Datalite Article - Why Is UK Tax So Taxing?

A country’s tax collecting regime under, by its nature is not going to be a popular organisation, particular in the eyes of taxpayers. However, the United Kingdom currently seems to be adopting tax and benefit policies that favour the feckless and feral, over society’s productive individuals with family values.

It is rather ironic in the United Kingdom that so many taxpayer funded resources are directed at ensuring that the lazy unemployed do as little as possible whereas for the hardworking taxpayer the state appears to assume they have unlimited time to do additional work.

The United Kingdom’s HM Revenue & Custom’s (HMRC) department is indeed a monolithic bureaucracy, and exhibits the classic signs of an organisation akin to a living organisation growing to increase its size and assumed importance with scant regard for efficiency or fitness for purpose.

Datalite UK Ltd has experienced several first hand examples of adverse experiences with dealings with HM Revenue & Customs. To spare the fine details, recent such experiences are summarised as:

HMRC letters requesting information with a clearly defined deadline, only to harass well before said deadline with various threats of fines etc.
Reversal of a small Tax Rebate due to some as yet unknown HMRC error. This resulted in three different effective dates, including illogically one set in the past due to a ‘quirk’ in their computer system. One section of HMRC used this past date to illogically proffer threats of bailiff and confiscation action; bullying which resulted in re-payment of their error three weeks prior to HMRCs own promulgated due date.
Inconsistent information depending on which section and to whom spoken to within HMRC. To be fair the current tax system in the UK is so complex, it is extremely hard if not impossible for anyone to fully understand it!

These dealings prompted a letter to HM Revenue & Customs outlining grievances and requesting answers to no less than 59 questions! Selections of these questions which are of general interest are listed below.

Why does HMRC on discovering they made a mistake, attempt to pass the blame to the taxpayer for not detecting their mistake!

Why does HMRC send out letters threatening legal action and bailiffs on celebration days such as 31^st December? Welcome to the New Year courtesy of HMRC!

An explanation is requested why HMRC promulgates deadlines on correspondence and then send threatening hastening letters well before expiration of the deadline.

HMRC is requested to provide a solution on how an allegedly overpaid tax rebate could be repaid around six weeks before it was known about! With HMRC’s solution (which presumably would need to involve time travel), the procedure and protocol is requested to pay HMRC money that is not yet acknowledged as due or even known about.

Why does HMRC staff persist in blaming 'the computer' as if this has nothing to do with HMRC.

Who is actually responsible for the output and processing of HMRC computer software?

Why does the UK government commission awful computer programs and continue to use the discredited outsourcing company EDS?

Why did HMRC not take better care of data and encrypt as standard? As a result of this loss of full personal details, HMRC has compromised the financial security and safety of 25 million people.

Why by law are companies required to collect tax (VAT and PAYE) with no compensation on behalf of the government? For this task HMRC do not even pay minimum wage, in fact they are being forcibly employed by HMRC for nothing. This is in stark contrast to the five million or so benefit claimants; whom are being paid using taxpayers' monies for doing nothing!

Why does HMRC produce such obvious waste as its Child Tax Credit notification paperwork? Following an annual assessment tax payers invariably receive in two separate envelopes a long winded computer tax credit section encompassing the current and forthcoming tax year. Spouses also receives a duplicated set. This wastes:- time, taxpayers money, and resources; as well as adding confusion and reducing security (not HMRC's forte!) due to increased identifiable waste. Multiplied across all Child Tax Credit claimants this amounts to an enormous bureaucratic waste.

Why are taxpayers forced to have their earnings confiscated to fund the UK criminally illegal practice of bigamy? It is bad enough to force taxpayers to pay for the feckless, feral and long time lazy unemployed without having to support activity that is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom.

HMRC has paid a reported £l00K of taxpayers’ money to the convicted fraudster Heinrich Kieber in exchange for the stolen details of LOT bank clients. There is an offence in the United Kingdom called 'handling stolen goods'; can HMRC explain how they have circumvented this basic criminal law? HMRC s action also appears to negate the proceeds of crime law.

Why does HMRC fine £100 for a late tax return even when no tax is due? This penalty apparently is applied even when delay is due to Royal Mail error, and it is understood that HMRC do not accept proof of postage, recorded delivery, or provide receipts of tax returns received. All this stacks odds against the honest and innocent busy taxpayer.

HMRC’s fine of £100 for a late submission (even if not the taxpayers fault) can be compared with the £80 fixed penalty for the criminal offence of shoplifting (i.e. stealing). Could HMRC explain, why they treat what often can be an administrative oversight (noting that HMRC seem to have a particular forte in this field) with a harsher punishment than the criminal act of theft?

Why does HMRC indulge in the bigoted practices of Political Correctness? The majority of marital couples are absolutely offended by the use of the term 'partner' (which is easily confused for tax matters due to existence of partners in business); whatever the PC brigade might think, the correct terms are: wife, husband, or spouse. Inland Revenue were also the department who banned a charity collection of toys from its staff because of the Samaritan's Purse charity's Christian links. There are countless other examples. All this is deeply offensive.

