Apparently tax evasion (not even including avioidance) costs the taxpayer something like 70 times more than benefit fraud. Look who they are going after.
Apparently tax evasion (not even including avioidance) costs the taxpayer something like 70 times more than benefit fraud. Look who they are going after.
Interesting that. I read a lot about the so-called "tax gap" but have no idea how they work out how much tax "should" be paid. There are just too many variables.
Education and fixing the system that fails to identify support and resolve those with learning issues earlier in the schooling system where I would start
I think there is great talent being lost due to poor teaching and lack of funding
Apparently tax evasion (not even including avioidance) costs the taxpayer something like 70 times more than benefit fraud. Look who they are going after.
Interesting that. I read a lot about the so-called "tax gap" but have no idea how they work out how much tax "should" be paid. There are just too many variables.
I suspect that they just end up guessing!
I'm sure that is the case, all I was trying to demonstrate is that even the government's own figures suggest that tax evasion is so much more expensive that benefit fraud.
When people in this thread say "hard working" are they referring to working 9 to 5, 5 days a week?
In any event, I would say that a recession is the one time you should be looking after the unemployed. Just Seems like common sense to me. When the economy is thriving and everybody who wants to be employed can be employed, there you will have the opportunity to pick out the few scroungers. But when working people have been made unemployed and can't find work, and we then decide to come down hard on the unemployed? I wonder.
No, a corporate tax, payable at the end of the financial year by the company (not passed on to the consumer, at least not directly) to be offset against the normal UK CT liability, if any, to guarantee that the government gets a contribution from significant businessses who might otherwise avoid all tax by artificially reducing their profits.
Nice idea in theory, but how do you force a company with no UK establishment or presence to pay tax in the UK when it is already paying tax on the same turnover (and any profits) in the country where it is legally required to pay tax?
For the record, I think Starbucks got a bit of unfair stick for their tax arrangements when they already pay bundles of tax in the UK (directly in the form of VAT, NI, IPT, etc, and indirectly in the form of the personal tax of their employees). Ok, it's not Corporation Tax, but its a myth to suggest they pay or contribute nothing.
Amazon on the other hand .............. . Still, if it means that people can buy cheaper "essentials" in life - like DVDs and Kindles - then I guess that's ok then!
Not sure about Google, but from what I hear they are likely in the Amazon camp?
VAT, by the way, is paid by the consumer and not the company, so I reject that as being their contribution.
Goolge and Amazon proudly pay nothing in the UK. And Amazon actually gain the benefit of shipping from the channel Islands, so avoid needing to charge VAT on non-book items, thus gaining an immediate competitive advantage over UK-based sellers.
I know what you're saying on the VAT point, but in practice most businesses that supply goods or services to the general public simply factor VAT in as another overhead cost when determining what they charge. That's how it works. Someone gives you £60 for something - so you know the price point works - but you then have to give a tenner of that to the government. The punter won't wear £70 so you, the business lose out when it comes to the "value" of what you are supplying.
As for Amazon, did you know that the Luxembourg government has lowered the VAT rate for supplies of e-books to 3% despite, arguably, having no power to do so? Guess who supplies ALL of their e-books to punters in the whole of the EU out of Luxembourg? But I'm sure that didn't influence their decision to lower the rate ..... no Siree!
I am sorry to read that Off-it has repeated the usual stuff by Starbucks (or in Off-its own words 'bundles of tax') that, because their employees pay tax, somehow this is a contribution, even indirectly, by Starbucks!! And as for national insurance, that is only payable where Starbucks employ staff but they are increasingly moving to franchising where that particular burden falls on the franchisee. Bear in mind that UK based coffee chains also pay NI, AND pay corporation tax. I'm not sure that the term 'bundles of tax' (how much is that, precisely, on turnover??) is helpful. When we find that Starbucks are now trying to 'negotiate' with the Revenue on paying corporation tax I think we can be sure that they have avoided tax on a monumental scale. It may well be lawful (and we can include Vodafone, Amazon, Google et al in this) but is it morally justified when the nations finances are so stretched? These companies are siphoning billions away from this country. Dave says he is determined to stop it. I really, really wish I could believe him.
Just out of interest is there any negative aspect of British life that Len and the UKIP crowd don't blame on the EU? If people think that the employment crisis in the UK amongst the working-classes is caused by the EU then they are absolutely bloody barking mad, how do they explain the similar crisis in working-class employment in the US?
