Lower benefits cap

[Anna B]

As my old dad used to say "it's never right in this world that someone who's not working gets more than someone who doesn't, even if he's only sweeping up".

 

I agree. So why not increase low wages which really are a disgrace, rather than cut benefits which for most people are already at subsistence levels?

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2016 at 01:21 ----------

 

Perhaps, but a lot more is being done to crack down of tax evasion than was done under the previous government.

 

The HMRC have employed 2,500 extra staff since 2010 for this purpose, including a 200 strong team of trained criminal investigators.

 

HMRC have also expanded their affluent unit with the recruitment of 100 extra inspectors in order to focus on wealthy individuals. The unit was established as a dedicated team dealing with the tax affairs of 5,000 of the wealthiest individuals in the UK and has yielded an additional £500m in tax since 2009 (figure from 2013).

 

Prosecutions have also jumped dramatically, from under 200 in 2010/11 to just under 1200 in 2014/15.

 

I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be further improvements, but things are surely heading in the right direction?

 

And yet the front page headlines of the Daily Mail (Tuesday Nov 1st 2016) was:

 

'Just One Super Rich Tax Cheat Nailed In Seven Years.'

 

'A Taskforce set up to catch wealthy tax dodgers has claimed just one scalp in seven years.

The 380 strong unit targets the super rich who hide their money offshore or use aggressive avoidance schemes.

More than 2,000 individuals - each worth at least £20 million are suspected of dodging almost £2 Billion between them. But only one has been successfully prosecuted, and that was back in July 2012.

Margaret Hodge, who is Labour chairman of a cross party group on responsible taxation said; 'We're wimps when it comes to taking on the rich and powerful. This is yet another piece of evidence that confirms that HMRC will not use the legal powers at its disposal to pursue the richest in our country who are deliberately avoiding tax - but have an army of lawyers, bankers and accountants at their disposal.

[El Cid]

Poor retention figures do not invalidate the post you're replying to.

 

I do not believe that the 'extra' means that it is over and above that staff that is lost, these people tell lies you know.

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2016 at 06:15 ----------

 

Poor retention figures do not invalidate the post you're replying to.

 

Taxman becomes the axe man

 

Immediately, the new department was forced to contend with a cut in staffing numbers, from a combined 100,000 to around 90,000. Staff numbers have since been cut to around 65,000 – almost four times as many cuts as originally envisaged. Indeed, HMRC has had funding cut at a time when it has been asked to increase its tax collection and modernise the way it interacts with taxpayers.

 

The coalition government’s 2013 Spending Review brought about a further budget reduction of £166m from this year. Tax professionals are critical of the government’s cuts to the department.

 

George Bull, senior tax partner at Baker Tilly, says: “The government doesn’t get much money from anything but taxes, so to cut the resources of HMRC has been inexplicable.”

 

However, despite the job losses, the number of tax specialists has remained the same – at around 17,000. But the loss of clerical jobs is being felt on the ground by tax professionals. As a result of the Spending Review settlement, HMRC announced swingeing cuts a year later, confirming the closure of 14 offices by December 2015, while 690 administrative staff were invited to take voluntary redundancy. There have even been recent claims from the FDA union that there could be a further 15,000 losses.

 

https://www.accountancyage.com/aa/feature/2410328/ten-years-of-hmrc-has-been-a-qualified-success

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2016 at 06:16 ----------

 

Poor retention figures do not invalidate the post you're replying to.

 

Your support for the Conservative does seem blind to the facts.

[Bob Arctor]

The human brain is capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

 

Some are, some aren't.

[Robin-H]

I agree. So why not increase low wages which really are a disgrace, rather than cut benefits which for most people are already at subsistence levels?

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2016 at 01:21 ----------

 

 

And yet the front page headlines of the Daily Mail (Tuesday Nov 1st 2016) was:

 

'Just One Super Rich Tax Cheat Nailed In Seven Years.'

 

'A Taskforce set up to catch wealthy tax dodgers has claimed just one scalp in seven years.

The 380 strong unit targets the super rich who hide their money offshore or use aggressive avoidance schemes.

More than 2,000 individuals - each worth at least £20 million are suspected of dodging almost £2 Billion between them. But only one has been successfully prosecuted, and that was back in July 2012.

Margaret Hodge, who is Labour chairman of a cross party group on responsible taxation said; 'We're wimps when it comes to taking on the rich and powerful. This is yet another piece of evidence that confirms that HMRC will not use the legal powers at its disposal to pursue the richest in our country who are deliberately avoiding tax - but have an army of lawyers, bankers and accountants at their disposal.

 

Ah yes, the 'principled' Margaret Hodge.

 

The same Margaret Hodge who received £1.5million in shares from a tax haven.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anti-tax-avoidance-campaigner-margaret-hodge-given-1-5m-shares-tax-haven-liechtenstein-1498813

 

The same Margaret Hodge whose family company paid only £163,000 in tax on profit of £65million.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html

 

Anyway, that is all an aside, I appreciate it doesn't address your point, I just find it very odd that Hodge has managed to turn herself into the doyenne of tackling tax avoidance when she has such a record herself.

 

As I said, I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be further improvements, but the tackling of tax avoidance is better than it was under Labour, when it wasn't really ever mentioned at all.

[truman]

How so?

 

A lot of the same benefits can be claimed whilst still in work, so if you're low paid then working should still see you better off than not working.

And many people aren't low paid at all, so capped benefits of 20k/year sounds like a pretty crap deal if you're trying to bring up 4 children on your own.

 

You'd have to earn around 25k to bring home 20k..that's more than a newly qualified nurse or teacher....just putting it into perspective..

[Cyclone]

You'd have to earn around 25k to bring home 20k..that's more than a newly qualified nurse or teacher....just putting it into perspective..

 

You mean without any in work benefits?

[truman]

You mean without any in work benefits?

 

What in work benefits would a young, single person earning 25k get?

[tinfoilhat]

What in work benefits would a young, single person earning 25k get?

 

Not sure but I doubt a single person with no kids gets £20k either. Do they? Living wage on a 40 hour is only £15k.

[Ms Macbeth]

A single persons entitlement to JSA is Less than £4K a year. Rent and council tax benefit on top another £5-6k. Not even £10k a year, never mind £20k.

 

The cap will mainly affect families with children, especially in high rental areas.

[Bob Arctor]

A single persons entitlement to JSA is Less than £4K a year. Rent and council tax benefit on top another £5-6k. Not even £10k a year, never mind £20k.

 

The cap will mainly affect families with children, especially in high rental areas.

 

That's the idiotic thing about it, someone in Reading can be in the same situation as someone in Sheffield and yet the family in Reading will be affected much more just because their rent will be much higher. It's hardly their fault that rents are sky high in Reading, and applying the cap doesn't make jobs appear.