Who's have thunk it? UC recipient bank account access trail

[Killboy]

Gecko1978 said:

The simple distinction is one is being paid by the state the other is not.

One owes the state, the other does not.

[bitchstewie]

Who keeps £50K in the bank thinking "the authorities" don't know about it though?

[Biggy Stardust]

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

The simple distinction is one is being paid by the state the other is not.

One owes the state, the other does not.

This supposes that the governments have a divine right to anything I possess; I don't agree.

[Fatboy]

Skeptisk said:

When it come to tax fraud a significant percentage of people are absolute hypocrites and full of excuses to defend the indefensible. Benefit cheats? Bang em up! Take away their benefits! But a bit of “creative accounting” is fair “because we are taxed too much”.

Was at an acquaintances house. He was showing me and the other guys at the party his track car (a very trick RX7). He said it needed some engine work. Apparently his accountant had said that he could claim it as a business expense. Despite knowing that was BS and tax fraud he was going to go ahead, no doubt stealing quite a few thousand from the public purse (and pushing the burden onto those who can’t escape taxes ie employees, consumers, etc) because “he already pays a lot of tax”…

I really don't think something as blatant as the above is common, I can't think of any accounts types I've ever known who would sign off something that ropey... ( Unless the business was selling tuning products and it could be classed as a demo...), and I can't say any business owning types I know would take that sort of risk... Not worth risking the wrath of HMRC for a couple of grand!!!

[Killboy]

Biggy Stardust said:

This supposes that the governments have a divine right to anything I possess; I don't agree.

Well the law doesn't agree with you. But lol at thinking the government should have "divine" access to everyone else.

[Leptons]

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

The simple distinction is one is being paid by the state the other is not.

One owes the state, the other does not.

One isn’t adding as much to the pot as they should be, the other is adding absolutely fk all whilst taking some.

Bit of a difference there eh.

[JackJarvis]

I struggle to get too worked up about some people claiming an extra few quid of tax payers money when there are individuals and businesses evading tax worth billions per year. Sure, it's wrong and should be stopped but it really is a drop in the ocean. Makes for nice headlines though.

[irc]

"One of the banks identified 713,000 accounts held by individuals claiming the benefits. Over a three-month period, it found that 60,000 - or 8% - of these accounts had balances exceeding the limit for entitlement to benefits. "

8% fraud rate. Somewhat more that the oft quoted 2.7%


"Figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions show an estimated £6.4 billion in benefits were overpaid as a result of fraud in 2022/23 (around 2.7% of total benefit spending). "

https://fullfact.org/online/benefit-fraud-tax-avoi...

[Countdown]

Leptons said:

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

The simple distinction is one is being paid by the state the other is not.

One owes the state, the other does not.

One isn’t adding as much to the pot as they should be, the other is adding absolutely fk all whilst taking some.

Bit of a difference there eh.

Why isn’t the UC claimant adding to the pot? Some will be paying Income Tax, ALL of them will be paying some form of tax…

[Gecko1978]

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

The simple distinction is one is being paid by the state the other is not.

One owes the state, the other does not.

Sadly you a wrong.

1. Owes a tax debt
2. Owes money back for benefit they were not entitled to

[Killboy]

Gecko1978 said:

Sadly you a wrong.

1. Owes a tax debt
2. Owes money back for benefit they were not entitled to

So they are the same?

[Gecko1978]

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

Sadly you a wrong.

1. Owes a tax debt
2. Owes money back for benefit they were not entitled to

So they are the same?

You said one owes the state the other does not. Both owe the state. The distinction is one owes money they took the other owes .money they made

[oyster]

Biggy Stardust said:

oyster said:

But they should be able to snoop into the 'private' affairs of benefit claimants even without genuine grounds for suspicion?

If they don't like it then they don't have to ask for handouts.

Including the millions claiming state pensions?

[Douglas Quaid]

matrignano said:

JagLover said:

That is the contribution based payment and, if you meet the criteria, including savings held, you would be entitled to income based benefits.

As far as I am aware, the cap for both JSA or UC is £90 a week/£360 a month

£90 a week is £390 a month.

[matrignano]

Douglas Quaid said:

£90 a week is £390 a month.

Life changing!

[Mr Penguin]

Countdown said:

Why isn’t the UC claimant adding to the pot? Some will be paying Income Tax, ALL of them will be paying some form of tax…

Where does the money for the tax come from?

[JagLover]

matrignano said:

JagLover said:

That is the contribution based payment and, if you meet the criteria, including savings held, you would be entitled to income based benefits.

As far as I am aware, the cap for both JSA or UC is £90 a week/£360 a month

The means tested benefit also includes housing costs and extra payments if you have children. So in practice the contribution based payment, payable for a maximum of six months, is much lower.

[Killboy]

Gecko1978 said:

You said one owes the state the other does not. Both owe the state. The distinction is one owes money they took the other owes .money they made

And one is more acceptable than the other?

[Electro1980]

Don’t worry. HMRC will have another go at Making Tax Digital at some point soon. That will make for some interesting audits…

I’m sure I won’t be the only one wondering what the tax fraud rate is if the estimates of benefit fraud are so far out.

[Chris Type R]

bhstewie said:

Who keeps £50K in the bank thinking "the authorities" don't know about it though?

I believe that this chap did - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-68178940