This is the UKIP, by the way, that believes in a 'Flat Tax' which would see multi-millionaires pay the same tax-rate as someone on 11.5K per year, if you believe in that then fine but that's basic right-wing Tory policies at work.
As a family my household has been hit quite bad via the working and family tax credit cuts
I am totally annoyed by it but I accept it and I get on with it because things can't continue the same
It has meant a lot of cuts to things I our lives and some months my money doesn't seem to stretch enough and I have to find alternative means if earning
However I have two kids my choice , house mine not rented my choice
A car my choice
Ballet lessons for my daughter my choice
All the impact cuts of my house hold are mine and the wife
I do not go to footie as much I try to pick the games carefully but I also get ten home games free a season which helps me
The wife doesn't go to the salons as much and has not gone out and bought clothing for herself in the manor she used to
The tax be fits we received Enabled us to be able to have the treats in life that we both liked and maintain the house and other things without having to be so cautious
Was that right , well we both work we both pay tax , not just on wages but fuel etc
We pay nearly 400 a month to have child care and about 100 a month in nursery fees
Now we have about 50 quid a month each as disposable cash
We don't own credit cards as I am ashamed to say we ran up huge debts that took a long while to fix
But we done it mainly because we had the safety net of the tax credits to help ensure there was food on the cupboard and gas , water elec
It drives me to madness when I see the scroungers come summer In the parks drinking chilling out with their 80 quid t shirts and 200 quid phones
Dossing it off , the same people I see in the post office / shop collecting their giro whilst I am in there getting my fags and paper on way to work
I listen to Nathan going to game after game
I hear them in the super markets on the tax free loan they got of over 500 quid to help them get through Xmas and watch them fill the trolley with booze and fags to last them
Whilst I have saved all my reward points from filling up my (work car part of my job) and the wifes all year and my work social club 50 quid voucher
To pay for my booze and fags for Xmas plus add money to it
This month totally skint because I don't let the kids feel the pinch it's not their fault
I am sorry if I don't hold any concern to those not working and not getting a great rise in benefit
I worked hard this year really hard and due to the business I am in not hitting its shareholder value, I may have to go back to a role I hate and not get a rise for years because I am above the pay bracket
Every one must contribute e ery one must feel the burn
Everyone contributed to the mess now we all must pay
Darren
So right on every level as is AFKA , I have had one pay increase in 5 years and that was 2% , I work for one of the big energy companys and that 2% increase was swallowed up by the 10% increase in energy prices the following week.
Having spent an amount of time on benefits around 8 years ago I've no idea how people survive on them anyway , it took me years to pay back all my debts that I gained while I was on the dole and just as long to gain back my self respect.
I am sorry to read that Off-it has repeated the usual stuff by Starbucks (or in Off-its own words 'bundles of tax') that, because their employees pay tax, somehow this is a contribution, even indirectly, by Starbucks!! And as for national insurance, that is only payable where Starbucks employ staff but they are increasingly moving to franchising where that particular burden falls on the franchisee. Bear in mind that UK based coffee chains also pay NI, AND pay corporation tax. I'm not sure that the term 'bundles of tax' (how much is that, precisely, on turnover??) is helpful. When we find that Starbucks are now trying to 'negotiate' with the Revenue on paying corporation tax I think we can be sure that they have avoided tax on a monumental scale. It may well be lawful (and we can include Vodafone, Amazon, Google et al in this) but is it morally justified when the nations finances are so stretched? These companies are siphoning billions away from this country. Dave says he is determined to stop it. I really, really wish I could believe him.
If you read what I was saying, rather than jumping in to have a snide dig, then I was simply comparing Starbucks to the likes of Amazon.
My point is that Starbucks DO pay tax in the UK - it's hard not to when you run a chain of coffee shops where some are physically located in the UK. Is it as much as they "should" pay? Almost certainly not. Would they try and avoid paying what they do pay if they could? Probably.
Amazon on the other hand find it much easier to avoid paying tax because of the nature of the business they run and the way it is structured , eg no shops/outlets.
I'm not trying to suggest Starbucks are saints or put any sort of moral argument. Just pointing out that the differences in the two businesses lead to very different tax profiles.
A woman on benefits rang LBC this morning and said the cap/cuts was out of order as she was a Recovering junkie and now could not afford cigarettes or alcohol when she wanted it, poor lamb.
