Discussion
The Magna Carta was signed nearly 800 years ago and it's fundamental principle was that citizens should be judged on the law as it stood at the time. The Rule of Law, no matter what our Government want us to believe is the cornerstone of a democratic society.
Tomorrow, the Finance Bill committee will be debating new draconian measures in this years Finance Bill which basically give HMRC powers to dip into your bank accounts and force you to pay up front even before they have found you guilty of anything.
There is an up surge of support to remove these measures.
Anybody in the self employed/Freelancing world will be affected in some manner of means if this gets passed.
I'd therefore urge all of you to contact your local MPs and ask them to "vote against draconian retrospective law changes in this years Finance Bill".
Unfortunately I fear that most people will sit on their hands waiting for "others" to do something about it.
Once the brown envelopes start coming through doors or money disappears from your account it will be too late.
Let's not let this Government get away with this.
You can also Tweet your feelings to the Finance Bill committee members using #financebill2014.
The members:
Lorley Burt @lorleyburt
Nic Dakin @nicdakinmp
Caroline Dinenage @cj_dinenage
James Duddridge @jamesduddridge
Charlie Elphicke @charlieelphicke
Mark Garnier @mark4wyreforest
David Gauke @davidgauke
Sheila Gilmore @sheilagilmoremp
Duncan Hames @duncanhames
Chris Heaton-Harris @chhcalling
Cathy Jamieson @cathyjamieson
Mike Kane @mjpkane
Kwasi Kwarteng @kwasikwarteng
Andrea Leadsom @andrealeadsom
Chris Leslie @chrislesliemp
Shabana Mahmood @shabanamahmood
Iain McKenzie @inverclydemp
Catherine McKinnell @catmckinnellmp
Ian Mearns @ianmearnsmp
Nicky Morgan @nickymorgan01
Teresa Pearce @tpearce003
Christopher Pincher @chrispincher
Amber Rudd @amberruddmp
David Rutley @davidrutleymp
Alec Shelbrooke @alecshelbrooke
Henry Smith @henrysmithmp
Ian Swales @iswales
Heather Wheeler @heatherwheeler
Chris Williamson @chriswmp
Sammy Wilson @sammywilsonmp
Tomorrow, the Finance Bill committee will be debating new draconian measures in this years Finance Bill which basically give HMRC powers to dip into your bank accounts and force you to pay up front even before they have found you guilty of anything.
There is an up surge of support to remove these measures.
Anybody in the self employed/Freelancing world will be affected in some manner of means if this gets passed.
I'd therefore urge all of you to contact your local MPs and ask them to "vote against draconian retrospective law changes in this years Finance Bill".
Unfortunately I fear that most people will sit on their hands waiting for "others" to do something about it.
Once the brown envelopes start coming through doors or money disappears from your account it will be too late.
Let's not let this Government get away with this.
You can also Tweet your feelings to the Finance Bill committee members using #financebill2014.
The members:
Lorley Burt @lorleyburt
Nic Dakin @nicdakinmp
Caroline Dinenage @cj_dinenage
James Duddridge @jamesduddridge
Charlie Elphicke @charlieelphicke
Mark Garnier @mark4wyreforest
David Gauke @davidgauke
Sheila Gilmore @sheilagilmoremp
Duncan Hames @duncanhames
Chris Heaton-Harris @chhcalling
Cathy Jamieson @cathyjamieson
Mike Kane @mjpkane
Kwasi Kwarteng @kwasikwarteng
Andrea Leadsom @andrealeadsom
Chris Leslie @chrislesliemp
Shabana Mahmood @shabanamahmood
Iain McKenzie @inverclydemp
Catherine McKinnell @catmckinnellmp
Ian Mearns @ianmearnsmp
Nicky Morgan @nickymorgan01
Teresa Pearce @tpearce003
Christopher Pincher @chrispincher
Amber Rudd @amberruddmp
David Rutley @davidrutleymp
Alec Shelbrooke @alecshelbrooke
Henry Smith @henrysmithmp
Ian Swales @iswales
Heather Wheeler @heatherwheeler
Chris Williamson @chriswmp
Sammy Wilson @sammywilsonmp
This is a lovely headline (if you're poking the masses with a stick), but it lacks any credibility. A little bit like the "speeding motorists to be fined £10,000" headline. Turns out, upon even cursory investigation, that the truth of the matter is vastly different.
The OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
The OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
ferrariF50lover said:
This is a lovely headline (if you're poking the masses with a stick), but it lacks any credibility. A little bit like the "speeding motorists to be fined £10,000" headline. Turns out, upon even cursory investigation, that the truth of the matter is vastly different.
The OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
And what, exactly, is the truth?The OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
ferrariF50lover said:
This is a lovely headline (if you're poking the masses with a stick), but it lacks any credibility. A little bit like the "speeding motorists to be fined £10,000" headline. Turns out, upon even cursory investigation, that the truth of the matter is vastly different.
The OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
Well, they can take your money without first obtaining a court order and leave you with insufficient cash to challenge HMRC's decision to do so.The OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
That is as far removed from due process as you are likely to get in a democracy.
You can also bet your last dollar that this power won't be used against Starbucks and the like.
Jasandjules said:
And what, exactly, is the truth?
My understanding is that HMRC will not recover the money directly unless you have avoided multiple attempts by them to recover the money, you have the means to pay and that once paid, you will have a minimum of £5000 left.Even so, I share many people's concerns regards the ability of HMRC to prove sufficiently competent and avoid cock ups.
ferrariF50lover said:
This is a lovely headline (if you're poking the masses with a stick), but it lacks any credibility. A little bit like the "speeding motorists to be fined £10,000" headline. Turns out, upon even cursory investigation, that the truth of the matter is vastly different.
The OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
But... but.. thin end of the wedge!!!!1oneThe OP gives the impression that HMRC will dip, arbitrarily and entirely regulation free, into randomly chosen back accounts and empty them without so much as a by-your-leave. This, very obviously, is not the case. A little moreflesh to the bones and a little less sensationalism would be helpful, if dull.
Simon.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
Jasandjules said:
And what, exactly, is the truth?
My understanding is that HMRC will not recover the money directly unless you have avoided multiple attempts by them to recover the money, you have the means to pay and that once paid, you will have a minimum of £5000 left.Even so, I share many people's concerns regards the ability of HMRC to prove sufficiently competent and avoid cock ups.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said:
My understanding is that HMRC will not recover the money directly unless you have avoided multiple attempts by them to recover the money, you have the means to pay and that once paid, you will have a minimum of £5000 left.
Even so, I share many people's concerns regards the ability of HMRC to prove sufficiently competent and avoid cock ups.
The point is that, if you dispute the amount, they have the right to collect without first having gone to court to prove that the debt is owed. That makes them different from any other creditor in the land and is why this law is draconian.Even so, I share many people's concerns regards the ability of HMRC to prove sufficiently competent and avoid cock ups.
Lucozade said:
The Magna Carta was signed nearly 800 years ago and it's fundamental principle was that citizens should be judged on the law as it stood at the time. The Rule of Law, no matter what our Government want us to believe is the cornerstone of a democratic society.
The Magna Carta was not meant for the likes of us. It was purely for the lords of the land. It did not apply to the hoi poloi who were, in every essentials, slaves. It is the cornerstone of privilege if anything and given that it was ignored before the vellum had time to lose its stink, it is, probably, the most over-rated piece of 'legislation'.Gove, in suggesting that it shows Britishness, is spot on. It shows that the state can ignore any agreement it wishes if it feels the need. So very British.
Pretty much all of Magna Carta has been repealed or negated now. Little things like due process, right to a trial by your peers, right to silence, no arbitrary imprisonment and many others were finally killed of by Blair although his late 20th century predecessors of all political persuasions were far from blameless. Now we can be lobbed in prison without trial, fined or have our goods removed without any due process, have our bank accounts robbed and our earnings sequestrated without so much as a by-your-leave and have our entire lives filmed and recorded.
While ever we keep electing these criminals they will keep f
king us.
While ever we keep electing these criminals they will keep f
king us.MrTrilby said:
Derek Smith said:
Gove, in suggesting that it shows Britishness, is spot on. It shows that the state can ignore any agreement it wishes if it feels the need. So very British.
If I may say so, what an absolutely brilliant observation. In fact the state would deny any such agreement existed.
Jasandjules said:
And what, exactly, is the truth?
I really haven't the first clue, but it's for sure that this "end of days" scenario of the Government arbitrarily nicking all your dosh simply isn't what's going to happen. Just the same as you're not going to be stiffed with a £10,000 fine for doing 80 on the M1.Simon.
ging84 said:
i wonder what the results would be if you polled the public asking them if HMRC had the power to do what is being whinged about in this thread already
I will bet you a pound to a penny that most MoP have no idea just how much power HMRC Officers have. And they'd be shocked by it.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff