I am not happy with people withholding their fair share - many of whom appear to be pretty well off. They far outweigh the cases where HMRC make an error that exercise you on a daily basis. But you admit your hatred of that organisation anyway, so it explains your emotional terms like "grabbing".
As for losing a home that would not happen - such draconian measures are not part of the proposals.
Most people in this country pay tax under PAYE - they have no choice in paying the going rate, and generally accept it.
What is it that makes some not on PAYE so greedy and resentful - whatever they pay?
Not talking about people withholding their fair share (whatever that means) - I'm talking about people who do not legally owe the money - just that HMRC says they owe the money. And as for mistakes - you have no evidence whatsoever to show how many 'mistakes' HMRC makes. Where as I can point to numerous examples and there are a number even in this thread. It can be intransigent to even provide people with details of the money and why it think they owe it.
So I ask again are you happy for HMRC to be able to remove money from people's bank account.
Not talking about people withholding their fair share (whatever that means) - I'm talking about people who do not legally owe the money - just that HMRC says they owe the money. And as for mistakes - you have no evidence whatsoever to show how many 'mistakes' HMRC makes. Where as I can point to numerous examples and there are a number even in this thread. It can be intransigent to even provide people with details of the money and why it think they owe it.
So I ask again are you happy for HMRC to be able to remove money from people's bank account.
So we're in the same boat on that issue then.
As for your question I have said at least twice (three times?) on this thread that I am perfectly content for them to do that.
Remember, this will be used when people persistently refuse to cough up the money owed.
But that is the whole point. We are not talking about people who owe money (legally), Just that HMRC say they owe money.
Because it you think HMRC can just take money from your bank account I would suggest that you are very rare and that assumes they have the right bank account - which itself opens a right can of worms.
But that is the whole point. We are not talking about people who owe money (legally), Just that HMRC say they owe money.
Because it you think HMRC can just take money from your bank account I would suggest that you are very rare and that assumes they have the right bank account - which itself opens a right can of worms.
So you are just as opposed to DWP bypassing the courts to get money back from benefit claimants on their say so?
So you are just as opposed to DWP bypassing the courts to get money back from benefit claimants on their say so?
Yes - they are not averse to making mistakes either - and even when it makes a mistake and say over pays. At least with the tax office the people it happens to will have a higher income. With the DWP it is more likely to be poorer people and this seizing of money has put people in a very tight financial position.
Now no doubt a lot will use this as a stick to beat the coalition with but this shows someone who died hungry and cold because the DWP forgot to put the letter 'A' on his house number.
Now no doubt a lot will use this as a stick to beat the coalition with but this shows someone who died hungry and cold because the DWP forgot to put the letter 'A' on his house number.
Cock ups by government officials always have happened and probably always will happen.
Here's an anecdote concerning a friend of mine. His surname is Raptis. However try as he might to try and correct an error on the part of HMRC in every correspondence he receives from them, they still to this day address him as "Mr. Rapist"
Ok we all have a bit of a laugh about an obvious typo on some government computer system. But such errors are scary if departments are given powers to do extra-judicial things like clearing out bank accounts.
Apparently, it is also being considered for TV licensing and DVLA as well
Note this is HMRC's suggestion. Scope creep at it's finest.
What a nightmare that will be.
It gets better and better-
Under the powers, HMRC would contact people who owe money up to nine times and if they fail to respond their bank account would be frozen for 14 days.
So for 14 days, anyone who disputes HMRC will be unable to access their money whilst HMRC does some kind of means testing to see how much they can take. During that 14-day 'cooling off' period, the freeze will mean standing orders, direct debits, mortgage payments, utility bills etc etc can't be paid. And for a lawyer, Lin Homer has an odd view regarding justice-
But Lin Homer, the chief executive of HMRC, said there was no need for independent oversight of the “sharper” powers.
Yep, oversight is such an old-fashioned and inefficient concept that should not prevent scutage by unaccountable public servants. And on fairness-
Ms Homer said compensation pay outs are for the courts to decide.
