Umm, aren't middle class professionals among the least likely to try and avoid tax? Why don't they go after big business and the like, hell I bet the Unions might even be a bit dodgy in that regard. Clearly labor still isn't doing there job.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Umm, aren't middle class professionals among the least likely to try and avoid tax? Why don't they go after big business and the like, hell I bet the Unions might even be a bit dodgy in that regard. Clearly labor still isn't doing there job.

It seems that they're specifically targeting the medical profession as a quick and viable source of income to boost the treasury. Private consultations etc are apparently not often declared their rhetoric is 'you come to us and pay or we'll come to you and take'.

This disclosure comes the same day Brown announced to the Learning and Technology World Forum that he intends to give free lap tops to 270,000 families. They'll come in handy when the food and energy runs out!

Originally Posted by Tete123

Daily Telegraph January 12 2010

Middle class targeted in new war on tax evaders - Telegraph

Is this another attempt at populist politics by Labour, who see the Middle Class as both a natural enemy and an easy target? It's moving away from the ethos of New Labour. These measures are sure to be popular among lower paid workers and benefits recipients , basically those who contribute the least and expect the most from the system.

I have very little doubt that this is a 'fishing' expedition. Dangle the hook in the water and see what you catch. Of course there are tax evaders among the professional classes, but the amount recoverable per case in relation to the cost of serious investigation is far too small to make this a serious initiative. No doubt a number of miscreants will be panicked into 'coming clean' and that I am sure is all this initiative is intended to do, along with, as Tete says, reinforcing Labour's historical credentials as the party of the 'working man'.

It's almost like you think tax evasion is ok?

Originally Posted by Tete123

Is this another attempt at populist politics by Labour, who see the Middle Class as both a natural enemy and an easy target? It's moving away from the ethos of New Labour. These measures are sure to be popular among lower paid workers and benefits recipients , basically those who contribute the least and expect the most from the system.

Anything Labour do this year will be seen as electioneering. In practical terms, the middle classes are the ones to go for. After all, squeeze the even higher earners any more and they'll bugger off. The lower earners have got nothing anyway. At the end of the day, they are breaking the law so combatting that is not the worst idea there is.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

It's almost like you think tax evasion is ok?

To put it in perspective it's no different to a builder doing a private job for £50 and not declaring it as taxable income, that the amounts are potentially greater does not change the principal. As far as I can make out this is just the continuation of Labour's attempt at the politics of class.

Just an observation, and I haven't seen any up to date figures, or at least guesstimates, on this, but several years ago there was a government report published which estimated that as much of 1/3 of Britain's internal economy was black market, i.e., funded by undeclared and untaxed income and/or VAT fraud, the vast majority of which came from people who worked for cash, small tradespeople who'd take cash for jobs as long as no receipt was given, or simple tax evasion by small businesses. The amount of legal tax avoidance which goes on by either large corporations or wealthy individuals is small in comparison.

I don't agree with tax evasion, but in real terms this is just posturing by government, the amounts we are likely talking amount will likely not even cover a minutes interest our current debts, also could be an interesting diversion from a not very encouraging report that has indicated that the armed forces will need to lose 33000 personnel to balance the books this year, which has been conveniently kept off the front page by this little sideshow.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

the amount recoverable per case in relation to the cost of serious investigation is far too small to make this a serious initiative.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that this initiative will cost more to undertake than it can hope to claw back in lost revenue. The root purpose is non-fiscal - to punish cheats, which I for one consider a worthwhile exercise in it's own right.

Originally Posted by JAMC

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that this initiative will cost more to undertake than it can hope to claw back in lost revenue. The root purpose is non-fiscal - to punish cheats, which I for one consider a worthwhile exercise in it's own right.

The root purpose is most definitely fiscal, and probably political. This initiative has nothing to do with punishing cheats and everything to do with maximising tax revenues to the Treasury, and strengthening Labour's appeal in their heartlands. For this reason it will not be pursued beyond the 'fishing' stage, for this is the stage when there is a maximum return for minimum expense.

Personally, whilst I do not condone tax evasion even on a small scale, the concept of spending more to gain less by a department tasked with maximising net tax revenues, such as a continuation of this initiative would involve, would be ridiculous even by this government's standards.

I realise that there are people out there who are prepared to spend £1000 to recover £500, but I hope they are not employed by HMRC. Labour have wasted enough of our hard earned taxes without adding to the economic mess with further waste.

It was probably announced now to reassure the working classes that New Labour are really on their side and are going to punish all those cheating professional middle classes. However now Brown has changed his mind, amidst his government's death throes, and decided that they still need the middle classes afterall, they will probably declare an initiative against Armenian abortionists to avoid upsetting more potential voters.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I realise that there are people out there who are prepared to spend £1000 to recover £500, but I hope they are not employed by HMRC. Labour have wasted enough of our hard earned taxes without adding to the economic mess with further waste.

