Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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?

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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!

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Who me?:p

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?

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Quote:

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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? :confused:

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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.


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.)
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.

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Draconian - no

Do look up the meaning of the word.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Yes, I think HMRC is becoming more incompetent since the staffing reductions on Government orders. There just isn't enough experienced staff left to do the job efficiently.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

We aren't talking about the calculation here, we are talking about them taking money that they have asked for a number of times and has not been paid. This will save millions in court fees. If you do not believe your bill is correct you can appeal, at no point will the money be taken until this appeal is heard and you have refused to pay it. Only when it gets to the point where they would currently take you to court would this law kick in.
No they were NOT directed at you. As you are someone who often points out semantics of peoples posts I suggest you re read it properly.



Agreeing me on that one then....

I don't need to thanks, I have a half decent grasp of the English language

in differing levels of application. It's perfectly possible to have law and order without excessive control of the people. what you suggest is that we all live in dictatorships because we have law.

Once again you talk about a subject and do nothing but spread misinformation.

DD's are variable but the company MUST inform you in advance of the amount. e.g. my mobile bill arrives 2 weeks before the DD is taken, this statement is sufficient to comply and gives me notice to ensure sufficient funds are in place. If a DD is taken before you receive the letter it is compulsory that the Bank refund you immediately and any charges you have incurred as a result of THAT incorrect DD(i.e. if you were already overdrawn or would go so by another payment then the charges are still applicable)


And I will happily defend your right to voice to but when you talk bobbins I have the exact same right to point it out.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

You would like it if you lived in Spain, the utility companies/council tax equivalent ect just take the money from your account without telling you first

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

thats true,once you have set a DD up that way.;) thats what ive done.:)my bill normally arrives a week or so after ive paid it.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

The fact is these are people who have steadfastly refused to pay their taxes.

Now assuming they aren't the mountain men of Montana, they have a statutory obligation to pay their taxes just like everyone else.

Because of their refusal my taxes are higher. The odds are these are either people earning a lot more than me, (therefore subject to self assessment) or self employed.

I assume that HMRC can only take the money if it is there?

Therefore they have the money and are refusing to pay it. Now if by HMRC taking the money direct (just like a paye system) saves everyone else money I am a bit lost as to why this is so wrong?

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

because Jambutty wouldn't be able to argue if his post wasn't so full of inaccuracies :D

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

I'd be more angry if people who had refused to pay their taxes, weren't having it taken off them at source, in this case their bank account, by the people from the Inland Revenue.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Sorry, but fail to see how people who are no longer making contributions to the revenue system can have any opinion about it :D :D

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Now that is a misleading statement if ever there was one. But then it is what I have come to expect from some members. They twist the facts to suit their argument.

As cashman has pointed out the Spanish authorities do not just take money out of an account. The account holder has to set up a DD first.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Quote:

Only when it gets to the point where they would currently take you to court would this law kick in.

It’s comforting to know that you are privy to a new law that MIGHT be brought in entwisi. The government is currently only CONSIDERING this Draconian law.

Quote:

It's perfectly possible to have law and order without excessive control of the people.

Having a law that allows a government department the authority to take money from a citizen’s bank account without due process of presenting proof of the debt in a court of law is EXCESSIVE CONTROL.

Quote:

what you suggest is that we all live in dictatorships because we have law.

If the best that you can do is to put words into my mouth to support your argument then your case is lost.

Quote:

Once again you talk about a subject and do nothing but spread misinformation.

What misinformation is that?

DD’s can also be for a fixed amount for a fixed period and in those cases the account holder is not informed when a withdrawal is made. It just happens on the due date or if the due date happens to be a weekend or a bank holiday the withdrawal SHOULD be made on the first working day after the due date.

Now if you want to carry on splitting hairs, be my guest. I’ve said my piece and stand by what I stated. It is wrong for the government to take money from a citizen’s account without the account holder’s authority or without due process in a court of law to establish beyond the balance of probabilities that the debt exists and has not been settled.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

I dont know what the system is on the other side of the pond but here you remain 'on the books' even if you are a pensioner.
If a pensioner has a certain amount of money, he or she pays tax.
You can never give up on opinions you may be involved whatever age you are.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

So by your reckoning if someone does not have any involvement in anything they should not have an opinion about it? Interesting if flawed reasoning.

However every single person living in the UK does make contributions to the revenue system simply by buying goods and services. Most items have Value Added Tax added to them and for those that do not incur VAT there is VAT on the manufacturing and transportation costs.

So even by your reckoning every single person in the UK is entitled to spout their piece about the revenue system.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Repeating what I said in an earlier post, no legal or distraint proceedings are ever put in place without giving the taxpayer ample opportunity to pay the debt. There is plenty of scope for the debtor to appeal against the amount due though, with self assessment, you have completed a Return that says what you owe.

Similarly if you settle the debt it is immediately recorded. If for some reason you pay and it is not recorded there are ways of tracing where the money is. This happens just occasionally, for instance when people send payment with an incorrect reference number, and it is always traced. No proceedings continue while such a dispute is ongoing.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Isn't the basic fact here these people who can but are unwilling to pay their income tax breaking the law?

Then they refuse to pay their fines and the tax due.

So by HMRC taking the money direct from their account they are paying their dues, (correct me if I am wrong here).

Why Jambutty are you disagreeing with something that is going to save HM government money AND make lawbreakers pay their debt to society?

(As I said in an earlier post I do assume HMRC cannot take money that isn't there)

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Perhaps people are afraid that this is only the first step, and that next they'll be going under people's mattresses.:D

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

Paying what you owe is not punishment.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

But this is not about whether they are guilty or not.

This is about HMRC having a right of collection direct from bank accounts from people who refuse to pay,(a bit akin to the council sending the bailiffs round for none payment of council tax.)

I think you will agree that whether they have paid or what there tax bill is does not have to be proven in a court of law

I see this as no different to them taking the tax I owe direct from my salary.

With regards to the fines etc then maybe they should go to court to prove guilt, however as the question will be "Have you paid your tax" and the answer is mainly going to be "no" I think the vast majority will cop to it before the court case.

Now where is the problem with people paying their taxes direct.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

You still don’t get it do you West Ender and Stanaccy?

No one not even the government has the right to take money from a citizen’s account without the citizen’s permission and agreement just because the citizen owes a government department money WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. If the government passes legislation to allow this to happen it will be the thin end of the Big Brother wedge. The next step could be withdrawing the money when IT IS DUE followed by Council Tax, Road Fund License, TV License to name just three.

Unless the law has been changed the Councils send in the Bailiffs but only AFTER APPLYING TO A COURT.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case. A defendant is still assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Quote:

Now where is the problem with people paying their taxes direct.

The problem as, I have explained already, taking the money out of a person’s account without their authority OR A COURT ORDER.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

lets face it Jambutty, There seems to be no-one else supporting your views so either a) we are all doomed or b) YOU ARE WRONG. Accept it and move on.

as other have said, the fact that they haven't paid is excactly the same reason that speed cameras are legal. The camera takes your picture and you are convicted of the crime. yes you can take it to court if you wish to challange it just like people who challange their tax bills will NOT have the money taken.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

HMRC sends in the bailiffs too though, actually, the "bailiff" is a Recovery officer, who has the power of Distraint. No court order is necessary for Distraint proceedings, the County Courts are used as an entirely different route to collecting outstanding tax.

Knowing the Recovery system as I do, it was my job for 11 years and I am still in HMRC though in another business stream, I have no qualms about this proposed legislation. I know the sort of circumstances in which it would be used and I don't see it as any more intrusive than the removal of goods to the value of the debt.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

I don’t care that no one else contributing to this discussion holds the same view as I do. We are all entitled to hold whatever view we choose. My view is simply that no one has the right to remove money from my account without my permission or a court order and if the government passes a law to enable this to happen then it is a bad law and WRONG. If you are comfortable with the tax department helping themselves to the money in your account then bully for you.

Let me see if I have got this right entwisi. Because my view is different to yours and a couple of others it is wrong. It seems to me that you are suffering from delusions of grandeur although that is not too surprising for someone who describes himself as a ‘God’. The debate on Ceefax (BBC page 145) and Teletext (ITV1 page 328) is, so far, 100% against the proposal that tax dodgers will have the money taken from their account without a court order or their consent.

So accept it that I have as much right as anyone to have an opinion about an issue and move on.

What have speed cameras got to do with this issue? Oh! I get it. Muddying the waters because your case is so weak and the best that you can do is digress off topic to make your point. Let me remind you that if your get flashed by a speed camera you get ‘that’ letter and you either pay up or challenge it. YOU DO NOT GET MONEY TAKEN FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT TO PAY THE FINE even if you don’t pay the fine. You get a court summons. So your point is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Re: Robin Hood Has Changed Sides
 

well tough i am,theres a principal involved here,but you lot seem devoid of it.:p