£12 billion in welfare cuts
Comments
-
Who says HMRC are not going after tax evasion? And so they they should, it's illegal. No idea where the 1 in 1,000 comes from - does not seem to tally with what I can see in HMRC stats.Stevo...to Wikipedia so I think we can draw our own conclusions on that article...
A big...less.
There...worse.
But...line?
hmrc figures from 2012/13 state that tax EVASION is 3x higher than benefit fraud, which does the Government go after? yep benefit fraud - hmrc have a list of 1000 top tax evaders, yet only one prosecution.
what...spending.
What do you say to that Stevo?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271776/HMRC_issue_briefing_-_tackling_tax_evasion.pdf
http://www.cityam.com/218475/raids-premises-treble-hmrc-tax-evasion-crackdown
The point about prosecutions is that they are usually not needed, as the threat of prosection is often a very good way of getting a settlement. Also civil recovery is quicker and cheaper - so a better yield for us, the tax payer (ie those of us who pay in more than we take out
)
And of course there is no reason no to go after benefit fraud as well...it's all money."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Point is stevo is that though of course benefit fraud should be prosecuted, why should a tax evader be given the chance of a "settlement" rather than a court case and the subsequent criminal record? which is what Mrs Muggins gets for failing to tell the DWP her mum has died so should nt be claiming carers allowance.
i believe the 1 - 1000 is from a house of commons committee where the hmrc was asked to explain why? they gave the answer you suggested, which of course is an argument to save money in any criminal case
0 -
I'm just off out to rob a bank, don't worry if I get caught I'll just offer up a percentage of the loot as a "settlement", that's how it'll work isn't it...?
I suggest that if tax evasion was prosecuted and the offenders jailed we might see rather less of it.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Isn't it common practice in the vast majority of situations where people fail to pay money they owe - parking tickets, phone bills, tax bills too - that they are first reminded to cough up, and the big legal guns are only wheeled out if they don't?
Now if tax evaders are being let off lightly, i.e. not having to pay all they're due (and preferably a surcharge, just like you'd get if you failed to pay a parking ticket on time), then there is a problem. If not, it's just another "bash the rich" reflex from the usual suspects.0 -
Isn't it common practice in the vast majority of situations where people fail to pay money they owe - parking tickets, phone bills, tax bills too - that they are first reminded to cough up, and the big legal guns are only wheeled out if they don't?
Now if tax evaders are being let off lightly, i.e. not having to pay all they're due (and preferably a surcharge, just like you'd get if you failed to pay a parking ticket on time), then there is a problem. If not, it's just another "bash the rich" reflex from the usual suspects.
Not paying your taxes is more likely to be a deliberate criminal action than paying a bill late. People are complaining because the state happily chucks people in prison for benefits fraud but not for tax evasion, despite the fact that the latter is far more costly to the country.0 -
Let me say that everyone should pay their tax liability regardless of wealth. To deliberately not pay is theft from the public purse and should ideally be dealt with as such.
The perceived failure to chase down tax avoiders has been a problem for governments of all political stripe, not just blue. There are apparently difficulties in doing so. i am more than happy to defer to our resident tax expert on this.
I don't buy into the argument that it is ok to claim money who know you are not entitled to, on the basis that some others don't pay their tax.
'He's a thief so it's ok for me to steal' doesn't work for me.0 -
You should check your facts before making statements that imply most benefit fraudsters get prosecutedPoint is stevo is that though of course benefit fraud should be prosecuted, why should a tax evader be given the chance of a "settlement" rather than a court case and the subsequent criminal record? which is what Mrs Muggins gets for failing to tell the DWP her mum has died so should nt be claiming carers allowance.
http://benefitfraud.org.uk/prosecuting-sentencing-benefit-fraud/index.html
In percentage terms that looks to be very low."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:
You should check your facts before making statements that imply most benefit fraudsters get prosecutedPoint is stevo is that though of course benefit fraud should be prosecuted, why should a tax evader be given the chance of a "settlement" rather than a court case and the subsequent criminal record? which is what Mrs Muggins gets for failing to tell the DWP her mum has died so should nt be claiming carers allowance.
http://benefitfraud.org.uk/prosecuting-sentencing-benefit-fraud/index.html
In percentage terms that looks to be very low.
Am I missing something here? The website says that more than 7,000 cases a year are prosecuted, but doesn't tell us how many cases there are of deliberate fraud. The 400,000+ figure is for overpayment. That could be an administrative error on behalf of the authorities. When my wife and I were receiving tax credit back in 2010, they overpaid us to the tune of £800, which we had to pay back, but you can't call that fraud.0 -
]
I don't buy into the argument that it is ok to claim money who know you are not entitled to, on the basis that some others don't pay their tax.
