Benefit fraud measures outlined

[Happy Face 29]

Claiming benefits within the law, actually taking other peoples contributions out of the system is portrayed to be a far worse crime in the media (corporate owned) than playing the system to pay in as little as possible in the first place. That's not surprising because it's something we all see everyday and understand. At least the benefit fiddler has the excuse of being desparate for money though.

 

The system needs a two pronged overhaul; the government needs to review what claimants are legally entitled to and to clamp down on those claiming what they're not entitled to.

 

It shouldn't be more profitable to claim benefits than to work. The problem there is largely to do with the benefits that come with having a family coupled with the high cost of child care for those in work. Benefits need to be cut to a level where people have enough to survive, not to live a comfortable life, the government isn't there to provide the unemployed with a comfortable life, it should be to prevent the unemployed from falling into poverty. Not the poverty whereby the kids don't have a PS3 or a mobile phone but the poverty where they can't afford to eat. I know our perception of what constitutes 'poor' has changed but the government need to look at the basic essentials and no more.

 

And I haven't seen much evidence of the government clamping down on benefit thieves/cheats. I hear about these schemes and how doctors should now be assessing what a claimant can do rather than can't do but I'm not aware of any positive results. About a year ago I attempted to shop some I know for benefit theft using a government website for the purpose. What was done? Fuck all. There needs to be people investigating this, because it just leads to long term unemployment and in turn will lead their kids to believing that it's an acceptable way of life when it simply isn't.

 

While there isn't a perfect system you will always get cases where undeserving people can take advantage as well as where people who should get some help are unable to fit the criteria as laid down.....but you can't have a perfect system.

 

The fact that fraud and mistakes account for less than 3% of the total benefits bill is a pretty good record imo. Mistakes will never be wiped out.

 

Benefit fraud and mistakes cost $5bn (see OP). The Income Tax shortfall shortfall is three times that, £14bn a year...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11411840

 

Even percentage-wise, it's 3 times the problem benefit fraud is. Uncollected tax amounts to 9% of the £155bn total income tax collected.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_t...ingdom#Overview

 

Yet you never see headlines on front pages about wealthy tax cheats living in luxury like you get a bunch of tramps humiliated for scrounging a few quid extra.

 

Working people love to complain about dole scroungers....but they're blatantly a more honest bunch.

[ewerk 26574]

How exactly do they measure benefit fraud?

 

I'm not saying that tax avoidance isn't an issue. I also don't fully understand the motives behind some of it. Take Sir Philip Green, the man employed by the government to review waste, while still employing some of the largest personal tax avoidance schemes in the UK. The money he has avoided in tax isn't going to cause him to go broke, he's never going to spend the money he has so why avoid paying his dues?

 

Tax avoidance and benefit theft are not mutually exclusive issues and I don't think anyone would be against closing loopholes on large corporations. The difference is that tax avoidance is legal, benefit theft isn't. I think both should be clamped down on but you seen to be pre-occupied with the tax problem.

[Happy Face 29]

How exactly do they measure benefit fraud?

 

I'm not saying that tax avoidance isn't an issue. I also don't fully understand the motives behind some of it. Take Sir Philip Green, the man employed by the government to review waste, while still employing some of the largest personal tax avoidance schemes in the UK. The money he has avoided in tax isn't going to cause him to go broke, he's never going to spend the money he has so why avoid paying his dues?

 

Tax avoidance and benefit theft are not mutually exclusive issues and I don't think anyone would be against closing loopholes on large corporations. The difference is that tax avoidance is legal, benefit theft isn't. I think both should be clamped down on but you seen to be pre-occupied with the tax problem.

 

I'm exactly 3 times as worried about tax evasion as i am about benefit claims being awarded to undeserving people

 

My pre-occupation is inversley proportional to the pre-ccupation with benefit scroungers in The Sun, Daily Mail et al.

 

People like Christmas Tree read those stories and believe cuts are justified and will hit benefit scroungers who deserve to tighten their belts. We should be demanding the economic policy change to hit the wealthy (who are doing rather well now we're out of recession) with increased taxation, not the poor with devastating across the board cuts.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Happy Face

[ewerk 26574]

And we can do both.

 

The problem with tax evasion is obviously that the people this would hit are the people who control the media and therefore largely control the agenda. A Labour government didn't do much to address the issue, a Tory government certainly won't. I know it's a defeatist attitude but that's the way of the world.

 

However, the benefit scrounging problem is real and something does have to be done about it. Some sort of saving is better than none.

[spongebob toonpants 3622]

And we can do both.

 

The problem with tax evasion is obviously that the people this would hit are the people who control the media and therefore largely control the agenda. A Labour government didn't do much to address the issue, a Tory government certainly won't. I know it's a defeatist attitude but that's the way of the world.

 

However, the benefit scrounging problem is real and something does have to be done about it. Some sort of saving is better than none.

 

 

So your argument is basically the rich can afford to get away with it, lets fuck over the poor people.

 

Its times like this I wish I was French (almost)

Edited October 19, 2010 by spongebob toonpants

[ewerk 26574]

And we can do both.

 

The problem with tax evasion is obviously that the people this would hit are the people who control the media and therefore largely control the agenda. A Labour government didn't do much to address the issue, a Tory government certainly won't. I know it's a defeatist attitude but that's the way of the world.

 

However, the benefit scrounging problem is real and something does have to be done about it. Some sort of saving is better than none.

 

 

So your argument is basically the rich can afford to get away with it, lets fuck over the poor people.

 

Its times like this I wish I was French (almost)

 

I said the rich will get away with it, I didn't say it was right.

[JawD 31]

And we can do both.

 

The problem with tax evasion is obviously that the people this would hit are the people who control the media and therefore largely control the agenda. A Labour government didn't do much to address the issue, a Tory government certainly won't. I know it's a defeatist attitude but that's the way of the world.

 

However, the benefit scrounging problem is real and something does have to be done about it. Some sort of saving is better than none.

 

 

So your argument is basically the rich can afford to get away with it, lets fuck over the poor people.

 

Its times like this I wish I was French (almost)

 

If people claiming benefit could afford the accountancy fees a wealthier person does they would likely claim alot more than they do. Accountants know the loop holes and those who need exploit them. Not so different I guess one end of the scale to the other. Something needs to be done though and if that stopping the benefit cheat so be it.

 

I said the rich will get away with it, I didn't say it was right.

[JawD 31]

Sick of posting from my phone as well

[Park Life 70]

Capitalism isn't set up for full employment for many complex reasons to do with the money supply and pressure on wages and competition. The welfare state is a good way to get money to the periphery (it all comes back anyway - disadvantaged tend to spend their money unwisely), wether a small percentafe cheat the system is neither here nor there really. The whole system is unfair for the majority. [/ParkyMarx]

[Kitman 2188]

I haven't got time to go into the ins and outs of it HF but I think you need to distinguish between large companies and private individuals. The latter are much more likely to avoid paying their fair share through elaborate schemes and residency planning. The former aren't, because by and large elaborate tax planning gets in the way of doing business. And you have to weigh up the wealth and employment the latter create against what they pay in corporation tax.

 

Now you may think that they should pay more than 30% or whatever of their profits on taxes, or that all of their worldwide income should be taxed without exception. That depends on your political viewpoint I guess. However the reality is that plenty of other countries don't share the same opinion, including places like ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg which are damned easy to do business from and welcome british companies with open arms. That's the global economy where capital and labour votes with its feet.

 

If you let the tax system get in the way of doing business, business will just go elsewhere and there's not a lot you can do to stop it. The British rules are a complex mishmash of rules originating in the 18th and 19th centuries with new measures cobbled on over the years as govts and idealogies have changed. They need root and branch reform and simplifying.

 

Tax avoidance at company level is overplayed. There's a punitive regime now where tax avoidance schemes need to be registered with HMRC and anyone promoting these tend to get royally investigated. Loopholes are quickly closed I expect as a result, and people who indulge in tax avoidance schemes need to disclose these too or face massive penalties. It's not the beanfeast it used to be in the 1980s.

 

I'd be much more concerned about British individuals avoiding tax than companies anyway. My sense is that there's a lot of chicanery that goes on around the residency rules, and the minute they get rich they're off to Monaco to spend their money on superyachts.

[Billy Castell 0]

Perhaps the correct way the world should go, is to have low corporate taxes, but close the loopholes for individuals to shift all their shares, assets and money to places that don't tax them. In the case of places like Belize, Monaco, Jersey etc. that would be a bit like turkeys voting for christmas, so I doubt it could happen.

