5 years hard labour ?

[Big_D]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

Those face to face conversations really make a difference in how we connect with others. I think we all need to make an effort to step away from our devices and engage with people in person more often.

I still consider communication to be 80% non-verbal and 20% verbal. Body language can tell so much about what a person is really saying.

[Bper]

6 minutes ago, Big_D said:

I still consider communication to be 80% non-verbal and 20% verbal. Body language can tell so much about what a person is really saying.

Body language is very important but a bit difficult when your on the phone.😂

[Big_D]

I totally agree

[Primus1]

12 hours ago, Bper said:

All tax is illegal.😡

Nice thought, but tax is important for a country’s infrastructure, without it we would have nothing, perhaps if more of the rich paid a little more then we all might have a better future..

[Bper]

14 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Nice thought, but tax is important for a country’s infrastructure, without it we would have nothing, perhaps if more of the rich paid a little more then we all might have a better future..

Tax was only brought in as a temporary measure,In the UK, the modern income tax was also introduced as a temporary measure during times of war. The first income tax was levied in 1799 by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger to fund the war against Napoleon. Although it was abolished in 1802 after the war, it was reintroduced in 1803 and has remained a feature of British fiscal policy ever since.

We didn't need it and the infrastructure of this country would have been brilliant by now. It's really interesting how better off the country would have been without it.😄

 

[Primus1]

23 minutes ago, Bper said:

Tax was only brought in as a temporary measure,In the UK, the modern income tax was also introduced as a temporary measure during times of war. The first income tax was levied in 1799 by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger to fund the war against Napoleon. Although it was abolished in 1802 after the war, it was reintroduced in 1803 and has remained a feature of British fiscal policy ever since.

We didn't need it and the infrastructure of this country would have been brilliant by now. It's really interesting how better off the country would have been without it.😄

 

Yes, no nhs for a start, everything privatised nothing would be publicly funded, we’d have to pay for everything, even more than we do now..

[AndyN01]

Is the idea for that "system"  that each person keeps every penny that they've earned and then pays for whatever they want/need/use?

So every road would be a toll road, every trip to the GP would have a cost, if you want education that would be "private" etc. etc. How about catching criminals that have, say, broken into your house stolen from you? Would you hire your own "Police Force" to find and catch them and what would the punishment be and who would deliver/enforce it?

But whatever you don't want/need/use doesn't cost you anything.

It'd be a fascinating thing to try.

 

[Mjolinor]

3 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Is the idea for that "system"  that each person keeps every penny that they've earned and then pays for whatever they want/need/use?

So every road would be a toll road, every trip to the GP would have a cost, if you want education that would be "private" etc. etc. How about catching criminals that have, say, broken into your house stolen from you? Would you hire your own "Police Force" to find and catch them and what would the punishment be and who would deliver/enforce it?

But whatever you don't want/need/use doesn't cost you anything.

It'd be a fascinating thing to try.

 

There is a word for that system "Anarchy".

[Bper]

43 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Yes, no nhs for a start, everything privatised nothing would be publicly funded, we’d have to pay for everything, even more than we do now..

No a number of alternatives such as.

A progressive consumption tax, wealth tax, publicly funded Insurance with sliding scale contributions and Community based funding models are just a few so the NHS would probably have worked better then the current model.👍

[Primus1]

42 minutes ago, Bper said:

No a number of alternatives such as.

A progressive consumption tax, wealth tax, publicly funded Insurance with sliding scale contributions and Community based funding models are just a few so the NHS would probably have worked better then the current model.👍

So still paying tax then!

[Cyker]

I think broadly on one side you have a more nordic-style, where taxes are high but the state mostly looks after you and keeps the public infrastructure in good nick, and on the other side you have the USA where you take home more money and food and fuel is generally pretty cheap, but you have to pay for everything, or have insurance, and just have to be careful of e.g. randomly collapsing bridges and the police ticketting you for no reason to generate revenue.

The USA system does make you appreciate the cost of things more, as we tend to take a lot of things for granted, but I personally wouldn't want to go too much in the USA direction, having seen the bill for a friend over there to have a baby...! He did save a lot by driving his missus there rather than use an ambulance though - Speeding fines are a lot cheaper than ambulances!

 

[Bper]

21 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

So still paying tax then!

Your post "As I mentioned in my previous post, I never suggested that tax avoidance is illegal; however, tax evasion is a different matter."

The discussion primarily relates to income tax. Alternatives to income tax for funding the NHS do not necessarily have to come from income tax. Unfortunately, the term "tax" has become ingrained in our language. Words like "levy" or other alternatives could be used instead.

Still IMO a fairer system could have been employed throughout all aspects of government expenditure.👍

[Primus1]

Bring back the window tax I say, every one could retrain as a brickie…🤪

[Bper]

10 minutes ago, Primus1 said:

Bring back the window tax I say, every one could retrain as a brickie…🤪

Sounds like a solid plan! but the lack of sunlight might turn us into a nation of vampires! 🧛‍♂️😂
 

[Primus1]

10 minutes ago, Bper said:

Sounds like a solid plan! but the lack of sunlight might turn us into a nation of vampires! 🧛‍♂️😂
 

You can count on that…

[Cyker]

I'm nearly there already mate, I ain't seen the sun for so long!  

[Haliotis]

When they were in power, the Tories contemplated the ability to raid bank accounts where benefit fraud was suspected, and Labour accused them of being too Draconian.   Now, on today’s news, it seems that Labour have been considering that very same facility.  I’m not averse to tackling benefit fraud but, were a mistake result in  an innocent account holder being wrongly “charged”, I wonder how quickly such a mistake would be rectified?

[Bper]

2 hours ago, Cyker said:

I'm nearly there already mate, I ain't seen the sun for so long!  

Fangs😂

[Bper]

13 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

When they were in power, the Tories contemplated the ability to raid bank accounts where benefit fraud was suspected, and Labour accused them of being too Draconian.   Now, on today’s news, it seems that Labour have been considering that very same facility.  I’m not averse to tackling benefit fraud but, were a mistake result in  an innocent account holder being wrongly “charged”, I wonder how quickly such a mistake would be rectified?

I don't know how benefit fraud is detected these days. I assume that unless it's blatantly obvious, they check in other ways. No doubt, once they implement bank account checks, fraudsters will use other accounts. I didn’t think the benefits office had anyone there; aren’t they all working from home?.

Right Mr Smith we believe you are committing benefit fraud but don't worry as we don't have anyone to interview you. "Unless you want to pop round my house for a chat and a cuppa."😂

[Primus1]

Dracula died after he was hit by a sausage roll, val-au-vent, sausage on a stick and a mini pork pie….

it was buffet the vampire slayer….

[Eddie G]

2 hours ago, Primus1 said:

Dracula died after he was hit by a sausage roll, val-au-vent, sausage on a stick and a mini pork pie….

it was buffet the vampire slayer….

Come the Oct budget less us hope we are not bled dry!

[AndyN01]

18 hours ago, Haliotis said:

When they were in power, the Tories contemplated the ability to raid bank accounts where benefit fraud was suspected, and Labour accused them of being too Draconian.   Now, on today’s news, it seems that Labour have been considering that very same facility.  I’m not averse to tackling benefit fraud but, were a mistake result in  an innocent account holder being wrongly “charged”, I wonder how quickly such a mistake would be rectified?

I don't understand the opposition to viewing bank accounts.

If your finances are been supported by the tax payer via benefits and you're being truthful about what you're saying on your claim(s) and following the rules about what needs to be declared then what's the problem? It's tax payers money.

If you're not claiming then absolutely no way should DWP be looking into your accounts but why would they? The only remotely legitimate way for a search to begin would be a live benefit claim in payment.

Similarly, I have no issues with every business that has Government contracts being audited by HMRC to see that tax payer's money is/has been used correctly. Indeed, I'd say a recent, full and "clean" HMRC inspection is a prior requisite for bidding for any Government contract (along with being in existence for, say, 10 years to show experience and expertise in the area of work).

Again, it's tax payer's money and surely it's reasonable for it to be paid and seen to be paid "correctly" for whatever work was contracted not a blank cheque cash cow to be milked?

[Bper]

3 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

I don't understand the opposition to viewing bank accounts.

If your finances are been supported by the tax payer via benefits and you're being truthful about what you're saying on your claim(s) and following the rules about what needs to be declared then what's the problem? It's tax payers money.

If you're not claiming then absolutely no way should DWP be looking into your accounts but why would they? The only remotely legitimate way for a search to begin would be a live benefit claim in payment.

Similarly, I have no issues with every business that has Government contracts being audited by HMRC to see that tax payer's money is/has been used correctly. Indeed, I'd say a recent, full and "clean" HMRC inspection is a prior requisite for bidding for any Government contract (along with being in existence for, say, 10 years to show experience and expertise in the area of work).

Again, it's tax payer's money and surely it's reasonable for it to be paid and seen to be paid "correctly" for whatever work was contracted not a blank cheque cash cow to be milked?

You are right if there's nothing to hide, what's the problem? However, I think benefit fraud is much more difficult to detect these days. There are so many different ways for money to be moved around. We often hear about people being prosecuted for hundreds of thousands or sometimes millions in benefit fraud, and it has taken years for this to be uncovered.😠

[AndyN01]

2 hours ago, Bper said:

You are right if there's nothing to hide, what's the problem? However, I think benefit fraud is much more difficult to detect these days. There are so many different ways for money to be moved around. We often hear about people being prosecuted for hundreds of thousands or sometimes millions in benefit fraud, and it has taken years for this to be uncovered.😠

The "huge" frauds are part of organised crime. They are linked into the "underworld" including criminal gangs, drugs etc.

Generally, they are uncovered by someone thinking......that doesn't look quite right.... and starting the ball rolling. But, of course, the fraudsters are very sophisticated too and they have vast resources (including human) to work on fiddling the system.

AFAIK, fraud officers recover vastly more than they "cost" the tax payer.

As this thread is all about the next 5 years I'll be interested to see the effects of the new Government's policies on fraud.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-prime-minister-government-labour-party-department-for-work-and-pensions-b1183706.html

 

[Bper]

18 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

The "huge" frauds are part of organised crime. They are linked into the "underworld" including criminal gangs, drugs etc.

Generally, they are uncovered by someone thinking......that doesn't look quite right.... and starting the ball rolling. But, of course, the fraudsters are very sophisticated too and they have vast resources (including human) to work on fiddling the system.

AFAIK, fraud officers recover vastly more than they "cost" the tax payer.

As this thread is all about the next 5 years I'll be interested to see the effects of the new Government's policies on fraud.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-prime-minister-government-labour-party-department-for-work-and-pensions-b1183706.html

 

It does beg a question why has there not been a complete clampdown on benefit fraud years ago. Of course they catch a good few but there are many that have been doing it for decades and are still getting away with it.😠