HMRC cockup - more info?

[Biohazard]

I'll address this as you've edited it in. My view is not that we shouldn't have a society, but that society should be proportionally funded, and no bigger than necessary, concerned with ensuring access to services, not providing the services.

Further, while I do think taxation is theft, that's the reason why it should be as small as practical, and as proportionally distributed as practical. I don't see why that is a problem.

Sorry, did try to get it in before you quoted.

This isn't what you said before, you said all taxation was theft and should be removed. I pointed out that you wouldn't have a working society without taxation, and you provided no response iirc.

I'll stop pulling it up if you've somewhat changed your mind, I don't mind the small state mantra it would suit my independent Scotland. I totally believe it is not the right thing for the UK however; neither has it really been evidences to have worked.

Taxation, while forced, is necessary. It isn't theft in my mind. That is where we differ.

 

[Biohazard]

I sent off a PAYE form about a year ago, and HMRC gave me a £450 or so tax rebate. I'm a little nervous that if I enquire, they might end up saying I was given more than I should have been. Is that an unfounded concern on my end?

Probably, as said... each year the majority are processed correctly.

Phone them and find out if your that bothered, better dealing with tax 'by the horns' so to speak.

 

[Biohazard]

It's actually pretty simple if you ask me. You have the starting code, any benefits? Adjust them trough the tax code and you can avoid faffing about with a tax return. If you think our overall system is bad you should have a look at US tax, that really is convoluted

Exactly, for PAYE here it is not as complicated as many want to make out.

The tax system overall isn't that *difficult*, just longwinded, and compounded by new bandings and levies for previous single rates etc

It all depends exactly which part of the system your on about, branding the whole lot as a bowl of spagetta in which the right wing press love too is ignorant and thick.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal, we should be all smart enough to do it. We shouldn't however be stupid enough to evade tax, that's tax evasion and it's illegal.

I think some people in this thread so far have got them mixed up.

 

[Dolph]

How?

Tax avoidance is any way of arranging your money to minimise your tax liability legally.

Put £5k in a normal savings account, and the interest is taxable.

Put £5k in an ISA, and it's tax free.

You have successfully avoided the tax liability, completely legally.

 

[Biohazard]

Tax avoidance is any way of arranging your money to minimise your tax liability legally.

Put £5k in a normal savings account, and the interest is taxable.

Put £5k in an ISA, and it's tax free.

You have successfully avoided the tax liability, completely legally.

That is the worst example I have ever seen lol, and tax avoidance is normally considered by way of 'schemes', for wealthy and corporations etc.

Tax avoidance is not a problem with people using legitamate havens for personal gains, the argument comes from immoral business hiding their money away.

My uncle is a nom dom, and is quite happy to suck as much money out of this country as he can while not giving a damn. He may be perfectly legal to do this, I think he's a dick for it.

It all depends on your point of view.

 

[Pudney]

Tax avoidance is any way of arranging your money to minimise your tax liability legally.

Put £5k in a normal savings account, and the interest is taxable.

Put £5k in an ISA, and it's tax free.

You have successfully avoided the tax liability, completely legally.

Haha, this is what happens when you have a week off work. You can ignore me, I was thinking evasion.

Although it still amuses me lottery winnings are exempt as well.

 

[Raymond Lin]

That is the worst example I have ever seen lol, and tax avoidance is normally considered by way of 'schemes', for wealthy and corporations etc.

Tax avoidance is not a problem with people using legitamate havens for personal gains, the argument comes from immoral business hiding their money away.

My uncle is a nom dom, and is quite happy to suck as much money out of this country as he can while not giving a damn. He may be perfectly legal to do this, I think he's a dick for it.

It all depends on your point of view.

If it is so bad, they would close the loop holes surely.

 

[Biohazard]

If it is so bad, they would close the loop holes surely.

They do on a case by case basis, I would need to be at work to give you figures but loop holes are reclassified as evasion if being abused too much, widely known or starting to seriously damage revenue. Politics also comes into play somewhat.

Not all are obviously, but quite a few have been blocked over the last few years.

Then new ones open up!

Its like a roundabout.

 

[Pudney]

If it is so bad, they would close the loop holes surely.