Soo.. going to court over a disputed debt is waaay too much hassle and inconvenience for HMRC, but if the public want compensation, they'll have to take HMRC to court. With less than £5,000 to fund any private action.
Homer should be dismissed, especially after her track record in previous public teat roles.
Note this is HMRC's suggestion. Scope creep at it's finest.
It gets better and better-
Under the powers, HMRC would contact people who owe money up to nine times and if they fail to respond their bank account would be frozen for 14 days.
So for 14 days, anyone who disputes HMRC will be unable to access their money whilst HMRC does some kind of means testing to see how much they can take. During that 14-day 'cooling off' period, the freeze will mean standing orders, direct debits, mortgage payments, utility bills etc etc can't be paid. And for a lawyer, Lin Homer has an odd view regarding justice-
But Lin Homer, the chief executive of HMRC, said there was no need for independent oversight of the “sharper” powers.
Yep, oversight is such an old-fashioned and inefficient concept that should not prevent scutage by unaccountable public servants. And on fairness-
Ms Homer said compensation pay outs are for the courts to decide.
Soo.. going to court over a disputed debt is waaay too much hassle and inconvenience for HMRC, but if the public want compensation, they'll have to take HMRC to court. With less than £5,000 to fund any private action.
Homer should be dismissed, especially after her track record in previous public teat roles.
Note this is HMRC's suggestion. Scope creep at it's finest.
It gets better and better-
Under the powers, HMRC would contact people who owe money up to nine times and if they fail to respond their bank account would be frozen for 14 days.
So for 14 days, anyone who disputes HMRC will be unable to access their money whilst HMRC does some kind of means testing to see how much they can take. During that 14-day 'cooling off' period, the freeze will mean standing orders, direct debits, mortgage payments, utility bills etc etc can't be paid. And for a lawyer, Lin Homer has an odd view regarding justice-
But Lin Homer, the chief executive of HMRC, said there was no need for independent oversight of the “sharper” powers.
Yep, oversight is such an old-fashioned and inefficient concept that should not prevent scutage by unaccountable public servants. And on fairness-
Ms Homer said compensation pay outs are for the courts to decide.
Soo.. going to court over a disputed debt is waaay too much hassle and inconvenience for HMRC, but if the public want compensation, they'll have to take HMRC to court. With less than £5,000 to fund any private action.
Homer should be dismissed, especially after her track record in previous public teat roles.
Me. The public. The unruly mass that the public servants are meant to work for.
The majority of workers in this country pay, by means of PAYE, their tax every month with few tears.
Why others find the process of paying what they are supposed to without being dragged screaming to the courts (and making us all pay for the privilege) is breathtaking.
But maybe, if this proposed measure proved really unpopular, we could keep what we've got but those that lose their case in the courts have to pay the amount in question plus double the amount of legal costs......
The majority of workers in this country pay, by means of PAYE, their tax every month with few tears.
Why others find the process of paying what they are supposed to without being dragged screaming to the courts (and making us all pay for the privilege) is breathtaking.
But maybe, if this proposed measure proved really unpopular, we could keep what we've got but those that lose their case in the courts have to pay the amount in question plus double the amount of legal costs......
See, I'm among that majority of workers in this country who pay our tax every month by means of PAYE. But that didn't stop HMRC insisting that I was actually self-employed and had failed to file with them for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, despite the fact that every single sodding year I spent ages on the phone to them sorting it out and being assured they'd corrected the mistake. And then the next year there'd be another even BIGGER demand.
(Edited that- it was only four years, not six. Got a bit carried away there, just did the maths in my head and it was four).
Nah, I don't trust that kind of ineptitude with my bank account, thanks.
See, I'm among that majority of workers in this country who pay our tax every month by means of PAYE. But that didn't stop HMRC insisting that I was actually self-employed and had failed to file with them for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, despite the fact that every single sodding year I spent ages on the phone to them sorting it out and being assured they'd corrected the mistake. And then the next year there'd be another even BIGGER demand.
(Edited that- it was only four years, not six. Got a bit carried away there, just did the maths in my head and it was four).
