 |
|
 |
|
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:26:03 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 2 Apr, 23:23, Maria <...@stupidnewsreader.com
Check that the NIC he is paying is correct.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/faqs/nicqc1.htm#4
Why are you still waiting for a refund for 2007-2008? When did he
submit the tax return?
He should get all the P60s by 31 May. Unless he is provided with P11Ds
(should get them by 6 July) he can submit his tax return by then.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:49:06 +0100, "Simon Finnigan" <...@hotmail.com
"Maria" <...@bt.com...
18 months is far too long to wait. When I was younger I was in a similar
situation. I wrote a letter to my local tax office explaining that I
thought i`d overpair tax last year, and I had the cheque in my hand about 2
weeks later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:17:53 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Simon Finnigan <...@hotmail.com
Lucky boy. Last time I rang my tax office to follow up on a letter I'd
written them, they said, "June? You sent it in June? Oh it won't even
have been opened yet. There's a three month backlog on just opening our
incoming post." Not you I kid.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:46:35 +0100, "Simon Finnigan" <...@hotmail.com
"Big Les Wade" <...@god.heaven...
It was about 10 years ago now mind you :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:30:54 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 3 Apr, 15:46, "Simon Finnigan" <...@hotmail.com
It depends on the tax office. It can take them a month or two to open
letters now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:37:10 +0100, "Simon Finnigan" <...@hotmail.com
"PeterSaxton" <...@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
It does make you wonder why. If the civil service is bigger now than it
was, and they want to shrink it, why are there jobs like this that take ages
to be done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:04:30 +0100, Jonathan Bryce <...@localhost.localdomain
Because they have to fill in about five forms every time they open a letter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 09:03:10 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"Simon Finnigan" <...@mid.individual.net...
because they have been shrinking HMRC for the last 4 years. about 14000
staff have already gone and another 11000 are going over next two years.
They expect technology to b able to suport this loss but the process that
will allow this benefit either does not work properly or will but not for a
couple of years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:05:40 +0100, "Simon Finnigan" <...@hotmail.com
"Simon" <...@posted.plusnet...
It then begs the question where all the excess jobs are in the civil
service. If they`re cutting jobs that help get money into the system, what
is more important than that (and thus worth keeping)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:26:48 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"Simon Finnigan" <...@mid.individual.net...
I dont know where people get the idea that the Civil service is getting
bigger. There has not been a Government in the last 30 years that have not
seen the size of the Civil Service as a scapegoat for excesive governement
spending, and then announce pay freezes, department mergers and efficiency
savings, and all the time stuffing their pockets with benefits and payments
that they legislate no other employer can pay for without taxing it.
If they got their own house in order, we could at east staff my department
properly, make sure that there is enough in the National Insurance fund to
fund pensions. Instead they critisize fat cats without taxing them (probably
because they dont want to screw up their non-exec directorships), blame the
ills of the world on every one else when they are the ones that have an
opportunity to do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:39:59 +0100, "Simon Finnigan" <...@hotmail.com
"Simon" <...@posted.plusnet...
If you read my post, I`m not disagreeing with you. I`m asking where all the
excess jobs could possibly be, if they are cutting important jobs related to
getting money into the system. I can`t see many more important jobs than
those in terms of keeping the government running, at least within the normal
civil service (not including Police etc).
No comment :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:06:29 GMT, "neverwas" <...@all.all
Why start with the civil service as such? There are much easier
pickings in quangos (where staff are not subject to civil service pay
restraint). You need to search each annual report for the full horrors.
But some examples are readily available in eg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560698/Quangos-the-runaway-gravy-train. html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5061987/Tory-Chancellor-to- approve-salaries-of-quango-chiefs.html
The head of Ofcom gets earns over 400,000.
The head of the Learning and Skills Council who left after the
mishandling of the rebuilding programme was on 208,000.
That said, part of the problem is that work sorting out PAYE codes and
doing end of year checks doesn't really bring in money. It's just part
of the machinery to maintain the covenant from the 1940s that employees
won't lose out through not getting a tax assessment after the end of the
year because (now) HMRC will check it all for them. But then that's
probably gone the same way as the covenant with the armed forces. And
the unions don't have the clout to do anything about it. (Well, public
sector unions might, but their members tend to be in stable jobs with
employers who have good payroll sections so they do better than most.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
There’s a certain brand of politician (i.e. a tax raising one) that
will always choose a complex tax system over a simple one.
Never before has this been true than today and Gordon Brown, who loves
nothing more than to baffle us with his intellect (or is that an
intellect that’s baffling).
Simple tax systems are only possible in low tax economies, of the sort
that have Gordon reaching for the crucifix. Simple tax systems in high
tax economies just increase the chances of riots.
So, we get a system that requires a qualified accountant to even begin
to understand it (and I’ve met many an accountant that’s been reduced
to shrugging their shoulders in bafflement to even a quite simple
question) and armies of civil servant to administer it (badly) and we
all get the privilege of paying through our noses for it.
You would be amazed how many taxes nowadays are costing more to
administer than the revenue they bring in.
But it serves its purpose for New Labour’s PC middle classes who are
never happier than when interfering and social engineering every
aspect of our lives and thanks to things like tax credits in a way
that can demand total conformity.
It really is such a pity then that the IR revenue hasn’t moved on from
the days when everyone started work at 8am worked thirty something
hours and than went home for tea, when we all know that only the Poles
have jobs like that nowadays.
So, if it hasn’t already become apparent in so many other ways, we
really do have a nation where the lunatics are in charge of the
asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:03:05 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
<...@e2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
The tax system we have is complex only because as soon as it is put in
place, large numbers of even higher paid accountants spend hours trying to
find loopholes for them to sell to their clients. Then the government of the
day has to make the original simple legislation more complex to close the
loophole and as soon as he does, those accountants are at it all over again.
Actually, it was Gordon who initiated the Tax Law rewrite to try to simplify
the language to make it easier to understand.
Bloody stupid idiots start riots, not tax regimes.
Not surprising since its the accountants that made it more complex than it
needed to be.
We did move on, why have you not noticed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:18:30 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Simon <...@noisp.co.uk
That's not true. For example, the massive extra complexities of Child
tax Credit and Pension Tax Credit were not introduced in order to close
loopholes used by rich tax-dodgers. Nor were the differential rates of
income tax on income from employment and income from savings. There are
many other examples; for example, the old system of CGT tapering etc was
idiotic.
*Some* of the extra complexities are a reaction to loophole-finding by
accountants. But only because (i) governments are forever inventing new
taxes aimed at particular groups ("stealth taxes") without thinking it
through properly (ii) people in these groups perceive these new taxes as
unfair and thus feel justified in dodging them and (iii) governments
respond to this by constantly fiddling with the rules, instead of just
accepting that a certain amount of avoidance is inevitable, especially
of unfair taxes.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
The day the tax system became unfair, i.e. not a system where ability
to pay and payment without representation are the underlying
principle, was the day organising one’s tax efficiency became a human
right.
When you are guilty of using the tax system to modify the electorate’s
behaviour don’t be so surprised that the electorate choose to behave
differently.
Anyway, do you really deny that Gordon Brown long ago abused the
privilege to tax?
The G20 had some very fine words to say on tax havens but I doubt very
much that it will amount to anything more than words.
That is, once the penny drops that, for many major corporations,
conforming to tax regimes away from those havens would be to their
ruination, simply because of the unrealistic levels of business taxes
that exist in most European countries, especially Britain.
Tax havens are just like MPs expenses, a nod and a wink away from the
party political shop window that’s kept especially for the
electorate’s visibility.
Finally, by way of an example, the story of LDV vans, not a very good
company no profits for even the four years leading up to the credit
crunch and now facing administration by the taxman.
Hang on, they haven’t made any money for years but that hasn’t stopped
them being presented with a 20 million pound employer’s NI bill that
they now cannot pay.
That’s the sort of Alice in Wonderland world the socialist inhabits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:12:13 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
I've seen all the chat about who's to blame for why HMRC can't open a
letter for a month or two but nobody seems to be accepting that HMRC
are totally incompetent.
If I want to become an agent of a new client I am supposed to be able
to enter some details about my client and my client will receive a
letter with a code which they should tell me. I need to enter this
code on the HMRC web site within 28 days. This letter, which is
supposed to be automated, will not be sent to the client until after
three weeks. By this time HMRC are telling me that the code hasn't
been entered, I am asking the client whether they have received the
letter and the client is telling me they haven't received the letter!
For the last tax year HMRC decided that if a business has sales of
under £30,000 then they only have to state the total expenses and not
submit the amount of each type of expense. If you try to do that
online HMRC will reject your tax return. It would appear their
programmers are not able to insert a simple subroutine into the
program!
The above are two examples of the incompetence of HMRC. I would expect
if they cannot do these two things properly there are very few things
they can do properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 07:30:16 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:12:13 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
And you are perfect, but then if you are not then you cannot do
anything properly.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:29:15 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 07:30, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.ukI see you do not defend HMRC or dispute what I have said. What is your
point? You don't seem to have a point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:15:21 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:29:15 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
I am pointing out your fallacy of assuming that if one thing is wrong,
everything is wrong. Also I notice that you seem to only repeat the
same old problem again and again, I wonder why you keep having the
same problem when others do not.
The problem with letters being sent late was an old one, most agents
are now repotting it is working well, so why do you think they target
you?
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:41:36 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 10:15, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.ukThere are many things wrong. I have just given two examples.
I don't know any agents reporting it is working well. Can you give any
evidence of it working well?