I'm feeling genuinely confused by this proposal. As someone who has been subject to a pay freeze along with many millions of others for a few years now it seems completely fair that those that are, in effect, not currently contributing financially to society (whether through their on choice or not), do not benefit from something that I will be paying for and will lead to yet more squeezing of the public purse. A mate of mine who is involved in the investigation of benefit fraud tells me stories that make me fume and I come across many examples of the same in my own line of work BUT not everyone on benefits is at it and the vast majority are in fact are really struggling to get by. So my social responsibility kicks in at the same time and leaves me not sure what to think about this one at all but in my gut I think that it should be capped below inflation.
One aspect not covered in this debate so far is that this lot have completely ignored the situation where we have very many wealthy and relatively wealthy pensioners who are still claiming (or at least illegible for) many benefits that if means tested would result in the saving of £b's. Is it fair that a couple sitting in £8m property in Sandbanks for example are still paid the same winter fuel allowance, free tv licence, free prescriptions, etc as the old girl sitting at home a few miles away in a freezing cold, grotty, council flat? I can't help thinking cynically that it's a lot easier to target the "shirkers" with the help of the popular press than potential Tory voters and donators.
60% of benefits affected go to those in work - so are they all scroungers? 30% of government spend goes on benefits and pensions NHS spend went up and up under the last government but this government refuse to touch it because they know it will cost them votes at the next election As Ormiston states, a skilled motivated workforce is what will get us, Europe, Australia and the US through this century...and at the same time a new approach to pensions, healthcare and lifelong education Meanwhile fringe and extremist politicians seek to exploit the lack of clear values and strategy with more than a touch of xenophobia to attract more and more votes I don't think it will take that much more for UK (& US and southern Europe) to get deficits under control - what it really needs is growth, jobs and more people in work paying taxes... and more bank lending to help this growth If I was claiming benefits on top of a low paid job then I expect every single penny would go on day to day life involving VAT, sales for businesses (more jobs) and helping create profits (corporation tax)... so not sure why taking a few quid away from this part of society really helps?
60% of benefits affected go to those in work - so are they all scroungers 30% of government spend goes on benefits and pensions NHS spend went up and up under the last government but this government refuse to touch it because they know it will cost them votes at the next election As Ormiston states, a skilled motivated workforce is what will get us, Europe, Australia and the US through this century...and at the same time a new approach to pensions, healthcare and lifelong education Meanwhile fringe and extremist politicians seek to exploit the lack of clear values and strategy with more than a touch of xenophobia to attract more and more votes I don't think it will take that much more for UK (& US and southern Europe) to get deficits under control - what it really needs is growth, jobs and more people in work paying taxes... and more bank lending to help this growth If I was claiming benefits on top of a low paid job then I expect every single penny would go on day to day life involving VAT, sales for businesses (more jobs) and helping create profits (corporation tax)
60% of benefits affected go to those in work - so are they all scroungers? 30% of government spend goes on benefits and pensions NHS spend went up and up under the last government but this government refuse to touch it because they know it will cost them votes at the next election As Ormiston states, a skilled motivated workforce is what will get us, Europe, Australia and the US through this century...and at the same time a new approach to pensions, healthcare and lifelong education Meanwhile fringe and extremist politicians seek to exploit the lack of clear values and strategy with more than a touch of xenophobia to attract more and more votes I don't think it will take that much more for UK (& US and southern Europe) to get deficits under control - what it really needs is growth, jobs and more people in work paying taxes... and more bank lending to help this growth If I was claiming benefits on top of a low paid job then I expect every single penny would go on day to day life involving VAT, sales for businesses (more jobs) and helping create profits (corporation tax)... so not sure why taking a few quid away from this part of society really helps?
I can assure you that spending on the NHS is down regardless of what the politicians might tell you.
The Winter Fuel allowance can be claimed by anyone born before August 1951 even if they are in full time employment, the same as the Freedom bus passes. I think they should scrap the winter fuel allowance, but increase the pension by £3.50 a week that way anybody earning over the tax threashold would pay tax on it, the goverment would receive money back via the tax system without having to employ people to do the means testing etc.
girl i have worked with has been off work on maternity leave for 11 months came back last week, i asked where she was today and was told first she only has to work 2 days a week as she is still on M/leave then was told no she has all her hols to take plus all the bank hols she missed !!!!!!!!!!!!!! FFS how did she miss em ? why aint her hols(30 days) counted as part of her m/leave
so much give out so many years to people for doing f**k all its no wonder them scream when it gets taken away.
welfare should be for those that need it not paid out because you can get it.
the 5 million new comers (thanks Blair and Brown) to the UK should pay higher NI cons for the first five years they are here------------all that money to be directly put into the NHS and education.
