Do Britons deserve extra time off?

[SirGalahad]

Ahh, but they have no realistic expectation of actually receiving it, so they factor that in.

"Tax gaps are the difference between tax collected and that, which in HM Revenue and Customs view, should be collected."

So what's the Tax Gap then and why do they focus on reducing it? If there is no realistic expectation of reducing it then why is it a measure?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps-tables

 

[JohnD]

He may have only earned £11k

That is not at all the thrust of his foolish argument.

If I earn £300 this weekend cash in hand and don't declare it

 

[^woody^]

That is not at all the thrust of his foolish argument.

What is the answer then - in more than one irrelevant sentence?

Or haven't you had enough time to Google one? I'll wait.

 

[JohnD]

What's your question?

Are you going to try to persuade us that tax-dodgers aren't reprehensible?

 

[Brigadier]

"Tax gaps are the difference between tax collected and that, which in HM Revenue and Customs view, should be collected."

So what's the Tax Gap then and why do they focus on reducing it? If there is no realistic expectation of reducing it then why is it a measure?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps-tables

You're getting confused.
Aiming to reduce the gap is not the same as actually collecting it.
Unless you're advocating spending your own i.o.u.s......

 

[SirGalahad]

You're getting confused.
Aiming to reduce the gap is not the same as actually collecting it.
Unless you're advocating spending your own i.o.u.s......

That doesn't make any sense.

So how would you reduce the gap by not increasing compliance or collection.

IOUs have nothing to do with it. Shortfalls are made up by government borrowing .

 

[Brigadier]

That doesn't make any sense.

So how would you reduce the gap by not increasing compliance or collection.

IOUs have nothing to do with it. Shortfalls are made up by government borrowing .

You can answer Re: reduction, as you introduced it into the thread.

Mythical i.o.u.s are very relevant, as they are what you're pinning your argument on.
By its very nature, tax avoidance and evasion are guesstimates, in both scale and who is "guilty" (otherwise, they'd be collected, wouldn't they?) They're also subjective (what you say is wrong, the other side will argue is not). That's why tax laws evolve, to try and close "loopholes".

 

[^woody^]

What's your question?

What a load of rubbish.

Every pound of tax that some crooked millionaire dodges, is a pound that can't be spent on public services, or has to be made up by an extra pound levied from the ordinary tax-paying worker.

Explain how that works

You know what the question was. You've been avoiding answering it.

 

[vinty]

There is no shortfall. What you are paying is going towards someone knocking out kids in a free house living a free lifestyle drinking and eating free stuff while watching free Sky on a free 50" LCD in between driving around with no licence in a new uninsured car, and taking two or three free holidays a year or venturing back home to bring the relatives back.

Nice work if you can get it.

 

[vinty]

Explain how that works.

If I earn £300 this weekend cash in hand and don't declare it, how is that a shortfall, and why does it have to be made up from the "ordinary tax-paying worker" paying more? Where is the loss?

Contrast with some migrant claiming a cash benefit which means money is actually given to him and so then can't be spent on anything else because its gone from the pot. Is that a shortfall?

I'll break it down to something simple for you .... What you are effectively saying is that I have just lost £120 million because I did not win the lottery. Which is nonsense, as I never had it in the first place.
But what is an example of a loss, is the £5 I put into some vagrants Costa cup to support his lifestyle. That money is gone and can't be spent on anything else - a loss. I had it, and then it's gone.

And just to help your understanding further, the Government (like anyone else that deals with budgets and incomes and outgoings) plans their future budgets on known and expected incomes. They collect what is owned and chase what is not paid. They don't plan budgets on some unknown future tax revenue. So if some business evades paying some tax, if that tax was not expected, it's not a loss and does not impact on revenue, and is not a shortfall that needs to be made up by the "ordinary tax-paying worker".

Benefits can be a form of wealth distribution, benefit claiments don't live in isolation from the rest of society, when they get paid their money doesn't go offshore into some secret account where it just lies there, your average scrounger spends his money locally unless they are foreign that is, if you think about it the kind of stuff that benefits are spent on , alcohol, cigarettes and gambling ect. are highly taxable so that means a large proportion of the benefit cash returns to the government in the form excise duty which helps the country.
Another consideration is the number of jobs dependent on benefit claiments from those in the dole who service their claims to the pubs,clubs, bookies and supermarkets who sell cheap booze , and the health services who have to treat those claiments who have destroyed their health through excess alcohol, smoking, and too many chinese takeaways.