Benefit Fraud - expensive?

sketchley

Also

"you don't already complete a tax return, you'll need to do so if you receive any of the following:

£10,000 or more income from property (before deducting allowable expenses)."

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... DG_4017116

rick_chasey

davis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

davis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Seem tax fraud costs £15bn.
Lot in my office don't declare for rent they get from their tenants but go nuts over benefit cheats...

Umm.. How do they get away with that? Do they simply just omit it from their tax returns?

Exactly.

...*boggle*. Ever been tempted to shop them?

Haven't actually.

Anyway, in light of what Sketchley's said probably means they're not breaking any laws anyway!

MonkeyMonster

Rick Chasey wrote:

Same can be said for tax fraud (which guys in my office advise other guys to do, and I get chastised by them for suggesting they should declare all their income!)

dob them in annonymously to the tax office.

rick_chasey

Anyway, I figured the stats were interesting, since they were much lower than I thought, and I figured people use benefits stuff as a vehicle for other prejudices.

MonkeyMonster

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyway, I figured the stats were interesting, since they were much lower than I thought, and I figured people use benefits stuff as a vehicle for other prejudices.

btw if you know now they are breaking the law - you are complicit in their crime if you don't do anything....

I will go read that article skethley the google oracle has found.

davis

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyway, in light of what Sketchley's said probably means they're not breaking any laws anyway!

Well, if they didn't need to pay anything, why would they be advising the "don't tell HMRC" policy? Full disclosure: I let out a place for £525 PCM, and that rental still makes a profit at the moment. I declare the rental, and pay tax on it. I suspect the people in your office are simply opting not to bother with the latter part of that.

[edit]: grammar

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

davis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

davis wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Seem tax fraud costs £15bn.
Lot in my office don't declare for rent they get from their tenants but go nuts over benefit cheats...

Umm.. How do they get away with that? Do they simply just omit it from their tax returns?

Exactly.

...*boggle*. Ever been tempted to shop them?

Haven't actually.

Anyway, in light of what Sketchley's said probably means they're not breaking any laws anyway!

Don't assume that. Just because I bothered to look up the rules doesn't mean they did. In fact most people who know about the rules would declare on a self assessment form safe in knowledge they won't be paying any tax. I suspect people who do not declare haven't checked and are just pocketing the cash thinking they are getting away with not paying. I doubt they keep receipts for the all the expenses and like most people do with investment income think it is up to the tax man to ask and not them to tell. Likewise if they are completing self assessment and not declaring the income even if no tax is due they can be fined.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Agreed.

Still. You know where I'm coming from.

No, I really don't. If your point is that it is reprehensible for a payee to evade tax by under declaring income, I agree.

But if your point is that it is in some way reprehensible for a payer to pay in cash for services (and that seemed to be the thrust of the initial throwaway line), I think you're barking.

And it's quite possible to disapprove of benefit fraud and tax evasion; they are not mutually exclusive. But to suggest that it is wrong to get excited about £1.2 BILLION of stolen money because somewhere else different people (or possibly some of the same people) are stealing even more BILLIONS of money is rather flippant, IMO.

No, but I'm questioning why the smaller figure gets disproportionately more attention and bile.

And the first point was a moral question.

If a guy says to you "it's £100 but i'll do it for £80 if you give me cash", then you know what's going on right? What would you do?

First: does it? It gets more attention from the circle you move it, but does it get more disproportionately more attention from the general population or the Govt?

Second, I tend to be cynical. I assume his price is £80, and he's trying to kid me into thinking I'm getting a "deal" by offering me a discount from a fictional and inflated price. That and offering me the supposed frisson of excitement of stepping outside my law abiding bubble for a second; to do something that it properly understood, perfectly lawful.

I suspect part of it is that one can pop straight into the pub with handful of twenties, whereas a cheque is a little more difficult to spend [/shameless stereotyping]. FWIW, most tradesmen I've dealt with are happy with a cheque. "I'll do it for cash" is a good indicator that if you have any problems down the line you'll have no chance of getting them back.

