Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35988698)

Well, perhaps, if it will increase their chance of successfully claiming benefits, they might need to "bother" the GP.

The more evidence, the better.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35988698)

Well, perhaps, if it will increase their chance of successfully claiming benefits, they might need to "bother" the GP.

The more evidence, the better.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989184)

In defence of Cameron it was Labour who introduced the Work Capability Assessment.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35989179)

At 11am on Tuesday, Radio 4 are to broadcast a sitcom about the farce that is these new Government assessments that Cameron introduced for the sick & disabled.

It's coming to something when people are openly laughing at how absurd and ridiculous they are, though it should be remembered that these are real people that are being affected and is so serious that thousands of people have lost their lives as a result.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989184)

In defence of Cameron it was Labour who introduced the Work Capability Assessment.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35989205)

Coming to something? It's been a joke for years. And it's those that can laugh at it are the people that are affected. I don't think it's those who aren't affected will be the ones laughing or find it in anyway funny at all. Just to be on your safe side, when I say we can laugh at it, we don't think it's funny haha, (just a parody) just funny as we relate and see the irony to it all. But to highlight it in this manner has to be a good thing.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to find fault with those that can laugh at something so damning.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989184)

In defence of Cameron it was Labour who introduced the Work Capability Assessment.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35989262)

When was this work handed to the private sector? This seems a serious flaw in the process. Does profit play a role in the decision making?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989264)

The private sector were brought in around 2008 to carry out assessments for ESA. As part of this there was essentially an attempt to downgrade the role of Decision Maker in DWP from the lowest junior manager grade in the Civil Service to an administrative one (essentially rubber stamping the output of an ATOS assessment).

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989264)

The private sector were brought in around 2008 to carry out assessments for ESA. As part of this there was essentially an attempt to downgrade the role of Decision Maker in DWP from the lowest junior manager grade in the Civil Service to an administrative one (essentially rubber stamping the output of an ATOS assessment).

I’m not sure I feel there are “targets” for providers (this proves contentious when Dispatches sent someone undercover but there are certainly cases where the provider is paid per assessment leading to conveyor belt assessment centres.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35989269)

Decision Makers are EOs (Executive Officers), not AOs (Administrative Officers), and they don’t "rubber stamp" the assessments - if this were so, why is there an initial 4 weeks training, followed by 4 weeks of QA, followed by another 4 weeks of further training, followed by another 4 weeks QA, before DMs are allowed to actively score assessments?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989252)

I think the common sense solution is to do away with disability benefits as a top up. They should means test the lot as Universal Credit to ensure money is targeted at those most in need.

PIP mobility should end at 65. Over state pension age it should be State Pension plus Attendance Allowance ending the unfairness of a two tier system based on date of claim.

It’d save a fortune on bureaucracy as well and simplify the processes for applicants.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989252)

PIP mobility should end at 65.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35989280)

Means testing is the most expensive way to administer benefits and results in a low take up rate as people resent the Government asking such private questions eg half of pensioners entitled to Pension Credit don't claim it.

Means testing would also undermine the very reason why Attendance Allowance/Mobility Allowance/DLA/PIP was introduced in the first place, which is that nobody, whatever their means, should lose out on this help towards the extra costs of disability. This is why it's tax free and not means tested.

Contributory ESA is means tested to an extent. Blair introduced a means test where most people in receipt of a private/occupational pension had it taken into account if they were over a prescribed amount. Cameron introduced a system where those not in the support group could only claim it for a year before facing a means test.

There's also the question as to whether taking out insurance should be means tested at all. This is akin to saying that if a millionaire takes out home insurance and then gets burgled, s/he should not be able to claim as they can afford to replace the missing items themselves!

It wouldn't save as much as you think anyway. Short term, savings could be made as benefits are withdrawn, but then people would have to live off their savings. Once these reduced to £16,000, they would be back on benefits again. These means tested benefits would then also attract free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free eye tests and a voucher towards glasses, cold weather payments, Social Fund payments, reimbursement of travel costs to hospitals and prisons, free medical appliances eg wigs, fabric supports etc etc. It would be horrendously expensive to administer as the diminishing capital rule would need to be applied on top of all the other costs caused by means testing.