'He's a thief so it's ok for me to steal' doesn't work for me.
Well of course not, but nobody's arguing that point.
The question is, why so much government and media attention on benefits and so little on tax evasion?0 -
Isn't it common practice in the vast majority of situations where people fail to pay money they owe - parking tickets, phone bills, tax bills too - that they are first reminded to cough up, and the big legal guns are only wheeled out if they don't?
Now if tax evaders are being let off lightly, i.e. not having to pay all they're due (and preferably a surcharge, just like you'd get if you failed to pay a parking ticket on time), then there is a problem. If not, it's just another "bash the rich" reflex from the usual suspects.
If I concoct a deliberate scam - say I divert water round my meter - I am pretty sure they will prosecute me. If I have two cars of the same make and use the same registration number on both to pay one set of insurance, vehicle excise etc they will prosecute me. We aren't talking about late payment of taxes here it's tax evasion - in other spheres the equivalent would be prosecuted so no it isn't just a "bash the rich" reflex.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
It's not. Tax evasion is high profile and clearly a priority for HMRC if you look at their publications, websites etc. Have a look again at the link I posted above.]
I don't buy into the argument that it is ok to claim money who know you are not entitled to, on the basis that some others don't pay their tax.
'He's a thief so it's ok for me to steal' doesn't work for me.
Well of course not, but nobody's arguing that point.
The question is, why so much government and media attention on benefits and so little on tax evasion?
http://www.cityam.com/218475/raids-premises-treble-hmrc-tax-evasion-crackdown
Also there are set to be more anti-evasion measures in the budget on 7th July - IIRC target is £5n of recovery but let's see."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As I said above, HMRC seems to have taken a pragmatic view in some cases given the need to raise revenue and do it on a timely basis, balanced against the need to show that they will take criminal prosecutions which clearly is a visible deterrent - more so than fines and penalties.Isn't it common practice in the vast majority of situations where people fail to pay money they owe - parking tickets, phone bills, tax bills too - that they are first reminded to cough up, and the big legal guns are only wheeled out if they don't?
Now if tax evaders are being let off lightly, i.e. not having to pay all they're due (and preferably a surcharge, just like you'd get if you failed to pay a parking ticket on time), then there is a problem. If not, it's just another "bash the rich" reflex from the usual suspects.
If I concoct a deliberate scam - say I divert water round my meter - I am pretty sure they will prosecute me. If I have two cars of the same make and use the same registration number on both to pay one set of insurance, vehicle excise etc they will prosecute me. We aren't talking about late payment of taxes here it's tax evasion - in other spheres the equivalent would be prosecuted so no it isn't just a "bash the rich" reflex.
Evasion cases can often be long, complex, costly and often hard to win given the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as they are criminal cases, whereas civil recovery cases are decided on the balance of probabilities. And often simply the threat of prosecution gets a very quick and effective settlement. So given their targets I suspect they have compromised between the right thing to in terms of punishing tax evaders cases and the right thing to do in terms of protecting government revenues.
We can argue about whether that's right or wrong, but I suspect that whichever route they choose they would get beaten up for it by someone."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So now we've covered tax evasion, can you respond to any of this winky smiley bloke?:
How about setting council tax according to income instead of the proposed 'Mansion Tax'? Billionaires in houses in Kensington can pay accordingly. People who have lived in their own houses for years and lie in an area where the house prices have risen through no fault of their own and they pay a disproportionate amount of their income in CT, without necessarily realising an proportionate increase in income pay too much.
How about putting rent authorities back in which will cap the HB payout instead of capping how much benefit a household can claim - bear in mind, the vast majority of it is HB. The Tory proposal is the wrong way around the problem.
How about tackling the macro economics of short termism?
How about closing all the tax loopholes and getting rid of 'Non-Dom' status? The Inland Revenue regularly meet with stinking rich clients and agree mutual tax payments on what would be considered 'fair'- wrong, wrong wrong.
How about obligating companies like Tesco to employ a minimum percentage of people in full time hours with proper pensions and proper working contracts so that those employees are not being subsidised by the welfare state and Tesco aren't in effect profiting from not employing people with decent contracts?
How about a tax break for couples where on person chooses to work whilst the other raises the children?
How about tackling the housing crisis?
How about capping shareholder dividends to a percentage and allowing the remainder to be re-invested tax free? Re-investment levels in the UK are a paltry 1.5% compared to Germany - 6 to 8%.
How about copying the German model of boardrooms where all stakeholders are present from representatives of local communities to shop floor worker reps, thereby changing business in the UK to a collective culture, benefiting all, not just a few?
How about tax breaks for small businesses and legislation forcing banks to limit the charges levied on them? [Cashing cheques, Counting Money?!?]?
Getting rid of Pay Day loan companies...
Why is the immediate response to cutting deficit to cut the welfare bill? Sure as hell, if I pay an extra 5% of my income on extra council tax or whatever back door tax [Road tax, fuel Duty, VAT - insert your own bugbear] it will effect my standard of living but if Stanislav from the Ukraine living in Chelsea who buys and sells guns on the back of selling Europe Gas, probably would not suffer one iota, if he had to spend an extra 5% on whatever tax but the difference in revenue would be huge.
The very wealthy should pay more, after all it is their mess far more than it is the ordinary bloke in the street.
Saying that taxing the rich more will drive them away is a totally flawed argument.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
The first time you posted that it was tl:dr and that hasn't really changed. That and it's going a bit off topic. If I get a spare couple of hours I'll have a crack at it, but as you know I'm a busy boy and my services are in demand - wonder why? Tax doesn't just save itself, nor does cash magically find its way to the right placeSo now we've covered tax evasion, can you respond to any of this winky smiley bloke?:
How about setting council tax according to income instead of the proposed 'Mansion Tax'? Billionaires in houses in Kensington can pay accordingly. People who have lived in their own houses for years and lie in an area where the house prices have risen through no fault of their own and they pay a disproportionate amount of their income in CT, without necessarily realising an proportionate increase in income pay too much.
How about putting rent authorities back in which will cap the HB payout instead of capping how much benefit a household can claim - bear in mind, the vast majority of it is HB. The Tory proposal is the wrong way around the problem.
How about tackling the macro economics of short termism?
How about closing all the tax loopholes and getting rid of 'Non-Dom' status? The Inland Revenue regularly meet with stinking rich clients and agree mutual tax payments on what would be considered 'fair'- wrong, wrong wrong.
How about obligating companies like Tesco to employ a minimum percentage of people in full time hours with proper pensions and proper working contracts so that those employees are not being subsidised by the welfare state and Tesco aren't in effect profiting from not employing people with decent contracts?
How about a tax break for couples where on person chooses to work whilst the other raises the children?
How about tackling the housing crisis?
How about capping shareholder dividends to a percentage and allowing the remainder to be re-invested tax free? Re-investment levels in the UK are a paltry 1.5% compared to Germany - 6 to 8%.
How about copying the German model of boardrooms where all stakeholders are present from representatives of local communities to shop floor worker reps, thereby changing business in the UK to a collective culture, benefiting all, not just a few?
How about tax breaks for small businesses and legislation forcing banks to limit the charges levied on them? [Cashing cheques, Counting Money?!?]?
Getting rid of Pay Day loan companies...
Why is the immediate response to cutting deficit to cut the welfare bill? Sure as hell, if I pay an extra 5% of my income on extra council tax or whatever back door tax [Road tax, fuel Duty, VAT - insert your own bugbear] it will effect my standard of living but if Stanislav from the Ukraine living in Chelsea who buys and sells guns on the back of selling Europe Gas, probably would not suffer one iota, if he had to spend an extra 5% on whatever tax but the difference in revenue would be huge.
The very wealthy should pay more, after all it is their mess far more than it is the ordinary bloke in the street.
Saying that taxing the rich more will drive them away is a totally flawed argument.
But I felt I should put a placeholder in, just in case you try to claim a moral victory based on the lack of a reply...sometimes it takes a bit of research to debunk left wing assumptions."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's not. Tax evasion is high profile and clearly a priority for HMRC if you look at their publications, websites etc. Have a look again at the link I posted above.]
I don't buy into the argument that it is ok to claim money who know you are not entitled to, on the basis that some others don't pay their tax.
'He's a thief so it's ok for me to steal' doesn't work for me.
Well of course not, but nobody's arguing that point.
The question is, why so much government and media attention on benefits and so little on tax evasion?
http://www.cityam.com/218475/raids-premises-treble-hmrc-tax-evasion-crackdown
Also there are set to be more anti-evasion measures in the budget on 7th July - IIRC target is £5n of recovery but let's see.
I was talking mainly about public discourse. I follow politics closely and I know that HMRC are taking more measures against tax evaders (such as computer software which tracks suspicious behaviour), but I'm a bit puzzled as to why the government isn't being a bit more forward about this. Is it because they're worried it'll be a failure? Or maybe that they'll catch a load of tradesmen but not multi-millionaires?
