Benefit Fraud - expensive?
Comments
-
You're letting down your "ilk", DDD. :roll:DonDaddyD wrote: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".0 -
You're getting caught up in the spin again. There is no such thing as "aggressive" tax avoidance.notsoblue wrote:
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...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?
If you were talking about tax evasion I would agree. However, as I have explained countless times, most people are very content to take deliberate actions to mitigate their own persoanl tax bills whereever possible, yet somehow when companies do it it is "greedy and antisocial". That's not a matter or principle, that is a matter of scale. And there is no place for different principles to apply simply to different scales.
The government should only take what the law says it should take. If we want nicer things, and that would be popular (and positive, on the whole) then the law needs to change to make that happen. It is a dangerous slope to imply morality into something like tax law, because peoples' morality differs and always will.0 -
W1 wrote:
You're getting caught up in the spin again. There is no such thing as "aggressive" tax avoidance.notsoblue wrote:
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...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?
If you were talking about tax evasion I would agree. However, as I have explained countless times, most people are very content to take deliberate actions to mitigate their own persoanl tax bills whereever possible, yet somehow when companies do it it is "greedy and antisocial". That's not a matter or principle, that is a matter of scale. And there is no place for different principles to apply simply to different scales.
The government should only take what the law says it should take. If we want nicer things, and that would be popular (and positive, on the whole) then the law needs to change to make that happen. It is a dangerous slope to imply morality into something like tax law, because peoples' morality differs and always will.
W1 - often with legislation, there's a moral precedent before the creation of a law or rule.
In this case, as happened with barcap, the trades banks were doing were seen as against the 'spirit' of the tax system (and big enough to be worth the effort) so they finally shut it. In this case, making tax free profits out of buying their own debt, or getting tax credits back from taxes they never spent.
By your reasoning, no tax law re-loopholes would ever change.0 -
Presumably there is some clear water between tax law and the code of conduct, otherwise, what would be the point of the CoC? If the essence of the CoC is that corporations should follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law (however the hell you define that) then does that not imply some degree of moral judgement? Whilst laws aim to be objective, they are founded on generally agreed moral principles - they weren't conceived in a vacuum.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I suspect there is more to it than that. The other case of retrospective tax law happened after they scheme was stopped from doing it one way, only to then carry on using another vehicle. The deliberate attempt to continue to exploit a loophole that had been told to stop using using a simply technicality led the law change being applied retrospectively as part of the argument being the end user was stopped once from doing so they should have expected to be stopped again.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
No, you're getting caught up in the semantic difference between evasion and avoidance. My point is that they're both "wrong" if you have any sense of social responsibility (which is what signing up to a CoC implies you have).W1 wrote:You're getting caught up in the spin again. There is no such thing as "aggressive" tax avoidance.
There is a distinct difference between "aggressive" tax avoidance of the type that Barclays was caught out on and ISAs, before you bring that up. I've got no problem with people or companies taking advantage of tax credits or whatever other schemes there are that have been put in place for social engineering or to stimulate an industry. But it should simply not be possible for tax avoidance to be able to happen on the scale it did in for example the Vodafone case. Its "wrong".W1 wrote:If you were talking about tax evasion I would agree. However, as I have explained countless times, most people are very content to take deliberate actions to mitigate their own persoanl tax bills whereever possible, yet somehow when companies do it it is "greedy and antisocial". That's not a matter or principle, that is a matter of scale. And there is no place for different principles to apply simply to different scales.
It wasn't you that said tax avoidance was moral then? Wheres spen when you need him.W1 wrote:The government should only take what the law says it should take. If we want nicer things, and that would be popular (and positive, on the whole) then the law needs to change to make that happen. It is a dangerous slope to imply morality into something like tax law, because peoples' morality differs and always will.0 -
Ah, the debate.Rick Chasey wrote:What can I say? I get disappointed when people side-step the 'debate' (;)) with grammar /spelling.
Your definition of what is moral is different to mine, which is different to NSB's, which is different to W1's.
Any point in continuing?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Not reallydaviesee wrote:Ah, the debate.
Your definition of what is moral is different to mine, which is different to NSB's, which is different to W1's.
Any point in continuing?
0 -
daviesee wrote:
Ah, the debate.Rick Chasey wrote:What can I say? I get disappointed when people side-step the 'debate' (;)) with grammar /spelling.
Your definition of what is moral is different to mine, which is different to NSB's, which is different to W1's.
Any point in continuing?
0 -
Just cos your bored at work with nothing to do........
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Sure, that's why things change. But it's not the payers' responsibility to second guess the changes in the law premeptively based on some loose, undefined sense of "morals". It's for the law to change and people to follow. That's why we have written laws, so that everyone can know what they are and make their decisions according to the same rules.Rick Chasey wrote:W1 - often with legislation, there's a moral precedent before the creation of a law or rule.