There is also a belief amongst politicians and the middle classes upwards that taxpayers are happy to support the welfare state because they get a little bit of what they pay in tax back in the form of non means tested benefits. If these were withdrawn, they might not be so keen to support the welfare state at all, which would be a disaster for poorer members of society.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35989281)

So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?

Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.

No-one steps in to take over their role.

And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. :mad:

And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". :mad:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35989281)

So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?

Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.

No-one steps in to take over their role.

And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. :mad:

And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". :mad:

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35989281)

So disabled people over 65 don't need to get around? Lock them indoors where they can't be seen by society?

Another anomaly is that Carers lose their "allowance" (now the princely sum off £66.15 for a MINIMUM 35 hour week) the day they get their State Pension.

No-one steps in to take over their role.

And I believe that Carers Allowance is under threat. Two Carers I talk with have been told to complete a diary over 4 weeks, showing how much time they spend caring. Bureaucracy on top of their already tough roles. :mad:

And letters announcing the 2% rise in Carers Allowance are filled with information on their rights to flexible working, but if you earn too much you lose the "allowance". :mad:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989282)

If people have savings to live off of then they should do. The purpose of the welfare state isn't to fund the lifestyle of people who have substantial savings in the first place.

Attendance Allowance/DLA as a concept was introduced almost 30 years ago, it was fit for purpose then but it's not fit or purpose now.

If there's a low take up rate as a result then savings are all to the good. Those that don't feel they need it not applying is a positive outcome.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------



If someone is 66 they can't apply for PIP mobility so it ends the discrepancy of having a two tier system.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35989284)

I suppose the assumption is that they're not forgoing a job in order to do the caring.


They may be eligible for other extra benefits.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35989292)

Savings above £6,000 start to affect the majority of means tested benefits, with them being withdrawn completely if they are over £16,000, which I don't think are substantial sums.

Your argument for means testing them has been considered by various Governments, but rejected time and time again. Not only for the political, social and financial reasons that I previously stated, but because it's unfair to penalise those who are prudent.

Person A drinks, smokes, regularly buys a new car and goes on holiday more than once every year. They have no savings as a result.

Person B doesn't drink, smoke, makes their car last as long as possible and only goes on holiday occasionally. They have savings over £16,000 as a result of their thrift.

Why should person B be penalised for being careful with their money and saving (as the Government want us to)? It's for this reason that Pension Credit (savings) was introduced as a way to reward those who had saved and were subsequently not entitled to the mainstream means tested Pension Credit scheme.

Attendance and Mobility Allowance were introduced in 1976 as a way to help the disabled meet the extra costs of disability. This concept is as strong today as if was 42 years ago, even Cameron did not consider changing this part of the concept with the introduction of PIP.

Half of eligible pensioners don't apply for Pension Credit, not because they are not entitled, don't need the money or can get by without it, but because they find means testing to be intrusive, humiliating and embarrassing. Remember, these people will be able to recall the days when they had to queue for basic food supplies and have someone from the National Assistance Board coming round to check things like how many chairs they had. Any excess for their needs meant they had to sell it and when that had run out, they had to go cap in hand to the National Assistance Board again.

Precluding pensioners from claiming help with mobility when this need arises after pension age was brought in by the Thatcher Government in 1993. I always thought this to be odd after the stated intention of social security reform was said to be to target those most in need.

One of Thatchers reforms was to stop Housing Benefit for many pensioners from April 1988. This caused such an uproar from these (many Tory voting) pensioners that a supplementary scheme had to be introduced- Housing Benefit Supplement.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------



It used to be the case that Carers Allowance stopped when pension age was reached. As part of his reforms to help carers, the Blair Government scrapped this regulation. However, most carers still cannot claim Carers Allowance from retirement age due to the 'overlapping benefit' regulations. These say that anyone entitled to more than one benefit can only claim the one that pays the highest amount. As the State Retirement Pension is usually more than the rate for Carers Allowance, most get their pension instead.

It can still be useful for those only entitled to a very small pension or no pension at all.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989291)

'May' face a custodial sentence does not mean 'will'. The letters will be standard letters with carefully crafted legal wording. It's quite right that HMRC share earnings details with the DWP to ensure the benefits system remains robust.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989294)

In both of your analogies Person A and Person B have lifestyles over and above the minimum that the welfare state should provide.

Establishing savings of £16 000 at say, £20 a week, would take 15 years. Someone on benefits, in these times of austerity, able to do so is likely to be committing benefit fraud.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35989299)

Benefit tribunals have no right to tell people that they will go to prison. So the conversation is being misrepresented in some way.

Means testing already applies for Universal Credit, so I don’t see why PIP or Attendance Allowance, or Carer’s Allowance should be exempt. I think savings of £16 000 is probably quite reasonable for the same principle to apply.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35991406)

Billion pound bill expected for fixing botched disability benefits.

https://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/bil...11364355766261

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35991469)

It's been accepted by the Government that this was an erroneous way to manage the migration and was nothing to do with the DWP being "helpful" or "generous".

The one year restriction on Contribution Based ESA for those in the WRAG was brought in on 1/5/12 by the Cameron Government.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35992274)

DWP staff problems leave carers with years of overpaid benefit debt.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-benefit-debt

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35991494)

I was puzzled when the story originally came out as to why large numbers of people didn't complain when their benefits where reduced. The reality was that their benefits weren't reduced, which is why they didn't notice anything amiss. Under the old pre-2011 rules, no extra money.


As I understand it, there had been no automatic transition from contribution based IB to income related IB. You had to put in a specific and separate claim for income related IB. With ESA there was no separate claim required, although I'm not sure what mechanism was there to move from one to the other.


With income-related ESA came other possible additional benefits. The post-2010 change giving a one year limit on contribution based ESA, automatically brought forward the income-related stage. Without that change they wouldn't have been eligible for anything extra.


The assumption was made by DWP staff that if if somebody was already on contribution based IB, then they should automatically be transferred to the contribution based ESA. On the face of it, nothing unreasonable about that. The issue was that if their finances were such that if they had put in a fresh claim for income based ESA, that is what they would have received along with the additional benefits.


The transfers would still have taken place under Labour, and the error still there. It's just so happens the bulk of the transitions were made post Labour, some will have been made under Labour. Labour should have specified that the transition process also evaluated the claimants income-related status, seeing as ESA now covered both types.

Nothing sinister, underhand, or dishonest took place.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35992906)

I really don't understand why you seek to politicise matters in your posts at every opportunity.

If something good/bad happens under Labour/Tories it's fair enough to point it out, but you seem to want to defend the Tories at every turn and, if there are any issues that arise, blame it on Labour or say that it would also have happened under Labour (in your opinion).

I don't view this as a political thread, more of a place where people can share experiences, impart information etc.

I don't know about anyone else, but i'm only interested in facts and have no regard for any underlying political agenda.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35993385)

I think that it's fair enough to respond if someone brings politics into it, but you do sometimes bring party politics into things unneccesarily.

For example, if someone points out a fact that the Government of the day (who happens to be a Conservative Government at the moment) makes a change to social security policies or regulations, you come back with something like "it's Labours fault" or "Labour would have done the same thing" (in your opinion).

That's fine for a political thread, but I don't believe that it's appropriate to bring party politics into this thread unduly.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35993406)

The subject of benefits is highly political, I'm afraid, Richard. There's no escaping it.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35993410)

Its only political because some politicians chose to make it political on the basis they can score political points from it.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35993767)

It is possible to be political without being poisonous.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35993792)

Please tell the Conservatives that.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35993792)

Please tell the Conservatives that.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35993850)

Well, it's Labour who are trying to weaponise these issues. They have voted against many of the changes that the Conservatives have brought in to help the less well off. Theresa May rattles through them most Prime Minister's Question Times in the House of Commons!

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35993856)

What you mean like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...erable-hardest

And this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ty-frank-field

And this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45824590

And this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8603706.html

Hang on there is more....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...cuts-austerity

And more...

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...80%99-benefits


l don't excuse Labour either as they were just as culpable for many things as well as the Conservatives for the savage benefit cuts and demonising of benefit claimants.

By the way OB take your partisan political colours off for once and you might just see the woods from the trees.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35993983)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35993983)

.

