Benefit Fraud - expensive?
Comments
-
Not madeness, boredom...notsoblue wrote:
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.Stevo 666 wrote:You didn't answer my question :-)
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.
Fair enough, I was O/T on an O/T thread, but I was trying to stop Mr. Sterry from going O/T from my O/T :-) Anyway, I await with baited breath the 'Aren't Barclays nasty for avoiding tax' thread from Rick, then we can have a good old-fashioned punch up on tax again :-D"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Not madeness, boredom...notsoblue wrote:
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.Stevo 666 wrote:You didn't answer my question :-)
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.
Fair enough, I was O/T on an O/T thread, but I was trying to stop Mr. Sterry from going O/T from my O/T :-) Anyway, I await with baited breath the 'Aren't Barclays nasty for avoiding tax' thread from Rick, then we can have a good old-fashioned punch up on tax again :-D
We covered that ground already. Tax man closes loophole, everyone wins apart from the DCM team at barcap.0 -
I thought you'd want a separate thread for Barclays given what they are doing is so evil. Anyway, I'm sure the Barclays tax team will not be crying too hard that two of their plans went t1ts up, they probably have a lot more in place that do work."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Thing is, those "punch ups" aren't very interesting to read. It ends up being reduced to an irreconcilable discussion about the semantic difference between avoidance and evasion. You and your ilk will take the position that the kind of stuff that Barclays has been caught doing is perfectly moral simply because its legal, and others will argue that it isn't. Then someone will call someone else a prick, and RJS will be disappoint and the thread will die.Stevo 666 wrote:Not madeness, boredom...
Fair enough, I was O/T on an O/T thread, but I was trying to stop Mr. Sterry from going O/T from my O/T :-) Anyway, I await with baited breath the 'Aren't Barclays nasty for avoiding tax' thread from Rick, then we can have a good old-fashioned punch up on tax again :-D
You love to turn everything into a punch up, that makes me sad
0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:I thought you'd want a separate thread for Barclays given what they are doing is so evil. Anyway, I'm sure the Barclays tax team will not be crying too hard that two of their plans went t1ts up, they probably have a lot more in place that do work.
But....they signed up to the HMRC code of practice!0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Thing is, those "punch ups" aren't very interesting to read. It ends up being reduced to an irreconcilable discussion about the semantic difference between avoidance and evasion. You and your ilk will take the position that the kind of stuff that Barclays has been caught doing is perfectly moral simply because its legal, and others will argue that it isn't. Then someone will call someone else a prick, and RJS will be disappoint and the thread will die.Stevo 666 wrote:Not madeness, boredom...
Fair enough, I was O/T on an O/T thread, but I was trying to stop Mr. Sterry from going O/T from my O/T :-) Anyway, I await with baited breath the 'Aren't Barclays nasty for avoiding tax' thread from Rick, then we can have a good old-fashioned punch up on tax again :-D
You love to turn everything into a punch up, that makes me sad
"Caught doing"? Good spin - Barclays informed HMRC themselves.0 -
How would you have described it?W1 wrote:"Caught doing"? Good spin - Barclays informed HMRC themselves.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:I thought you'd want a separate thread for Barclays given what they are doing is so evil. Anyway, I'm sure the Barclays tax team will not be crying too hard that two of their plans went t1ts up, they probably have a lot more in place that do work.
The DCM team (pretty sure it falls under DCM - either way, the team involved) is pretty f*cked off from what I've heard - nor are Barcap the only outfit who does this - pretty much any bank in the street does.0 -
W1 wrote:
Who decided that it wasn't in the spirit of the law, and that the loophole should be closed? Why is this news?0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:
Who decided that it wasn't in the spirit of the law, and that the loophole should be closed? Why is this news?
[Probably] HMRC did, and Barclays didn't think they had a good enough case to worth fighting it [probably].
EDIT - and retrospective law amendments too (which I fundamentally opose, but that's another thread).0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... hemes.html
These are basically funds where they convert non-taxable income into an amount which has a repayable tax credit to get a repayment from the exchequer even though the tax was never paid.The second scheme involved using Authorised Investment Funds (AIFs) to claim tax repayments from the Treasury. That scheme has been blocked with immediate effect.
I think I had a chat about this (if I understand what it is anyway, might be wrong) with a prop trader at another bank who described to me as 'basically legalised stealing from the gov't. Not sure I want to get involved in that'.0 -
W1 wrote:
Why did the HMRC make that judgement? What is it about that set of arrangements that makes it different from tax avoidance? And does the HMRC decision now mean that that scheme is classed as evasion?0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:
Why did the HMRC make that judgement? What is it about that set of arrangements that makes it different from tax avoidance? And does the HMRC decision now mean that that scheme is classed as evasion?The Government decided they were not suitable for a company that had signed up to the HMRC code of practice and has closed the loopholes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... hemes.htmlExchequer secretary to the Treasury David Gauke said the Government was clear that "business must pay the tax they owe when they owe it".
He added: "The Government wants to ensure that the tax system is fair for all and we will not allow those who seek to benefit from this aggressive avoidance to get an unfair advantage.
"We do not take today's action lightly, but the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area mean that this is a circumstance where the decision to change the law with full retrospective effect is justified."0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Why did the HMRC make that judgement? What is it about that set of arrangements that makes it different from tax avoidance? And does the HMRC decision now mean that that scheme is classed as evasion?
This was avoidance and appears to have been legal. The result of using the scheme is HMRC/The Government have changed the law and applied the change retrospectively. Might be something to do the signed code of conduct between banks and HMRC.
From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... ax-schemes"200 banks have signed to promise to comply with the spirit and not just the letter of the law"David Gauke, exchequer secretary to the Treasury, said: " We do not take today's action lightly, but the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area mean that this is a circumstance where the decision to change the law with full retrospective effect is justified."--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
There be case law on retrospective tax, didn't know that. Rather interesting particularly in reference to debates on here recently.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8496921.stm--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:notsoblue wrote:
Why did the HMRC make that judgement? What is it about that set of arrangements that makes it different from tax avoidance? And does the HMRC decision now mean that that scheme is classed as evasion?
This was avoidance and appears to have been legal. The result of using the scheme is HMRC/The Government have changed the law and applied the change retrospectively. Might be something to do the signed code of conduct between banks and HMRC.
From
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... ax-schemes"200 banks have signed to promise to comply with the spirit and not just the letter of the law"David Gauke, exchequer secretary to the Treasury, said: " We do not take today's action lightly, but the potential tax loss from this scheme and the history of previous abuse in this area mean that this is a circumstance where the decision to change the law with full retrospective effect is justified."
So in short, tax law permits it, but it is contrary to the code of conduct. Barclays are signed up to CofC, so should have known that whilst not illegal, the scheme would not be looked on favourably.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes something like that. Also see the BBC link.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
rjsterry wrote:
So in short, tax law permits it, but it is contrary to the code of conduct. Barclays are signed up to CofC, so should have known that whilst not illegal, the scheme would not be looked on favourably.
Pretty much,.
It's an aggressive take on the law -all banks do it, not just barcap.
The AIF's in particular should have been shut down a long time ago - they're literally taking money off the gov't with those trades.0 -
Sketchley wrote:Yes something like that. Also see the BBC link.
Scary stuff and a dangerous precedent.
I agree with this:
"As citizens, we have a right to know the legal position before making up our minds. Giving government the green light to change laws retrospectively erodes our rights and undermines the rule of law."0 -
W1 wrote:Sketchley wrote:Yes something like that. Also see the BBC link.
Scary stuff and a dangerous precedent.
I agree with this:
"As citizens, we have a right to know the legal position before making up our minds. Giving government the green light to change laws retrospectively erodes our rights and undermines the rule of law."
Tend to agree with you there.
However, if you sign up to a code of conduct, then you're creating a rod for your own back.0 -
I think the moral aspect of this is interesting though. The suggestion would be that the "aggressive avoidance" that the CoC is there to discourage is immoral, while still being legal. To me that goes against what people have said about tax avoidance being moral. Is it a grey area? Is some tax avoidance immoral, and some moral? And if so, what criteria make tax avoidance moral or otherwise?0
-
notsoblue wrote:I think the moral aspect of this is interesting though. The suggestion would be that the "aggressive avoidance" that the CoC is there to discourage is immoral, while still being legal. To me that goes against what people have said about tax avoidance being moral. Is it a grey area? Is some tax avoidance immoral, and some moral? And if so, what criteria make tax avoidance moral or otherwise?