Just a further note on this, the answer to this problem does not neccesarily lie with our politicians of whatever stripe, the answer lie with us within our own families.
If you are churning out children with no qualifications or trade who leave school at 16/17 in the hope that 'something turns up' then, sorry to say, but you are part of the problem.
People in developed countries need to get f===ing real about what is going on in the world, the developing world is eating up the jobs that we used to take for granted and what they are not taking is being eaten up by technological developments.
I travel all over the world with my job seeing the progress other countries are making and when I compare the amount of time and energy that many parents in countries like China, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan are putting into their childrens education compared to the amount that most UK/Aussie families put into their childrens education then I am frankly embarrassed.
People need to stop looking to their government to supply nirvana, the only way for the UK to secure its future is for its people to realise that they need to have something tangible to offer to global investors, if they have nothing tangible to offer apart from the cheap cost of their labour then they are going to see a further decline in their living standards.
This means people putting in the effort themselves to make sure that the next generation coming through are highly educated and motivated, make kids understand that the odds are they ain't going to be a footballer/pop singer so they had better work their tail off at school or they are not going to have much of a future.
My wife puts in a huge effort educating our three kids OUTSIDE of what they learn at school, we read with them, do their homework with them etc. to make sure it gets done and to make sure they understand the reasons why it needs to get done.
If we sit back and expect teachers to educate children to Masters Degreee standard with no input from ourselves or for the the government to help deliver them a job for life with no input from ourselves then we are absolutely kidding ourselves.
Just look at what tiny, tiny South Korea is achieving with companies like Samsung on the back of this 'education revolution' they have had, you have a country with less than 45 million people taking on and beating the US giants like Apple - not to mention the Chinese and Indians. That's not being done by luck I can assure you.
Not everyone can be a highly educated professional. To suggest that poor uneducated families (their fault ?) ought not to breed is starting to sound just a little worrying to me.
Nice to see how many economists post on CL. Capping income benefits will have a negative effect on the economy and probably will cost more than the savings in the long term. I'm all for capping housing benefits as it falsely increases the value of properties and rents. It's an easy target and looks good which is what the politicians hope to benefit from.
Comments
I suspect that they just end up guessing!
I think there is great talent being lost due to poor teaching and lack of funding
Doh!
In any event, I would say that a recession is the one time you should be looking after the unemployed. Just Seems like common sense to me. When the economy is thriving and everybody who wants to be employed can be employed, there you will have the opportunity to pick out the few scroungers. But when working people have been made unemployed and can't find work, and we then decide to come down hard on the unemployed? I wonder.
I also only get paid for working 39 hrs a week but as you can see I sometimes double it for free
As for Amazon, did you know that the Luxembourg government has lowered the VAT rate for supplies of e-books to 3% despite, arguably, having no power to do so? Guess who supplies ALL of their e-books to punters in the whole of the EU out of Luxembourg? But I'm sure that didn't influence their decision to lower the rate ..... no Siree!
This is the UKIP, by the way, that believes in a 'Flat Tax' which would see multi-millionaires pay the same tax-rate as someone on 11.5K per year, if you believe in that then fine but that's basic right-wing Tory policies at work.
So right on every level as is AFKA , I have had one pay increase in 5 years and that was 2% , I work for one of the big energy companys and that 2% increase was swallowed up by the 10% increase in energy prices the following week.
Having spent an amount of time on benefits around 8 years ago I've no idea how people survive on them anyway , it took me years to pay back all my debts that I gained while I was on the dole and just as long to gain back my self respect.
My point is that Starbucks DO pay tax in the UK - it's hard not to when you run a chain of coffee shops where some are physically located in the UK. Is it as much as they "should" pay? Almost certainly not. Would they try and avoid paying what they do pay if they could? Probably.
Amazon on the other hand find it much easier to avoid paying tax because of the nature of the business they run and the way it is structured , eg no shops/outlets.