You fail to mention the other side of the equation, such as the implementation of the minimum living wage, bringing the lower paid out of tax altogether, etc, all of which Corbyn voted against, no doubt because he didn't want the Conservatives to look good.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35993983)

I think it's you, Den, with respect, that needs to look at all the facts and not just the lefty view of them. People like me, who slant to the right of centre, do want to alleviate poverty as much as possible, but we can't spend money we don't have. Money tree politics is just childish.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35993983)

Money tree politics is just childish.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35993986)

Less of the moronic name calling OB as first of all l am no lefty as l am a moderate who wants fairness for everybody in society and not just for one favoured group of the country.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35993986)

Strange that the current government seem to find that magical money tree for its own political ends several times over the past few years.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35994037)

Steady on, old chap! It is news to me the you consider yourself a moderate. I must have been under a misapprehension, or maybe I misremembered, but did you not tell us on these very forums that you voted for that dangerous Marxist friend of terrorists, that nice Mr Corbyn, at the last election?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35994037)

Now you can call that a moderate vote if you like, but to most of us, this is way left of centre. Have you now repented, perhaps?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35994037)

I wasn't calling you names, just referring to the lefty references you had linked to in your post..

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35993856)

What you mean like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...erable-hardest

And this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ty-frank-field

And this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45824590

And this.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8603706.html

Hang on there is more....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...cuts-austerity

And more...

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...80%99-benefits


l don't excuse Labour either as they were just as culpable for many things as well as the Conservatives for the savage benefit cuts and demonising of benefit claimants.

By the way OB take your partisan political colours off for once and you might just see the woods from the trees.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35994051)

The GP letter has stated they've sent numerous letters on my behalf for ESA and PIP and they they are getting annoyed too. Seems like they don't take their information into account by the looks of it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35996004)

Anyone interested in the history of social security in the UK may wish to take a look at 'Workers or Shirkers' that was on BBC4 last night. It's not too dry either.

It starts with Outdoor Relief and Indoor Relief (workhouses) and examines the different views regarding whether there should be any help for those less fortunate and, if there should be, is there a belief that there is the deserving and the undeserving poor.

Interestingly, it shows that the different views and concerns of yesteryear were the same then as they are today!

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35996006)

Switched off as soon as IDS came on.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35996033)

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35996011)

The Tribunal sytem has responded to say that my daughter is on a waiting list for her tribunal for DLA to PIP.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35997500)

I've just got a letter from the DWP.

Our daughter's Tribunal has been cancelled.

From ZERO points on all descriptors, she has now been raised to 13 for care, and 12 for mobility.

Ongoing as her condition will not change.

So that's ENHANCED on both parts, backdated to when her DLA was stopped.

But then I read it vey carefully, and they have awarded her extra points for being unable to make journeys to FAMILIAR places, but we only said that she had great difficulties with UNFAMILIAR journeys.

I feel I should let them know this, as it's either a typo or excessive points have been awarded.

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35997500)

I've just got a letter from the DWP.

Our daughter's Tribunal has been cancelled.

From ZERO points on all descriptors, she has now been raised to 13 for care, and 12 for mobility.

Ongoing as her condition will not change.

So that's ENHANCED on both parts, backdated to when her DLA was stopped.

But then I read it vey carefully, and they have awarded her extra points for being unable to make journeys to FAMILIAR places, but we only said that she had great difficulties with UNFAMILIAR journeys.

I feel I should let them know this, as it's either a typo or excessive points have been awarded.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35997511)

I know it will get better once I've had it but still think I should tell them?

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35997500)

I've just got a letter from the DWP.

Our daughter's Tribunal has been cancelled.

From ZERO points on all descriptors, she has now been raised to 13 for care, and 12 for mobility.

Ongoing as her condition will not change.

So that's ENHANCED on both parts, backdated to when her DLA was stopped.

But then I read it vey carefully, and they have awarded her extra points for being unable to make journeys to FAMILIAR places, but we only said that she had great difficulties with UNFAMILIAR journeys.

