Tax Evasion by Dave's Dad and World Leaders

[Hockey_saint]

So much for Corbyn of bringing in a new era politics

 

He has been all over the score board for this one

 

Also, questions now being asked about the company that owns the guardian and also, money tied to the UNITE Union with regards to tax etc

 

Wouldn't YOU try to make political capital out of this one?

 

Ah, the usual right-wing response "let's blame those nasty unions because 40-odd years ago they once did something they legally aren't allowed to do now but hey, they must be the bogeyman!"

[Batman]

Wouldn't YOU try to make political capital out of this one?

 

Ah, the usual right-wing response "let's blame those nasty unions because 40-odd years ago they once did something they legally aren't allowed to do now but hey, they must be the bogeyman!"

 

Of course I would. But I have and never would have vowed to bring in a new era of politics. Unless, John from Kent asked him to do this. Jezza has now joined the rest of them in the "gutter" when it comes to the political game

 

They are all at it. There is no right or left wing. They are all at it, this tax avoidance lark

Edited 5 April, 2016 by Batman

[TwoPints]

So much for Corbyn of bringing in a new era politics

 

He has been all over the score board for this one

 

Also, questions now being asked about the company that owns the guardian and also, money tied to the UNITE Union with regards to tax etc

What are you talking about. So Corbyn challenges Dave on an allegation that he has benefitted from investments held offshore for the purpose of tax avoidance and you don't think he's right to do so? He's not accusing him of hating the UK or any other such personal attack which has been the modus operandi for the Tories. That is what he was talking about with his new era of politics but to suggest he can't challenge the PM on such a serious matter is bull****.

 

Haven't seen any questions about UNITE using this Panamanian law firm so maybe you could post the link to that? Also not sure why a publicly owned newspapers tax affairs have anything to do with whether the prime minister should come clean on his families tax affairs either to be honest.

[aintforever]

Of course I would. But I have and never would have vowed to bring in a new era of politics. Unless, John from Kent asked him to do this. Jezza has now joined the rest of them in the "gutter" when it comes to the political game

 

They are all at it. There is no right or left wing. They are all at it, this tax avoidance lark

 

I'm not sure how questioning the PM on possible tax avoidance goes against any new era principles. I would say it's his duty as leader of the opposition to do it.

 

What's your idea of 'new era' - sit there and say nothing about anything that might make the tories look bad?

[Verbal]

So, quite unsurprisingly, the BBC news, or at least the snippet of it I heard on the radio earlier, is glossing over this completely (though of course that has nothing to do with the fact that the head of BBC news is one of George Osbourne's best mates - no sir, not at all!), and is repeating Cameron's claim that this government has taken more steps to address the issue of corporate tax avoidance/evasion than most other countries.

 

I'll let you into a little secret. The leak from Mossack Fonseca happened over a year ago. The vast amount of material, including four million emails, had to be analysed - which was done by over 400 journalists assembled by the consortium of investigative journalists. One of the largest groups of journalists was from the BBC. So this is every bit a BBC-led story as a Guardian one, and they'll run with it, while giving plenty of air time to the denials, etc. Given the vast amount of data, don't expect the revelations to dry up any time soon.

[Mr Biscuits]

You know what makes me laugh the most about all of this is the fact that people appear to be shocked and surprised. The information, the knowledge is all there if you look for it. And while what people have been doing may be morally wrong it's not illegal (obviously due to the efforts of pressure groups etc who are paid to get this sort of thing done) just as war is morally wrong but is totally legal if parliament votes for it.

Reminds me of that film Layer Cake - we're all part of it wether we like it or not. Or whether we realise it or not.

[whelk]

You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think this kind of thing will ever be stopped and while a couple of you seem to be trying to take some sort of moral high ground I'm willing to bet that, like me, you claim for every possible thing to reduce your tax burden as much as possible.

I claim for whatever my accountant and I think we can get away with, not much when you get down to it really but do you know what? I worked for it, it's my bloody money and I don't see why huge lumps of it should be taken away to pay for scumbags to sit in prison with better facilities than my Nan had in her nursing home, or for your average skate to skulk at home with his finger up his arse tugging himself off to Jeremy Kyle. (Note: While being more than happy to pay for projects that help people into work, or improve local communities)

 

But I'm afraid that after 25 years of work I've come to the conclusion that most people are corruptible on some level and I'm tired of watching my tax being a political plaything, wasted on those who definitely don't deserve it.

 

I love the way greedy bstards seem to think they work so hard. yeah system is flawed and some getting away with it. But don't dress up your greed as any noble quality. You want to keep your money ok although probably the first to moan when you see a pothole, litter strewn parks

[Whitey Grandad]

I love the way greedy bstards seem to think they work so hard. yeah system is flawed and some getting away with it. But don't dress up your greed as any noble quality. You want to keep your money ok although probably the first to moan when you see a pothole, litter strewn parks

All very noble but I don't think that paying more taxes will get rid of the potholes and the litter.

[FloridaMarlin]

No, he's not. He was asked by Sky News today whether he had benefited personally from the offshore company his dad owned. He did not answer the question. It's reasonable therefore to conclude that he did benefit. For the leader of this country to campaign - apparently - against tax evasion and industrial-scale avoidance, only to have benefited from it in the first place, is some breathtaking hypocrisy.

 

So if he continues to duck the question - and so long as it remains unanswered he'll be asked it again and again - he has no way out.

 

Incidentally, what 'EU privacy law' enables Cameron to hide his tax affairs from the public? Can you name the Act?

 

He is a public servant and if his private affairs (such as tax evasion) infringe on his public life they are not protected by any right to or privilege of secrecy.

 

There is no such thing as a EU privacy law. This is another fallacy cobbled together by the Daily Mail and others as part of the fallacy that we are all subject and mercilessly browbeaten by crazy EU laws, imposed by unelected eurocrats in Brussels.

 

The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which in its Article 8, sets out the entitlement of individuals to privacy.

 

THE ECHR's dichotomy is that Article 10 governs Freedom of Expression (which includes the ability of individuals to speak their mind and is most often used by the media as a justification for invading an individual's privacy).

 

The Mail-prompted fallacy is erroneous in that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. The ECHR was drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe to safeguard certain human rights in the aftermath of WW II. The main driving force behind the convention was not your slimy Frog, duplicitous Eyetie or intractable Dutchman, but us.

 

There is no such thing as a specific privacy law as such in this country. Those who can afford it use other legislation to protect their privacy (Data Protection - Naomi Campbell, Breach of Contract - Michael Douglas and Katherine Z-J).

 

Ironically, the reason we have no specific privacy law is the reluctance of successive governments to enact one for fear of upsetting newspapers and their proprietors who claim it would impinge on their ability to operate.

 

Nice irony there that the influence of Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, the Rothermere family and Richard Desmond on Dave not to implement privacy laws post Leveson inquiry, could be the means for people to poke their noses into his business and fail to provide him with the security blanket of 'privacy' to hide behind.

[View From The Top]

All very noble but I don't think that paying more taxes will get rid of the potholes and the litter.

 

It's not very hard. It's about everyone paying their share, not paying more.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's not very hard. It's about everyone paying their share, not paying more.

That also means some people paying less.

[Jonnyboy]

Of course I would. But I have and never would have vowed to bring in a new era of politics. Unless, John from Kent asked him to do this. Jezza has now joined the rest of them in the "gutter" when it comes to the political game

 

They are all at it. There is no right or left wing. They are all at it, this tax avoidance lark

 

I'm 99.9% sure Jeremy Corbyn is not "at it."

[Jonnyboy]

All very noble but I don't think that paying more taxes will get rid of the potholes and the litter.

 

http://http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/#3b5bf88373d3

 

Is that enough f*cking potholes for you?

[trousers]

I'm 99.9% sure Jeremy Corbyn is not "at it."

Is the 0.1% just in case he has an ISA ?

[Hockey_saint]

Seriously, what the heck?

 

[View From The Top]

That also means some people paying less.

 

This really seems to have you confused. It's about people paying what they should. It's a very simple concept.

[Batman]

Seriously, what the heck?

 

 

I think it is to do with the fuss labour were in when Milliband's dad was called into question. Also, how the biggest Labour Lords are and have 'avoided' tax

even the great Tony Benn 'settled' his affairs before he died so his kids got out of paying inheritance tax (and fair play to him)

 

that and this news about the PMs dad has been floating around for a while. Despite jezza's claim to usher in a new era of politics. Seems a bit more of the same

[trousers]

Understandably, discussions of this nature tend to focus on how much tax certain people have avoided paying. Don't we also need to know how much tax the same people have actually paid to come to a balanced view on how much they have contributed to society financially?

 

Yes, I get the argument that avoiding paying the maximum amount of tax you could be liable for if you didn't utilise legal 'tax efficiency' schemes is morally questionable, but if we knew how much tax they *haven't* avoided paying it might add some context to the discussion.

 

At a higher level, we know that the top 1% pay c.25% of tax overall. Some might say that sounds 'fair', on the surface...?

 

There again, maybe not.

Edited 6 April, 2016 by trousers

[trousers]

Would also be interesting to know what all these rich buggers end up doing with all this money they avoid paying to the Exchequer.

 

Do they just leave it sitting in these funds forever or do they end up putting it back into the economy via purchases etc?

 

(Yes, I'm already aware that the 'trickle down' argument doesn't win any points on the Saints Web Forum... )

Edited 6 April, 2016 by trousers

[aintforever]

Would also be interesting to know what all these rich buggers end up doing with all this money they avoid paying to the Exchequer.

 

Do they just leave it sitting in these funds forever or do they end up putting it back into the economy via purchases etc?

 

(Yes, I'm already aware that the 'trickle down' argument doesn't win any points on the Saints Web Forum... )

 

It's all irrelevant, we all work and pay tax (except the obvious scrounges). If you work your ass off in some low paid salaried job you don't get the option of squirrelling it away in an offshore scheme and you sure as **** put a higher percentage of what you earn back into the economy.

[Whitey Grandad]

This really seems to have you confused. It's about people paying what they should. It's a very simple concept.

 

If you've ever been subject to a tax investigation then you'd know that HMRC will screw you for every penny that they can squeeze out of you and will bend the tax laws to suit themselves and there's nothing that you can do about it. They are not interested in you paying what you should, they interpret the laws to suit themselves.

[Whitey Grandad]

http://http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/#3b5bf88373d3

 

Is that enough f*cking potholes for you?

 

Why do you feel the need to swear? Is your case that weak?

 

What I'm saying is that no matter how much extra tax you or I pay it wouldn't be spent on potholes, it would go to some local authority chief executive or some other 'more urgent' cause.

[whelk]

Why do you feel the need to swear? Is your case that weak?

 

What I'm saying is that no matter how much extra tax you or I pay it wouldn't be spent on potholes, it would go to some local authority chief executive or some other 'more urgent' cause.

 

Yeah taxes go on nothing useful eh.

[whelk]

Would also be interesting to know what all these rich buggers end up doing with all this money they avoid paying to the Exchequer.

 

Do they just leave it sitting in these funds forever or do they end up putting it back into the economy via purchases etc?

 

(Yes, I'm already aware that the 'trickle down' argument doesn't win any points on the Saints Web Forum... )

 

I heard Bill Gates buys 20000 pairs of jeans every year

[Hockey_saint]

It's all irrelevant, we all work and pay tax (except the obvious scrounges). If you work your ass off in some low paid salaried job you don't get the option of squirrelling it away in an offshore scheme and you sure as **** put a higher percentage of what you earn back into the economy.

 

I'd like to know who you think are the "obvious scroungers". Are these the ones in the Daily Mail perchance, or some other target of the right wing media. Because, frankly, benefit fraud at it's current % is a virtual non-issue but it's used as a red herring for the very people in this article.