Why can't HMRC get the £30k turnover problem right? It must be
incompetence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:13:33 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:41:36 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
Nothing to do with HMRC, all to do with Government contacted out
computer departments. Try blaming the real culprits Fujitsu. Anyway,
everybody but you knows about the problem as it was clearly reported
in the agents updates. Why is it you are constantly moaning about old
problems?
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:17:33 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 15:13, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.ukThey are still affecting agents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:22:43 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:17:33 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
Nobody said that this is not, but unlike you, most agent deal with it
easily and do not keep moaning about it.
In fact most agents prefer the new filing on line to the old paper
version, but you could always keep with the paper copies and make your
clients provide their records on time to you.....oh I forget they
don't but that is never your fault.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:20:31 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
Wow. I didn't know that. Do you still have to *record* expenses in
different categories, so that you can break them down if HMRC challenge
you?
Two? You must be kidding. I have never come across an organisation so
riddled with incompetence and arrogance. Perhaps the police.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:47:23 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 11:20, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.comIf your turnover is under £30k you don't have to report the details of
expenses just the total. Obviously the proof of the expenditure needs
to be available.
I know of many more examples. Meet Ferrit the apologist for HMRC. He
doesn't seem to have any knowledge but he seems to love HMRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:14:31 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:20:31 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.comwrote:
It is a reported problem and has been in more than one agent update.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:17:51 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 15:14, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.ukSo that makes it ok?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:23:21 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:17:51 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
No but most agent prefer the online to the paper and manage. It is
only old women like you who have to keep moaning about it.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:47:02 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 15:23, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.ukThis shows how immature you are. HMRC can't get their systems to do
very simple things properly but you can only insult the people who
point out the incompetence. Let me guess ... you are employed by the
state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:15:24 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
<...@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
There is a world of difference between organising ones tax efficiency and
actively seeking and then exploiting weeknesses in the system.
Rubbish, Tax Havens are offered by Countries that are not in the control of
any of the governments in this country. MP's expenses are clearly something
that MP's can do something about but choose not to and continue to fill
their pockets at the expense of the public, for shame.
Sorry but I cant take this seriously when you fail to understand that the
employer is never presented with a unexpected NI bill. If they have, its
because they have been less than honest with the records they keep for up to
a year before presenting them to HMRC. They must have known just what was
due as it arose and chose to use that money on something else. Thats not
just irresponsible but is actually borderline criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Watch my lips, before companies can pay tax there has to be some
profit.
Employer’s NI is a deluded insane tax that is levied regardless of any
profit.
Over the last four years, they have paid their NI but doing so has
presumably wiped out what small profit they had been making.
Along comes the credit crunch and now they can't even pay that anymore
so the understanding taxman puts the boot in and bang goes another
British industry.
It’s blindingly obvious now, to anyone, that if the UK economy is to
get out of this hole it’s businesses like that one that we need to do
it for us and, for that to happen, Government has got to stop treating
them like cash cows they can plunder with the added bonus of no
electoral consequence.
The public sector was bloated and unaffordable before the credit
crunch, let alone after, and yet those Guardian none job columns are
as full as ever – it’s f**king fairyland.
Something has to give and the assumption seems to be that that will be
tax rises which is complete bollocks because there’s just no more
blood to be had from that particular stone not enough even to stand
still.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:39:46 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
<...@e2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Watch my lips, before companies can pay tax there has to be some
profit.
Employers NI is a deluded insane tax that is levied regardless of any
profit.
Over the last four years, they have paid their NI but doing so has
presumably wiped out what small profit they had been making.
Along comes the credit crunch and now they can't even pay that anymore
so the understanding taxman puts the boot in and bang goes another
British industry.
Its blindingly obvious now, to anyone, that if the UK economy is to
get out of this hole its businesses like that one that we need to do
it for us and, for that to happen, Government has got to stop treating
them like cash cows they can plunder with the added bonus of no
electoral consequence.
The public sector was bloated and unaffordable before the credit
crunch, let alone after, and yet those Guardian none job columns are
as full as ever its f**king fairyland.
Something has to give and the assumption seems to be that that will be
tax rises which is complete bollocks because theres just no more
blood to be had from that particular stone not enough even to stand
still.
Oh get of your high horse. Employers NI has been a part of business for 40
years or more. Why would it come as a surprise to anyone that employees
staff. It is part of being an employer not just here but in every state in
the EU.
If a busniess cant plan to pay its taxes as and when they arise then they
deserve everything they get. You quoted a large figure of Employers NI. Did
they pay the tax and Employees NI they took from the wage packets of the
employees or is that part of the large bill. If not, then they made a
deliberate and concious decision to avoid paying the legally due NI, thus
gaining an advantage over their competitors and still the incompetant
bastards go out of business.
Dont wail and whinge that its HMRC's fault, try blaming the directors of the
business who obviously not competent to run the business effectively, yet
probably filled their on pockets in the process.
If you thinks that its ok for ANY business to deliberately hold back taxes
that are legally due, it is you that lives in f**king cloud cuckoo land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
It doesn't come as a surprise it comes as a hole in the head when
profits have dried up and the bank balance is in the red no matter how
predictable.
Shit happens except to the taxman of course.
No business can plan on profit especially in the face of economic
collapse.
They design and build vans before they sell them remember and NI is
payable before that as well, so you're relying on the revenue stream
which can dry up completely as now.
There's nothing remotely cloud cuckoo land about reminding socialists
that taxes have to be earned through wealth creation first, they don't
grow on money trees.
Like I said, the taxman can bleat all the law it likes but it’s no
much use when there's no law that says all customers must buy their
goods and services of them to make them a profit.
You would have to go back to Stalinist Russia to find that situation
and look where it got them, no goods, no services, no profit and
certainly no tax.
We could have a law tomorrow that says it must not rain but only
delusional New Labour could ever dream of going out without an
umbrella on that basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:37:57 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
<...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Except the 17000 that have lost their jobs over the last two years and the
other 8000 that will do so over the next two.
But they can plan on the number of employees and the amount they pay them.
In fact I know that is precisely what they will have done and factered this
into their production costings well in advance.
Actually, it does, its printed on paper which is made from Trees.
and no whining prats as they were all put up against the wall and shot.
But New Labour did not create the NI system and it hasn't changed in its
main structure since its inception. It is nolonger just UK Law but part of
EU law so once again you are talking out of your posterior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:56:08 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 7 Apr, 00:37, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.ukBut they can't be certain of the revenue. If the government mismanages
the economy to such an extent that people and businesses stop buying
then the revenue will not cover the costs.
It was Gordon Brown who increased public expenditure by such an extent
that taxes have crippled businesses and individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:22:33 GMT, Ronald Raygun <...@localhost.localdomain
That applies only to Corporation Tax, which taxes the company's profit.
But NI is not a tax on company profit, it is a tax on the employees'
income. It's part of what it costs to employ someone (so are income
tax and pension contributions).
Of course. So what? Income tax is also levied on employee wages,
regardless of any company profit.
Well, I dare say that staff wages have made a pretty sizeable contribution
to wiping out their profit too. Are you suggesting they should not pay
their staff?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:22:09 +0100, Jonathan Bryce <...@localhost.localdomain
Complicated taxes have more loopholes than simple ones.
Road fuel duty is a very simple tax. It is a fixed amount of duty per
litre. How many loopholes do you hear of in it? I'm pretty sure some
large haulage and transport companies would love to find ways to cut the
amount they pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 07:32:38 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:22:09 +0100, Jonathan Bryce
<...@localhost.localdomain
Many do try this and source illegal fuel.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:32:02 GMT, "neverwas" <...@all.all
Often a case of "my tax has targeted reliefs which are economically
efficient , your tax is full of loopholes, his tax has blatant bungs to
[city/trade union/farming/etc] cronies" :)
So some would argue that "red diesel" is a loophole. Abuse of it
certainly seems to be widespread (especially in N Ireland) - albeit less
than in the past. Costs c.m300 a year. See eg
https://nds.coi.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=321524&NewsAreaID=2
--
Robin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:17:30 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"Jonathan Bryce" <...@eclipse.net.uk...
Quite easily, they seek out ways of using something like Red Deisel, until
the vehicles fail or they get caught. Then its everybodies fault but their
own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:16:52 +0100, Jonathan Bryce <...@localhost.localdomain
That's not a loophole. That's blatant tax evasion. You solve this by
enforcing the existing regulations, not by creating new ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:33:01 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 21:16, Jonathan Bryce <...@localhost.localdomainwrote:
I still don't understand how anybody - other than a moron - can be
happy that HMRC wait three weeks before they send out an automatically
generated letter. This isn't due to accountants finding loopholes it
is down to the incompetence of HMRC. Providing an extra 100,000 HMRC
staff will not result in idiots deciding to send out automatically
generated letters quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:03:49 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:33:01 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
If you were writing this months ago I would agree, but a recent poll
in January of accountants reported that the almost all were now happy
with this service and therefore I wonder if you are being singled out,
or are you just dragging up old complaints.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:22:13 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 15:17, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
That is not a question of having a more complicated legal framework or
of accountants looking for loopholes. I do accept that is how people
save money. People would be less likely to use red diesel illegally if
the penalties were more severe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:48:31 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
On 5 Apr, 15:17, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
There is some truth to that yes, and to a certain extent Sch 36 penalties
will do just that but they are still not at a level to stop the more
determined types from chancing their arm.
Also, this still only targets the taxayers, and yet PwC, KPMG, Deloittes and
others still have large departments whose sole purpose is to seek ways of
circumventing the legislation and then selling the schemes to those willing
to try them out. If they get it wrong, the taxpayer has to pay them for the
advice in the first place, HMRC for the underpaid duties, interest and any
penalty. The agents who come up with the idea get away scott free and even
get to keep the fees they charged at the outset.