More generally, whilst from a management point of view, one should pursue the larger fraud first, morally, I see no difference between the two. Yes, people like scapegoating a 'weaker' segment of society - it's one of the less edifying aspects of human nature, but there you go - but there has been plenty of ire directed against the other end of the financial spectrum of late. It's always easier to blame 'others'. And as SimonAH points out, some forms of fraud are more obvious than others.

DonDaddyD

SimonAH wrote:

I suspect the reason for the disparate levels of ire are;

1) The dodging of paying tax by corporations is hard to prove, and the details far too complex to understand without a team of expensive lawyers (which is of course how they get away with it)
2) The cheating on benefits is immediate, in your face and easy to comprehend and relate to all the sh1t that us wage slaves go through.

Does it irk me that I work long hours and have to hive my child off to strangers to look after because I can't be there to meet her from school, whilst paying eyewatering taxes - when I can go to a pub in the middle of any given afternoon to see the same faces getting steadily pished. The same faces that I know haven't worked (officially) in twenty years? Yes. It irks me.

Do I see the corporate blackguards dodging taxes with offshore accounts and clever wheezes? No. I get annoyed when I consider it, but it's the dull ache in the background compared to the stanley knife stuck in your eyeball. The dull ache may be medically more serious, but it doesn't affect you in the same way.

Rightly or wrongly. This. +1

W1

Hang on Rick, so you're judging levels of "ire" and tax evasion based on your colleagues who you don't like (and who presumably don't like you)? And then you've posted it in a deliberately misleading and argumentative fashion?

Isn't that simply trolling?

You can dismiss £1.2bn out of hand because you think that it's not a big problem - but if it were £1.2bn of tax evasion by corporations, it suddenly is a problem? Isn't that just as prejudiced a view as the one you're seemingly critical of? Or is £1.2bn OK provided you can find some other scapegoat at £5bn or £10bn? If you were in charge of the police, I bet you'd only investigate murders, right? Because the muggings aren't as big a problem?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on here defending tax evasion by companies. If you want a re-run of the tax evasion/tax avoidance argument, be my guest - but do not deliberately confuse the two to try and score some cheap and incorrect point.

As an aside, what do you think about Ken Livingston's tax avoidance Rick? Do you think I should add him to my lefty hypocrites reference list?

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyway, I figured the stats were interesting, since they were much lower than I thought, and I figured people use benefits stuff as a vehicle for other prejudices.

Pretty much that. It works out better for politicians to tell people that they're being kept back by people poorer than them, rather than people richer than them. Its not even partisan. All parties do it.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Isn't that simply trolling?

W1 wrote:

Do you think I should add him to my lefty hypocrites reference list?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Isn't that simply trolling?

W1 wrote:

Do you think I should add him to my lefty hypocrites reference list?

I was just wondering when you were going to turn up.

Does this mean that Rick Chasey and Ken Livingstone are the same person? If so, that's great because I always have Ken's voice in my mind when I read Rick's posts and now I know why.

Or is Ken Livingstone not a lefty hypocrite?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Hang on Rick, so you're judging levels of "ire" and tax evasion based on your colleagues who you don't like (and who presumably don't like you)? And then you've posted it in a deliberately misleading and argumentative fashion?

Isn't that simply trolling?

You can dismiss £1.2bn out of hand because you think that it's not a big problem - but if it were £1.2bn of tax evasion by corporations, it suddenly is a problem? Isn't that just as prejudiced a view as the one you're seemingly critical of? Or is £1.2bn OK provided you can find some other scapegoat at £5bn or £10bn? If you were in charge of the police, I bet you'd only investigate murders, right? Because the muggings aren't as big a problem?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on here defending tax evasion by companies. If you want a re-run of the tax evasion/tax avoidance argument, be my guest - but do not deliberately confuse the two to try and score some cheap and incorrect point.

As an aside, what do you think about Ken Livingston's tax avoidance Rick? Do you think I should add him to my lefty hypocrites reference list?

I don't think i was mis-leading was I? I put it all out there, when I found it. The original website looked pretty OK.

