We have a lot of deduction posts in NL which can be used liberally..... So you do And if they disagree with you they will tell you so (as it does get checked). If they disagree with you and you have a plausable argument why you did it they won't fine you or anything you will just have to pay the tax.... and sometimes they even agree with you.

For example if you have a student travel card here you can travel for free using public transport. If you work xx miles from home and you use public transport you get a deduction post on your taxes which comes of the top of your taxable income So even if you go by car.....

*cough*

Please bear in mind that HMRC staff are obliged by contract to report wrongdoing in this area, and that deliberately defrauding Revenue and Customs is an offence.

I'm just sayin'

Personally, I ain't got a problem with paying taxes (though taxing people who then receive the money back through support/grants/etc always seemed dumb). It's what governments do with that money that bothers me.

---

by Jayjay
(though taxing people who then receive the money back through support/grants/etc always seemed dumb)

---

i must admit ive always been mildly amused at the sheer hipocrisy of government - the rationale behind the tax/benefits system is that those who are above the (rather ambiguous) poverty line help support those below it.
in which case, how is it possible that someone can simultaneously be earning enough to put them above that line, in which case they have to be paying taxes, but also be BELOW that line, in which caser they should be able to receive benefits.
wouldnt it just be simpler (and cheaper) to raise the tax thresholds, then stop the equivalent amounts paid in benefits for those who are paying tax??
the money not paid out in benefits would balance the money not received in taxes, plus the savings from not having to calculatebenefits/taxation from thousands of people would help lower the governments costs.
indeed, the only people to lose out this way would be those who are defrauding the system, and some of the people working for HMRC - sorry kate, but thems the breaks...

---

by mad
(quotes)

sorry kate, but thems the breaks...

---

No problem - you see, even if every single person claiming benefits suddenly stopped and got a job taxes would not go down. Not a penny. The money will always be spent somewhere.

As nice as your theory sounds, the group you refer to actually make up a relatively small portion of the taxpaying whole and raising thresholds would make less of a difference than you'd think. One by-product would be that people faking their income or returning false losses could do it more before encountering any actual financial penalties if they're caught.

Frankly I think if you cheat on your taxes you cheat everyone else who is honest about them. Play the system, of course. Get whatever you can - that's what it's there for. But I pay my bloody tax, so why should other people get away with not doing it?

Millions of pounds are lost year after year because some people think they have a God-given right to a different set of rules to the rest of us. The team I used to work on clawed back over £1.3 million in unpaid tax last year - and that's just the cases we found ansd could prove. That was one specific business area and a team of 10 people covering only a small geographic area dealing with small employers only. Imagine what that tots up to over the rest of the country

---

by Kate
Frankly I think if you cheat on your taxes you cheat everyone else who is honest about them. Play the system, of course. Get whatever you can - that's what it's there for.

---

Playing the system..... there is however a very thin line between what is "highly advanced" playing and what people would consider cheating on your taxes. As there is the "letter" of the law and the "spirit" in which the law was written, and those don't always say exactly the same thing. So even if you stick within the confines of what the law always many of your fellow citizens still feel you are cheating.

---

The team I used to work on clawed back over £1.3 million in unpaid tax last year - and that's just the cases we found ansd could prove.

---

No offense to you or anything but as economist I know that it probably costed money to be able to claw back the 1.3 million in the first place. Think of all the wages, cost of work spaces, IT, Payroll etc etc for 10 people, that does add up (all direct and indirect costs). Although I'm guessing that aint really the point

The added value of your work isn't really in the "clawed back" money at all, but in the deterring effect you have. Because if you wouldn't do what you do way more people would attempt tax fraud. Which means that the amount of money you claw back isn't a good key performance indicator (kpi) however your real kpi isn't really measureable either (as we don't really know exactly how much is defrauded (as a good fraud isn't spotted) and how big exactly the dettering effect is. So they are all just guestimates).

I guess it's a good thing the government does the taxes and not a commercial organization as that be one heck of a yearly budget discussion! (never thought I would say that )

(Edited by Chambler 30/04/2006 14:54)

Believe me, cost/yield ratios are watched very carefully and plotted over the year. Ineffective projects are pretty swiftly killed off.

And trust me - low-medium level civil service wages don't make that big of a dent in the ratio.

So Kate, do you agree or disagree with me that your main reason to do what you do is not to claw back money but because it works as a deterrent to prevent fraud?

---

by Kate
Ineffective projects are pretty swiftly killed off.

---

Sorry to hear your wages don't really impact the ratio's but good to hear they keep track on how "our" tax money is spent. But depending on what you feel the real task is the KPI of having a high ratio is completely wrong Because if I can deter fraud so effectively there is no fraud, no matter how much it would cost (even if it was only 300.000 pounds) if there is no fraud my claw back ratio's will never be as good as they would be "with fraud".

Same as judging the police on the number of tickets they issue is pretty stupid. (what happens if you manage to drop crime enough..... you did a really good job but you either get marked down or have to issue "stupid" tickets which annoys the hell out of people)

Picking the right KPI is very hard and many companies make similar mistakes so what change does the government have

Taxed straight out of my payslip.