[Jonnyboy]

Why do you feel the need to swear? Is your case that weak?

 

What I'm saying is that no matter how much extra tax you or I pay it wouldn't be spent on potholes, it would go to some local authority chief executive or some other 'more urgent' cause.

 

I was frustrated by the willful ignorance.

 

Those amounts could pay off the national debts of every country on Earth. No more excessive government borrowing, no more potholes. It'd be good right?

[whelk]

Topical http://news.sky.com/story/1674098/councils-need-230-times-more-to-fix-potholes

[whelk]

So if someone asks me if I'm gay and I refuse to answer does that mean I'm gay?

 

It is ridiculous to assume an answer for someone when they do not answer a question.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/george-osborne-wont-answer-if-hes-benefited-from-offshore-funds/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1459974952

 

You see nothing suspicious in this evasion?

[Hockey_saint]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/george-osborne-wont-answer-if-hes-benefited-from-offshore-funds/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1459974952

 

You see nothing suspicious in this evasion?

 

He may not be gay but he's the worst chancellor we've had in a very long time. But I do believe he was also involved in Cameron's witch hunt of celeb tax evaders earlier so it is innappropriate also for him to come up with excuses like "it's a private family matter".

[Mr Biscuits]

I love the way greedy bstards seem to think they work so hard. yeah system is flawed and some getting away with it. But don't dress up your greed as any noble quality. You want to keep your money ok although probably the first to moan when you see a pothole, litter strewn parks

 

 

You don't know me, you don't know what I do for a living, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when describing me in this way. Perhaps you should refrain from the personal attacks and stick to the topic.

[whelk]

You don't know me, you don't know what I do for a living, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when describing me in this way. Perhaps you should refrain from the personal attacks and stick to the topic.

 

The topic being tax avoidance. You seemed to be defending it and then use a very lame defence that you entitled to your money and don't like where it goes to unworthy causes in your opinion. Fundamentally is greed. Hardly a personal attack either.

[Johnny Bognor]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/06/george-osborne-wont-answer-if-hes-benefited-from-offshore-funds/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1459974952

 

You see nothing suspicious in this evasion?

 

As long as offshore funds are declared in the register of members interests ... wait a minute...

[whelk]

And more.....http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

[FloridaMarlin]

If you've ever been subject to a tax investigation then you'd know that HMRC will screw you for every penny that they can squeeze out of you and will bend the tax laws to suit themselves and there's nothing that you can do about it. They are not interested in you paying what you should, they interpret the laws to suit themselves.

 

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.

 

HMRC, will not screw you for every penny they can squeeze out of you. They will try and obtain what a person should have paid, no more, no less (that includes any interest penalties that may have accrued through late payment).

 

They do not bend the tax laws to suit themselves. They are there to enforce the laws as they exist.

 

As HMRC will only seek to gain what should be due, they will do pretty much anything they can to assist taxpayers. It's amazing what they will do if you actually speak to them and are honest and up front with them, and explain any problems or difficulties you might have have in paying your bill. They will set up payment plans, offset payments, and be amenable to other arrangements such as adjusting your tax code so that you do not have to pay a big lump sum, as long as people are honest with them.

 

They actually want to help people pay their bills. In fact, the nasty, horrible taxman tends to write off a lot of smaller outstanding payments because it is not economically viable to chase them down.

 

I know closely somebody who works for HMRC and they constantly tell me how frustrated they are that as civil servants (that's people who serve the public, by the way, which is what they try and do) they have to play by the rules and apply the laws strictly, objectively and fairly, while people will employ any method they can to circumvent them.

 

They are also pretty brassed off at the public image of image of them as portrayed by the Mail and other papers.

 

The Mail has performed some wonderful journalistic gymnastics this week. The same paper which stands foursquare behind the government's austerity policies and demands further cuts in what they still describe as tea-drinking (not true, they don't get tea breaks), feather-bedded pensioned (not true, Civil Service pensions are not what they were and even then civil servants pay from their salary than other sectors of industry) pen-pushing civil servants, had the temerity this week to criticise HMRC for not doing more to track down non-payers from overseas tax havens (conveniently forgetting, of course, the Mail's proprietors live in France so they can avoid tax as non-doms).

 

Perhaps if they were provided with the resources to implement the laws and policy, they would not seem so vehement to some people, in chasing the little guy.

 

But this government is not going to provide that, as it might enable HMRC to extract the correct taxes from those who can afford to evade it.

[Batman]

http://news.sky.com/story/1674219/pm-intervened-to-weaken-eu-action-on-trusts

[whelk]

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.

 

HMRC, will not screw you for every penny they can squeeze out of you. They will try and obtain what a person should have paid, no more, no less (that includes any interest penalties that may have accrued through late payment).

 

They do not bend the tax laws to suit themselves. They are there to enforce the laws as they exist.

 

As HMRC will only seek to gain what should be due, they will do pretty much anything they can to assist taxpayers. It's amazing what they will do if you actually speak to them and are honest and up front with them, and explain any problems or difficulties you might have have in paying your bill. They will set up payment plans, offset payments, and be amenable to other arrangements such as adjusting your tax code so that you do not have to pay a big lump sum, as long as people are honest with them.

 

They actually want to help people pay their bills. In fact, the nasty, horrible taxman tends to write off a lot of smaller outstanding payments because it is not economically viable to chase them down.

 

I know closely somebody who works for HMRC and they constantly tell me how frustrated they are that as civil servants (that's people who serve the public, by the way, which is what they try and do) they have to play by the rules and apply the laws strictly, objectively and fairly, while people will employ any method they can to circumvent them.

 

They are also pretty brassed off at the public image of image of them as portrayed by the Mail and other papers.

 

The Mail has performed some wonderful journalistic gymnastics this week. The same paper which stands foursquare behind the government's austerity policies and demands further cuts in what they still describe as tea-drinking (not true, they don't get tea breaks), feather-bedded pensioned (not true, Civil Service pensions are not what they were and even then civil servants pay from their salary than other sectors of industry) pen-pushing civil servants, had the temerity this week to criticise HMRC for not doing more to track down non-payers from overseas tax havens (conveniently forgetting, of course, the Mail's proprietors live in France so they can avoid tax as non-doms).

 

Perhaps if they were provided with the resources to implement the laws and policy, they would not seem so vehement to some people, in chasing the little guy.

 

But this government is not going to provide that, as it might enable HMRC to extract the correct taxes from those who can afford to evade it.

 

Well said. I too know someone who could quadruple her salary working on the other side. She chooses to to stay at HMRC and thankfully still some good bright sorts there.

[saint1977]

Great post Florida Marlin. I'm ITK from many years ago and have to be very careful what I post but you've hit the nail on the head. As with any organisation on that scale, public or private sector (and I've worked in both and Third Sector), there are good performing bits and not-so-good. The politicians from all parties are getting away scot-free, Brown made the taxman/woman's job a heck of a lot harder with the various measures to make the rules and collection of taxation so much more opaque and austerity has reduced their clout against some of the worst large-scale cheats.

 

Mail is just another example of hypocritical non-doms.

 

Trousers made a valid point that needs acknowledging but another that needs more discussion. We should celebrate far more businesses which create jobs in this country, pay their dues and contribute to the communities in which they are based e.g. using the regional development and honours systems properly. That's what helps underpin our economy and society. There's a risk that the discourse just focuses on the crooks avoiding tax on a large scale and not the majority creating and sharing prosperity. By paying their taxes, they are supporting tomorrow's generation of achievers and keeping their current workforces fit and well.

 

Where I'm less sure about what he is saying is that 25% is potentially a high enough overall figure for the top 1% (if that's what he was saying). My own experiences tell me that taxation is applied on a national basis but each case needs to be judged on it's merits so I'd be reluctant to generalise that far. Some of the top 1% may/should pay less, some far more. That said, I'm also a pragmatist and where adjusting a tax band increases the overall take so we can help society more, governments should make their case more strongly.

 

Our tax systems are some of the most lean in the world though, it's hardly like the bad old days under Harold Wilson for top earners.

[ecuk268]

It's not surprising that Cameron's a bit vague about his tax affairs.

 

According to this interview with The Times, he's not too sure about how many houses he owns:

 

"So how many properties do you own?"

 

“I own a house in North Kensington which you’ve been to and my house in the constituency in Oxfordshire and that is, as far as I know, all I have.”

 

A house in Cornwall? “No, that is, Samantha used to have a timeshare in South Devon but she doesn’t any more.” And there isn’t a fourth? “I don’t think so – not that I can think of.” Please don’t say, “Not that I can think of.” “You might be… Samantha owns a field in S****horpe but she doesn’t own a house…”

 

The rest of the interview was punctuated with Cameron’s nagging anxiety about how this exchange was going to make him sound: “I was wondering how that will come across as a soundbite”; “‘Not that I can think of’ makes me sound… I am really worried about that…”;

 

“I am still thinking about this house thing”; and his parting shot was:

 

“Do not make me sound like a prat for not knowing how many houses I’ve got.”

[Sheaf Saint]

And more.....http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-offshore-trusts-eu-tax-crackdown-2013

 

And given this video clip as well, it's little wonder that nobody has the slightest bit of faith in this Tory government when they say they are getting tough on tax avoidance.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI

[TwoPints]

So Dave's admitted profiting from the offshore trust now then but claims all the appropriate tax was paid. Wonder why you would go to the trouble of employing a Panamanian law firm to set up an offshore trust like this if the intention was not to avoid tax? I also wonder why he felt he needed to offload it before he became PM as though it was something he didn't want people go know about. Nothing fishy there

[hutch]

So Dave's admitted profiting from the offshore trust now then but claims all the appropriate tax was paid. Wonder why you would go to the trouble of employing a Panamanian law firm to set up an offshore trust like this if the intention was not to avoid tax? I also wonder why he felt he needed to offload it before he became PM as though it was something he didn't want people go know about. Nothing fishy there

 

Yeah but killing your own father? Is there no depth the man will stoop to?

[Johnny Bognor]

Oh dear. Looks like cameron did have shares in the fund. That doesnt look good at all

[Batman]

Oh dear. Looks like cameron did have shares in the fund. That doesnt look good at all

 

2016 has not been good for him has it lol

 

No doubt his lawyers have been working round the clock on damage limitation

[aintforever]

How many times has he changed his story now? Only yesterday he said he hadn't benefitted from offshore funds.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeah taxes go on nothing useful eh.

 

Not nothing but not all on something worthwhile. A hell of a lot is not used effectively and if we all paid more taxes then a lot of the Public Sector would just award themselves a pay rise. Have a look at the quangos and what their bosses get paid. Then tell me that it's 'useful'. And they're not the only ones.

 

Do you think that we taxpayers get good value for money?

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.

 

HMRC, will not screw you for every penny they can squeeze out of you. They will try and obtain what a person should have paid, no more, no less (that includes any interest penalties that may have accrued through late payment).

 

They do not bend the tax laws to suit themselves. They are there to enforce the laws as they exist.

 

As HMRC will only seek to gain what should be due, they will do pretty much anything they can to assist taxpayers. It's amazing what they will do if you actually speak to them and are honest and up front with them, and explain any problems or difficulties you might have have in paying your bill. They will set up payment plans, offset payments, and be amenable to other arrangements such as adjusting your tax code so that you do not have to pay a big lump sum, as long as people are honest with them.

 

They actually want to help people pay their bills. In fact, the nasty, horrible taxman tends to write off a lot of smaller outstanding payments because it is not economically viable to chase them down.

 

I know closely somebody who works for HMRC and they constantly tell me how frustrated they are that as civil servants (that's people who serve the public, by the way, which is what they try and do) they have to play by the rules and apply the laws strictly, objectively and fairly, while people will employ any method they can to circumvent them.

 

They are also pretty brassed off at the public image of image of them as portrayed by the Mail and other papers.

 

The Mail has performed some wonderful journalistic gymnastics this week. The same paper which stands foursquare behind the government's austerity policies and demands further cuts in what they still describe as tea-drinking (not true, they don't get tea breaks), feather-bedded pensioned (not true, Civil Service pensions are not what they were and even then civil servants pay from their salary than other sectors of industry) pen-pushing civil servants, had the temerity this week to criticise HMRC for not doing more to track down non-payers from overseas tax havens (conveniently forgetting, of course, the Mail's proprietors live in France so they can avoid tax as non-doms).

 

Perhaps if they were provided with the resources to implement the laws and policy, they would not seem so vehement to some people, in chasing the little guy.

 

But this government is not going to provide that, as it might enable HMRC to extract the correct taxes from those who can afford to evade it.

 

That is no longer true. Their attitude has changed significantly in the last couple of years and I can give you (privately) a couple of examples. I wouldn't want to attract any more attention.

[whelk]

Not nothing but not all on something worthwhile. A hell of a lot is not used effectively and if we all paid more taxes then a lot of the Public Sector would just award themselves a pay rise. Have a look at the quangos and what their bosses get paid. Then tell me that it's 'useful'. And they're not the only ones.

 

Do you think that we taxpayers get good value for money?

 

This is so often the argument - look at the 'non jobs' created. Of course not saying isn't waste in public sector but do you think no increase in tax receipts has any impact on improving our education, health and transport systems?

Also all these perceived luxuries such as sure start centres can be essential to some.

I have been lucky and my family has never had to take advantage of many of the schemes and opportunities for the less well off. Doesn't mean they are all nonsense and should be scrapped though.

 

We all have things that annoy us and a waste of taxpayers money similarly we all probably think the BBC shouldn't be wasting money on this or that.

 

I accept that my taxes help make for a better society - questionable at times I agree, but no excuse to avoid them.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

On Tuesday the PM stated that he had no money invested in off-shore funds. This statement would appear to be both factually correct and misleading at the same time because he now admits that he had cashed-in a (modest) fund before he became Prime Minister.

 

This is obviously highly embarrassing for him but I don't think this is serious enough to be a resigning matter as there is afterall - as yet - no suggestion of any illegality here. Lose the coming EU referendum on the other hand and his position will surely become untenable I would have thought.

[Johnny Bognor]

This is obviously highly embarrassing for him but I don't think this is serious enough to be a resigning matter as there is afterall - as yet - no suggestion of any illegality here. Lose the coming EU referendum on the other hand and his position will surely become untenable I would have thought.

 

So how many lefties will vote to leave the EU just to **** off the tories?

[FloridaMarlin]

That is no longer true. Their attitude has changed significantly in the last couple of years and I can give you (privately) a couple of examples. I wouldn't want to attract any more attention.

 

I wouldn't expect you to provide examples, in the same way the person I know in HMRC cannot reveal individual details for fear of breaching the Official Secrets Act.

 

However, if your couple of examples have been pursued aggressively by HMRC there is probably a reason for it. Without knowing the specific details, HMRC will get on somebody's back if they think they have failed to provide correct information, if they persistently fail to provide returns or information, or if they think there is something amiss.

 

And that attitude certainly hasn't changed in the past two years or twenty. The taxman (whether in his current guise of HMRC or previous incarnation of Inland Revenue) has ALWAYS aggressively pursued those they are able to, if they think they are not being up front and honest.

 

I might be wrong, buy you appear to be saying that HMRC are chasing the little man more aggressively as they cannot touch the big boys.

 

That's not a view I would adhere to from my experience, and is a claim usually pursued by those tasting sour grapes as HMRC have been on their case. And, as I say, there is usually a reason for that.

 

If you feel HMRC have changed their attitude in the past two years and are pursuing the little guy more, you have to ask yourself why that might be.

 

The latest figures show a £34bn shortfall in tax collected and what should have been collected. That figure includes both tax evasion and avoidance.

 

Perhaps that eye-watering figure suggests HMRC hasn't changed its attitude enough.