Quote: ….. is one of extreme pragmatism based on a cost-benefit analysis that apparently excludes moral accounting : The Guardian

by Julia Evans on February 14, 2015

I have decided to resurrect ‘Quotable Quotes’. Usually, this is because something strikes me as immediately relevant to the bonkers way successive Governments have interfered in the place known as Mental Health. There follows the quote and my comments:

From:

The Guardian view on tax dodging: a creative industry that demands an equally creative response : Editorial :14th February 2015 : The Guardian @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/guardian-view-tax-dodging-one-of-britains-creative-industries

But it has an even more profound cultural problem. As a consequence, its approach to hunting down tax dodgers is one of extreme pragmatism based on a cost-benefit analysis that apparently excludes moral accounting (see past tax deals with, for example, Goldman Sachs).

Conclusion:

Cost-benefit-analysis is the method chosen by the Government to define treatments to be given under NICE clinical guidelines & much else. The use of c-b-a, to distinguish good treatments from bad, was probably ordered by the Government’s former ‘Happiness’ Tsar, Lord Layard – a retired Professor of Economics at L.S.E.

So: The Government’s approach to defining approved treatments for those with mental health issues is one of extreme pragmatism based on a cost-benefit-analysis that apparently excludes any reference to a relationship of trust which is central to all therapies. This is also a loss to us all.

If it does not work in banking, it will not work in the field known as Mental Health.

______________________________________________

The complete paragraph:

The US, the French, the Belgians and the Spanish are all pursuing HSBC. Where’s Britain?

And finally there is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the body vested by parliament with draconian powers that are an appropriate reflection of the fundamental significance of paying tax to state and society. It is true that HMRC has been hard-hit by cuts. But it has an even more profound cultural problem. As a consequence, its approach to hunting down tax dodgers is one of extreme pragmatism based on a cost-benefit analysis that apparently excludes moral accounting (see past tax deals with, for example, Goldman Sachs). Against foreign comparisons, the excuses from officials and ministers are crumbling. French and Spanish authorities have reclaimed nearly £300m in unpaid tax, HMRC little more than £100m. Of the Britons exposed by Mr Falciani, all but one who might have been prosecuted escaped through the so-called Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility. Taking tax dodgers to court is difficult and costly. But not taking them to court has a heavy cost too. It makes it appear a victimless crime. It is not. It corrupts public attitudes to the common good. And that is a loss to us all.