Nah, I don't trust that kind of ineptitude with my bank account, thanks.
Really? Well, lobby your MP to reverse the austerity measures in the civil service, get them to employ more staff and mistakes will be fewer, won't they?
The majority of workers in this country pay, by means of PAYE, their tax every month with few tears.
Yup, and the PAYE system is/was notoriously broken. Plus anyone who's been sucked into the 40% band may be unaware of the complications that can bring. Our tax system is notoriously complex.
Why others find the process of paying what they are supposed to without being dragged screaming to the courts (and making us all pay for the privilege) is breathtaking.
Because that's how justice is supposed to work. If two parties can't reach an agreement, you take it to court and the court decides.
HMRC's version of justice is largely automated. Their computers will spit out a bunch of demands probably without any human intervention unless the taxpayer queries it. Assuming they can find a human to answer the query. Then find one that doesn't suggest paying off a company 'debt' with a personal credit card.
So the suggestion is basically to take that process to it's logical conclusion and be able to automate the entire process, from calculation to confiscation. And remove any oversight or appeals process.
But maybe, if this proposed measure proved really unpopular, we could keep what we've got but those that lose their case in the courts have to pay the amount in question plus double the amount of legal costs......
That's pretty much how it works anyway. Anyone who challenges HMRC risks a bunch of penalties. If HMRC is wrong, they risk virtually nothing as the penalties are very one sided.
See, I'm among that majority of workers in this country who pay our tax every month by means of PAYE.
HMRC is also trying to fine my dormant company for not using/filing with their glorious new PAYE online system. They're not accepting the reason for non-filing is there has been no payroll since the company went dormant.. Apparently I'm supposed to wake it up, buy a PAYE approved system and make a nil return but I'm thinking that's waaaay too much paperwork, and Kafka would be so proud.
Comments
Not talking about people withholding their fair share (whatever that means) - I'm talking about people who do not legally owe the money - just that HMRC says they owe the money. And as for mistakes - you have no evidence whatsoever to show how many 'mistakes' HMRC makes. Where as I can point to numerous examples and there are a number even in this thread. It can be intransigent to even provide people with details of the money and why it think they owe it.
So I ask again are you happy for HMRC to be able to remove money from people's bank account.
So we're in the same boat on that issue then.
As for your question I have said at least twice (three times?) on this thread that I am perfectly content for them to do that.
So you are happy for HMRC to take money from people's bank accounts just one the say so of HRMC?
I think you will be in a minority there.
No, it has absolutely no parallel.
Taking money you are not entitled to is theft, whether by the benefit fraudster or HMRC.
The real problem here is the thinking that just because you are a government department, you can just bypass common law.
There is no reason for HMRC to have any special powers or claim over any other entity.
Unless, of course, you are happy for utility company's to have the power to raid the bank accounts of people in fuel poverty.
For the fourth time, yes.
Remember, this will be used when people persistently refuse to cough up the money owed.
Of course it has! Fraudulently claimed/overpaid benefits is money rightfully belonging to the state, as is illegally withheld tax.
The DWP are bypassing the courts system to get that money back, as will HMRC if the proposals are adopted.
If you oppose the one you must oppose the other.
But that is the whole point. We are not talking about people who owe money (legally), Just that HMRC say they owe money.
Because it you think HMRC can just take money from your bank account I would suggest that you are very rare and that assumes they have the right bank account - which itself opens a right can of worms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10954956/Could-TV-Licensing-be-given-power-to-raid-bank-accounts.html
What a nightmare that will be.
So you are just as opposed to DWP bypassing the courts to get money back from benefit claimants on their say so?
Yes - they are not averse to making mistakes either - and even when it makes a mistake and say over pays. At least with the tax office the people it happens to will have a higher income. With the DWP it is more likely to be poorer people and this seizing of money has put people in a very tight financial position.
Now no doubt a lot will use this as a stick to beat the coalition with but this shows someone who died hungry and cold because the DWP forgot to put the letter 'A' on his house number.
Define 'peristently' please ?
At what point will HMRC decide to take money from your bank account without your permssion ? Will they let you know beforehand ?
The purpose of the courts is to determine such things, self-evident you would think. Not to some people it isn't.
No point arguing, it's hard-wired.
Here's an anecdote concerning a friend of mine. His surname is Raptis. However try as he might to try and correct an error on the part of HMRC in every correspondence he receives from them, they still to this day address him as "Mr. Rapist"
Ok we all have a bit of a laugh about an obvious typo on some government computer system. But such errors are scary if departments are given powers to do extra-judicial things like clearing out bank accounts.
Note this is HMRC's suggestion. Scope creep at it's finest.
It gets better and better-
Under the powers, HMRC would contact people who owe money up to nine times and if they fail to respond their bank account would be frozen for 14 days.
So for 14 days, anyone who disputes HMRC will be unable to access their money whilst HMRC does some kind of means testing to see how much they can take. During that 14-day 'cooling off' period, the freeze will mean standing orders, direct debits, mortgage payments, utility bills etc etc can't be paid. And for a lawyer, Lin Homer has an odd view regarding justice-
But Lin Homer, the chief executive of HMRC, said there was no need for independent oversight of the “sharper” powers.
Yep, oversight is such an old-fashioned and inefficient concept that should not prevent scutage by unaccountable public servants. And on fairness-
Ms Homer said compensation pay outs are for the courts to decide.
Soo.. going to court over a disputed debt is waaay too much hassle and inconvenience for HMRC, but if the public want compensation, they'll have to take HMRC to court. With less than £5,000 to fund any private action.
Homer should be dismissed, especially after her track record in previous public teat roles.
Breathtaking.
Maybe you'd be better asking the people who refuse to pay what's owed why they are doing so and costing the rest of us money.
Just who do they think they are?
I don't owe it..
Me. The public. The unruly mass that the public servants are meant to work for.
But this doesn't happen with overpaid/fraudulently claimed benefits!
The majority of workers in this country pay, by means of PAYE, their tax every month with few tears.
Why others find the process of paying what they are supposed to without being dragged screaming to the courts (and making us all pay for the privilege) is breathtaking.
But maybe, if this proposed measure proved really unpopular, we could keep what we've got but those that lose their case in the courts have to pay the amount in question plus double the amount of legal costs......
See, I'm among that majority of workers in this country who pay our tax every month by means of PAYE. But that didn't stop HMRC insisting that I was actually self-employed and had failed to file with them for FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS, despite the fact that every single sodding year I spent ages on the phone to them sorting it out and being assured they'd corrected the mistake. And then the next year there'd be another even BIGGER demand.
(Edited that- it was only four years, not six. Got a bit carried away there, just did the maths in my head and it was four).
Nah, I don't trust that kind of ineptitude with my bank account, thanks.
Really? Well, lobby your MP to reverse the austerity measures in the civil service, get them to employ more staff and mistakes will be fewer, won't they?
Yup, and the PAYE system is/was notoriously broken. Plus anyone who's been sucked into the 40% band may be unaware of the complications that can bring. Our tax system is notoriously complex.
Because that's how justice is supposed to work. If two parties can't reach an agreement, you take it to court and the court decides.
HMRC's version of justice is largely automated. Their computers will spit out a bunch of demands probably without any human intervention unless the taxpayer queries it. Assuming they can find a human to answer the query. Then find one that doesn't suggest paying off a company 'debt' with a personal credit card.
So the suggestion is basically to take that process to it's logical conclusion and be able to automate the entire process, from calculation to confiscation. And remove any oversight or appeals process.
That's pretty much how it works anyway. Anyone who challenges HMRC risks a bunch of penalties. If HMRC is wrong, they risk virtually nothing as the penalties are very one sided.
HMRC is also trying to fine my dormant company for not using/filing with their glorious new PAYE online system. They're not accepting the reason for non-filing is there has been no payroll since the company went dormant.. Apparently I'm supposed to wake it up, buy a PAYE approved system and make a nil return but I'm thinking that's waaaay too much paperwork, and Kafka would be so proud.