I'm not trying to suggest Starbucks are saints or put any sort of moral argument. Just pointing out that the differences in the two businesses lead to very different tax profiles.
If more people had it less people would still be in the system
I'm feeling genuinely confused by this proposal. As someone who has been subject to a pay freeze along with many millions of others for a few years now it seems completely fair that those that are, in effect, not currently contributing financially to society (whether through their on choice or not), do not benefit from something that I will be paying for and will lead to yet more squeezing of the public purse. A mate of mine who is involved in the investigation of benefit fraud tells me stories that make me fume and I come across many examples of the same in my own line of work BUT not everyone on benefits is at it and the vast majority are in fact are really struggling to get by. So my social responsibility kicks in at the same time and leaves me not sure what to think about this one at all but in my gut I think that it should be capped below inflation.
One aspect not covered in this debate so far is that this lot have completely ignored the situation where we have very many wealthy and relatively wealthy pensioners who are still claiming (or at least illegible for) many benefits that if means tested would result in the saving of £b's. Is it fair that a couple sitting in £8m property in Sandbanks for example are still paid the same winter fuel allowance, free tv licence, free prescriptions, etc as the old girl sitting at home a few miles away in a freezing cold, grotty, council flat? I can't help thinking cynically that it's a lot easier to target the "shirkers" with the help of the popular press than potential Tory voters and donators.
30% of government spend goes on benefits and pensions
NHS spend went up and up under the last government but this government refuse to touch it because they know it will cost them votes at the next election
As Ormiston states, a skilled motivated workforce is what will get us, Europe, Australia and the US through this century...and at the same time a new approach to pensions, healthcare and lifelong education
Meanwhile fringe and extremist politicians seek to exploit the lack of clear values and strategy with more than a touch of xenophobia to attract more and more votes
I don't think it will take that much more for UK (& US and southern Europe) to get deficits under control - what it really needs is growth, jobs and more people in work paying taxes... and more bank lending to help this growth
If I was claiming benefits on top of a low paid job then I expect every single penny would go on day to day life involving VAT, sales for businesses (more jobs) and helping create profits (corporation tax)... so not sure why taking a few quid away from this part of society really helps?
so much give out so many years to people for doing f**k all its no wonder them scream when it gets taken away.
welfare should be for those that need it not paid out because you can get it.
the 5 million new comers (thanks Blair and Brown) to the UK should pay higher NI cons for the first five years they are here------------all that money to be directly put into the NHS and education.
If you are churning out children with no qualifications or trade who leave school at 16/17 in the hope that 'something turns up' then, sorry to say, but you are part of the problem.
People in developed countries need to get f===ing real about what is going on in the world, the developing world is eating up the jobs that we used to take for granted and what they are not taking is being eaten up by technological developments.
I travel all over the world with my job seeing the progress other countries are making and when I compare the amount of time and energy that many parents in countries like China, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan are putting into their childrens education compared to the amount that most UK/Aussie families put into their childrens education then I am frankly embarrassed.
People need to stop looking to their government to supply nirvana, the only way for the UK to secure its future is for its people to realise that they need to have something tangible to offer to global investors, if they have nothing tangible to offer apart from the cheap cost of their labour then they are going to see a further decline in their living standards.
This means people putting in the effort themselves to make sure that the next generation coming through are highly educated and motivated, make kids understand that the odds are they ain't going to be a footballer/pop singer so they had better work their tail off at school or they are not going to have much of a future.
My wife puts in a huge effort educating our three kids OUTSIDE of what they learn at school, we read with them, do their homework with them etc. to make sure it gets done and to make sure they understand the reasons why it needs to get done.
If we sit back and expect teachers to educate children to Masters Degreee standard with no input from ourselves or for the the government to help deliver them a job for life with no input from ourselves then we are absolutely kidding ourselves.
Just look at what tiny, tiny South Korea is achieving with companies like Samsung on the back of this 'education revolution' they have had, you have a country with less than 45 million people taking on and beating the US giants like Apple - not to mention the Chinese and Indians. That's not being done by luck I can assure you.
.
Capping income benefits will have a negative effect on the economy and probably will cost more than the savings in the long term.
I'm all for capping housing benefits as it falsely increases the value of properties and rents.
It's an easy target and looks good which is what the politicians hope to benefit from.
There are those that work only 20 hrs a week to ensure they maintain the perks they receive in benefit
When they could be working longer