I feel I should let them know this, as it's either a typo or excessive points have been awarded.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35997687)

Was it a typo when excessive points were deducted, I'd say nothing and if they ever ask say I hadn't read the letter properly due to relief that the months of stress and torment were over

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35997687)

Was it a typo when excessive points were deducted, I'd say nothing and if they ever ask say I hadn't read the letter properly due to relief that the months of stress and torment were over

Originally Posted by Taf (Post 35997500)

I've just got a letter from the DWP.

Our daughter's Tribunal has been cancelled.

From ZERO points on all descriptors, she has now been raised to 13 for care, and 12 for mobility.

Ongoing as her condition will not change.

So that's ENHANCED on both parts, backdated to when her DLA was stopped.

But then I read it vey carefully, and they have awarded her extra points for being unable to make journeys to FAMILIAR places, but we only said that she had great difficulties with UNFAMILIAR journeys.

I feel I should let them know this, as it's either a typo or excessive points have been awarded.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997724)

That will be likely to be water off a duck's back! You make the assumption that these officials have hearts.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35997746)

Nice thing to say about my wife...

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35997727)

Depends on the situation. Eg If the condition is such that somebody can become agitated when out and about anywhere, then they might qualify. The differentiation between familiar and unfamiliar is related to navigating to those places.

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35997756)

Its not the staff we should be having a go at as they have to apply the rules that are laid down to them as the problem is with the unwieldy complex system they have to use..

But today, the long-serving official – who had been looking forward to a quiet, well-earned retirement – has turned whistleblower, feeling compelled to speak out over a new 'epidemic' of fraudulent claims following the introduction of Universal Credit.
It is an issue that her bosses are well aware of, says the woman, who we shall call Susan. Yet instead of clamping down on the flagrant, wholesale abuse of taxpayers' money, benefits chiefs are turning a blind eye to the cheats – because they are running sacred of being targeted by Left-wing critics.

However, senior managers at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have told staff to approve applications for advanced payments even when the claims are obviously fake, the whistleblower says, for fear of attracting more negative headlines.
...

But in March, amid a tide of stories claiming that the new system was causing hardship, the current Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd lifted a cap on claiming benefits for more than two children and allowed claimants to be given advance payments to ease the transition.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36001860)

Nothing really that specific to Universal Credit as such. It's a result of pandering to the whingers and another aspect that we're not allowed to mention.

Link

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36001883)

I think you are suppose to include the link to the source? Here you go:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-critics.html

I want to know how you run "sacred"? :)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36001915)

The device of "Look at those poor people stealing your money! Low life ****!" has been with us for a while now. It is, ironically, a sophisticated narrative design to remove attention from the place where far more money is lost: tax evasion & tax avoidance.

It is in the interests of the wealthy and those who control our media to engineer this and so many of the people in this country fall for it.

Both areas are fraud and both need addressing but you only hear one being vigorously pursued.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36001935)

Tax avoidance is not fraud. Everyone does it, and they do it legally. If you buy a new car based on its road tax band, that’s tax avoidance. If as a commercial energy user you choose your supplier so as not to pay the fossil fuel levy, that’s tax avoidance. If you choose to put your savings in an ISA, that’s tax avoidance. For as long as the tax system is used to promote or deter behaviour, then the tax system itself is promoting tax avoidance. If you want to criticise tax avoidance, then be prepared to be found guilty yourself ...

Tax evasion, on the other hand, is not paying tax due, or disguising tax liability, or exploitation of unintended loopholes in tax regulations (and hiding it). Such is illegal.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36001935)

Tax avoidance is not fraud. Everyone does it, and they do it legally. If you buy a new car based on its road tax band, that’s tax avoidance. If as a commercial energy user you choose your supplier so as not to pay the fossil fuel levy, that’s tax avoidance. If you choose to put your savings in an ISA, that’s tax avoidance. For as long as the tax system is used to promote or deter behaviour, then the tax system itself is promoting tax avoidance. If you want to criticise tax avoidance, then be prepared to be found guilty yourself ...

