If something is draconian, then should not the automatic reaction be to address things to make them less draconian across the board, not accept that draconian powers are facts of life and accept draconian measures elsewhere? By definition draconian means excessively harsh, and if things already are draconian, that does not mean increasing or even merely not reversing the excessively harsh reality should be accepted.
The question is surely whether they need draconian powers, and whether they abuse them.
In any case, everyone seems to be missing the point I've been making, which is that this is hardly some major new principle, some line which has never been crossed before. It may or may not be a good measure, but the argument that it is in principle some breach of Magna Carta, never before inflicted on free-born Englishmen, is just utter garbage.
As for Richard T's argument that government should serve the people, I rather think the people are fed up with tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.
Indeed so. One of the best ways the Government can serve the people in a time of enforced "austerity" is by collecting due taxes.
Except they don't just try and collect due taxes. What they do is go on fishing expeditions to try and extend or change the scope of taxation so as to increase revenue. Whether they do this with or without the tacit approval of government I don't know but they certainly try it on often enough.
Last year they decided to try changing the way in which they regarded double taxation arrangements with other countries. Companies and individuals that had been working in Norway and paying full Norwegian taxes (which I can assure you are very high even compared to the UK) were told that although they had paid full tax on turnover and income in Norway (amounting to around 45% of total turnover), the remainder of the money they brought back into the UK would also be subject to tax by the UK authorities.
This doesn't just go against the UK laws, it goes against an international treaty on double taxation and reciprocal recognition of other countries tax regimes. In effect it would have meant paying tax twice on the same income amounting to around 70%.
It took 8 months and the threat of court action for a consortium of tax lawyers and accountants to convince HMRC that they could not do this. It cost many small companies tens of thousands of pounds each to fight it and in the end HMRC simply said they were dropping it with no apology, no admission of error and no means for companies to recoup the huge amounts of money they had paid out fighting it.
Anyone who thinks HMRC simply follow the rules laid down by Parliament and tries to collect what is legitimately owed is not living in the real world.
They don't need a court order every time they take money from my wages or every time I buy a VAT rated good.
If you can't see the difference between taxes collected at source, and the government seizing property or cash where it is alleged that a person is in arrears, you are either being deliberately obtuse or stupid.
Hammond has apparently admitted that the EU sanctions on Russia will affect the UK economy. I couldn't find the original source/interview, but he's quoted on RT: http://rt.com/uk/176696-eu-sanctions-russia-economy/
Can anyone explain to me how our politicians are prepared to sacrifice the all too fragile recovery of our own economy on the basis of zero evidence, before the reporting of any enquiry into MH-17? Who are prepared to take us to the brink of conflict with the world's 2nd biggest nuclear power? It's like some insane parallel universe. And it's these same student politician amateur adventurers having their infantile 'COBRA' meetings who warn of the 'dangers' of a party like UKIP coming to power.
The US has been offered a number of opportunities to de-escalate the situation in the Ukraine by the Russians but have continued to ratchet up the actions. The US is funding and aiding the war against the Donbass people and can call a ceasefire anytime but choose not to. Reminds me of when the Japanese were backed into a corner in 1941. I expect the Russians to continue to act rationally and I hope we don't continue to just do as the Americans tell us and go down together. The Americans are behaving like the Germans prior to WWI. At least some European countries aren't falling for the US ruse to divide us from our Russian friends and neighbours.
What they do is go on fishing expeditions to try and extend or change the scope of taxation so as to increase revenue
Good, I wish they did more of it, then we wouldn't lose so many billions to tax evas....sorry, avoidance.
In case you missed it this is not tax evasion nor even avoidance. This is international agreements to make sure it is possible to do business in different countries. In the case of Norway people working there are paying far more tax than they would in the UK so it would have to be a pretty dumb tax avoidance scheme.
And anyway, whilst HMRC are hammering small companies and individuals for tax they don't owe they are doing deals with big multi-nationals to help them avoid paying billions in taxes that they should be paying.
You really do have your priorities warped if you think that is a clever way to run a revenue system.
Good, I wish they did more of it, then we wouldn't lose so many billions to tax evas....sorry, avoidance.
Yes but they go against the little guy Hugh, the guy who can't fight back. If the Revenue took 2000 pounds out of your account that you didn't owe, would you take them to court? Employ a barrister to argue the niceties of tax law with an immensely powerful government organisation? Risk losing and being many thousands out of pocket?
Of course you wouldn't.
So in effect they could take 2,000 quid out of your account with impunity. and with impunity from almost any ordinary person's account.
Big companies and the wealthy can take protect themselves because they have the money
Taxmen have draconian powers. That is a fact of life. They can close down your company, bankrupt your personally, seize your car or indeed any assets they like, or freeze your bank account (which basically makes it impossible to live), at the drop of a hat. They can grab your salary before it's even paid to you.
Is this an unacceptable extension of such powers? Maybe it is, but I do object to idiotic comments like Janet Daley saying "a basic premise of democratic government cannot be overturned". It has never been a basic premise of democratic government that customs officers and tax inspectors need a court order to seize assets. Maybe it should be, but it never has been in the past - so let's be accurate, shall we? Taxmen can already seize your assets without a court order:
On the particular point, it doesn't seem as draconian as many of the existing powers. At least you get some warning and a chance to make representations.
Spot on.
If you don't like it then pay your bloody taxes.
Screeching Tea Party extremist lunatics like Daley can take a short walk off a long pier.
Ah Hugh. Another moron who has forgotten that the government is supposed to serve the people not the other way round.
The Government is serving the people extremely well if it collects more of its taxes that are due.
If you don't like it, then just pay your tax.
"The Taxman" takes money directly from me every week before it even has a chance to reach my bank account, I don't shriek like a Tea Party fruitcake about it.
I'm tring to imagine a surreal Pythonesque alternative universe where fruitcakes are capable of shrieking
Comments
Last year they decided to try changing the way in which they regarded double taxation arrangements with other countries. Companies and individuals that had been working in Norway and paying full Norwegian taxes (which I can assure you are very high even compared to the UK) were told that although they had paid full tax on turnover and income in Norway (amounting to around 45% of total turnover), the remainder of the money they brought back into the UK would also be subject to tax by the UK authorities.
This doesn't just go against the UK laws, it goes against an international treaty on double taxation and reciprocal recognition of other countries tax regimes. In effect it would have meant paying tax twice on the same income amounting to around 70%.
It took 8 months and the threat of court action for a consortium of tax lawyers and accountants to convince HMRC that they could not do this. It cost many small companies tens of thousands of pounds each to fight it and in the end HMRC simply said they were dropping it with no apology, no admission of error and no means for companies to recoup the huge amounts of money they had paid out fighting it.
Anyone who thinks HMRC simply follow the rules laid down by Parliament and tries to collect what is legitimately owed is not living in the real world.
The US has been offered a number of opportunities to de-escalate the situation in the Ukraine by the Russians but have continued to ratchet up the actions. The US is funding and aiding the war against the Donbass people and can call a ceasefire anytime but choose not to. Reminds me of when the Japanese were backed into a corner in 1941. I expect the Russians to continue to act rationally and I hope we don't continue to just do as the Americans tell us and go down together. The Americans are behaving like the Germans prior to WWI. At least some European countries aren't falling for the US ruse to divide us from our Russian friends and neighbours.
Good, I wish they did more of it, then we wouldn't lose so many billions to tax evas....sorry, avoidance.
And anyway, whilst HMRC are hammering small companies and individuals for tax they don't owe they are doing deals with big multi-nationals to help them avoid paying billions in taxes that they should be paying.
You really do have your priorities warped if you think that is a clever way to run a revenue system.
Yes but they go against the little guy Hugh, the guy who can't fight back. If the Revenue took 2000 pounds out of your account that you didn't owe, would you take them to court? Employ a barrister to argue the niceties of tax law with an immensely powerful government organisation? Risk losing and being many thousands out of pocket?
Of course you wouldn't.
So in effect they could take 2,000 quid out of your account with impunity. and with impunity from almost any ordinary person's account.
Big companies and the wealthy can take protect themselves because they have the money
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/britains-timid-teens-need-to-go-to-the-pub/15485#.U9lJkclwbqA