Why does HMRC discriminate against men? Child Benefit is payable by default to the wife or for an unmarried couple to the mother. On Child Benefit application forms HMRC list the term Mr last and out of alphabetical order, displaying the hypocrisy of the 'inclusiveness' of PC ideology. HMRC recently distributed a leaflet from the 'Department For Children, Schools, and Families' pictures of 'Mum' and the word 'Mum' are used throughout, airbrushing any hint of a father figure out.

The HMRC website states: We have a significant part to play in implementing the Government's policies on diversity and equality. Our high profile activities bring us into contact with the majority of the population and make it essential that we take a strong lead. We have set representation targets for the employment of people from black and minority ethnic communities, women and disabled staff. These targets are stretching but achievable. What on earth has this Political Correct nonsense got to do with efficient collection of tax? HM Revenue and Customs should be picking people purely on the basis of merit; anything else is a waste of resources funded by taxpayers.
Why did HMRC employ a 'Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Coordinator', and what had this posting to do with the task of collecting tax?

Political Correctness is indisputably a left wing ideology. Why are HMRC indulging in and supporting the politics of the current Labour government, it is expected of a government department to be politically neutral.

It is understood that HMRC Tax inspectors are being offered bonuses of up to £ 2,000 to collect more tax. They can earn up to three per cent of their salary if they track down more unpaid tax. An explanation is requested of how this policy is commensurate with a neutral government department.

Why does HMRC appear to assume taxpayers are guilty of tax evasion by default, with the onus on the taxpayer to prove otherwise? This goes against the accepted common law assumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Why does HMRC treat honest hard working law-abiding taxpayers in such a hostile manner?

On the Isle of Wight there are over 2000 individual's unemployed (and this figure excludes single parents claiming benefit and those on incapacity benefit). Many of these are long term unemployed. When Datalite UK Ltd recently advertised for a part-time packer/admin assistant with full training and pleasant working conditions at wages above minimum wage, Datalite received less than a dozen applicants despite including Job Centre in the advertising campaign. Can HMRC explain why honest hard working tax payers in the UK are subsidising lazy individuals on benefits who won't even be bothered to apply for a job vacancy?

It is a source of immense irritation to hard working honest tax payers that they appear to be treated as criminals until proven innocent by HMRC, whereas individuals playing the benefits scam (take tax - not pay tax) are not targeted with the endless threats of fines, penalties, and unjustified bullying threats of HMRC debt collectors. Comments are requested on the apparent injustices burdened on taxpayers.

Why does HM Revenue and Customs charge taxpayers premium rates for telephoning HMRC by using a 0845 number for general enquiries? The deception is complete with the discovery of alternative unadvertised National and Freephone numbers available.

Does HMRC agree that the most effective way of not being threatened, bullied, and harassed by HMRC is to either illegally not declare taxable income or to lead a feckless lazy lifestyle supported by benefits?

For an honest hardworking taxpayer, ultimately is the only way of avoiding threatening intimidation from tax authorities is to abandoned the United Kingdom and move to a country that actually encourages honest enterprise?

Does HMRC think honest law abiding taxpayers should get the word 'GUM' tattooed on their foreheads with a backward 'G'? This will then serve as a constant reminder of how HMRC views them.

Why does tax (in the United Kingdom) have to be so taxing?

These are roughly half the questions asked of HM Revenue and Customs, a few are ‘tongue and cheek’, but the majority are pertinent questions. A reply is awaited from HMRC and this article will be updated with their responses once received.

Governments do not create wealth; they spend the monies generated by the work, initiative and entrepreneurial skills of taxpayers. The least a taxpayer can expect whilst earnings are confiscated is to be treated fairly, efficiently, and with respect. Sadly it is concluded that HM Revenue and Customs in collusion with the current United Kingdom government are treating taxpayers absolutely disgracefully. Many UK productive tax payers have already voted with their feet and left the country, to be replaced with a growing number of incoming welfare migrants (tax spenders). There is a story about killing the golden goose…..

EPILOGUE

HMRC has replied to the letter sent to them. Needless to say the majority of the 59 questions were unanswered. Of the few that were their basic line is that the Tax system is complicated, particularly when multiple streams of income are involved. The onus and responsibility is on the UK Taxpayer to discover HMRCs errors, whilst being penalised by fines etc. if the taxpayer makes an innocent error. Therefore if HMRC make an error is the taxpayers fault, if the taxpayer fails to discover an error made by HMRC it is the taxpayer's fault, if a third party (such as the current diabolic Royal Mail regime) makes a mistake it is the taxpayers fault. To be fair HMRC acknowledged limits of their computer software, which we sympathise with (public sector sponsored software is consistently rubbish, particularly in the UK), and sent a small cheque as acknowledgement of the admittedly early threats of bailiff action!

From this saga, one can only surmise that for some perverse reason, the current UK government and hence HMRC appears to regard honest hardworking taxpayer as absolute fodder with an ever increasing tax burden, both monetary and administratively. Can it be any wonder that under such a regime increasing numbers have opted out, to scrounge off benefits, and to reproduce increasing numbers of feckless welfare claimants for future taxpayers to pay for. In business a company that invests in failure and penalises success will ultimately be bankrupt; such a policy is currently being undertaken by the UK government. One can only concluded that if this is not rapidly reversed the United Kingdom is heading towards bankruptcy.

ARTICLE BODY