Benefit Fraud - expensive?
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote: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'.
First HMRC have not named the bank that has to pay back £500m it's only reported as being Barclays. Second the retrospective law applies to all banks so if any of them have been doing this they will also be facing a tax bill so it is the whole street.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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'.
First HMRC have not named the bank that has to pay back £500m it's only reported as being Barclays. Second the retrospective law applies to all banks so if any of them have been doing this they will also be facing a tax bill so it is the whole street.
Barcap have confirmed it was them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... cheme-shut
As an aside, this isn't very good for my work. These guys on the 'yield enhancement' desks sit in the area I'm covering at the moment.
Hopefully you're right Sketch.
Sort of.0 -
Jeez, conflict of principles or what!Rick Chasey wrote:Sketchley wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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'.
First HMRC have not named the bank that has to pay back £500m it's only reported as being Barclays. Second the retrospective law applies to all banks so if any of them have been doing this they will also be facing a tax bill so it is the whole street.
Barcap have confirmed it was them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... cheme-shut
As an aside, this isn't very good for my work. These guys on the 'yield enhancement' desks sit in the area I'm covering at the moment.
Hopefully you're right Sketch.
Sort of.
Is that like googling google? Has the world stopped spinning?0 -
Yeah, it's a bit of a conflict.
Try not to think about it too much while I look for different work
Haven't helped placed anyone who does it though.0 -
Thats not really my point. The point is that what they were doing was judged to be "wrong" by the authorities. I suppose what I'm getting at here is that I'm kinda shocked that you don't see what they did as wrong. We're talking £500m here.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.
Not the first time I've been shocked on the internet though :shock:0 -
Speaking of morality - are people comfortable with white collar workers aggressively pursuing tax avoidance, even to the point where it is against the 'spirit' of the law - and when the tax man is doing their best to shut it down?0
-
I would say that HMRC's judgement about these arrangement are probably primarily driven by the amount it will cost the Treasury if they let it go. It was avoidance but it was costing them a lot of money. HMRC's priority is to maximise tax revenues so they go for the biggest hits as that's the most effective use of their time.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?
The scheme is not now classed as evasion - it simply becomes a very open and shut issue as anyone who tried to calim a credit/deduction for that arrangement from now on will lose. The retrospective element was to get as much back as possible as typically if the law changed with effect from the day it was announced, any savings up to that date would still stand."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well what they did was wrong in terms of their code of conduct. I don't think I've said that it isn't?notsoblue wrote:
Thats not really my point. The point is that what they were doing was judged to be "wrong" by the authorities. I suppose what I'm getting at here is that I'm kinda shocked that you don't see what they did as wrong. We're talking £500m here.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.
Not the first time I've been shocked on the internet though :shock:
However until it was agreed that what they were doing was "wrong" (either under the law, or the code) then it wasn't wrong (or at least wasn't proven to be). You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that legal stuff.0 -
Rick we covered the bit about the spirit of the law and tax avoidance in the RBS thread. Done and dusted. You seem to have a short memory.Rick Chasey wrote:Speaking of morality - are people comfortable with white collar workers aggressively pursuing tax avoidance, even to the point where it is against the 'spirit' of the law - and when the tax man is doing their best to shut it down?
As mentioned above, the HMRC decision to shut something down more often hinges on how much it's worth to HMRC (and their chances of doing so successfully) than any moral judgements."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Speaking of morality - are people comfortable with white collar workers aggressively pursuing tax avoidance, even to the point where it is against the 'spirit' of the law - and when the tax man is doing their best to shut it down?
Yes, because to repeat old threads, there isn't space for spirit in law.
And, of course, things are heavily weighted against the schemes, because they have to be delcared to HMRC.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Thats not really my point. The point is that what they were doing was judged to be "wrong" by the authorities. I suppose what I'm getting at here is that I'm kinda shocked that you don't see what they did as wrong. We're talking £500m here.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.
Not the first time I've been shocked on the internet though :shock:
You are in a very grey area here. You could argue that what they did wasn't immoral as at the time it was completely legal. However as it subsequently and retrospectively became illegal you could argue it was immoral. I could construct argument either way as it all comes down to a retrospective law change.