I don't think the police analogy works. Money is money. Not paying tax is the same as cheating benefit. Right? It's both theft.

For sure Livingstone should practice what he preaches, particularly since he's a politician.

I'm not saying people defend tax fraud. I'm saying I sometimes think people get the proportions mixed up - or they used the benefit cheat rhetoric as a vehicle for other reasons (class, mainly).

Stevo_666

W1 wrote:

Do you think I should add him to my lefty hypocrites reference list?

Based on this, definitely:-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100139555/ken-livingstone-tax-avoidance-the-transcript/
Ken put the phone down on the journo when the matter of hypocrisy was raised; it must have touched a very raw nerve. From the link:
"Ken Livingstone, who has attacked tax avoiders as “rich bastards” who should “not be allowed to vote,” has avoided at least £50,000 in tax by having himself paid through a personal company."
Based on his stated view of tax avoiders, he is now not fit to stand for office

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Do you think I should add him to my lefty hypocrites reference list?

Based on this, definitely:-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100139555/ken-livingstone-tax-avoidance-the-transcript/
Ken put the phone down on the journo when the matter of hypocrisy was raised; it must have touched a very raw nerve. From the link:
"Ken Livingstone, who has attacked tax avoiders as “rich bastards” who should “not be allowed to vote,” has avoided at least £50,000 in tax by having himself paid through a personal company."
Based on his stated view of tax avoiders, he is now not fit to stand for office

Not saying Ken's not a bit of a hypocrite, but Gilligan is far from the perfect journalist.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Not saying Ken's not a bit of a hypocrite, but Gilligan is far from the perfect journalist.

I don't care whether a good journo or not - that's not the point. In any event he's done us all a big service here; it made my day when I read that article.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Not saying Ken's not a bit of a hypocrite, but Gilligan is far from the perfect journalist.

I don't care whether a good journo or not - that's not the point. In any event he's done us all a big service here; it made my day when I read that article.

Really? What 'service' is that? Was anyone actually under any illusions that Ken wasn't just a teeny bit self-serving?
Gilligan's had verging on a personal vendetta against Ken since 2007, yet doesn't seem so keen to investigate other mayoral candidates - I'd take his 'reporting' on Ken with a very large pinch of salt.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Not saying Ken's not a bit of a hypocrite, but Gilligan is far from the perfect journalist.

I don't care whether a good journo or not - that's not the point. In any event he's done us all a big service here; it made my day when I read that article.

Really? What 'service' is that? Was anyone actually under any illusions that Ken wasn't just a teeny bit self-serving?
Gilligan's had verging on a personal vendetta against Ken since 2007, yet doesn't seem so keen to investigate other mayoral candidates - I'd take his 'reporting' on Ken with a very large pinch of salt.

We might know what he's like but some of the general public may not.

I'm sure if that transcript was incorrect or made up, Ken would have been onto his lawyers very quickly. But that doesn't seem to have happened, does it?

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Really? What 'service' is that? Was anyone actually under any illusions that Ken wasn't just a teeny bit self-serving?
Gilligan's had verging on a personal vendetta against Ken since 2007, yet doesn't seem so keen to investigate other mayoral candidates - I'd take his 'reporting' on Ken with a very large pinch of salt.

Livingston is unpopular enough already. The only reason this was brought up was for diversion.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Not saying Ken's not a bit of a hypocrite, but Gilligan is far from the perfect journalist.

I don't care whether a good journo or not - that's not the point. In any event he's done us all a big service here; it made my day when I read that article.

Really? What 'service' is that? Was anyone actually under any illusions that Ken wasn't just a teeny bit self-serving?
Gilligan's had verging on a personal vendetta against Ken since 2007, yet doesn't seem so keen to investigate other mayoral candidates - I'd take his 'reporting' on Ken with a very large pinch of salt.

We might know what he's like but some of the general public may not.

I'm sure if that transcript was incorrect or made up, Ken would have been onto his lawyers very quickly. But that doesn't seem to have happened, does it?