Tax evasion, on the other hand, is not paying tax due, or disguising tax liability, or exploitation of unintended loopholes in tax regulations (and hiding it). Such is illegal.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36001947)

If an aggressive tax avoidance scheme is found to be not legal in court, then it never was tax avoidance - it was tax evasion. It’s like the difference between murder and lawful killing - they are two different legal terms with distinct meanings. There is no such thing as illegal tax avoidance, just as there’s no such thing as legal murder.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36001915)

The device of "Look at those poor people stealing your money! Low life ****!" has been with us for a while now. It is, ironically, a sophisticated narrative design to remove attention from the place where far more money is lost: tax evasion & tax avoidance.

It is in the interests of the wealthy and those who control our media to engineer this and so many of the people in this country fall for it.

Both areas are fraud and both need addressing but you only hear one being vigorously pursued.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36001948)

80% of schemes are found to be not legal in court, I like the way they use the term not legal rather than illegal to, probably because right up until the final moments in court it's legality is uncertain.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth (Post 36001952)

If only there was the same level of outcry about the UK tax gap as there is about fraudulent benefit claims. I'm not saying it's OK to scam the system - it isn't, but HMRC themselves think tax evasion, non payment of tax owed and the hidden economy cost the country in excess of £12bn in the 2017/18 tax year.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36001949)

I suspect the language has to do with it being the scheme that’s being considered in court, rather than a person using the scheme being on trial. Once a scheme is declared not legal, anyone using it would be liable to prosecution for tax evasion.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36001963)

In which case, it was evasion, not avoidance.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36001963)

Who's doing the 'wotaboutery' now?

Tax avoidance is legal. If the government want to stop it, they need to legislate.

Actually, HMRC is looking very carefully at instances where tax avoidance is employed. To suggest that HMRC is focussing only on benefits is way off beam.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------



In which case, it was evasion, not avoidance.

---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------



So the government should legislate. Don't blame those who can avoid tax legally and do so.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36001983)

You are clearly advocating the ethos that "If I can get away it, great! I want as much wealth as I can get and I want it for me. Stuff everyone else".

You, and Chris, are deliberately focusing on the strictly legality of what you can and can't get away with. What you should be doing is stepping back and asking what is the best solution for society as a whole.

As societies evolve, they attempt to improve the moral underpinning of what constitutes fairness and equality. The normalisation of wealth distribution is part of this journey. It is inevitable and we just need to work out the best path to arrive at this destination.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36001992)

If you want to stay poor all your life carry on with that philosophy.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36001983)

You are clearly advocating the ethos that "If I can get away it, great! I want as much wealth as I can get and I want it for me. Stuff everyone else".

You, and Chris, are deliberately focusing on the strictly legality of what you can and can't get away with. What you should be doing is stepping back and asking what is the best solution for society as a whole.

As societies evolve, they attempt to improve the moral underpinning of what constitutes fairness and equality. The normalisation of wealth distribution is part of this journey. It is inevitable and we just need to work out the best path to arrive at this destination.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36001998)

Not correct. I’m insisting that if you want to win an argument on this you can’t afford to give your opponents a way out by needlessly sloppy language.

If you choose to rail against tax avoidance then fine, that’s your right, but then it’s also the right of those who do it, because it’s legal. End result, you may feel you have the moral high ground but so what ... tax avoidance is still legal and nothing changes.

If, on the other hand, you focus your energy on that which is actually against the law (and apparently costing us £12bn a year), then that’s an argument that forces those who have the power to account for their efforts to enforce the law. That’s an argument that’s unanswerable. If as a society we lobby for that, maybe things will change. It’s also likely that in tightening procedures, some things that are presently legal tax avoidance may become outlawed tax evasion. In which case you get more of what you want.

Or you can continue to insist that words should mean what you want them to, rather than what they actually do, and live with the constant frustration of your arguments constantly getting diverted by matters of semantics.

Personally, I find it easier to work with language rather than against it.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36001983)

You are clearly advocating the ethos that "If I can get away it, great! I want as much wealth as I can get and I want it for me. Stuff everyone else".

You, and Chris, are deliberately focusing on the strictly legality of what you can and can't get away with. What you should be doing is stepping back and asking what is the best solution for society as a whole.

As societies evolve, they attempt to improve the moral underpinning of what constitutes fairness and equality. The normalisation of wealth distribution is part of this journey. It is inevitable and we just need to work out the best path to arrive at this destination.