[NJS 3988]

I haven't got time to go into the ins and outs of it HF but I think you need to distinguish between large companies and private individuals. The latter are much more likely to avoid paying their fair share through elaborate schemes and residency planning. The former aren't, because by and large elaborate tax planning gets in the way of doing business. And you have to weigh up the wealth and employment the latter create against what they pay in corporation tax.

 

We employ someone whose entire purpose is to reduce tax paid by the branch - must be nice knowing he's unique.

[Kitman 2188]

I haven't got time to go into the ins and outs of it HF but I think you need to distinguish between large companies and private individuals. The latter are much more likely to avoid paying their fair share through elaborate schemes and residency planning. The former aren't, because by and large elaborate tax planning gets in the way of doing business. And you have to weigh up the wealth and employment the latter create against what they pay in corporation tax.

 

We employ someone whose entire purpose is to reduce tax paid by the branch - must be nice knowing he's unique.

 

Do you mean your group has a tax manager? It is allowed to manage your tax bill, and most large corporate groups have tax managers, this is nothing sinister. If you mean your UK branch has a tax specialist who spends all day long "reducing tax paid by the branch", frankly I'd ask him what he really does all day for his salary.

[ewerk 26574]

£900m being given to tackle tax evasion.

[Kitman 2188]

Personally I find benefit fraud disgusting where people aren't genuinely in need and just want to avoid working. I read in the paper the other day that Britain's welfare system has ingrained a dependency culture where people live whole lives not only on benefits but with no intention of even trying to make a living. Sounds like it needs reform but I would hate to think the genuinely needy would suffer.

 

But I wonder if society has double standards on this. Who's ever had building/plumbing/sparky work etc for cash in hand? I know I have. That's VAT evasion if the trader doesn't put it through their books. Or bought stuff "off the back of a lorry"? The black economy puts a massive hole in government coffers, money which could go towards helping the needy.

[Rob W 0]

Capitalism isn't set up for full employment for many complex reasons to do with the money supply and pressure on wages and competition. The welfare state is a good way to get money to the periphery (it all comes back anyway - disadvantaged tend to spend their money unwisely), wether a small percentafe cheat the system is neither here nor there really. The whole system is unfair for the majority. [/ParkyMarx]

 

 

Communism IS set for full employment but is incapable of correct allocation of resources

 

the world is just too damn complex

[Happy Face 29]

This is where we should be focussing and its about time it happened but I have a couple of reservations with the approach.

 

 

Not sure if I agree.

 

You can spend as much chasing welfare fraud as you save catching individuals. It's paltry sums.

 

Corporate tax evasion is a much more costly crime, and a far more lucrative target.....but the tories have pledged a more conciliatory approach to it, relaxing regulations gladly allowing billions in tax revenue to funnel out.

 

Look at the vodafone case, £1.25bn from a single payer....but it should have been more...they'd set aside £2.2bn.

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bc71748-9686-11...144feab49a.html

 

Thought of this when I read the news this morning...

 

The Chancellor George Osborne will announce in the Budget a tax on private jet flights as part of a crackdown on tax loopholes, the BBC understands.

 

Airline passengers will also see passenger duty frozen this year, it is understood.

 

Mr Osborne wants to raise an extra £1bn a year by tackling tax avoidance - targeting the wealthy and businesses, it is believed.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12813681

 

 

Again, taking from the sprig of parsley when there's a huge turkey leg sat next to it untouched.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

At least it might represent a start in tackling the problem. We'll see.

[ChezGiven 0]

How is a tax on private jets a crackdown on tax avoidance? ffs.

 

How is a tax on private jets a start in tackling benefit fraud/tax avoidance? (whichever problem you meant).

 

What a load of bollocks.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

How is a tax on private jets a start in tackling benefit fraud/tax avoidance? (whichever problem you meant).

 

I made no reference to a tax on private jets. I was referring to this sentence, "Mr Osborne wants to raise an extra £1bn a year by tackling tax avoidance - targeting the wealthy and businesses". I assumed that indicated he will be implementing policies that will tackle tax avoidance by the wealthy and businesses, however I do not harbour great expectations over this, as I inferred by saying, "We'll see."