Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
okaycuckoo

Tax Enforcement Unleashed

Recommended Posts

Haven't seen a thread on this proposal in Osbo's budget.

HMRC may be allowed to bypass the courts altogether to collect unpaid tax - following article explains it best after a quick google (please link better stuff):

Budget gives HMRC power to raid your bank account

At the moment, if HMRC want to seize your property or cash, they have to take you to court, win and then get a court order. Now, after a couple of warning letters and a phone call, they apparently can do it at the flick of a switch. Crucially, there’s no safeguard built into this system – where's the appeal process? To repeat, if HMRC decide you owe them cash, they just take it. If you haven't managed to reach agreement with them, then you'll just wake up one morning, check your bank account, and find the money's gone.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100012871/did-you-spot-this-budget-gives-hmrc-power-to-raid-your-bank-account-like-wonga/

Seems like a never-ending expansion of executive power while the courts are tossed on the bonfire of history. At the least it opens wide the opportunity for abuse of power, and probably guarantees corrupt practice on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen a thread on this proposal in Osbo's budget.

HMRC may be allowed to bypass the courts altogether to collect unpaid tax - following article explains it best after a quick google (please link better stuff):

Budget gives HMRC power to raid your bank account

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100012871/did-you-spot-this-budget-gives-hmrc-power-to-raid-your-bank-account-like-wonga/

Seems like a never-ending expansion of executive power while the courts are tossed on the bonfire of history. At the least it opens wide the opportunity for abuse of power, and probably guarantees corrupt practice on both sides.

oh,just wait.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHgmUwhfoSZs&ei=tsEtU-f-BILRhAfRs4DIAg&usg=AFQjCNGtDgw7xZvk8rdLY-ZLEkxYmm09-Q&bvm=bv.62922401,d.ZG4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blair let the Genie out of the bottle and ever since, the end has justified the means. Many hundreds of years of legal safeguards overturned in the last couple of decades. Habeas Corpus, Double Jeopardy, constant surveillance, the list is long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1688 Bill of Rights - an Act of Parliament that restated key elements of the Common Law and which has been ruled in court as a constitutional act that cannot be "impliedly repealed" - ie a later Act that repeals some of its provisions is invalid unless it uses express language to state that the Bill of Rights or parts of it are being repealed - was meant to prevent such an expansion of executive power. This was why the Bill of Rights prevents fines without a court process (hello - parking fines! HMRC fines! etc...) and HMRC rifling your bank account is the same principle or an even worse abuse. Don't expect the judges to uphold the law thought - as they live off the taxes and want the gravy train to continue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty unless you can afford to prove your innocence.

Her Majesty's RC.

Doubt they'll be raiding her piggy bank anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. There are always good reasons they cite for getting rid of them. But there are very good reasons why they exist.

I consider the ability of HMRC to tap your bank account as rather Kafkaesque....just try getting the money back once they take it or even trying to get a reason as to why they took it.

Or folks are so skint, that all there is to take back is the working tax credit payment, they just paid into 20%

of the populations' bank accounts

:rolleyes:

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one more reason to keep most of your money in CASH, outside the banking system.

Absolutely, that was the first thing I thought of when reading this. However, I'm sure that some of the slower types still won't get the implications for personal freedom that holding and using physical cash affords people vs holding bank credit or 'electronic money'.

The authorities and bankers of course are well aware, hence the relentless push towards a cashless society... "It's for your safety and convenience." <_<

Edited by Sour Mash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, that was the first thing I thought of when reading this. However, I'm sure that some of the slower types still won't get the implications for personal freedom that holding and using physical cash affords people vs holding bank credit or 'electronic money'.

The authorities and bankers of course are well aware, hence the relentless push towards a cashless society... "It's for your safety and convenience." <_<

This is a truely scary backdoor piece of law. How many legitimate businesses are going to be taken down by this 'in error'. For one thing, I could see a clear incentive for tax officers with relatives running business A which is in competition to business B to target business B and take money away - the time and cost of a fight to get it back will advantage business A.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing this type of recovery will only apply to the likes of prole builders etc.... The filthy rich will be able to avoid taxes and avoid having their accounts emptied by HMRC.

How long before we see an "emergency" tax where the govt simply removes x% from your bank accounts to fund govt spending?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking to some Expats today in here Oz...over a few beers, some are quite well off, rent here but cash left in Sterling, some onshore some offshore...

How will they fair i wonder?

British citizens, but not Permanent Residents of the UK.....Permanent Residents here in Oz maybe many Citizens (Dual UK and Oz)..

Money in offshore accounts in Jersey/Guernsey. Do they come under the juridstriction of the HMRC or not? I was pouring petrol onto the fire saying better mover your money quick if you want to keep it......Its just many cannot open accounts in the UK due to residency laws; and do not want to exchange the cash into Ozzy dollars due to the poor exchange rate...So they have to store it offshore in sh!t interest paying accounts, very poor.....Not that the ones i talked to had anything to hide, if anything they feel robbed, but are the HMRC fodder i wonder? Or ATO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen a thread on this proposal in Osbo's budget.

