Litter picking + Incarceration....the Conservative Way....

[ahinton]

I mentioned in message #64 that HMRC has been haemorrhaging experienced staff for three years so to take on replacement staff for this exercise would be off-budget and thus politically unacceptable.

That's yet another good and indeed important reason why such a suggestion would prove impracticable; the various cuts that we're discussing affect the staffing levels of HMRC just as they do so many other things, so that must undoubtedly be taken into consideration.

[amateur51]

How is it possible to abandon involvement in something to which one has never contributed?


...about which I know - and pretend to know - nothing beyond the fact that it is already grossly over-complex and is likely only to be come more so if everyone is to be required by law to complete and submit a tax return for assessment.


For that taxation system, it is surely just the correct word! - although othes could easily be thought of that FF might not sanction for repetition here...

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when writing my original message, ahinton. Lack of emoticons to blame, I fear.

[ahinton]

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when writing my original message, ahinton. Lack of emoticons to blame, I fear.

Not unnaturally, I suspected as much! - but I thought that there was also possible room for responding to it as though that might not have been the case, if you see what I mean and why...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Quite simply because it would inevitably find itself obliged to process many hundreds of thousands of extra tax returns with no likely prospect of profitable outcome in terms of increased tax take - no more, no less.

For the purposes of means testing using the tax system, your observation would only apply if you wanted to set some very accurate break in benefits. But if it's only a differentiation in, say, basic/higher tax rate payment then that work is already done; no additional processing or staff would be required. And people have to legally report changes in their tax circumstances, not including (of course) salary changes.

[ahinton]

For the purposes of means testing using the tax system, your observation would only apply if you wanted to set some very accurate break in benefits. But if it's only a differentiation in, say, basic/higher tax rate payment then that work is already done; no additional processing or staff would be required. And people have to legally report changes in their tax circumstances, not including (of course) salary changes.

If the only problem, as Anna rightly observes, is that some of those who do not have to submit - and do not submit - tax returns are not claiming back overpaid tax to which they are entitled, surely a trip to Citizens' Advice could help out with this so that many of those who have overpaid can claim back the amopunts to which they're entitled and, at the same time, a depleting (in terms of staff numbers) HMRC would be relieved of the burden of having to demand and process many hundreds of thousands more tax returns with no hope of collecting any more tax thereby and with a likely consequence that they'd have to refund vast amounts in overpaid tax?