Robin Hood Has Changed Sides

[jambutty]

Moves are afoot for the Inland Revenue to be able to just grab any unpaid income tax from the taxpayer’s bank account without going to court.

As Moriarty once declared to Neddy Seagoon, “Open your wallet Neddy and repeat after me – Help yourself.”

All you people who accepted without question the Direct Debit scheme when a Standing Order was perfectly adequate to make regular payments have helped to establish a precedent that is now being exploited by the government.

What will be next? Road Tax? Council Tax? TV License?

[Gayle]

For the forgetful amongst us that would be great - we'd never have to worry about paying a bill again, they could just take it out when they want it.


I'm joking Jambutty, before you start!

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Gayle

For the forgetful amongst us that would be great - we'd never have to worry about paying a bill again, they could just take it out when they want it.


I'm joking Jambutty, before you start!

Who me?

I would just make the point that if people can remember to make out a DD order then surely they can remember to make out a Standing Order?

[entwisi]

Firstly, this is nothing to do with Standing orders or Direct debits, stop scaremongering. This is an attachment to your bank account and something the goverment has up to now never attempted to do. this whole legislation is to try and force this as a legal option.

Secondly it is only to be invoked where people have steadfastly refused to make payments.

Thirdly, why should the rest of us suffer because someone refuses to pay the tax that they owe? teh vast majority of this nation are taxed through PAYE and we are effectively already paying just like this i.e. teh tax is paid without any say so from us whatsoever. this is purely for those who either pay annually or have complex arrangements.

[jambutty]

Secondly it is only to be invoked where people have steadfastly refused to make payments.

Without a court order.

Or in other words some officials at the Inland Revenue just help themselves.

[entwisi]

yep, you have been asked for it X number of times and ignored them. you sign up for taxes when you work in this country, accept it as one of the T&Cs of the deal or sod off to another country. They will only take what they have asked for. if you have challanged it in that you think its wrong then this process does not get invoked.

On one hand we winge when the goverment does nowt about the freeloaders then we get people winging when we do. I thought you a a pensioner would be happy for teh goverment to collect all outstanding taxes as it will make your life easier and give them a better chance at giving you a decent pension increase.

[WillowTheWhisp]

It sounds like a good idea to me. I am taxed by PAYE so why should someone who owes their tax get away without paying it just because they are not on PAYE?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

What will be next? Road Tax? Council Tax? TV License?

Hpefully, along with a long list of other things, including non-payement of child maintenance, unpaid fines, etc.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Of course if people don't have bank accounts that poses another problem.

[jambutty]

It is enshrined in British law that a person earning a wage or in receipt of an income is obliged to pay Income Tax if certain conditions are met. Failure to pay the Income Tax when due leaves them open to prosecution in a court of law to enforce payment.

In other words the Inland Revenue have to prove their case in a court of law BEFORE being able to enforce a payment. That is right and proper. For the Inland Revenue to bypass the due process of law is a step too far.

As you appear to condone such action, the one person to sod off to another country where such conditions exist is you entwisi. Don’t slam the door behind you.

PAYE was introduced and the appropriate laws passed to make the tax collection simpler WillowTheWhisp. The onus was on the employer to deduct the appropriate amount of tax BEFORE paying the employee. The self employed or those in receipt of an unearned income declare their earnings/expenses etc at the end of the financial year, are assessed for tax due and are presented with a demand for payment. OK! So it is more streamlined today in that the self employed assess himself for tax using supplied tables. But the principle is still the same, they have to pay the tax and it is not deducted at source.

Large stores and supermarkets get supplied with goods that come with an invoice. The store is then obliged to settle up within a specified amount of time. If the store does not, the supplier has to take them to court for the money. The supplier cannot just take the money from the store’s bank account.

If this Draconian act is allowed to go through and it probably will, it will establish a precedent that can be used against the public bringing Big Brother one step closer.

[West Ender]

As has rightly been said, those of us taxed under the PAYE system have no choice in whether or not to pay our tax as it is deducted at source. The self-employed have to pay in 2 installments, on 31 January and 31 July. Most pay on time or, if finance is difficult, make arrangements to pay by regular installments. There are those, however, who can pay but do not until procedings are put in place to enforce payment. The cost of obtaining enforcement is high, involving Court procedure or Distraint on goods.

Enforcement measures are never instigated without the non-payer being given every chance. After issue of the original demand there are usually 2 reminders before the case is referred to the local Recovery office. Even then the person is contacted and given the opportunity to pay in full or put his case for an arrangement.