HMRC may be allowed to bypass the courts altogether to collect unpaid tax - following article explains it best after a quick google (please link better stuff):

Budget gives HMRC power to raid your bank account

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100012871/did-you-spot-this-budget-gives-hmrc-power-to-raid-your-bank-account-like-wonga/

Seems like a never-ending expansion of executive power while the courts are tossed on the bonfire of history. At the least it opens wide the opportunity for abuse of power, and probably guarantees corrupt practice on both sides.

PAYE has been like this for years, no escaping if you are on this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely, that was the first thing I thought of when reading this. However, I'm sure that some of the slower types still won't get the implications for personal freedom that holding and using physical cash affords people vs holding bank credit or 'electronic money'.

The authorities and bankers of course are well aware, hence the relentless push towards a cashless society... "It's for your safety and convenience." <_<

Yes keeping £100k+ under your mattress sounds perfectly sensible to me. Mind telling us what you are paying for home insurance premiums?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(jokes aside, nolding savings in cash isnt very sensible because the opportunity cost that you are losing from getting 0% interest on it would far outweigh any potential risk of having it seized. From skimming that article, keeping your money pretty much anywhere except a deposit account [stocks, index funds, etc] would be safe, and holding large amounts of money in a deposit account is silly just now anyway due to the low interest rates)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(jokes aside, nolding savings in cash isnt very sensible because the opportunity cost that you are losing from getting 0% interest on it would far outweigh any potential risk of having it seized. From skimming that article, keeping your money pretty much anywhere except a deposit account [stocks, index funds, etc] would be safe, and holding large amounts of money in a deposit account is silly just now anyway due to the low interest rates)

0% interest eh? I'd better take out all my savings and gamble it on the stock exchange, or buy a few buy to lets. What could possibly go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes keeping £100k+ under your mattress sounds perfectly sensible to me. Mind telling us what you are paying for home insurance premiums?

He's self-insured :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes keeping £100k+ under your mattress sounds perfectly sensible to me. Mind telling us what you are paying for home insurance premiums?

Who said that one should have to keep all money as cash? I'm talking about the general principle of being able to use cash as you see fit.

If you want to hold £100k at home and use it for your transactions, you should be able to do so .. accepting the resulting risk of loss/theft as an adult taking your own decisions is part of personal responsibility, a concept rapidly disappearing.

The authorities would rather see everyone hold cash wealth electronically as bank credit. That's typically more convenient than handling physical cash but also severely constrains one's freedom if one is denied the possibility of using cash - you can see this, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The authorities would rather see everyone hold cash wealth electronically as bank credit. That's typically more convenient than handling physical cash but also severely constrains one's freedom if one is denied the possibility of using cash - you can see this, no?

In general, electronic bank credit money has been borrowed into existence from a commercial bank.

On every such pound in circulation someone somewhere is paying interest to the originating bank.

Collectively, we rent our medium of exchange from the banks, paying heavily for a utility that we could provide for ourselves debt-free.

http://www.positivemoney.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will just drive more people towards Bitcoin, then to SAFE/Maidsafe.

When others can take whatever they like, people tend to store wealth, data etc in places where others can't get at it.

The state is sowing the seeds of it's own demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will just drive more people towards Bitcoin, then to SAFE/Maidsafe.

When others can take whatever they like, people tend to store wealth, data etc in places where others can't get at it.

The state is sowing the seeds of it's own demise.

I am inclined to agree.

This legislation wont catch major tax evaders as they will not be holding money in bank accounts to which HMRC are going to have access anyway.

It will be used against small fry and the stupid (why else have they set the de minimis limit to as little as £1000).

You only have to look at HMRC's supposed rogue gallery major tax evaders (all of them small time crooks and fiddlers) to realise what a pathetic institution the once substantial organisations of the Inland Revenue and Custom and Excise have become

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1688 Bill of Rights - an Act of Parliament that restated key elements of the Common Law and which has been ruled in court as a constitutional act that cannot be "impliedly repealed" - ie a later Act that repeals some of its provisions is invalid unless it uses express language to state that the Bill of Rights or parts of it are being repealed - was meant to prevent such an expansion of executive power. This was why the Bill of Rights prevents fines without a court process (hello - parking fines! HMRC fines! etc...) and HMRC rifling your bank account is the same principle or an even worse abuse. Don't expect the judges to uphold the law thought - as they live off the taxes and want the gravy train to continue!

Actually the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed at all. The queen holds office under the Bill of Rights (because she inherited the office from William and Mary who were invited to become monarchs conditionally.) So the queen does not have the power to give Royal Assent to any Act which contradicts the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was established during an interregnum and could only be repealed during an interregnum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed at all. The queen holds office under the Bill of Rights (because she inherited the office from William and Mary who were invited to become monarchs conditionally.) So the queen does not have the power to give Royal Assent to any Act which contradicts the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was established during an interregnum and could only be repealed during an interregnum.

It's all just words.

They have guns. They have cages. They can do as they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's afacwords.

They have guns. They have cages. They can do as they please.

Ultimately it comes down to Liberty or Death.

All tyrants can be overthrown but modern Brits simply have not got the balls to do it. They always want someone else to do it for them. Since they won't pay the price to be free they are doomed to be slaves.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   217 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.