Benefit Fraud - expensive?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

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...

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 .

Tax is actually one of those professions where a top notch academic record goes a long way to getting in - IIRC you're an Oxbridge grad with presumably a good honours (first or 2:1) and pretty clean sweep of A's at school? Good start. You can demonstrate passion for the job (just send them a link to this forum). And you have some previous commercial experience which they do value.

Unfortunately it would mean you wouldn't have time to post on here in the day (I'll collect my commission from the other Thatcherites on here later...) ;-)

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

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...

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 .

Tax is actually one of those professions where a top notch academic record goes a long way to getting in - IIRC you're an Oxbridge grad with presumably a good honours (first or 2:1) and pretty clean sweep of A's at school? Good start. You can demonstrate passion for the job (just send them a link to this forum). And you have some previous commercial experience which they do value.

Unfortunately it would mean you wouldn't have time to post on here in the day (I'll collect my commission from the other Thatcherites on here later...) ;-)

Noo, not Oxbridge :P

Sheffield - bit of a difference.

As and a first, all the rest.

HRMC want numerate or law degrees at the level I'd be going in at (i.e. grad)

Anyway, I'm not that fussed about tax per se - I think it's interesting from a social and macro perspective, but not for its own sake - I like this place because it exposes me to opinions and assumptions that I would never get to hear with my friends - likes yours re-tax. Don't know ANYONE in my circles who thinks like that, apart from one chap but he famously kept a picture of Thatcher in his school planner at 6th form, so he's not really very normal.

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

.<-- the point __________________________________________________________________________________________ --> you

Also: check this link.

The 'rich bastards' (Some salt for your chip?) are not cheating the taxpayer out of money, as they're not 'stealing' the taxpayer's hard-earned cash. That's the point I was making.

And sure, while the headline can be snappy and fun, the article has to, like, go into detail. And that's where it all gets a bit more woolly. The benefit fraud headlines can tell stories about free washing machines and large (relative to the national average) incomes and BMWs and the like. We can all get all Daily Mail about that.

Furthermore, the Barclays/HMRC dispute related to avoidance due to a loophole, therefore Barclays' actions were not illegal. Unfortunately for them, they signed an agreement to not engage in tax avoidance in 2009. D'oh.

Doesn't make for such good reading as this.

rick_chasey

LiT - who said the barcap thing was tax fraud? It may be now - but no-one's saying it was when they did it.

I thought that was interesting from a moral perspecitive - re- people's opinions on grey areas.

Benefit cheating costs the tax payer 12 times less than tax fraud, and for some specific benefits (though as we've seen, the figures are debatable), the proportion who cheat are pretty low.

We hear a lot about benefit cheats, and not a lot about tax fraud. That's it - I was just wondering why. Simon made a good point - I'm not sure it's just that. I also figured the, given the press, the figures originally presented where interesting, and put the cost of them into some perspective.

Not sure what you're getting at re my use of language.

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

LiT - who said the barcap thing was tax fraud? It may be now - but no-one's saying it was when they did it.

I thought that was interesting from a moral perspecitive - re- people's opinions on grey areas.

Benefit cheating costs the tax payer 12 times less than tax fraud, and for some specific benefits (though as we've seen, the figures are debatable), the proportion who cheat are pretty low.

We hear a lot about benefit cheats, and not a lot about tax fraud. That's it - I was just wondering why. Simon made a good point - I'm not sure it's just that. I also figured the, given the press, the figures originally presented where interesting, and put the cost of them into some perspective.

Not sure what you're getting at re my use of language.

That's the question I'm responding to above......

MaxwellBygraves

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ ... 9.abstract

DonDaddyD

Ignorant point of view:

People don't like paying taxes and there are those, less fortunate and unwashed, who actually admire the 'rich bastards' who are (i) rich enough (ii) smart enough (iii) capable of tax avoidance/fraud. "If they could do it too, they would". Plus it was their the public's money in the first place, so why get angry. This is why people aren't up in arms against the like of Richard Branson or F1 drivers who have their residency registered elsewhere for 'tax purposes'.

But to them a benefits cheat, that's just scum of the Earth. They haven't earned that money they are stealing and it could have gone to a legitimate claim/person who actually needs it.

It's all about perspective. But this isn't going to get through to Rick.

rick_chasey

lost_in_thought wrote:

That's the question I'm responding to above......

Yeah - I didn't buy the arguments - and then you said I was wide of the mark with my response?

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ignorant point of view:

People don't like paying taxes and there are those, less fortunate and unwashed, who actually admire the 'rich bastards' who are (i) rich enough (ii) smart enough (iii) capable of tax avoidance/fraud. "If they could do it too, they would". Plus it was their the public's money in the first place, so why get angry. This is why people aren't up in arms against the like of Richard Branson or F1 drivers who have their residency registered elsewhere for 'tax purposes'.

But to them a benefits cheat, that's just scum of the Earth. They haven't earned that money they are stealing and it could have gone to a legitimate claim/person who actually needs it.

It's all about perspective. But this isn't going to get through to Rick.

You should have said the above earlier. :P

So the distinction people make is not about the tax paid, or the amount that is lost to the taxman, but about what is being earned?

I guess that makes sense.

Does strike me as kinda classist view though then again, it probably would.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

The 'rich bastards' (Some salt for your chip?) are not cheating the taxpayer out of money, as they're not 'stealing' the taxpayer's hard-earned cash. That's the point I was making.

I assume you're not really saying tax evasion is 'victimless' but I'm sure it is seen that way by a lot of people.

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

The 'rich bastards' (Some salt for your chip?) are not cheating the taxpayer out of money, as they're not 'stealing' the taxpayer's hard-earned cash. That's the point I was making.

I assume you're not really saying tax evasion is 'victimless' but I'm sure it is seen that way by a lot of people.

Indeed not. I'm saying that it doesn't lend itself to tabloid rhetoric anywhere near as well, and that is likely why it receives less attention.

Greg T

Holy French Cow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739

The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

"Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income," he said.

I do hope he gets in.

Do not interrupt an enemy when he's making a mistake . . . .

sketchley

I know it's the telegraph but more fuel for the fire

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rners.html

and

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ia ... 00-income/

DonDaddyD

Greg T wrote:

Holy French Cow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739

The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

"Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income," he said.

I do hope he gets in.

Do not interrupt an enemy when he's making a mistake . . . .

Could you imagine the economic boom that would happen in England when all those French Business leave France and set up shop in tax haven England. LOL.

I'm beginning to realise the Left is as greedy as the Right, only they try to justify it with some faux bollox about "it being OK if it's money taken from people richer than you".

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Holy French Cow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739

The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

"Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income," he said.

I do hope he gets in.

Do not interrupt an enemy when he's making a mistake . . . .

Could you imagine the economic boom that would happen in England when all those French Business leave France and set up shop in tax haven England. LOL.

I'm beginning to realise the Left is as greedy as the Right, only they try to justify it with some faux bollox about "it being OK if it's money taken from people richer than you".

I blame Robin Hood!

Don't even get me started on the Robin Hood Tax.

rick_chasey

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Holy French Cow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739

The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

"Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income," he said.

I do hope he gets in.

Do not interrupt an enemy when he's making a mistake . . . .

Could you imagine the economic boom that would happen in England when all those French Business leave France and set up shop in tax haven England. LOL.

I'm beginning to realise the Left is as greedy as the Right, only they try to justify it with some faux bollox about "it being OK if it's money taken from people richer than you".

I blame Robin Hood!

Don't even get me started on the Robin Hood Tax.

Aw, go on.

Start a new thread. Go nuts.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

At the time? No, if they believed what they were doing was legal and within the code (I don't know what they thought).

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?

Good question. I guess I mean morally wrong in the way that the average citizen of this country would define it. Undesirable, antisocial behaviour. Something that is selfish or greedy at the expense of other people. Because ultimately, aggressive tax avoidance isn't a victimless activity. When someone is told that their local school or library has to close because of government budget cuts, its easy to compare the sum of money that would be required to maintain something like that with the amount of tax revenue claimed from a scheme like this. It seems wrong that there is "aggressive tax avoidance" happening on this scale while the government is telling us that we can't afford to have nice things. I think its a fair comparison to be honest. Just pay the damned tax...

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Holy French Cow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739

The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

"Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income," he said.

I do hope he gets in.

Do not interrupt an enemy when he's making a mistake . . . .

Could you imagine the economic boom that would happen in England when all those French Business leave France and set up shop in tax haven England. LOL.

I'm beginning to realise the Left is as greedy as the Right, only they try to justify it with some faux bollox about "it being OK if it's money taken from people richer than you".

Re-tax. The argument is about who gets to decide how the money is spent.

The right say indivdiuals should chose.

The left say, the gov't should chose.

Somewhere in the middle, lies everyone, with different shades.

I don't think it's greed on the left particularly. I don't think the left are particularly keen on an (excessively) incentive motivated economy/society - as such, I don't think their belief is particularly greedy.

I don't personally gain if there's more tax. I'm not a recipient of any tax breaks (AFAIK) or credits.

I don't particularly want a state run economy, but I don't rate a heavily free-market economy as much as your average Brit does either.

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Holy French Cow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17189739

The Socialist favourite in France's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has said top earners should pay 75% of their income in tax.

"Above 1m euros [£847,000; $1.3m], the tax rate should be 75% because it's not possible to have that level of income," he said.

I do hope he gets in.

Do not interrupt an enemy when he's making a mistake . . . .

Could you imagine the economic boom that would happen in England when all those French Business leave France and set up shop in tax haven England. LOL.

I'm beginning to realise the Left is as greedy as the Right, only they try to justify it with some faux bollox about "it being OK if it's money taken from people richer than you".

Re-tax. The argument is about who gets to decide how the money is spent.

The right say indivdiuals should chose.

The left say, the gov't should chose.

Somewhere in the middle, lies everyone, with different shades.

I don't think it's greed on the left particularly. I don't think the left are particularly keen on an (excessively) incentive motivated economy/society - as such, I don't think their belief is particularly greedy.

I don't personally gain if there's more tax. I'm not a recipient of any tax breaks (AFAIK) or credits.

I don't particularly want a state run economy, but I don't rate a heavily free-market economy as much as your average Brit does either.

The right would definitely say 'choose'. I can't comment on the left.

/runs away giggling

rick_chasey

Hey, Lit - come up with a better written response in Dutch.

:roll:

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hey, Lit - come up with a better written response in Dutch.

:roll:

The very second I join a Dutch forum I will. What's your point?

rick_chasey

lost_in_thought wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hey, Lit - come up with a better written response in Dutch.

:roll:

The very second I join a Dutch forum I will. What's your point?

I find your petty corrections really irritating and a little condescending :O.

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

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.

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'.

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 :-)

Well the point that I think you're talking about in the RBS thread is a quote from a case that stated that it is moral to avoid tax. I think thats BS, and would find it useless to argue with anyone who thinks that aggressive tax avoidance is moral. So we've dealt with the issue in the sense that we arrived at hard limits that prevented any further discussion.

With regards to the football analogy... you have a team that is constantly shifting the rules slightly slower than a better equipped and better trained opposition that is several times larger can work to bend the rules. The fact that its more profitable to work for a private company and advise them on how exploit tax loopholes than it is to work for the governing body should tell you how powerful that government body is. And then theres the whole issue of crony capitalism. If you're big enough you can just choose not to pay tax and the authorities will bend to your will.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

+1

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hey, Lit - come up with a better written response in Dutch.

:roll:

The very second I join a Dutch forum I will. What's your point?

I find your petty corrections really irritating and a little condescending :O.

D'you see my bothered face?

It's not just you, before you get a victim complex. I do it to everyone -- just ask '66. :twisted:

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

I find your petty corrections really irritating and a little condescending :O.

Irritation and condescension is pretty much stock in trade round these parts Princess . . Where would we stop?

rick_chasey

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I find your petty corrections really irritating and a little condescending :O.

Irritation and condescension is pretty much stock in trade round these parts Princess . . Where would we stop?

True :P

lost_in_thought

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I find your petty corrections really irritating and a little condescending :O.

Irritation and condescension is pretty much stock in trade round these parts Princess . . Where would we stop?

rick_chasey

What can I say? I get disappointed when people side-step the 'debate' (;)) with grammar /spelling.

Gives me sad face.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ignorant point of view:

People don't like paying taxes and there are those, less fortunate and unwashed, who actually admire the 'rich bastards' who are (i) rich enough (ii) smart enough (iii) capable of tax avoidance/fraud. "If they could do it too, they would". Plus it was their the public's money in the first place, so why get angry. This is why people aren't up in arms against the like of Richard Branson or F1 drivers who have their residency registered elsewhere for 'tax purposes'.

But to them a benefits cheat, that's just scum of the Earth. They haven't earned that money they are stealing and it could have gone to a legitimate claim/person who actually needs it.

This is a very succinct way of putting it. You've explained tabloid headlines. I guess what I'm saying is that its disappointing that government responds to the ignorant point of view rather than the one that actually looks at the relative monetary cost to society of tax fraud/avoidance and benefit fraud/abuse. I think its because its much easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator.