Even the yanks think we're stupid..

TRUSt_NO_1_2

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=167021

masonic

Don't the Government already deduct whatever they deem appropriate from most peoples wages via the employer? If the yank who wrote that editorial understood that, it might just blow his mind.

cashbackproblems

Isnt that how americans get paid as well?!?!? shows how stupid they all are

Loughton_Monkey

Very strange, I thought the IRS was an American version of HMRC?

Just remember that over 80% of Americans do not have a passport, and of those who do, very few have actually travelled much abroad. Some of them occasionaly have a week in Europe (London might be the Tuesday). You can actually view these people - in 'loud' check trousers, trainers, and baseball caps, talking in a very loud voice on Tower Bridge, proclaiming "Isn't London Bridge wonderful?"

Remember too, that their knowledge of geography is so bad, it takes them longer to find out where Iraq is, than to muster the troops to invade it.

So I think all they were trying to say was UK government spending (and hence taxation) has now exceeded all reasonable limits. If that's right, then I tend to agree!

dunstonh

Remember too, that their knowledge of geography is so bad, it takes them longer to find out where Iraq is, than to muster the troops to invade it.

And George Bush's spelling error caused the wrong country to be invaded.

alanq

With PAYE your employer does the calculation, sends any tax due to HMRC and sends you the rest. There is a proposal that the employer sends ALL your wages to HMRC, HMRC does the calculation, takes the tax it thinks is due and sends you the rest. This proposal is perhaps less likely to be implemented in the near future because HMRC has shown itself incapable of performing calculations correctly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/sep/20/hmrc-centralising-tax-system

opinions4u

I've read a few things about this "plan" for employers to send your full wage to HMRC.

Who's plan is it? Government? Vince Cable? HMRC? It doesn't seem to be clear.

The response is quite simple though.

Our beloved Prime Minister needs to address the people and confirm that our wage is our own money. Any tax/NI that is deducted from that wage will only be taken to (a) manage the nation out of it's deficit or (b) provide services where the state can demonstrate that it can deliver those services more efficiently than the private sector.

At no time will HMRC ever be handed our whole wage. They are a tax collecting body. Not a wage distribution body.

The idea itself is horribly Orwellian. My guess is that's it's being allowed to fester in order to give Cameron the opportunity to sound like a statesman and a man of the people at a time of his choosing.

Unfortunately, if my guess is right, it means that we have yet another government willing to manipulate the agenda and the press, rather than spending its time and energy on managing the country properly.

Paul_Herring

masonic wrote: »

Don't the Government already deduct whatever they deem appropriate from most peoples wages via the employer? If the yank who wrote that editorial understood that, it might just blow his mind.

No. Under the current system, you know exactly how much tax is being deducted, since you (should) get a little slip of paper telling you, and you can also tell your employer what tax code they should be using.

Under the proposed system, you get what HMRC think you should be getting, including 0%, of your pay. If you want to know the details of what's being deducted, and why, you have to petition HMRC to get the data. Should there be a discrepancy between what you think should be being deducted, and what HMRC think should be being deducted, who do you think is going to win that one?

And since HMRC are so much better at calculating tax than your HR department, do you really think this can go wrong?

Loughton_Monkey

This is all starting to become a good idea. Get Gordon Brown back again and he will develop the idea into one which puts a whole new meaning onto "Tax Code".

Tax Codes should be based upon how many mouths you have to feed. Then everyone's salary goes 100% to the Government (whether it's £20,000 a month, or £200). Armed with our "Code Number Book", we all queue up at the Post Office (assuming any are left) and get £50 in cash for groceries, £20 for electricity.... etc.

cashbackproblems

Oh i see what this is about, no wonder the yanks are laughing at us! Vince Cable is a joke, the comments he has come up with such as a graduate tax and splitting up the banks (thus reducing countries competitiveness) shows why ppl voted the lib dems in 3rd place!

Only when Labour returns equality and prosperity will return.

Paul_Herring

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Tax Codes should be based upon how many mouths you have to feed.

We already have a system whereby those without children pay for those with children. It's called child benefit. And Council Tax. And the Health in Pregnancy Grant. And Statutory Maternity Pay. And the Child Tax Credit. And, until recently, the Child Trust Fund.

Changing all this to a 'simple tax code' based on how many sprogs you've managed to sire isn't going to happen. (Since, clearly, no-one in the households in those cases I've linked to actually work, so the tax code is irrelevant.)