They frequently do, it's the cause of half the legislation. Although if they do concoct a GAAP and bring it in things could get interesting depending how HMRC throw it around. But finding a workable GAAP is the issue

 

[Dolph]

That is the worst example I have ever seen lol, and tax avoidance is normally considered by way of 'schemes', for wealthy and corporations etc.

Tax avoidance is not a problem with people using legitamate havens for personal gains, the argument comes from immoral business hiding their money away.

My uncle is a nom dom, and is quite happy to suck as much money out of this country as he can while not giving a damn. He may be perfectly legal to do this, I think he's a dick for it.

It all depends on your point of view.

And yet you say there is no need for tax law to be simplified and reformed...

Why is it immoral to protect your income from the government's monopoly of force within their rules anyway?

 

[Biohazard]

There should be no GAP.

And the tories are off their ******* head if they honestly believe what they say by closing it with less and less staff.

You can't have the best of both worlds, and political and social moves need to come first as well.

Pud, its mainly always because of the written law or legislation.

It is normally always schemes that benefit the rich, and keep the poor at bay.

 

[Biohazard]

And yet you say there is no need for tax law to be simplified and reformed...

Yes, for business and person tax I don't think we need to find some arbitrary figure from the past and say 'look, we'll have the same number of pages as in 1992 please'.

UNREALISTIC, and rather devoid of intelligent thought.

Why is it immoral to protect your income from the government's monopoly of force within their rules anyway?

Because the poor have no option, the rich have an ever changing array of devices to keep themselves even richer.

But, your a right wing high flying 'Londoner', I don't expect you to agree in the slightest.

 

[Dolph]

Yes, for business and person tax I don't think we need to find some arbitrary figure from the past and say 'look, we'll have the same number of pages as in 1992 please'.

UNREALISTIC, and rather devoid of intelligent thought.

I agree, a much better way would be reform of the system to tax all income the same, eliminate the tax free allowance and replace it with a fixed state payment, and have very minimal exemptions (primary residence, inheritence).

That's the personal side. The business side is much more complex, but the simplest approach is to make our taxes low enough that companies base themselves here at the expense of other countries...

Of course, there is a debate whether businesses should pay taxes at all beyond direct service charge style ones, but that's another debate entirely.

Because the poor have no option, the rich have an ever changing array of devices to keep themselves even richer.

Hence the solution of taxing all income the same with minimal exemptions.

But, your a right wing high flying Londoner, I don't expect you to agree in the slightest.

Poisoning the well isn't going to help your case.

 

[Biohazard]

Hmmm, I cba with this tbh. I'm glad you agree in principle with what I say about going 'look the books twice as thick now' etc.

I don't agree with fixed state payment, but we could go on all day about these issues.

I am a socialist, you are not. Lets leave in there!

That's the personal side. The business side is much more complex, but the simplest approach is to make our taxes low enough that companies base themselves here at the expense of other countries...

We do not bad just now, but yes I agree in half.

Although I honestly do feel a lot of the 'red tape' is because of the wider and more complex ways business is conducted these days.

Of course, there is a debate whether businesses should pay taxes at all beyond direct service charge style ones, but that's another debate entirely.

Drip down economics has NEVER been proved Dolph, so again I'll have to agree to disagree and it is a complete other topic.

I'd go as far to say drip down economics has actually failed.

Hence the solution of taxing all income the same with minimal exemptions.

I'm in favour of redistribution of wealth, sorry!

Poisoning the well isn't going to help your case.

I wasn't trying to poison anything, do apologise if you have taken that wrongly but I am just pointing out the obvious, and I even edited the Londoner with ' to show I think you work there, as you live in Plymouth.

And I've not heard a lot of FT250 companies that are based in Plymouth, if there is well blow me I'm wrong

You are right wing, you are probably quite wealthy or on your way there, and I know you are very strong in your points of view. Like myself.

 

[scorza]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/04/tax-avoidance-george-osborne-cuts-hmrc

Interesting column on the subject of cutting HRMC staff, basically the fewer tax inspectors you have, the less revenue you have coming in. We should be hiring new tax inspectors in this new age of austerity. Also raises the interesting prospect of denying the big four accountancy firms and city law firms government contracts until they clean up their act on tax avoidance. While we have the rule of law the tax authorities will always be one step behind morally inexcusable tax avoidance schemes.