I think the tax man ultimately knows there will always be loopholes - so the 'spirit' of the tax system angle is a way to address that. I think they feel they can leverage some of the public anger for their efforts to help them (if we are assuming that the tax man is interested in taking in tax in the spirit that the tax was created).0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Sketchley wrote:Yes something like that. Also see the BBC link.
Scary stuff and a dangerous precedent.
I agree with this:
"As citizens, we have a right to know the legal position before making up our minds. Giving government the green light to change laws retrospectively erodes our rights and undermines the rule of law."
Tend to agree with you there.
However, if you sign up to a code of conduct, then you're creating a rod for your own back.
True.
And a code of conduct, by it's very nature, can be (and is) much more fluid and flexible than statutes.0 -
notsoblue wrote:I think the moral aspect of this is interesting though. The suggestion would be that the "aggressive avoidance" that the CoC is there to discourage is immoral, while still being legal. To me that goes against what people have said about tax avoidance being moral. Is it a grey area? Is some tax avoidance immoral, and some moral? And if so, what criteria make tax avoidance moral or otherwise?
The position of taxes is (as previously explained in another thread) that in law there is no "moral" requirement to pay more than you are due.
The difference here is the use of the code of conduct. As Rick says, that is a rod against the banks.0 -
W1 wrote:Sketchley wrote:Yes something like that. Also see the BBC link.
Scary stuff and a dangerous precedent.
I agree with this:
"As citizens, we have a right to know the legal position before making up our minds. Giving government the green light to change laws retrospectively erodes our rights and undermines the rule of law."
I do see your point. But if the only purpose of the scheme you are using is to avoid tax then the law is clear in so much that HMRC can retrospectively close the scheme and ask for you to pay the tax. As a citizens you would know what you are doing in setting up such a scheme and therefore you would understand the risk in doing it.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:I think the moral aspect of this is interesting though. The suggestion would be that the "aggressive avoidance" that the CoC is there to discourage is immoral, while still being legal. To me that goes against what people have said about tax avoidance being moral. Is it a grey area? Is some tax avoidance immoral, and some moral? And if so, what criteria make tax avoidance moral or otherwise?
The position of taxes is (as previously explained in another thread) that in law there is no "moral" requirement to pay more than you are due.
The difference here is the use of the code of conduct. As Rick says, that is a rod against the banks.
There is no code of conduct in the case in BBC link.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Indeed, which is why there is no "spirit" discussed.Sketchley wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:I think the moral aspect of this is interesting though. The suggestion would be that the "aggressive avoidance" that the CoC is there to discourage is immoral, while still being legal. To me that goes against what people have said about tax avoidance being moral. Is it a grey area? Is some tax avoidance immoral, and some moral? And if so, what criteria make tax avoidance moral or otherwise?
The position of taxes is (as previously explained in another thread) that in law there is no "moral" requirement to pay more than you are due.
The difference here is the use of the code of conduct. As Rick says, that is a rod against the banks.
There is no code of conduct in the case in BBC link.
The BBC link is a case allowing retrospective changes in the law. That always makes me very uncomfortable.0 -
i think re-barcap - the reason why they're getting done for this, rather than the whole street, will be to do with the 'code of conduct'.
But yeah. In light of that sun article on the woman going to theme parks when on disability-related benefit, what's the Sun's take on this? I can't bring myself to search the paper.0 -
Interesting to read about the loopholes closed in the the bbc link. All about double tax treaty and partner income being declared as non taxable. http://www.freshfields.com/publications ... 08/BTR.pdf. Looks like there had already been several attempts by HMRC to close the loophole only for the scheme managers to try a difference approached to exploit the same treaties. Having been stopped from doing it before to then carry trying the same thing in different way you can kind of see where HMRC where coming from.
I agree retrospective law is tricky.....--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50