Now is that fair, or the fault of HMRC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:03:58 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 5 Apr, 22:48, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.ukI wouldn't pay fees to a firm of accountants for a scheme that was
useless.
It is the responsibility of HMRC to come up with legislation that
works.
When our idiot of a Prime Minister was Chancellor he decided to
introduce a 0% corporation tax rate. Accountants warned that a lot of
companies would be formed to simply save tax. The idiot said that he
didn't think it would happen. A lot of companies were formed to save
tax! A lot of stupid legislation was put in place to try to stop tax
being lost before going back to the situation before the idiot started
meddling.
The idiots in government and HMRC didn't know what they were doing.
Accountants, far from trying to find loopholes, were trying to ensure
that stupid legislation was not passed.
Now it seems that HMRC try to blame accountants for the stupidity of
HMRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:02:15 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@s19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Wrong, HMRC administers legislation, it does not write it.
Are you disputing that the larger firms have these departments that have the
specific tasks of finding ways around legislation?
If so, why did the former chancellor have to arrange for legislation to
require them to declare these schemes prior to selling them?
Peter, I am sorry but I am more than a little peeved with the constant
reference to idiots. The front line people you deal with don't get a choice
of what and when they can do things. They have had their numbers decimated
and their workload remains the same. They report for duty and get a list of
cases they will action on the day and are expected to compete the list. The
people in the call centre's have Dickensian conditions imposed on them to
the point that there is a system where they have to ask permission to use
the loo.
There are publicized response times for responding to mail namely, that 80%
of mail will be responded too within 40 days of receipt. If you are not
experiencing this then rather than just complain here, which is just venting
with no purpose, but lodge formal complaints with HMRC, that is just what
they are asking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:07:31 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 6 Apr, 07:02, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
This shows that you have no understanding of how HMRC works. I phoned
the number I was given for complaints and the person I was speaking to
didn't seem to understand what I was talking about. She said she used
to work for Customs and Excise and didn't know anything about income
tax. I asked to speak to somebody who knew about income tax and she
said there wasn't anybody there.
This was not an isolated incident.
I put at least one of my complaints in writing and I was promised it
would be resolved immediately. Five years later and it is still wrong.
HMRC talking about putting things right but it is more talk than
action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 23:57:38 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 6 Apr, 07:02, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.ukHMRC do not get involved in the legislative process at all?
I'm not disputing it. I am saying that the legislation has not been
thought through.
I'm not saying it's the fault of the front line people.
40 days of receipt is a ridiculous response time.
In the example I have given the letter is automatically generated and
could be sent out immediately. It is simply giving a code to the
taxpayer to pass on to their agent. There is no knowledge required or
investigation work needed. Why does it take over three weeks to be
received by the tax payer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:10:51 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 23:57:38 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
I still wonder why agents are reporting it takes about 10 days when
you are still claiming 3 week delay on issue. This was a problem Last
year, nobody seems to be reporting this problem this year.
I wonder how truthful you are being.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:54:31 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Simon <...@noisp.co.uk
If we send a complaint to HMRC it won't even be opened for another three
months. At least if we complain here it appears within a few minutes.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:13:03 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:54:31 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.comwrote:
Wrong, they will respond very quickly to complaints. Try it.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 00:15:14 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 6 Apr, 07:02, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
One of my clients has had an "over repayment". This results in their
transactions not being viewable online. Nobody at HMRC can explain why
an over repayment causes this. It has been known for a long time but
it has not been corrected despite many requests. If a commercial
organisation or an individual software hobbyist made this error they
would correct it within days. HMRC can't resolve it within months.
HMRC is run by idiots and no amount of saying "lodge a formal
complaint" will change that and get things put right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:03:54 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Which part "we do not supply our own software" is not understood. It was EDS
its now CapGemini. we report failures to them and they are supposed to
correct the software.
As far as I was aware, there is only one complaints team nationally and they
dont give out their phone number. Put your complaint in writting. The local
manager is obliged to report the complaint to the team even if they are
given permission to try and resolve the complaint locally.
If you complain here, you are venting but HMRC does not monitor this group
so if you have a complaint and you expect something to be done, then you
have to write to HMRC. Address it to the person named on the letter or other
correspondence. If you want to write "COMLAINT CASE" all over the outside of
the envelope, or if you really want to draw attention to your case start it
out Dear Darling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:38:10 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:03:54 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
At least 2 as far as I am aware. One in Scotland telephoned me to
advise that there would be a short delay in responding as my complaint
had been forwarded to the Leeds team as they dealt with complaints in
my area.
PS Peter, as you wonder about my personal life SO much, no I do not
live in either of those places.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:52:03 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 6 Apr, 21:38, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.ukcreepy comment!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:55:29 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 6 Apr, 18:03, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.ukIt seems to be a stupid way of doing things. I could never say to my
clients ... I can't deal with your accounts until my software supplier
corrects the problem but that may take months or years or never
happen. You seem to live in a world in which you regularly pass the
buck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 00:42:23 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
There are 105000 staff in HMRC and they all need computers and specialist
software that only the small majority is "Off the shelf", I can think only
of IE ad Outlook that is not manipulated in some way. These people are not
employed to or have privileges to alter software that the department has to
pay Millions for.
Thats not passing the buck, thats making use of specialist suppliers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:59:29 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 7 Apr, 00:42, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
I'm sure my software supplier supplies software to fewer individuals
than the supplier of HMRC software.
If HMRC doesn't ensure their software supplier produces what they want
that is incompetence on HMRCs part.
You ARE passing the buck - you just won't admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 08:43:49 +0100, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:59:29 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton
<...@petersaxton.co.uk
No, much of the fault lies with the government forcing departments to
sign up to poor contracts with their preferred providers. In addition
they force their departments to introduce software before it is read
and without the correct testing.
Software with very large databases that need access from all over the
country would normally require at least 1-2 years testing and
development, yet the government forced through tax credits in less
than a year and wondered why the software failed.
The same has occurred with it trying to force through online services,
it keeps changing the goal posts and allows almost no time for
testing. Then by the time the developers are just fixing it, they are
forced to start again on some new software as the government has
changed the goalposts again.
Do you realise how many complaints quick books and Sage get, but I bet
the products are still used by yourself and other accountants, the
difference is people expect the government departments to be perfect,
the reality is they do get it right most of the time, but I do not
expect people like you to ever point that out, you spend your time
looking for faults.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom"
Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:19:43 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 7 Apr, 08:43, Alan Ferris <...@yahoo.co.uk
QuickBooks and Sage don't have anything like the problems that HMRC
have.
From my experience accounting software suppliers generate many fewer
complaints than HMRC even when the numbers of people involved are
taken into account. It is clear that every sensible person accepts
that HMRC are incompetent. The whistleblower on Monday night's TV
program said that many HMRC staff are stressed by the unacceptable
levels of service provided by HMRC.
"but I bet the products are still used by yourself and other
accountants" - of course accountants use them. Our clients use them so
we have to be able to read the data.
Do you specialise in making stupid statements?: "people expect the
government departments to be perfect" and "you spend your time looking
for faults". The reality is that people accept that government
departments, like other businesses, will make mistakes. The difference
is, managers in government departments have no experience of the
detailed workings of the area that they are responsible for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:30:07 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Staff are stressed but not because the unacceptable levels of service. They
have had their work loads increased year on year, have to keep one eye over
their shoulder to see where the next job cuts are coming, no pay increase
and are constantly being told they are idiots by an accountant in Mitcham.
None of the statistics quoted were substantiated and the allegations of a
former call centre worker, or so they alleged, were not backed up with any
evidence. Anyone destroying mail would be given a free ticket to the job
centre and any manager telling them would be keeping their company, so that
is a load of b****cks too.
I do seem to remember a version of SAGE that could not handle directors NI
and we had a list or errors embeded in these over the years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:34:23 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Simon <...@noisp.co.uk
Delightful. Almost poetically surreal.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:12:10 GMT, Ronald Raygun <...@localhost.localdomain
Why do you say that? You wouldn't expect to make formal complaints
by phone. They should always be in writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:46:47 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Ronald Raygun <...@localhost.localdomain
I'm not sure why you are suddenly talking about "formal" complaints -
nobody else has used the word. But I often complain to other
organisations by phone, and I do not classify such complaints as either
formal or informal. They're just complaints.
And then they take three months even to *open* your complaint letter.
That's why it's surreal.
Anyone see the programme on ITV last night about HMRC's mistakes?
Impressive Geoffrey Boycott-style innings from Dave Hartnett.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:08:05 GMT, Ronald Raygun <...@localhost.localdomain
Well, there are basically two types of complaint. You can either call them
informal and formal, or you can call them something else. One type are
little more than having a good moan, you want to tell them how bad they are,
without really expecting anything specific done about it. These are the
informal ones. Then there are the ones where you do want action taken, and
you want a reply confirming that action has been taken. These are the
formal ones. They often need to contain more detail than it is reasonable
to convey by phone, given that the person at the other end is almost never
the one who is actually able to interpret the detail. They just collect
and forward, and will have to write stuff down and may get it wrong. If
you write, on the other hand, then your piece of paper should (eventually)
reach the person who's going to fix your problem.
That's hardly surreal even if true.
Your original "surreal" would have been true if the phone had been the
only way to complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:57:50 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Ronald Raygun <...@localhost.localdomain
I don't accept what you say. I never make the first type of complaint;
all I ever want is something wrong to be put right. If the second type
is what you call "formal", then I always make "formal" complaints.
And very often with other organisations I will try to pursue such a
complaint by phone, and very often I have succeeded in doing so. The
large majority of big corporations - banks, retailers, utilities - have
customer call centres that deal exclusively with telephone complaints
and try to correct matters where appropriate. My own sister works in
one.
In fact, I have even had a complaint to HMRC handled by phone before, on
an occasion when they billed me for another Mr Wade's tax, several years
after I had paid my own tax bill for the tax year in question. That was
not very long after they started putting the tax office's phone number
on their correspondence. Before then, IIRC, they didn't; and they were
not in the phone book either.
I agree that if the complaint is a complex one, or for some other reason
can't be handled by phone, it is best done in writing. But that's a
matter of complexity, not formality.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:17:41 GMT, Ronald Raygun <...@localhost.localdomain
Fair enough. However, asking for a simple mistake to be put right isn't
really what I'd call a complaint.
I find your "very often" interesting. It suggests that sometimes you
did not succeed. Did you then leave the matter, or did you get it
resolved by writing?
No disrespect to your sister, but many call centres are staffed by
idiots, enough to give the rest of them a bad name. Add to that the
fact that you often have to queue for many minutes, and the result is
that any organisation's expectation that customers should phone is
completely unreasonable. Hence, whenever it is important that a problem
be fixed, but not terribly important that it be fixed immediately,
writing is generally preferable because it wastes less of your time.
It's both, because a phone call can never be formal (unless both parties
record it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:55:25 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
I watched Taking on the Taxman on Monday. There was a whistleblower
who spoke out about the mess HMRC is in.
There's been plenty of apologists for HMRC but nobody has been able to
explain a problem I have raised.
When an agent asks to become an agent for a taxpayer they can complete
the taxpayers details online. This then generates a letter to the
taxpayer with a code they should communicate to the agent. Why does it
take more than THREE WEEKS for the taxpayer to receive this letter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 21:19:59 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@n17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Frankly, I dont know as its not my area of the business. I do know that
processing offices are understaffed so that would explain it.
As to that load of nonsense on ITV, what a load of biased crap. One case was
six years ago, the others expect us to believe that they were unaware of
what was happening until too late.
Mind you, it did show up that the boss has no personality and is never
likely to win a popularity contest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:31:10 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 7 Apr, 21:19, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.ukIt doesn't really explain why a letter that can be generated without
human thought or even involvement should take three weeks.
It was amazing that they said they didn't know there was a problem
until they had been made bankrupt. It's my experience that letters
would have been sent for years before they resorted to bankruptcy
proceedings.
Six months hassle and he thought it was reasonable to offer £25!
He kept making an excuse that the affairs were confidential. I'm sure
that the taxpayers were not averse to HMRC giving a full explanation.
The whistleblower's comments seemed very reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:30:34 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@q2g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On 7 Apr, 21:19, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
As a Collector for 14 years, I never had to pursue anyone to the point of
issuing Bankruptcy Orders, that was always done at Head Office level. I was
a Plaintiff for the department though so I would lose count of the attempts
we would make to contact someone before we referred the case to that office.
The trouble with this is that you only get to see one side of the picture,
if he thought it was unreasonable, why did he not take the case to the
Ombudsman. 25 is aminor amount, another was for 50,000 and I know of a
case where 150,000 was paid. As Mr Personality said, its the Public Purse
and any compensation paid has to be proportional to the departments failure.
Nope, not an excuse, its every taxpayers absolute right to have their
affairs dealt with confidentially and the department will NEVER discuss
their affairs in a public forum.
Even if they had been given clearance, and we had provided the necessary
information, they would be selective on what they showed, journalists never
let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Sorry but not to me they weren't, she was talking about things she would
only have heresay knowledge. Contact centres don't get post, so how would
she know its being destroyed unanswered.
ANYONE destroying post, opened or not would be fired instantly on charges of
gross misconduct. To reinforce his since the program this message is on the
front page of our Intranet.
The conditions in the Call centres are Dickensian and poor Miss Cratchet
there probably got kicked out or left in disgust, so has a major axe to
grind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 01:18:33 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 8 Apr, 07:30, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
That's the usual way to deal with whistleblowers - try to discredit
them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:28:54 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Simon <...@noisp.co.uk
Are you saying that the taxpayer does not have the right to waive that
confidentiality if he wants the dispute discussed in public? I think the
courts would disagree with you there.
Even when the taxpayer invites it. How very convenient for them.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 01:52:09 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
This is the start of an article by a respected tax practitioner:
"HMRC: Compensating us for loss and delay? By Nichola Ross MartinWhat
to do when HMRC keep getting things wrong? Accountingweb.co.uk's tax
editor, Nichola Ross Martin proposes statutory compensation for
taxpayers and agents when HMRC makes mistakes or loses data and
documents.
'Such a scheme apparently will work for tax penalties...'