Oh come on. This particular accusation might be new, but the mud-slinging has been going on for since Gilligan joined the Evening Standard when it was the London version of the DM. People's memories aren't that short. All this will do is confirm the prejudices of the anti-Ken (not entirely sure they are pro-Boris) camp, and the pro-Ken camp will dismiss it as a partisan smear.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Oh come on. This particular accusation might be new, but the mud-slinging has been going on for since Gilligan joined the Evening Standard when it was the London version of the DM. People's memories aren't that short. All this will do is confirm the prejudices of the anti-Ken (not entirely sure they are pro-Boris) camp, and the pro-Ken camp will dismiss it as a partisan smear.

Mud slinging isn't new on either side, but given the sentiments expressed against the 'evils' of tax avoidance in the RBS thread, how many of those people are still going to support a known tax avoider? Will they stick to their principles and ditch him, or forgive him because tax avoidance by one of their own is OK?

Would you vote for him?

rjsterry

Looked into Gilligan's Telegraph blogs a bit more: the man is obsessed with Livingstone. 8 or 9 entries out of 10 are about Ken in one way or another; the few which aren't about Ken seem to be either pro-new Routemaster pieces or minor (compared with Ken) campaign against the Mayor of Tower Hamlets. All this while Ken hasn't even been mayor

Stevo_666

You didn't answer my question :-)

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

You didn't answer my question :-)

What possible relevance does your question actually have here though? Its got nothing to do with the topic. Even if it did, what you're trying to do here is force people to say they wouldn't vote for Ken Livingstone so they don't risk being branded a "hypocrite", despite the fact that I don't think any of the usual suspects on this forum have ever expressed any huge desire to vote for him.

The main point of the OP (I think) is to highlight the fact that in terms of its impact on the economy compared to other issues, the focus on benefit fraud is wildly disproportionate. Its baffling to me that some just want to turn any discussion into a left v right sh1t slinging match.

Madness.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

You didn't answer my question :-)

Sorry, missed your post. No I wouldn't but I'd made that decision before this 'revelation'. I won't be voting for Boris either.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Hang on Rick, so you're judging levels of "ire" and tax evasion based on your colleagues who you don't like (and who presumably don't like you)? And then you've posted it in a deliberately misleading and argumentative fashion?

Isn't that simply trolling?

You can dismiss £1.2bn out of hand because you think that it's not a big problem - but if it were £1.2bn of tax evasion by corporations, it suddenly is a problem? Isn't that just as prejudiced a view as the one you're seemingly critical of? Or is £1.2bn OK provided you can find some other scapegoat at £5bn or £10bn? If you were in charge of the police, I bet you'd only investigate murders, right? Because the muggings aren't as big a problem?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on here defending tax evasion by companies. If you want a re-run of the tax evasion/tax avoidance argument, be my guest - but do not deliberately confuse the two to try and score some cheap and incorrect point.

As an aside, what do you think about Ken Livingston's tax avoidance Rick? Do you think I should add him to my lefty hypocrites reference list?

I don't think i was mis-leading was I? I put it all out there, when I found it. The original website looked pretty OK.

I don't think the police analogy works. Money is money. Not paying tax is the same as cheating benefit. Right? It's both theft.

For sure Livingstone should practice what he preaches, particularly since he's a politician.

I'm not saying people defend tax fraud. I'm saying I sometimes think people get the proportions mixed up - or they used the benefit cheat rhetoric as a vehicle for other reasons (class, mainly).

It is misleading to compare benefit fraud to tax avoidance. Completely and deliberately misleading.

In fact you're doing it again - "Not paying tax is the same as cheating benefit" - no. Evading tax is the same as fraudulently claiming benefits.

How do they calculate these benefit "fraud" figures - is it the blatent thefts, or do they include people who may exaggerate or "amend" their needs to claim a bit more?

rick_chasey

Sure W1 - I later gave a tax fraud figure - which was what I was referencing in the previous post.

Paulie W

Front page of today's Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -park.html

notsoblue

Paulie W wrote:

Front page of today's Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -park.html

Pfft, I don't want my tax revenue going to ugly people. WTF?