As I understand this latest proposal, it is to be used against those who continually ignore demands for payment and thise who go to considerable lengths to avoid paying what they owe.

[WillowTheWhisp]

The cynic in me asks why should the rest of us have to end up paying more in the long run to cover the expenses incurred by taking to court those who refuse to pay what they should pay when they should pay it?

[entwisi]

Originally Posted by jambutty

It is enshrined in British law that a person earning a wage or in receipt of an income is obliged to pay Income Tax if certain conditions are met. Failure to pay the Income Tax when due leaves them open to prosecution in a court of law to enforce payment.

In other words the Inland Revenue have to prove their case in a court of law BEFORE being able to enforce a payment. That is right and proper. For the Inland Revenue to bypass the due process of law is a step too far.

The whole point of this is to ensure that IR do not 'bypass' the law, the law itself will let them do it thus saving millions of pounds of the law abiding tax payers money. Laws are and should always be an evolving beast updated as and when we can improve society through application of common sense.

Originally Posted by jambutty

As you appear to condone such action, the one person to sod off to another country where such conditions exist is you entwisi. Don’t slam the door behind you.

as a democracy I reckon I'm on the side of the majority so like it or not its those who don't pay who should sod off(BTW, you seem to have taken this as a personal command from the way your response was worded, my comment was that freeloaders should be the ones on their way out. If you don't agree with this then I am at a loss to how this post fits with teh philosophy that your other posts on AW project.)

Originally Posted by jambutty

Large stores and supermarkets get supplied with goods that come with an invoice. The store is then obliged to settle up within a specified amount of time. If the store does not, the supplier has to take them to court for the money. The supplier cannot just take the money from the store’s bank account.

perhaps if it was teh case large companies wouldn't 'swing teh lead' in late payments to smaller companies and it could save a good few from bankrupcy.

Originally Posted by jambutty

If this Draconian act is allowed to go through and it probably will, it will establish a precedent that can be used against the public bringing Big Brother one step closer.

Draconian - no

Big Brother - an imaginary beast wheeled out when someone is trying to sensationalise something. In the original novel it was about control of people not the application of law and order.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

All you people who accepted without question the Direct Debit scheme when a Standing Order was perfectly adequate to make regular payments have helped to establish a precedent that is now being exploited by the government.

Could you explain that bit to me again please. I don't see the the problem with a direct debit. They have to inform you in writing before they take the money, if what they say is wrong you have time to cancel the direct debit before they take it. DD makes it easy for variable bills like phone bills, gas, electricity etc.

[jambutty]

The whole point of this is to ensure that IR do not 'bypass' the law, the law itself will let them do it thus saving millions of pounds of the law abiding tax payers money. Laws are and should always be an evolving beast updated as and when we can improve society through application of common sense.

It has been reported today that ONE MILLION people were overcharged for Income Tax entwisi. I wouldn’t want such incompetent department delving into my bank account. In the event of an overdraw it is the account holder who has to go to the time, trouble and expense to get it put right. The law should also be fair and giving the Inland Revenue the automatic power to take unpaid taxes direct out of an account is a long way from fair, even it appears to be justified.

you seem to have taken this as a personal command from the way your response was worded,

Seeing as your comments were directed at me, how else could I have taken them?

perhaps if it was teh case large companies wouldn't 'swing teh lead' in late payments to smaller companies and it could save a good few from bankrupcy.

Many a small business has gone down the pan because of delays over and above the normal 30 days from the big boys.

Draconian - no

Do look up the meaning of the word.

In the original novel it was about control of people not the application of law and order.

Control of people and the application of law and order go hand in glove.

Your turn to pick the bones out of that entwisi.

Could you explain that bit to me again please.

Certainly Neil. A Standing Order is under the control of the account holder and is for a fixed amount. DD can be for varied amounts and for regular monthly/quarterly payments they do not inform you in writing each month/quarter. Regarding the DD for variable amounts, you may be informed in writing but my experience has been that by the time that I got the letter the money had already been withdrawn. In the event of an overdraw it is the account holder who has to go to the time, trouble and expense to get it put right.

As far as energy bills are concerned the energy companies rely more and more on estimated meter readings and then customer readings if the estimates are incorrect. Then once a year someone comes round to actually read the meters. In my experience the estimate has always been more than the fact. So if I had a DD to pay my energy bills the wrong money would have been withdrawn.

You may be happy to allow someone to help themselves to the money in your account. I am not and I reserve the right to voice my view on the issue.