and usually didn't have water trap type building technology, in particular, expansive membrane finishes such as Insulclad or skim coats of painted plaster on hardi type products. Because they could "breathe" they didn't tend to rot. They did however use a LOT of asbestos sheathing on walls as well as roofs. So now we have better insulation and better plumbing and electrical. In my opinion, not much else has really been improved upon. The biggest difference is that things are much more affordable these days IMHO.