In this case, as happened with barcap, the trades banks were doing were seen as against the 'spirit' of the tax system (and big enough to be worth the effort) so they finally shut it. In this case, making tax free profits out of buying their own debt, or getting tax credits back from taxes they never spent.
By your reasoning, no tax law re-loopholes would ever change.
I don't see your final para from anything I've said.0 -
When you're paying it you should be able to make your own moral judgement/assessment of the activity your doing.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that taking tax credits for tax you haven't paid isn't particularly ethical, or a morally correct thing to do. It does not mean you are being 'socially responsible'.
Unless you think it does?0 -
It was a High Court judge who said that a taxpayer is only morally and legally obliged to pay the tax that he is due to pay.notsoblue wrote:
No, you're getting caught up in the semantic difference between evasion and avoidance. My point is that they're both "wrong" if you have any sense of social responsibility (which is what signing up to a CoC implies you have).W1 wrote:You're getting caught up in the spin again. There is no such thing as "aggressive" tax avoidance.
There is a distinct difference between "aggressive" tax avoidance of the type that Barclays was caught out on and ISAs, before you bring that up. I've got no problem with people or companies taking advantage of tax credits or whatever other schemes there are that have been put in place for social engineering or to stimulate an industry. But it should simply not be possible for tax avoidance to be able to happen on the scale it did in for example the Vodafone case. Its "wrong".W1 wrote:If you were talking about tax evasion I would agree. However, as I have explained countless times, most people are very content to take deliberate actions to mitigate their own persoanl tax bills whereever possible, yet somehow when companies do it it is "greedy and antisocial". That's not a matter or principle, that is a matter of scale. And there is no place for different principles to apply simply to different scales.
It wasn't you that said tax avoidance was moral then? Wheres spen when you need him.W1 wrote:The government should only take what the law says it should take. If we want nicer things, and that would be popular (and positive, on the whole) then the law needs to change to make that happen. It is a dangerous slope to imply morality into something like tax law, because peoples' morality differs and always will.
I don't think it's semantics to differentiate between tax avoidance and tax evasion. One is definitely "wrong" and illegal. The other may be "wrong" in your view, but not mine, and is legal.
Tax avoidance is taking any step to deliberately lower your tax bill. You can muddy the waters with your comments on social engineering, but fundamentally the principle is the same. It is somewhat dubious to avoid tax on the basis that it is "supposed" to be avoided yet criticise companies for doing exactly the same thing but which (in your view, but not the law) isn't "intended". If you want to criticise anyone, hurl your mud at the people who badly draft the law in the first place.
It is everyone's right to know what their legal obligations are, and if there are grey areas that is the fault of the drafting, not the fault of people trying to ensure that don't pay any more tax than they are due. The whole system is heavily weighted in HRMC's favour anyway.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:When you're paying it you should be able to make your own moral judgement/assessment of the activity your doing.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that taking tax credits for tax you haven't paid isn't particularly ethical, or a morally correct thing to do. It does not mean you are being 'socially responsible'.
Unless you think it does?
How much voluntary tax do you pay Rick?0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:When you're paying it you should be able to make your own moral judgement/assessment of the activity your doing.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that taking tax credits for tax you haven't paid isn't particularly ethical, or a morally correct thing to do. It does not mean you are being 'socially responsible'.
Unless you think it does?
How much voluntary tax do you pay Rick?
This is the nub of our disagreement. I see a distinction between aggressively pursuing tax avoidance schemes - to the point where you're getting through on a technicality and are aware the gov't is trying to close the loophole, since that's not what the tax was intended to do, and not paying tax because you don't have to. I put my cash in an ISA because the gov't has decided to incentivise saving. They haven't created the AFI fund loophole for a purpose. It's not supposed to be there.
Right? You don't see a distinction between the two, and I do. That's the stopping point for us.0 -
So that's none then, but you expect others to - either because they should follow your (undefined) moral code, or because of the scale (but not the principle). I would say that is somewhat hypocritical.Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:When you're paying it you should be able to make your own moral judgement/assessment of the activity your doing.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that taking tax credits for tax you haven't paid isn't particularly ethical, or a morally correct thing to do. It does not mean you are being 'socially responsible'.
Unless you think it does?
How much voluntary tax do you pay Rick?
This is the nub of our disagreement. I see a distinction between aggressively pursuing tax avoidance schemes - to the point where you're getting through on a technicality and are aware the gov't is trying to close the loophole, since that's not what the tax was intended to do, and not paying tax because you don't have to. I put my cash in an ISA because the gov't has decided to incentivise saving. They haven't created the AFI fund loophole for a purpose. It's not supposed to be there.
