No more cuts needed - IF we tax fairly

[breadandbutterfly]

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/20/inland-revenue-sweetheart-tax-deals

HMRC hid 'sweetheart' tax deals for big business, MPs say

HMRC accused of lacking fairness and transparency over corporate tax settlements 'kept from scrutiny'

"Hodge told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "At a time when it's hugely important that we maximise the revenue that comes in, when it's absolutely imperative that everybody is treated equally in front of the law, whoever they are, however big or small they are, I think it's very, very important that the public are satisfied that there's equity here, and that HMRC are working on our behalf to maximise revenue that ought to come in to the Treasury."

The MPs found that owing to a "mistake", admitted by HMRC, Goldman paid up to £20m less tax than had been due on its bonus payments. Vodafone settled a long dispute by paying £1.25bn, but the committee heard allegations that the tax bill should have been £6bn or more.

The committee hearings found that two undisclosed firms had struck similar deals, and suspect that there may be other questionable deals among £25bn of outstanding unresolved tax bills. "

MrsMicawber The country doesn't get rich, it's the people who live there that do. The whole idea of the 99% is bollocks anyway. Would you rather live as one of the 99% today or one of the 1% from 100 years ago? We've all, as a whole, been getting richer over the generations.

You also make the point that there has been preferential treatment of big companies by HMRC, but it's only the big companies who can afford to take HMRC to court. It's hardly preferential treatment by HMRC that they 'allow' some companies to dispute their calculations is it?

MrsMicawber: HMRC does not accept the Guardian's account; that's why I posted the suggestion above that NAO (re)examine this area.

But even if the whistleblower is totally correct, the figure of disputed tax simply isn't enough to replace the cuts agenda.

£25billion represents around one sixth of one year's overspend. Yes, we are better off not adding more to the mind-boggling level of national debt. But the level of overspending that is still being incurred - despite cuts to government spending - shows that there is still a huge way to go, and unpaid tax just isn't ever going to be enough to be a magic bullet.

99% don't have access to the benefits of capitalism.

Absolute rubbish.

Of course they do. The PC you are typing on, the electricity you are using, the car you are driving, the benefits system & health system which supports us.

All those are 'benefits' of capitalism. It's the fact that capitalism encourages people to invent & innovate through the idea that if they succeed they can get rich which has given you the standard of living you enjoy today.

Look at how all other economies who haven't followed capitalism have fared? Would you rather live in the Soviet Union before glasnost? China before they embraced capitalism? Perhaps you'd rather go live in North Korea? Even Cuba is starting to dabble with capitalism.

And why on earth should the 'average' taxpayer be allowed to challenge HMRC in court on issues not directly related to them anyway?? So based on your idea, I should be able to take HMRC to court because I don't like the amount of tax YOU pay??? Absolute recipe for disaster.

"bollocks" "absolute rubbish" etc. you tax dodging right wing apologists are so ill mannered and rude. you've no arguments and your world view comes from the reactionary rags you peruse UNLESS of course you happen to belong to the moneyed elite which, somehow, I doubt.

Well I'm sure MrPants can defend his comments but on mine, I think I've made my point very clear that I believe MrsMicawber's assertion that '...99% do not have access to the benefits of capitalism' is clearly untrue.

And the 'reactionary rags' I read are generally BBC News. Believe it or not, I don't subscribe to the Daily Mail, the Sun or even the Guardian. It's the 21st century and walking to the shops to buy a newspaper seems so 20th century nowadays.

the BBC is beholden to the same interests as the right wing gutter press.

MrsMicawber: I agree it would be a good thing; stamping out error and fraud is important.

As the allegations in The Guardian are disputed, I do hope that there will be a proper investigation into any and all misconduct allegations.

But the bottom line remains that no matter how much these (alleged) antics cause froth, the sums involved are too small to make a difference to the need for a cuts agenda.

ah well that's OK then, isn't it, Mrs.Weston? all fine and dandy.

Apologies, I don't follow your comment. I haven't said or intended to imply that everything is fine and dandy and, having re-read my posts cannot work out what you might intend.

apologies accepted. these "antics" are criminal and even if the sums involved are infinitesimal compared to gargantuan amounts of cuts being illegitimately made criminal they remain and tax evasion/avoidance is the bane of our times. that's the bottom line.

It's clearer if you look at the Goldman Sachs case, where even HMRC admit they failed to follow their own protocols and mistakenly let GS off at least £10 miilion.

Which is hardly a negigible sum of money. And is only 1 company we happen to know about due to a whistleblower who put his own neck on the line and who lost his job as a result - hardly going to encourage loads of other whistleblowers to come forward (presumably the point), but gives me little confidence that there aren't many, many other similar caes that are yet to be opened up to public scrutiny.

Clearly, the systems in place aren't working, if HMRC are both making and policing their own (incorrect) decisions. This needs to be urgently remedied.

Sorry - last line should have read "HMRC top brass are both making..."

The 99% movement don't speak for me - I never asked them to, nor did they ask if I endorsed their views. They are merely bleating in the wind the same as the rest of us. This is why I think they are talking bollocks.

I also think the 99% movement are talking bollocks because it doesn't matter to me how much wealth the 99% have - it's how much wealth I have that matters and economics isn't (contrary to whatever any halfwit on the left will say) a zero sum game. We can, and do, get richer together.

As I stated earlier, we generally have better living standards now (measured in disposable income, foreign holidays, Hi-Def TV's, Cars, Washing Machines, PC's, Mobile Phones or any other benefit from capitalism that you can think of) than our parents had when they were our age. The differences between us and our grandparents are even starker. 99% of us certainly DO have access to capitalism.

That's it in a nutshell - 'Why The 99%ers Are Talking Bollocks 101' by Mr Pants. Would someone be so kind as to give me the counter argument or is the standard rant about you tax dodging right wing apologists [who] are so ill mannered and rude. You?ve no arguments and your world view comes from the reactionary rags going to pass as reasoned discourse?

tabloidhysteria You wrote these "antics" are criminal and even if the sums involved are infinitesimal compared to gargantuan amounts of cuts being illegitimately made criminal they remain and tax evasion/avoidance is the bane of our times. that's the bottom line.

Firstly, they're not criminal yet - that's why they are still being investigated. Let's not chuck about words like 'criminal' until the facts are in.

Secondly, what is illegitimate about the cuts? I seem to recall all parties being up front about cuts at the last election - we certainly knew they were coming. Furthermore, why isn't a government allowed to take control over its spending?

Thirdly, what gargantuan amounts of cuts - the government is still going to borrow around £130 billion more than it gets in tax revenue this year.

Fourthly, you state that tax evasion/avoidance is the bane of our times - tax avoidance is perfectly legal - for the record, would you like to tell us all how much extra money you've paid into the government?s coffers that you didn't legally need to pay over the last 12 months? FYI, I paid precisely £0 more than necessary but then again, I'm a baby-eating free market capitalist so you'd expect that from me. Tax evasion is illegal, but by its very nature, it can only be estimated as to its cost to the government purse. The costs, therefore, of recovering this money is also unknown.

Other than these four points, I thought you had a well reasoned post there - keep up the good work!

MrPants, I don't know ypour parents or grandparents, obviously, but I can assure you I am considerably poorer than both my parents and grandparents. (Despite being considerably more highly educated than my parents.) The main difference between myself and them is that they could afford to buy a lovely big family home, in a nice, safe, Zone 3 London suburb, on a 2.5 multiple of a single wage - and my dad was a manual worker. My mum was able to be a full-time housewife. Whilst we didn't have PCs or mobiles for the simple reason we hadn't been invented, I hardly think that compensates for the fact that a couple of graduates living in London these days would never be able to afford a house like my parents bought on 2 salaries let alone one!

I doubt many people then or now would have regarded gadgets as more important in terms of overall standard of living than having a secure roof pver one's head, in a safe area with good schooling. if you do, you are very much in a minority. The fact is that 2 wages now do not go anywhere near buying what one income bought in my parents' generation.

So who, precisely, is talking "bollocks" now?

MrPants, I question your sanity or at least your memory after this quote:

"Secondly, what is illegitimate about the cuts? I seem to recall all parties being up front about cuts at the last election - we certainly knew they were coming. Furthermore, why isn't a government allowed to take control over its spending? "

Have you really forgotten all of Cameron's numerous promises not to cut the NHS, not to cut disability funding for the truly needy, Clegg's promises not to charge tuition fees (let alone triple them), etc?

How wonderful it must be to have such a short memory. Is ignorance truly bliss?

breadandbutterfly I knew someone was going to say that their grandparents were better off hence why I clearly stated 'generally' in my post.

House prices are certainly higher now than they were in the past - this is due to stupid planning regulations, the laws of supply and demand and the affects of housing benefit all inflating the markets. The counterpoint is that a) buying your home is (rightly or wrongly - and I?m not convinced either way myself) far more prevalent today than it was prior to the Thatcher administration and b) interest rates are far lower.

Contrary to your point about gadgets they are vital to our well being. By making household chores easier and making food last longer, gadgets such as the washing machine and the refrigerator freed up the lives of our grandmother?s generation. It then becomes a straight forward decision - would you rather women were working and increasing their earning capacity (with gadgets), or were housewives locked into domestic drudgery (without gadgets)?

Either way, this has nothing to do with the 99% which is what I said, and I maintain, is bollocks.

As for trusting a politician not to renege on a promise once they are elected, fool you. The budgets had to be cut, the scale of the problem was, and still is, massive and so far, all the cuts combined still fall far short of the £130 billion more they need to save in order to balance the books. To ignore this fact is the true ignorance.

MrsMicawber - I have no idea what is happening inside HMRC about this. Nor, it seems, does anyone else as there is claim and counter-claim even in the linked article. It's not really possible to say how far either sides right or wrong.

That is why I hope there will be a proper investigation (say by NAO), so we can find out what has happened over the last 20 years; recover as much as possible; and learn from it.

Unfortunately, the current Government is showing itself no more competent at administration than the last one.

But even if it were competent, the scale of the debt and continued overspending is so vast that even £25billion doesn't begin to plug it. That is the staggering and worrying thing.

MrsMicawber What's the point of your first sentence? Where do you get the idea that I don't care about others from? I care deeply about others - so much so that I think people would be bettter off by taking responsibility for themselves rather than expecting a fly-by-night government to do their thinking and providing for them. You cannot get rich by expecting handouts, you can get rich by working for a living and you can get very rich by putting your cock on the block and starting your own business (of course, with the latter you run the risk of losing the shirt off your back too). Either way, impoverishing the rich in the name of fairness makes everyone poorer.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you about wealth and totally disagree that MOST people are left behind. It may have been the case that 50 years ago a family could survive with one bread winner - I dare say that if you only spent money on the sort of things they did, then you could probably manage it too. Unfortunately, you'd probably end up missing your PC, broadband, phone, coffee shops, exotic foods, holidays to anywhere other than Blackpool etc... too much.