To really answer the question we would need to know if they had access to information that showed HMRC was likely to take this action but then preceded anyway. I would guess that as the law has been changed retrospectively then there must be an indication of this. Therefore they would or should have know there action would be illegal and therefore acted immorally, possibly....--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Rick we covered the bit about the spirit of the law and tax avoidance in the RBS thread. Done and dusted. You seem to have a short memory.Rick Chasey wrote:Speaking of morality - are people comfortable with white collar workers aggressively pursuing tax avoidance, even to the point where it is against the 'spirit' of the law - and when the tax man is doing their best to shut it down?
As mentioned above, the HMRC decision to shut something down more often hinges on how much it's worth to HMRC (and their chances of doing so successfully) than any moral judgements.
I was interested in other people's opinions, not just someone who appears to have a professional interest in it!
We know relieving the gov't of money that's entitled to be theirs, either by illegal benefit claims or tax fraud (not avoidance...) happens across all strata of society. I'm interested in where people draw the line re what they're comfortable with and what gets them foaming - since I recon it's probably it's illustrative of a deeper class issue.
In light of this given that tax avoidance is a grey area with regard to morality, i'm interested in different people's perspectives on the matter. I know yours, and you know mine!0 -
Its interesting how people have differing views on tax. "Costing [the HRMC] a lot of money" can be interpreted as "Not paying the tax they were meant to". I suspect that one's view of the tax system is largely dependant on how much you get paid to advise people on how to avoid paying tax.Stevo 666 wrote:
I would say that HMRC's judgement about these arrangement are probably primarily driven by the amount it will cost the Treasury if they let it go. It was avoidance but it was costing them a lot of money. HMRC's priority is to maximise tax revenues so they go for the biggest hits as that's the most effective use of their time.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?0 -
You didn't say you were interested in 'people's opinion (except Stevo's)' did you ;-) Anyway, on the separate matter of tax evasion...yep it gets me hacked off as it means us law abiding citizens (including tax avoiders) have to work harder and pay more tax.Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Rick we covered the bit about the spirit of the law and tax avoidance in the RBS thread. Done and dusted. You seem to have a short memory.Rick Chasey wrote:Speaking of morality - are people comfortable with white collar workers aggressively pursuing tax avoidance, even to the point where it is against the 'spirit' of the law - and when the tax man is doing their best to shut it down?
As mentioned above, the HMRC decision to shut something down more often hinges on how much it's worth to HMRC (and their chances of doing so successfully) than any moral judgements.
I was interested in other people's opinions, not just someone who appears to have a professional interest in it!
We know relieving the gov't of money that's entitled to be theirs, either by illegal benefit claims or tax fraud (not avoidance...) happens across all strata of society. I'm interested in where people draw the line re what they're comfortable with and what gets them foaming - since I recon it's probably it's illustrative of a deeper class issue.
In light of this given that tax avoidance is a grey area with regard to morality, i'm interested in different people's perspectives on the matter. I know yours, and you know mine!
PS: I love the way you see it as the Governments money. It's not, it's ours - they are the ones who are relieving us of our money."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So you do you think they did anything wrong? I mean, ignoring all that retrospective stuff for a moment, do you think they were wrong for doing what they did at the time? And do you agree with the HMRC's decision?W1 wrote:
Well what they did was wrong in terms of their code of conduct. I don't think I've said that it isn't?notsoblue wrote:
Thats not really my point. The point is that what they were doing was judged to be "wrong" by the authorities. I suppose what I'm getting at here is that I'm kinda shocked that you don't see what they did as wrong. We're talking £500m here.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.
Not the first time I've been shocked on the internet though :shock:
However until it was agreed that what they were doing was "wrong" (either under the law, or the code) then it wasn't wrong (or at least wasn't proven to be). You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that legal stuff.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
You didn't say you were interested in 'people's opinion (except Stevo's)' did you ;-) Anyway, on the separate matter of tax evasion...yep it gets me hacked off as it means us law abiding citizens (including tax avoiders) have to more harder and pay more tax.Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Rick we covered the bit about the spirit of the law and tax avoidance in the RBS thread. Done and dusted. You seem to have a short memory.Rick Chasey wrote:Speaking of morality - are people comfortable with white collar workers aggressively pursuing tax avoidance, even to the point where it is against the 'spirit' of the law - and when the tax man is doing their best to shut it down?
As mentioned above, the HMRC decision to shut something down more often hinges on how much it's worth to HMRC (and their chances of doing so successfully) than any moral judgements.
I was interested in other people's opinions, not just someone who appears to have a professional interest in it!
We know relieving the gov't of money that's entitled to be theirs, either by illegal benefit claims or tax fraud (not avoidance...) happens across all strata of society. I'm interested in where people draw the line re what they're comfortable with and what gets them foaming - since I recon it's probably it's illustrative of a deeper class issue.
In light of this given that tax avoidance is a grey area with regard to morality, i'm interested in different people's perspectives on the matter. I know yours, and you know mine!
PS: I love the way you see it as the Governments money. It's not, it's ours - they are the ones who are relieving us of our money.
Without the gov't my job wouldn't exist, nor would I be educated enough to do the job.
By law, a proportion of my income is theirs!0 -
At the time? No, if they believed what they were doing was legal and within the code (I don't know what they thought).notsoblue wrote:
So you do you think they did anything wrong? I mean, ignoring all that retrospective stuff for a moment, do you think they were wrong for doing what they did at the time? And do you agree with the HMRC's decision?W1 wrote:
Well what they did was wrong in terms of their code of conduct. I don't think I've said that it isn't?notsoblue wrote:
Thats not really my point. The point is that what they were doing was judged to be "wrong" by the authorities. I suppose what I'm getting at here is that I'm kinda shocked that you don't see what they did as wrong. We're talking £500m here.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.
Not the first time I've been shocked on the internet though :shock:
However until it was agreed that what they were doing was "wrong" (either under the law, or the code) then it wasn't wrong (or at least wasn't proven to be). You know, innocent until proven guilty and all that legal stuff.
if they are subsequently found to have been doing something illegal or in breach of the code, then it clearly was "wrong" in the widest sense of the word, but again I cannot say whether they knew that or not at the time.
If what they were doing wasn't illegal nor in breach of the code, then no it wasn't wrong. But that isn't the case, is it?
What do you mean by the word "wrong" though?0 -
I think you'll start frothing at the mouth if I requote from the RBS thread, so I won't. Let's just say that we've dealt with the issue of 'paying as much as you're meant to' in principle. What Barclays and the other banks did at the time was pay as much tax as they were meant to, as allowed by the law. HMRC didn't like how much it was costing them, so changed the rules to retrospectively alter 'what they [The Banks] were meant to pay'.notsoblue wrote:Its interesting how people have differing views on tax. "Costing [the HRMC] a lot of money" can be interpreted as "Not paying the tax they were meant to". I suspect that one's view of the tax system is largely dependant on how much you get paid to advise people on how to avoid paying tax.
Imagine playing football against a team that can shift change the rules whenever they like before, during or after a match - and even score goals by deciding that the goalposts were somewhere else at some point during the game. Not really fair is it. Luckily HMRC usually have a second division team as they often can't afford to keep their best people, who tend to move other teams where the pay is better :-)"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Legal = right.Rick Chasey wrote:In light of this given that tax avoidance is a grey area with regard to morality, i'm interested in different people's perspectives on the matter. I know yours, and you know mine!
Illegal = wrong.
Morals? Everybody's is different and they draw the line in the sand at different points.
No amount of debating will change that.
For what it's worth, I follow the MPs & MEPs (ie Government) laws, rules, guidance, examples and morals on tax avoidance. :twisted:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:
Legal = right.Rick Chasey wrote:In light of this given that tax avoidance is a grey area with regard to morality, i'm interested in different people's perspectives on the matter. I know yours, and you know mine!
Illegal = wrong.
Morals? Everybody's is different and they draw the line in the sand at different points.
No amount of debating will change that.
For what it's worth, I follow the MPs & MEPs (ie Government) laws, rules, guidance, examples and morals on tax avoidance. :twisted:
Yeah, but we know there are instances where the law either hasn't caught up, or is just plain wrong.
The AFI fund where they were legally claiming tax credits on a tax they hadn't paid is, to me anyway, an example of being wrong, however legal your loophole that let's you do that is.
There's no real added value to society as a whole for people doing that.
There are lots of things that are legal that I wouldn't do, and think are wrong - that was one of them.0 -
Nor mine I suppose :-) Although what education do you need to be a recruiter? I didn't know they taught smooth talking and bulls***ting in school :PRick Chasey wrote:Without the gov't my job wouldn't exist, nor would I be educated enough to do the job."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Anyway, point is, people who lurk in the grey areas of tax to me anyway are just as morally in the wrong as people who lurk in the grey areas of benefit claims, in the same way people who are illegal with tax are just as wrong as people who illegally claim benefit.
I have two issues: #1, one (tax fraud) is a lot more expensive than the other. That doesn't mitigate one or the other, but it does mean that one is a bigger, and more pressing, problem than another. In light of that;
#2 - Why do people take MORE issue with the smaller problem? It may be, as Simon says, because tax fraud is a typical white collar crime and benefit fraud isn't. I believe that the excessive emphasis on the benefit side of the argument is because people use it as a vehicle for class discrimination. The whole tesco ' works but still gets benefits because tesco f*cks them' threw a whole spanner in the works of that particular rhetoric, and it's not surprising that it was only really picked up by broadsheets and newsnight.
Benefit fraud is absolutely a problem, but the time and ink that gets spent on it is disproportional to the cost - especially relative to other, more costly, examples of fraud.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Nor mine I suppose :-) Although what education do you need to be a recruiter? I didn't know they taught smooth talking and bulls***ting in school :PRick Chasey wrote:Without the gov't my job wouldn't exist, nor would I be educated enough to do the job.
Is that a road you really want to go down Stevo?0 -
Never seen the attraction of recruitment as a career, no.
Are you having a slight sense of humour failure, or did you miss the smiley? :-)"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Actually - and I am being half serious here - why don't you apply to train as a tax inspector? Secure long term career, decent if not city type pay, working for the Governmant and helping put the tax world to rights which is something that's clearly close to your heart. I might even get a chance to put one past you in a professional capacity one day, rather than just on an internet forum...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Never seen the attraction of recruitment as a career, no.
Are you having a slight sense of humour failure, or did you miss the smiley? :-)
I just got a raft of rejection e-mails through for other jobs, so I'm not in a particularly good mood no."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:
Actually - and I am being half serious here - why don't you apply to train as a tax inspector? Secure long term career, decent if not city type pay, working for the Governmant and helping put the tax world to rights which is something that's clearly close to your heart. I might even get a chance to put one past you in a professional capacity one day, rather than just on an internet forum...Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Never seen the attraction of recruitment as a career, no.
Are you having a slight sense of humour failure, or did you miss the smiley? :-)
I just got a raft of rejection e-mails through for other jobs, so I'm not in a particularly good mood no.
Ha.
And why would they take me on?
If you can put one past me here, I doubt I stand much chance doing it as a job
. 0 -
Rick, you must have almost ground away your axe hand by now, surely?
I think the reasons why one problem gets more attention are pretty simple. Benefit fraud is seen as the 'theft' of the taxpayer's money -- the taxpayer has paid it into the system, and the fraudster is taking it out, fraudulently. Clue's in the name, I guess.
High-level tax fraud isn't (directly) seen as taking taxpayers' hard-earned money, and furthermore it's a LOT more complicated. Benefit fraud is very easy to understand.
Not the inter-class struggle you're trying to make it out to be -- I'm not sure what colour your lenses are tinted but I'm guessing a shade of red?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Rick, you must have almost ground away your axe hand by now, surely?
I think the reasons why one problem gets more attention are pretty simple. Benefit fraud is seen as the 'theft' of the taxpayer's money -- the taxpayer has paid it into the system, and the fraudster is taking it out, fraudulently. Clue's in the name, I guess.
High-level tax fraud isn't (directly) seen as taking taxpayers' hard-earned money, and furthermore it's a LOT more complicated. Benefit fraud is very easy to understand.
Not the inter-class struggle you're trying to make it out to be -- I'm not sure what colour your lenses are tinted but I'm guessing a shade of red?
Tax fraud is pretty straightforward to understand from a tabloid perspective isn't it?
"A rich bastard is cheating the taxpayer, that's you, out of loads of money, loads more in fact, then your local benefit scrounger'.
That's not a difficult argument to make.
Most people don't care about the nuances of either, so saying one is more nuanced than the other doesn't really make a difference.0
