Forum Topic

2,350 New Tax Inspectors to aid us!!! I think not.

Good Old Lib Dem have come up with an idea that will supposedly save us money, now 2,350 new tax inspectors at say:2350 x 20k a year=47 Million pounds per yr.2350 x 25k a year=58 Million 750 Thousand Pounds per yr.2350 x 30k a year=70 Million 500 Thousand Pounds per yr.THIS will be the cost per year to us all.If you earn 38750 and over you pay 40% on earnings 40p in the pound.If you earn 150k and over you pay 50% on earnings 50p in the pound.How much will this bring in on a yearly basis after deducting the wages on the above staff??? This expenditure is supposedly to catch those high earners who do not pay their Income Tax, each 150k per yr earner has a full time accountant to ensure that they get the best deal that they can. If Tax Inspectors worked as they should we could have a great system, however this intake is another grand gesture from Nick & Vince to say that they are looking after the lower earners interest, what a load of nonsense.They could be better involved by making sure that we Pensioners not pay tax after all we have spent all of our lives paying and now on retirement we are still paying 20% per year. After all we have approx.400,000 150k and over earners in the UK does it really equate the cost of employing a superfluous 2350 additional tax inspectors because at the end of the day it is you and I who are going to foot the bill.

Dawn Hardy ● 5069d13 Comments

Thanks Tony.

Dawn Hardy ● 5065d

Dawn said "This expenditure is supposedly to catch those high earners who do not pay their Income Tax, each 150k per yr earner has a full time accountant to ensure that they get the best deal that they can."  True enough,but aren't you assuming that all of the 400,000 are earning £150k per year,some are but others are earning far more (several £millions).   It is those that the Government wants to protect,and it is those who use the threat of going "Off Shore". These are the people who have several accountants making sure as you said "Of getting the best deal" for their clients.   That's a luxury not afforded to us (we the people!) on PAYE,it's gone before we get it!  Not for us the car allowances,clothing,petrol,dining out expenses,nor the ability to fiddle the VAT on an "office"  60" TV etc.etc.  What I think is that you can vote Tory,pay your dues and become a Party member,but you wont become a Tory,they are conceived on the playing fields of Eton and the like and it's a very selective club.  I hope Dee is soon better. 

Tony Wood ● 5065d

Pure B/S - 40 years ago things were much simpler and there were far less people, we have a massive unemployment problem - which in turn - for example, needs more staff to deal with the increases. Having less staff leads to stress, inefficiency and does not save money at all. Similarly with HMRC, dealing with them has never been easy it's true, but with fewer and fewer staff it has got even worse as anyone who has dealt with them recently can probably testify, it's all very well Dodgy Dave just flexing the old macho muscles but there is always a price to pay, and civil servants are an easy target, pity they can't do the same with the banking and insurance rip-off merchants.

Vanessa Smith ● 5065d

Purely because it is possible, 40 years back you did not have computers to do your workload you had to do it by hand, your efficiency and your learning meant that you were given the opportunity to further your career nowadays what one person could quite easily accomplish is dragged out and 3 or 4 people  make a great task out of it and nothing is ever accomplished.

Dawn Hardy ● 5066d

"these were experienced people often with years behind them in the civil service. So technically these won't be 'new' jobs but replacements for some of the positions already chopped."Indeed - this happens all the time in the private sector as its considered good business practice to reduce overheads continually as the 'replacements' will be paid far, far less than the staff who were axed. Also, new members of staff are offered far fewer 'perks' in the employment package such as private medical, final salary pension schemes etc.

Steve Taylor ● 5066d

Vanessa - don't be ashamed at your attempt at political point scoring. You are quite correct to bring to peoples attention the many failings of the Brown / Blair. Please do carry on.

Sara Dodd ● 5066d

This government of 'evil Tory public school boys' hasn't actually made any cuts yet. If anything, they are spending more.

Susan Kelly ● 5066d

Fewer resources, not less.

Susan Kelly ● 5066d

That is a pretty feeble attempt at political point scoring. Granted some of this happened during the last government's time, but on nothing like the scale that this coalition have overseen. Why do they insist that it is perfectly possible to do more with less resources - it isn't and it never will be, if you make cuts then you will feel them.

Vanessa Smith ● 5066d

Vanessa - you are absolutely right to bring to our attention  another example of Blair / Brown misgovernment.

Sara Dodd ● 5067d

I think you've missed the point - so many tax officers were cut that's why HMRC have been in such a God awful mess, these were experienced people often with years behind them in the civil service. So technically these won't be 'new' jobs but replacements for some of the positions already chopped.

Vanessa Smith ● 5067d

Sara- I don't doubt it, however do we really need another 2350 new inspectors when the others should be more than enough, it really is expenditure that we can ill afford and quite frankly would the return actually merit it.

Dawn Hardy ● 5068d

Dawn - don't forget you need to deduct the tax that the Inspectors will themselves pay to arrive at the true cost. I think the main problem isn't around the tax loss by clever structuring but rather simple tax evasion - you would b amazed at how many people simply 'forget' to decalre sources of income!

Sara Dodd ● 5069d