Right? You don't see a distinction between the two, and I do. That's the stopping point for us.
If we all paid tax according to our own moral compasses, would that we fair? So the lefties would pay everything except what they need for gruel, and the fascists wouldn't pay anything? Alternatively, we all live and play by the same rules and principles, and we let morality govern things we volunteer to do.0 -
I can't see getting past this:daviesee wrote:Legal = right.
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.
But I would be interested in some examples of anyone bleating about morality paying voluntary tax because they feel they ought to. It is too easy to just say that someone else should pay more.0 -
On reflection, I really can't be a*sed participating in this debate!0
-
lost_in_thought wrote: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:
He won't ask me. He's in a big teenage-stylee "mood" with me. He's locked himself in his bedroom, and everything.
Rick, will this help? We all agree with you. You're right. Benefit fraudsters are vilified in the press because they are common. We *hate* common people. Tax avoiders are morally bankrupt and nothing better than the bastard offspring of tax evaders. Everyone recognises that a tax avoider is at least as bad a person as a tax evader, because it is criminally dishonest not to abide by the "spirit" of the tax laws (and we all know what the "spirit" is. Although some of us are reluctant to admit that we know). But we *love* tax avoiders because they are PLUs (tax evaders not so much if they are Nigerian, because we're casual if not actual racists; but we don't mind if they are WASPS really. Then they're just pushing the boundaries).
The best thing we could do is write off the £1.2 billion per annum lost in benefit fraud - just not worry about it. Because there are bigger and badder fish to fry. Sure, it's on our "to do" list. But it's right at the bottom. And it will stay there forever.
And we should all be deeply embarrassed and apologetic for our colonialist history. It was dreadful of us to export the rule of law across the world.
And cars should be forced to drive in rivers and canals, because it is the only way to ensure true segregation and therefore the safety of cyclists.
Does writing it out make it true?
Didn't think so.0 -
Blimey. Turn the sarcasm up to 11.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Meh. £1.2 Billion? Who cares? Peanuts.Rick Chasey wrote:amounting to £1.2 billion
A400M ?
Eurofighter ?
Dave Hartnett ?
NHS IT ?
NHS PFI ?0 -
-
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote: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:
He won't ask me. He's in a big teenage-stylee "mood" with me. He's locked himself in his bedroom, and everything.
Rick, will this help? We all agree with you. You're right. Benefit fraudsters are vilified in the press because they are common. We *hate* common people. Tax avoiders are morally bankrupt and nothing better than the bastard offspring of tax evaders. Everyone recognises that a tax avoider is at least as bad a person as a tax evader, because it is criminally dishonest not to abide by the "spirit" of the tax laws (and we all know what the "spirit" is. Although some of us are reluctant to admit that we know). But we *love* tax avoiders because they are PLUs (tax evaders not so much if they are Nigerian, because we're casual if not actual racists; but we don't mind if they are WASPS really. Then they're just pushing the boundaries).
The best thing we could do is write off the £1.2 billion per annum lost in benefit fraud - just not worry about it. Because there are bigger and badder fish to fry. Sure, it's on our "to do" list. But it's right at the bottom. And it will stay there forever.
And we should all be deeply embarrassed and apologetic for our colonialist history. It was dreadful of us to export the rule of law across the world.
And cars should be forced to drive in rivers and canals, because it is the only way to ensure true segregation and therefore the safety of cyclists.
Does writing it out make it true?
Didn't think so.
What did you do Greggles? Did you say something mean and nasty? Tut tut. Your ideas on vehicle segregation will surely ensure your being welcomed back into the fold.
And I for one pay double, even triple the tax I am legally obliged to. All the time.
2x0 is still 0.0 -
and what does the moral code say about making a living off the back of these people? Maybe by recruiting them?
Is that living off immoral earnings?FCN = 40 -
I'm glad to be able to add Chris Huhne to my list of hypocritical lefties too.
A millionaire "liberal" claiming all that he can like a pig at the trough.
He chose to leave, he shouldn't get a penny.
This is a "loophole" we can easily close.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-172023870 -
In a moment of boredom, I read the original report. The primary methodology is to review a random sample of cases which includes follow up interviews with 'customers'. Fraud is defined as where a customer does not meet the conditions of the benefit (or has ceased to do so since making the claim) and could be reasonably aware of that and had the benefit stopped or reduced as a consequence. This implies that potentially quite different circumstances are being defined as fraud in this study. It also implies that some subjective judgment is being made here in distinguishing error (also discussed in the study) from fraud - this judgment may have led to under- or over-estimation of fraud as defined here.
It's interesting that error (both by the customer and by the authorities) accounts for a £2.1bn overpayment.0