The idea that you can compare an ISA, an investment vehicle specifically designed by the government as an encouragement for ordinary people to start saving, to paying your British family £1.2bn from a British company and not paying a penny of tax because your wife is "based in Monaco" is laughable.

The column author btw is Polly Toynbee, a journalist lauded by our Prime Minister before the election, giving me some hope at least that things might change for the better. What a disappointment that when it comes to policy, Polly is being ignored

 

[Dolph]

minimal exemptions (primary residence, inheritence).

Hmmm, I cba with this tbh. I'm glad you agree in principle with what I say about going 'look the books twice as thick now' etc.

I don't agree with fixed state payment, but we could go on all day about these issues.

I am a socialist, you are not. Lets leave in there!

So you argue that people should be treated differently? How is that equality?

We do not bad just now, but yes I agree in half.

Although I honestly do feel a lot of the 'red tape' is because of the wider and more complex ways business is conducted these days.

No, a lot of it is pointless crap that should never have been brought in.

Drip down economics has NEVER been proved Dolph, so again I'll have to agree to disagree and it is a complete other topic.

I'd go as far to say drip down economics has actually failed.

Who said my position had anything to do with drip down economics? The argument about whether companies should be liable for taxation relates to whether they benefit from the state or not.

I'm in favour of redistribution of wealth, sorry!

That's where we differ, I don't agree on with misusing the state's monopoly of force to drive a fake and unjust 'equality' that involves taking from the successful, creaming off a bit for the state, then passing what remains onto the less successful, apart from in a few specific cases.

I wasn't trying to poison anything, do apologise if you have taken that wrongly but I am just pointing out the obvious, and I even edited the Londoner with ' to show I think you work there, as you live in Plymouth.

And I've not heard a lot of FT250 companies that based in Plymouth, if they well blow me I'm wrong

The mention of the FT250 was in relation to the best companies to work for survey... Although the company I work for is now the market leader in their industry.

 

[Biohazard]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/04/tax-avoidance-george-osborne-cuts-hmrc

Interesting column on the subject of cutting HRMC staff, basically the fewer tax inspectors you have, the less revenue you have coming in. We should be hiring new tax inspectors in this new age of austerity. Also raises the interesting prospect of denying the big four accountancy firms and city law firms government contracts until they clean up their act on tax avoidance. While we have the rule of law the tax authorities will always be one step behind morally inexcusable tax avoidance schemes.

The idea that you can compare an ISA, an investment vehicle specifically designed by the government as an encouragement for ordinary people to start saving, to paying your British family £1.2bn from a British company and not paying a penny of tax because your wife is "based in Monaco" is laughable.

Good piece from what I see.

I always get regaled with how much our local inspectors bring in, some in the complex grouping are very good and nailing businesses.

Again, losing staff here is not going to reduce any tax GAP. I don't care what the Tories in the treasury write, your dealing with myth and agenda now.

It will make it easier and more likely for business to get away with it.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Yes, for business and person tax I don't think we need to find some arbitrary figure from the past and say 'look, we'll have the same number of pages as in 1992 please'.

UNREALISTIC, and rather devoid of intelligent thought.

The tax code is absurdly long, and I'm more qualified than most to say that as I work in tax and am a chartered adviser.

I could comfortably beat a horse to death with just one of the 5 books of statutes I have on my desk at work.

Anyway, on topic, technically the liability would rest with the employer as they operate the PAYE system and it's their job to get it right. I'd suggest that anyone getting a letter check their contracts to see whether there is any room for wiggling out of the unexpected liability.

 

[Pudney]

Anyway, on topic, technically the liability would rest with the employer as they operate the PAYE system and it's their job to get it right. I'd suggest that anyone getting a letter check their contracts to see whether there is any room for wiggling out of the unexpected liability.

But the responsibility lies with the employee to make sure it is correct. There was a case recently that went to (tribunal? or maybe further up the chain, twas read in CCH weekly news) of this sort of thing. Employee had underpaid, claimed it was the employer's responsibility to pay, got thrown out and went in favour of HMRC that it was the employee's responsibility.

Edit: Of course the situation was more complicated but should be comparable.