Tax rebate yippeeee
Discussion
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We pay far too much Tax in this country (income tax, corp tax, CGT, stamp duty, VAT, NI, rates, car tax, etc.. etc.. etc..)
Well, imagine my surprise when I get a letter today from the “blood-sucking spongers” who are the Inland Revenue. My initial reaction “what do they want from me now”? However, as I begin to read said letter, phrases like “over-payment of last year’s Dividend tax” and “rebate” and “interest on over-payment” are being stated.
I start to read the letter with a sense of excitement like a kid on Christmas day morning unwrapping the biggest present under the tree. “How much, how much” I’m desperately trying to find out. After frantically skipping lines to the end of the letter the truth is revealed. I’m owed sixty pence (plus interest).
With disgust I chuck the letter in the bin. My wife asks “what was that then?” I simply reply “it’s not enough that they want to shaft me financially, they also want to screw my mind – sadistic leaches”.
Well, imagine my surprise when I get a letter today from the “blood-sucking spongers” who are the Inland Revenue. My initial reaction “what do they want from me now”? However, as I begin to read said letter, phrases like “over-payment of last year’s Dividend tax” and “rebate” and “interest on over-payment” are being stated.
I start to read the letter with a sense of excitement like a kid on Christmas day morning unwrapping the biggest present under the tree. “How much, how much” I’m desperately trying to find out. After frantically skipping lines to the end of the letter the truth is revealed. I’m owed sixty pence (plus interest).
With disgust I chuck the letter in the bin. My wife asks “what was that then?” I simply reply “it’s not enough that they want to shaft me financially, they also want to screw my mind – sadistic leaches”.
Since Self Assessment was introduced 9 years ago, the Inland Revenue abandoned their "De Minimis" levels. These were amounts under which they would not chase unpaid amounts - or refund overpaid amounts - usually around £20.00. This results in ridculous situations whereby people are asked to pay tiny amounts or convesrsely, are given cheques for pittances. I had a client who received a cheque for 2p. I reckon it costs the Inland Revenue about £100.00 to process a tax refund.
srebbe64 said:
I had a client who received a cheque for 2p. I reckon it costs the Inland Revenue about £100.00 to process a tax refund.
Unbelievable - if you ran a company the way the Revenue is being run, it wouldn't last five minutes in the real world.
if you ran a company the way any governemnt department is run it would not last 5 minutes-not just the IR.
It's not the real world - it's the Civil Service and they are spending our money, not their own. That's what makes the difference.
However, it is the outside (commercial) contractors who have led them down this path regarding silly tax amounts i.e by flogging sophisticated software to the Civil Service. Don't forget it's outside commercial interests who "persuade" government bodies that "System X" or "System Y" will save themm hundreds of millions of £sssss etc etc etc.
Before Self Assessment, when a lot of the tax calculating was performed manually, it was deemed uneconomic to process small amounts, whether they were amounts due, refunds or interest calculations. In 1995/96 they introduce d a new computerised system which made tax and interest calculations totally automatic so, in their eyes, no extra costs were incurred. What they don't seem to have taken on board in their costings is the expense involved merely in notifying taxpayers of the situation or the constant revisions and restatements required when dealing with such tiny amounts.
That's where the real costs are incurred, not the calculating.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 18th March 08:49
However, it is the outside (commercial) contractors who have led them down this path regarding silly tax amounts i.e by flogging sophisticated software to the Civil Service. Don't forget it's outside commercial interests who "persuade" government bodies that "System X" or "System Y" will save themm hundreds of millions of £sssss etc etc etc.
Before Self Assessment, when a lot of the tax calculating was performed manually, it was deemed uneconomic to process small amounts, whether they were amounts due, refunds or interest calculations. In 1995/96 they introduce d a new computerised system which made tax and interest calculations totally automatic so, in their eyes, no extra costs were incurred. What they don't seem to have taken on board in their costings is the expense involved merely in notifying taxpayers of the situation or the constant revisions and restatements required when dealing with such tiny amounts.
That's where the real costs are incurred, not the calculating.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 18th March 08:49
I would not blame outside contractors for government inefficiency-after all it up to their customer to give them their specifications.
In fact I would be happy if they subcontracted most of what they do to the private sector.
We've seen it before with the nationalised industries and we still see it now-Governments are useless at virtually everything they run.
In fact I would be happy if they subcontracted most of what they do to the private sector.
We've seen it before with the nationalised industries and we still see it now-Governments are useless at virtually everything they run.
I don't think that's altogether true. We can't claim that some of the government privatisations of the past 25 years have been models of efficiency either.
The Civil Service needs to exist but it is perhaps unfair to expect it to run as a pseudo-commercial enterprise - with cost centres, profit centres, internal markets etc. All these concepts have been introduced into the Civil Service over the past 20 years and. in my opinion, have led to increased INEFFICIENCIES in many cases. Don't forget, governments have been trying to streamline the Civil Service since at least 1979. And also, don't forget, that the introduction of Self Assessment was the nearest the government of the day felt they could come to privatise the Inland Revenue. The aim of Self Assessment was to reduce the paperwork and timescales involved in collecting tax. A key element of this was large scale computerisation of the processing of returns and the removal from office of as many higher paid (read - experienced and knowledgeable) tax officers and their replacement be relatively cheap and untrained data-processors. Has anyone noticed a massive increase in Inland Revenue efficiency since?
The Civil Service needs to exist but it is perhaps unfair to expect it to run as a pseudo-commercial enterprise - with cost centres, profit centres, internal markets etc. All these concepts have been introduced into the Civil Service over the past 20 years and. in my opinion, have led to increased INEFFICIENCIES in many cases. Don't forget, governments have been trying to streamline the Civil Service since at least 1979. And also, don't forget, that the introduction of Self Assessment was the nearest the government of the day felt they could come to privatise the Inland Revenue. The aim of Self Assessment was to reduce the paperwork and timescales involved in collecting tax. A key element of this was large scale computerisation of the processing of returns and the removal from office of as many higher paid (read - experienced and knowledgeable) tax officers and their replacement be relatively cheap and untrained data-processors. Has anyone noticed a massive increase in Inland Revenue efficiency since?
Eric Mc said:
However, it is the outside (commercial) contractors who have led them down this path regarding silly tax amounts i.e by flogging sophisticated software to the Civil Service. Don't forget it's outside commercial interests who "persuade" government bodies that "System X" or "System Y" will save themm hundreds of millions of £sssss etc etc etc.
I would agree to a certain degree. Working in IT I have knowledge of what goes on with people like the IR. In fact recently a certain US three letter company has been doing rather badly.
So badly that they are attempting to resolve a lot of the issues involved. But, basically they have screwed up the IR, DWP and the CSA..... in each case they have systematically failed to deliver, gone over budget to the tune of 150% or more and spent years wasting our money....
Meanwhile others reap the rewards and financial success for all of the pain and grief they cause..... its a real heartbreaker for me as it illustrates exactly the mentality of profiteering above service. To be so consistently bad takes a high level strategy for screwing everyone over!
Thankfully things are being resolved, though dont expect it to happen in the next couple of years. The problems are so systematic that it will take at least a decade to get us out of this IT hole we are in. Only then may we potentially gain the benefits from computerising our central government departments.
If we hadnt dont this then at least we would have high employment....
Eric Mc said:
I don't think that's altogether true. We can't claim that some of the government privatisations of the past 25 years have been models of efficiency either.
The Civil Service needs to exist but it is perhaps unfair to expect it to run as a pseudo-commercial enterprise - with cost centres, profit centres, internal markets etc. All these concepts have been introduced into the Civil Service over the past 20 years and. in my opinion, have led to increased INEFFICIENCIES in many cases. Don't forget, governments have been trying to streamline the Civil Service since at least 1979. And also, don't forget, that the introduction of Self Assessment was the nearest the government of the day felt they could come to privatise the Inland Revenue. The aim of Self Assessment was to reduce the paperwork and timescales involved in collecting tax. A key element of this was large scale computerisation of the processing of returns and the removal from office of as many higher paid (read - experienced and knowledgeable) tax officers and their replacement be relatively cheap and untrained data-processors. Has anyone noticed a massive increase in Inland Revenue efficiency since?
I would agree with you that such measures as you describe above have not improved Governemnt efficiency and have often worsened it but that is because they have not gone far enough.-they are left in a half way house with the worst elements of both systems.
In regards to the private sector-computerisation has brought about an explosion of productivity-which can be easily seen in the accountancy profession. My own office can now make do with half the staff because of new computer systems and programmes.
The government has a role to play in providing the funding for public services-but should it be providing those services themselves?.
In education the average cost per child in the state sector has now passed the £5k mark-approaching the level of some private schools-but the state provides a far inferior education.
We need to turn our schools and our hospitals into independent organisations. the state will provide the funding, in the case of schools the exams, in both inspection teams-it will however not run them.
If such a policy is introduced you will see the same productivity growth in the public sector as you do now in the private. Standards will rise and our taxes will fall.
Eric Mc said:
However, it is the outside (commercial) contractors who have led them down this path regarding silly tax amounts i.e by flogging sophisticated software to the Civil Service. Don't forget it's outside commercial interests who "persuade" government bodies that "System X" or "System Y" will save themm hundreds of millions of £sssss etc etc etc.
You can't blame advisors. Ultimately someone has to take responsibility. If I cock up delivery of a service to one of my customers and they complain to me, I can't say "sorry I was badly advised by a particular consultant" I'd be laughed out the door.
srebbe64 said:
You can't blame advisors. Ultimately someone has to take responsibility. If I cock up delivery of a service to one of my customers and they complain to me, I can't say "sorry I was badly advised by a particular consultant" I'd be laughed out the door.
Equally you cant say "the outsource IT provider that we selected is really crap and is screwing us blind".
Though some blame does have to be placed at the feet of the schisters who are taking billions from the government and knowingly providing a sub-standard service to the government because of their own greed!
off_again said:
I would agree to a certain degree. Working in IT I have knowledge of what goes on with people like the IR. In fact recently a certain US three letter company has been doing rather badly.
So badly that they are attempting to resolve a lot of the issues involved. But, basically they have screwed up the IR, DWP and the CSA..... in each case they have systematically failed to deliver, gone over budget to the tune of 150% or more and spent years wasting our money....
You can guarantee that this same US three letter company will have their tender accepted for the next gigantic gov IT contract.
They must have the biggest brown envelopes.
rich1231 said:
They employ fwits
I concur.
A few years ago my company had a random tax audit. When the Revenue turned up, as planned, we got off on the wrong foot because I formally asked to see the lady’s ID. Irritated, she replied “no one’s ever asked me for that before”. I said “guess what, I’ve never asked anyone else before”. From then on she was out to find something during her four day visit (during which I put her in a cold office and told my staff not to even acknowledge her or even make her coffee, or anything).
So, the knives were out. Firstly, she saw that my wife and I had gone to the USA a couple of years earlier and stayed in various hotels paid for by the company. She deemed this to be a holiday paid for by the business and therefore taxable – and she wouldn’t let go of this accusation. The reality was that I was doing a bunch of seminars and my wife offered to assist me in the administration. It was cheaper to take the wife because then we could stay in the one hotel room per hotel, rather than two if it was my PA. However, it took months of evidence to finally persuade the Revenue it was all pucker.
Secondly, she noticed that the company had paid for many of the staff (usually about 20 at a time) to go karting every few months. This was a “team building exercise” I explained – and it was. It was a benefit in kind as far as she was concerned. As such, one by one I insisted that each individual member of staff explain to her the fact that it was a team building exercise and benefited the company more than the individuals. This took up a whole day of her visit!
Anyway, we had to pay the tax on the karting – we had no option. It cost me about £6k in total, if I recall. Bunch of £$%^&*.
JagLover said:
Perhaps a more friendly approach might be wiser in the future Strebbe.
They are people like any other and have discretion about what they choose to investigate.
The day they're friendly to me I'll be friendly back! My experience is that they always take the approach "guilty until proven inncoent".
>> Edited by srebbe64 on Friday 18th March 11:58
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff