BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

You couldn't 'credit' it

DR,

How about this? As of November 2009 the following had CCJ's against them.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT CCJ'S

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 3
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 8
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 1
DWP 3
CSA 11
SOCIAL SERVICES 3
DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT 1
Trading as:
DVLA 2
HIGHWAYS AGENCY 3


Hmm, Don't CCJ's affect ones Credit Rating? And what the hell are these government departments doing with CCJ's in the first place? Found them from duport.co.uk. When you look at any in detail, these all have the relevant case number and court where filed.

And, anyone (inc Government) with 35 CCJ's against their name, don't look too responsible with money to me...


Oh, and Lloyds TSB Bank Plc apparently have 149 CCJ's against their name...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The great thing about the "NI rising 5 times faster than income tax" story is it is a very simple message that every worker in the country (rich or poor, employed or self-employed) can relate to, and Labour can't counter it since it's an indisputable fact.

The vast majority of people on PAYE never run up against HMRC. Very few could relate to our experience dealing with Big Brother. Most would probably support even more draconian powers for chasing rich people avoiding tax.

IR35 is way too obscure for your average joe to grasp.

And as for anything related to tax avoidance, that's a real can of worms.

Now in terms of HMRC, there are a couple of angles.

1) Special Investigations have 28,000 persons under enquiry (COP 8 - non fraud related)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...incoming-49346

2) £130Bn in uncollected tax - time for a general amnesty?
http://www.prlog.org/10532257-united...t-website.html

[TheBarCapBoyz]

The great thing about the "NI rising 5 times faster than income tax" story is it is a very simple message that every worker in the country (rich or poor, employed or self-employed) can relate to, and Labour can't counter it since it's an indisputable fact.

The vast majority of people on PAYE never run up against HMRC. Very few could relate to our experience dealing with Big Brother. Most would probably support even more draconian powers for chasing rich people avoiding tax.

IR35 is way too obscure for your average joe to grasp.

And as for anything related to tax avoidance, that's a real can of worms.

Now in terms of HMRC, there are a couple of angles.

1) Special Investigations have 28,000 persons under enquiry (COP 8 - non fraud related)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...incoming-49346

2) £130Bn in uncollected tax - time for a general amnesty?
http://www.prlog.org/10532257-united...t-website.html

It's true that the bloke on the street can relate to NI increases, and understands that both employers and employees have to pay it.

However, your average bloke also understands it will be paid for by sacking nurses, doctors and teachers, so isn't in favour of it.

Don't be stupid, DR.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

It's true that the bloke on the street can relate to NI increases, and understands that both employers and employees have to pay it.

However, your average bloke also understands it will be paid for by sacking nurses, doctors and teachers, so isn't in favour of it.

Don't be stupid, DR.

Boyz,

What you also need to consider is that NI was introduced to fund National Health as laid down in the 1922 National Insurance Act. NI is not there to fund anything else - period. Whilst Joe Public might not be able to even spell or Google this Act, it should be remembered that NI is just that and Labour have sought to increase it to avoid going back on their 1997 pledge about Income Tax. As a result, we have a 5 times increase in a tax which is laid down in Statute for the explicit purpose of National Health and yet is being used for any manner of things apart from this.

The point to get across is that NI is not a tax for general use as Labour are applying it and contrary to the 1922 Act, but rather a massive tax hike for any manner of things which Labour can apply whilst avoiding the word "tax" in rises. As DR points out, at the current rate, NI will overtake Income Tax in terms of rises in real terms to fund anything other than National Health.

Also, given that Income Tax was introduced by William Pitt the Younger to provide funds to the coffers to fight Napolean, I think it's clear that no historical tax is actually being applied for the purpose for which it was intended.

BTW, even a 2% reduction in Government wasted spending gains about 18 billion quid in savings if you're prepared to say "scrap that load of bollo*ks".

I think that NI increases ARE a con because of the above and due to the fact that permies will not really appreciate that 50% of the rise falls on their employers who themselves will look to reduce costs to compensate - and that means jobs. NI is currently a tax on the private sector without using the word tax or income.

But you're right that the masses may not appreciate all of this and therefore don't see the NI rise as an issue for them. So maybe we should think about changing not the voting age but the IQ level of the population. God knows, we all know more about tax legislation than most in HMRC - or Barnsley.

[portseven]

Isn't there a load of evidence that shows that if you reduce the tax rates the tax receipts increase?

So by reducing the tax burden people are less likley to avoid it? Another point that I think a lot of people don't seem to grasp.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It's true that the bloke on the street can relate to NI increases, and understands that both employers and employees have to pay it.

However, your average bloke also understands it will be paid for by sacking nurses, doctors and teachers, so isn't in favour of it.

Don't be stupid, DR.

Ultimately, most people are driven by self-interest.

Pocket first.

Nurses, doctors, teachers second.

That's why Labour's promise not to raise the basic and higher rates in the '97 manifesto was crucial to victory.

Of course, they didn't make any mention of National Insurance.

[SantaClaus]

I've had a brainwave!

Lets all retrain as doctors, nurses and teachers. That way we can get front page headlines that HMRC are being "unfair" to us

[TaxDude]

I'm not claiming I can take all of the credit for this but...

Last week I provided the Conservatives with the figures on NI growth vs. income tax since 2001/2 and exchanged several emails with Philip Hammond (Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury) urging them to run with the story.

Labour's promise in '97 not to put up income tax was a con trick, and eventually the public will realise they've been duped.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...tax-rises.html

I have been racking my brain for the past year as to how I could exact revenge on Timms & Co and this will do nicely.


Just watch the Conservative lead in the polls increase over the coming days.

Well done DR ! Not too late for a career in politics ! Vote Donkey and dont make an ass of yourself :-)

[TheBarCapBoyz]

Ultimately, most people are driven by self-interest.

Pocket first.

Nurses, doctors, teachers second.

Said like a true selfish, greedy Tory.

[RockTheBoat]

Said like a true selfish, greedy Tory.

Harsh. Ok, lets revise it for the Labour angle

Pocket first.

Greedy Politicians second home decorating fund

Mate of politician running pointless quango

lazy feckless stay at home breeding and drinking lager and smoking fags

Nurses, doctors, teachers.

better?