Annual tax summary

[Dark Knight]

I have received a lovely letter from the tax man, giving me a break down of where all my taxes go
they are in descending order
1 Welfare
2 Health
3 Education
4 state pensions
5 National debt interest
6 Defence
7 Criminal Justice
8 Transport
9 Business and industry
10 Admin
11 Culture, eg sports, libraries and museums
12 Environment
13 housing eg utilities and street lights
14 overseas aid
and lastly UK contribution to the EU Budget

Do you feel it is apportioned correctly and do we get enough in return for our money

let discourse commence

[towny44]

I was surprised when I received mine that state pensions were as low down the pecking order as they are. Not really surprised that welfare is number one and, even when IDS has reached his target reductions, it is still likely to remain the largest expense, especially as it covers such a wide range of benefits.
I think maybe we ought to do an Argentina and eliminate item 5, National Debt Interest, or possibly just issue non-redeamable IOU's to the bankers we owe it to.
However without knowing the league tables of other Western Nations it is difficult to say whether it is apportioned correctly

[david63]

I had one of those the other day and what annoyed me was how much I was paying into the state pension, which is then paid back to me. In other words I am paying my own pension

[towny44]

I had one of those the other day and what annoyed me was how much I was paying into the state pension, which is then paid back to me. In other words I am paying my own pension

By heck David but you must have a great private pension or a massive investment income. I thought mine was good but my state pension is more than my total income tax payments, and that's not counting my wife's married womens pension.
Maybe I should be seeking extra help from DK!!!

[Manoverboard]

The figure that took me by surprise was the snivelling amount that I am paying into the EU coffers, I did expect it to be much higher given all the adverse rhetoric about the cost of the beaurocracy etc.

[Capt Black]

The Tax Man was really good to me this year. He sent me a tax refund.

It was £15.15. Better than nothing or even worse - a bill. Still it got me a few drinks on Aurora last week.

[Quizzical Bob]

The Tax Man was really good to me this year. He sent me a tax refund.

It was £15.15. Better than nothing or even worse - a bill. Still it got me a few drinks on Aurora last week.

You were lucky, I'm very pleased for you, honest I am (says he through gritted teeth). I had a tax investigation resulting in an enormous bill for purely arbitrary reasons, they really were horribly aggressive. The interest alone was enough to pay for two 14-day cruises.

[Mervyn and Trish]

The Tax Man was really good to me this year. He sent me a tax refund.

It was £15.15. Better than nothing or even worse - a bill. Still it got me a few drinks on Aurora last week.

You were lucky, I'm very pleased for you, honest I am (says he through gritted teeth). I had a tax investigation resulting in an enormous bill for purely arbitrary reasons, they really were horribly aggressive. The interest alone was enough to pay for two 14-day cruises.

Was the enormous bill incorrect, in which case surely you challenged it and didn't have to pay? If it wasn't incorrect and you really did owe that much, surely the investigation was fully justified and hardly arbitrary? There may be an explanation you're not giving us among the limited facts presented QB, but from what you do tell us it sounds like a fair cop.

[Quizzical Bob]

Was the enormous bill incorrect, in which case surely you challenged it and didn't have to pay? If it wasn't incorrect and you really did owe that much, surely the investigation was fully justified and hardly arbitrary? There may be an explanation you're not giving us among the limited facts presented QB, but from what you do tell us it sounds like a fair cop.

It wasn't as clear-cut as right or wrong, many of the decisions were arbitrary and perverse. There were some very obtuse interpretions of the law on capital allowances, so much so that they completely refused to recognise one clause of the Capital Allowances act and only a court case could have forced them to concede. Additionally they reneged on a 20-year old agreement on the proportion of private use of the vehicle I used for my business. These techniques are renowned in the accountancy world as a means of extorting money from hard-worked businesses. I have always paid my fair and proper share of the tax due but this was arbitrary and vicious. The old days of sitting round a table with the taxman and coming to an agreement have long gone. This aggressive approach is now common according to the latest reports.

[Silver_Shiney]

If, by welfare, they mean the handouts to newly-arrived foreigners and the workshy, then this should be reduced considerably.

Given the state of roads and rail, I think transport deserves a bigger slice.

I am probably missing something here, but I don't understand why "business and industry" is getting a cut, given that we've just about privatised everything.

I'd swap admin and housing round in the priorities list, and also drop this iniquitous "green tax".

It's good to help the genuinely needy but charity begins at home and I feel strongly that overseas aid should be cut until we've got this country back on its feet and will then be better able to help other nations.

If only we could leave the wretched EU, then we wouldn't have to pay that contribution.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Was the enormous bill incorrect, in which case surely you challenged it and didn't have to pay? If it wasn't incorrect and you really did owe that much, surely the investigation was fully justified and hardly arbitrary? There may be an explanation you're not giving us among the limited facts presented QB, but from what you do tell us it sounds like a fair cop.

It wasn't as clear-cut as right or wrong, many of the decisions were arbitrary and perverse. There were some very obtuse interpretions of the law on capital allowances, so much so that they completely refused to recognise one clause of the Capital Allowances act and only a court case could have forced them to concede. Additionally they reneged on a 20-year old agreement on the proportion of private use of the vehicle I used for my business. These techniques are renowned in the accountancy world as a means of extorting money from hard-worked businesses. I have always paid my fair and proper share of the tax due but this was arbitrary and vicious. The old days of sitting round a table with the taxman and coming to an agreement have long gone. This aggressive approach is now common according to the latest reports.

Ah. A fair cop then.

[Dark Knight]

QBob's tax dodging aside

I was surprised how low down the list foreign aid and our membership of the Euro gravy train are
I thought given all the hyperbole about it, it would be much nearer the top

[Quizzical Bob]

Ah. A fair cop then.

Not at all. It was actually illegal.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Ah. A fair cop then.

Not at all. It was actually illegal.

Your tax dodge or their action? If the latter you must either be very rich not to bother or very remiss not to set the lawyers on them. If the former I rest my case.

[Dark Knight]

QBob
how on earth is action by the tax man illegal ? did they trouser the cash?
more likely, you just didn't like what you were told and how much you had to pay
IF it were illegal you would have been to the solicitors faster than you could say "40% tax"

[Quizzical Bob]

QBob
how on earth is action by the tax man illegal ? did they trouser the cash?
more likely, you just didn't like what you were told and how much you had to pay
IF it were illegal you would have been to the solicitors faster than you could say "40% tax"

You are so naive it's unbelievable.

To question their perverse interpretation (and it is widely accepted as such) would have involved a court case which I cannot afford to pursue. There are many instances where HMRC have been found to be in the wrong but until there are enough like-minded institutions in my situation who are prepared to club together to contest this interpretation. It all revolves around Sections 266 and 267 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 which are contradictory and until a court has passed judgment will remain so. Basically I invested £80,000 in new machinery and was not allowed to claim the appropriate allowances for it despite the Chancellor raising the allowances to encourage companies to do so

Either way, the final decision has deprived the business of substantial funds which would have been invested in new staff so somebody has lost a job over it. That's what happens when the government overspends and expects others to pay for it.

(It's not 40% by the way, it's way over 50%)

[Quizzical Bob]

Ah. A fair cop then.

Not at all. It was actually illegal.

Your tax dodge or their action? If the latter you must either be very rich not to bother or very remiss not to set the lawyers on them. If the former I rest my case.

It was not a tax dodge but an investment in new machinery as encouraged by the Chancellor. I am by no means rich, a large part of my money was spent on this investment, and now I have been taxed on the cost of doing so. That will be the last time I do that. No more investment from me, not in staff, machinery, training, nothing.

[Dark Knight]

nothing to do with Naivety at all
I still, don't believe the tax man acted unlawfully or illegally
sounds like you misinterpreted what you were entitled to and got stung
if you were so sure you were right ,you would have gone to court, in the certainty of wining and that the case and costs would go against the tax man
IF you were so right ,any solicitor would have taken it on a no win /no fee basis
after all ,you are so certain aren't you?

[Quizzical Bob]

nothing to do with Naivety at all
I still, don't believe the tax man acted unlawfully or illegally
sounds like you misinterpreted what you were entitled to and got stung
if you were so sure you were right ,you would have gone to court, in the certainty of wining and that the case and costs would go against the tax man
IF you were so right ,any solicitor would have taken it on a no win /no fee basis
after all ,you are so certain aren't you?

I give up, it's a waste of time debating this sort of thing with you. The options you list do not apply. There are four parties here, British businesses, the government, the Treasury and HMRC. HMRC does what it wants.

You believe what you want, I know the facts

Bye

[Mervyn and Trish]

nothing to do with Naivety at all
I still, don't believe the tax man acted unlawfully or illegally
sounds like you misinterpreted what you were entitled to and got stung
if you were so sure you were right ,you would have gone to court, in the certainty of wining and that the case and costs would go against the tax man
IF you were so right ,any solicitor would have taken it on a no win /no fee basis
after all ,you are so certain aren't you?

If it was, as quoted, illegal, it's even easier than that. You report it to the police and they involve the CPS and they prosecute and the guilty party goes to jail. QED.