Anyway, I hope you're not sweating too much about getting caught. I can just imagine you in prison. "Ooops, what a silly billy, look everyone I've dropped the soap again. I'd better bend down really slowly to pick it up...."0 -
And this is where we get into perception and subjective stuff - you follow politics and you see more said about benefit fraud: I am in the 'tax world' and perhaps naturally see more said about tackling evasion.I was talking mainly about public discourse. I follow politics closely and I know that HMRC are taking more measures against tax evaders (such as computer software which tracks suspicious behaviour), but I'm a bit puzzled as to why the government isn't being a bit more forward about this. Is it because they're worried it'll be a failure? Or maybe that they'll catch a load of tradesmen but not multi-millionaires?
Anyway, I hope you're not sweating too much about getting caught. I can just imagine you in prison. "Ooops, what a silly billy, look everyone I've dropped the soap again. I'd better bend down really slowly to pick it up...."
I don't think they are worried about catching tradesman - all we are talking about is the size of individual cases here. And as for me, I'm only sweating because of the weather "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I ll tell you something here, next time round i am voting Tory, Osborne etc are more Socialist than Red Ed, a far higher minimum wage, action on buy to let mortage relief and a raid on higher tax pension contributions......
If he could curb his tax cutting measures which the UK clearly cannot afford, Osborne would make a great Labour leader.0 -
You may want to check your facts about tax cutting: this budget raises nearly £30 billion in tax over the next 5 years - see para 1.7 in the link below:I ll tell you something here, next time round i am voting Tory, Osborne etc are more Socialist than Red Ed, a far higher minimum wage, action on buy to let mortage relief and a raid on higher tax pension contributions......
If he could curb his tax cutting measures which the UK clearly cannot afford, Osborne would make a great Labour leader.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summer-budget-2015/summer-budget-2015
The economic success and prosperity being generated allows him to afford some of these measures that you approve of "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
You may want to check your facts about tax cutting: this budget raises nearly £30 billion in tax over the next 5 years - see para 1.7 in the link below:I ll tell you something here, next time round i am voting Tory, Osborne etc are more Socialist than Red Ed, a far higher minimum wage, action on buy to let mortage relief and a raid on higher tax pension contributions......
If he could curb his tax cutting measures which the UK clearly cannot afford, Osborne would make a great Labour leader.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summer-budget-2015/summer-budget-2015
The economic success and prosperity being generated allows him to afford some of these measures that you approve of
i dont know what you ve been drinking but these measures i approve off are saving him money not costing him
higher wages mean less working benefits, tax raids on pension contributions and buy to let properties raise money for the exchequer, so of course he is rising money, thats hwat they all do, but the Tories/Media spent the election pooh hooing labours plans, only to out socialise them, once back in.... master class!
its the help to higher rate tax payers i do not approve off, they really dont need it and we cant afford it, despite the eco success you bang on about, i dont see it, london maybe but in the rest of the country? no.0 -
On a £70k plus salary you'll be better off, £25k salary loses you around £1k pa.
Not had chance to look closely at budget, I've been out all day. So a genuine question - how so?0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946
Take a look.
I've been busy all day too, so someone else has done that maths for me.0 -
On a £70k plus salary you'll be better off, £25k salary loses you around £1k pa.
According to the Telegraph budget calculator both my wife and I will be around £125 a year better off from 2016, saving £80 in income tax and £45 in NI. Where's the £1k loss come from?
Edit: BBC calculator also says we'll be better off.0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442946
Take a look.
I've been busy all day too, so someone else has done that maths for me.
Person earning 25k is 80 quid better off. :?0 -
Yeah, I get the same.
Ah well, shows what you get for copying what someone else said without checking.0 -
Bally beat me to it:On a £70k plus salary you'll be better off, £25k salary loses you around £1k pa.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3001170/Budget-2015-income-tax-changes-glance-better-month.html
Looks like only a few at the top end get hit."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
However:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake
...and we paid Amazon (who paid no corporate tax) £16.5m !!seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Seem to have the lefties rattled Stevo. Mamba has seen the light and Rick is reduced to making things up.
0 -
By all accounts Harriet Harperson's response was lamentable. Could she not be persuaded to stay on?0
-
I get the feeling that the day of economic reckoning will soon be upon us. China, Greece, Russia all floundering. Luckily we've got a bit of a strawberry and raspberry harvest going on in the back garden at the moment, not to mention quite a lot of mint. And when they're finished it won't be long until the local blackberry bushes and plum and cherry trees will be bearing fruit, so I don't think my family will starve, unlike all you London types who'll be scavenging for dead rats to eat.0