Since the merger of Customs with Revenue and without any doubt
enhanced by staff cuts and chronically bad management HMRC has bloomed
into a highly inefficient organization for administering the taxes
acts. I doubt if there is an accountant across the land who has not
run into problems with HMRC's helplines, the dreaded 64-8, VAT
registrations or HMRC’s online services. It is immensely frustrating
to find that you cannot complete the basic task for a client because
something has gone wrong again, at HMRC’s end. I dread to think what
the effect is on the tax collection side of the business.
Sorting out taxes is a pretty dire job for the British taxpayer, and
especially those on lower incomes, think of all those pensioners on
the wrong tax coding notices, think of all those tax credits claimants
overpaid due to computer error. All in all, it's pretty lucky that
there are charities around like Taxaid, Tax help for older people and
of course organizations such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, there to
mop up too. Oops, not for long, the government is about to axe that
safeguard, that is sadly, another story...
When HMRC gets things wrong it costs us all money. Accountants
regularly take it on the nose and there is a limit to how much you can
reasonably charge a client when HMRC have lost the 64-8s again, keep
logging you off with yet another error code, and then expect you to
ring round, re-send, re-fax, re-apply."
Still some misguided individuals make out it is simply scaremongering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:58:00 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
This is by a contributor to a discussion on police heavy handedness:
"Nobody is perfect, and most people don't claim to be - for some
reason
when it's a person in a public service role, people cling on like
sh*te
to a blanket and others close around them to protect them. Weird."
Very apt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:10:20 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"Big Les Wade" <...@god.heaven...
Happy to discuss their tax problems before Ombudsman or New Tribunal, no
where else. At least that way it will be before a body qualified to make a
judgement and hav ethe power to enforce it, whether its in HMRC favour or
not.
Even more convenient for the taxpayer. That way he doesnt have to admit that
he has been ignoring 7 or 8 months worth of reminders, statements and
threatneing letters before he acted on them.
Ytial by Press, yes thats fair init.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:21:39 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Simon <...@noisp.co.uk
What has the ability to enforce judgement got to do with it? We are
talking about discussing complaints, not enforcing judgements.
Not at all. Once he has waived confidentiality, it doesn't matter
whether he admits it or not. HMRC can disclose it, if it is true.
It's just an excuse for officials to protect themselves. The police and
NHS do exactly the same, just because they can.
These days, yes. HMRC can always publish its own version of events on
its website if it feels a report was not fair.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:24:28 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 8 Apr, 19:10, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
You don't seem to understand. HMRC performance should be out in the
open. If individual taxpayers are willing to waive their right to
confidentiality I don't see why HMRC are not willing to publicly
discuss what they have done. HMRC prefer to collect statistics that
suit them. They are like the NHS incompetents. Concentrate on the
targets that are easy to achieve. Of course, our incompetent
government doesn't set targets for how many can die from MRSA so they
don't bother with that until it gets publicised in the "big nasty"
press. HMRCs attitude is similar. Simon seems to hate anybody who
criticise his pension provider. What will happen if taxpayers revolt
and elect a government who decides they can't afford to have a vast
number of people on better pensions than the rest of the country
courtesy of the taxpayers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:16:36 +0100, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
"PeterSaxton" <...@e5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Actually, my pension is based on 34 years service and contributions made
based on 8% of my salary, which I work bloody hard for. Its no thanks to
taxpayers at all. If anything its thanks to all those who try to not pay tax
that keep me gamefully employed.
HMRC collects statistics because MPs who cant work out where they live
expect it to use them to justify its existence.
It wont be the taxpayers that revolt, all they have to do is elect the
tories as the Shadow Chancellor has all ready found that the best way to
cure the ills of the economy is to take time out from his TV career and
freeze civil Servants salaries. easy init. Job done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:23:15 +0100, Big Les Wade <...@nowhere.com
Simon <...@noisp.co.uk
And where did that 8 per cent come from? From taxpayers. *All* of the
contributions to your salary came from taxpayers.
Don't get me wrong, I have no idea whether you are worth your pension or
not. I'm just pointing out that it *all* came from taxpayers.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:58:16 -0700 (PDT), PeterSaxton <...@petersaxton.co.uk
On 8 Apr, 21:16, "Simon" <...@noisp.co.uk
It's no thanks to taxpayers, is it?
Don't you understand that taxpayers pay your salary and pension?
You are lucky to be working for someone for 34 years. If you were in
the private sector you may have found yourself out of work because
your employer went bust.
I saw how you treated a comment by somebody in the private sector. You
seemed to not understand the concept of an employer going bust. You
expected them to always be able to pay their creditors.
I had a client who had revenues of £50k a month until 9/11. Then his
revenues went down to £3k a month! He had to make employees redundant,
the company went bust and he had to pay the bank personal guarantees.
He'd just been receiving an average salary yet he had the
responsibility and stress of running the business. I don't think
public sector employees realise how lucky they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|