Don't you think catching these cheats now would prevent them from evading more tax in the future? Doesn't the government have a responsibility to be principaled on this issue? With tough times ahead for all of us why should they not be seeking to safeguard the taxbase?

It was probably announced now to reassure the working classes that New Labour are really on their side and are going to punish all those cheating professional middle classes. However now Brown has changed his mind, amidst his government's death throes, and decided that they still need the middle classes afterall, they will probably declare an initiative against Armenian abortionists to avoid upsetting more potential voters.

It won't work then. Labour have not alienated anyone any more than the working classes, assuming for a moment that distinction still applies. If there's one thing the reaction to this iniatives shows, its that class is still an issue in politics and will continue to be as we approach the election.

Originally Posted by DTE

Don't you think catching these cheats now would prevent them from evading more tax in the future? Doesn't the government have a responsibility to be principaled on this issue? With tough times ahead for all of us why should they not be seeking to safeguard the taxbase?

The reality of the situation is that there is in all probability minimal cheating by doctors and dentists and other 'middle class professionals' anyway, so the likelihood of preventing substantial future tax evasion is also minimal. By publicising an initiative such as this, the HMRC are aware that a high proportion of those who have, either deliberately or otherwise, not paid tax owed will now do so. For HMRC to spend more than they have any realistic expectation of recovering seems to me to be monumentally irresponsible, and hardly an effective means of safeguarding the tax base. There are other issues I would first like to see this government get some principle on, other than wasting tax payers pounds on a wild goose chase.

It won't work then. Labour have not alienated anyone any more than the working classes, assuming for a moment that distinction still applies. If there's one thing the reaction to this iniatives shows, its that class is still an issue in politics and will continue to be as we approach the election.

[/QUOTE]

I suspect that you are right. But politicians of all hues adopt pre-election tactics which are transparently and monumentally cynical attempts to manipulate voting intentions. Much to my astonishment, and I suspect yours, they occasionally work.

The traditional terminology to describe class is such a convenient 'shortcut' to describe social groupings. We all think we know what each other means by it, so we forgive its generalisations and limitations as an acceptable price to pay for expediency. I suppose we could talk about As, Bs and C1s but whilst they might be more accurate in socio-economic terms, most of us would need to rush off and google the exact meaning of a C1 or whatever.

Brown recently stated that Cameron is "out of touch" with middle class families - As opposed to Brown you is out of touch with everyone.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

The traditional terminology to describe class is such a convenient 'shortcut' to describe social groupings. We all think we know what each other means by it, so we forgive its generalisations and limitations as an acceptable price to pay for expediency. I suppose we could talk about As, Bs and C1s but whilst they might be more accurate in socio-economic terms, most of us would need to rush off and google the exact meaning of a C1 or whatever.

If you think the ABC1 / C2DE groupings are complicated, have a look at the MOSAIC system now in use across many large private sector organisations and lobby groups. A full 61 categories of social class, sub-class, culture and sub-culture no less.

Somewhat forrifyingly, am "White Van Culture" according to MOSAIC.

I swear I've never owned or driven a white Astramax diesel in my life.....

Anyway, the core point is that "class", however you choose to define it, is still (I shouldn't say 'still' really because it never actually went away) very definitely an issue. It will remain an issue so long as the rate of accelerated earnings of the few far outpaces that of the many.

Originally Posted by JAMC

The root purpose is non-fiscal - to punish cheats, which I for one consider a worthwhile exercise in it's own right.

Punish cheats?
Maybe the government should be looking at its own MPs with a bit more scrutiny.

They want to jail benefit cheats for stealing a few hundred, jail tax dodgers for stealing a few hundred, but change the law for MPs who have made "mistakes" embezzling millions from the taxpayer during the lifetime of this parliament.
Hypocrisy

Originally Posted by JAMC

If you think the ABC1 / C2DE groupings are complicated, have a look at the MOSAIC system now in use across many large private sector organisations and lobby groups. A full 61 categories of social class, sub-class, culture and sub-culture no less.

Somewhat forrifyingly, am "White Van Culture" according to MOSAIC.

I swear I've never owned or driven a white Astramax diesel in my life.....

Anyway, the core point is that "class", however you choose to define it, is still (I shouldn't say 'still' really because it never actually went away) very definitely an issue. It will remain an issue so long as the rate of accelerated earnings of the few far outpaces that of the many.

I think that 61 socio-economic categories divides society into so many fragments that it would be either impossible or meaningless to use in general conversation and discussion. I can understand its 'value' within relevant areas of social or commercial research but otherwise it becomes too complex.

To associate class just with varying earnings differentials surely over simplifies it. Class in this country is based on current and historical social status, education, self perception, occupation, aspiration, location, moral values. Class will continue whilst ever one group of people perceives themselves to be 'better' or 'worse', 'more worthy' or 'less worthy', 'more successful' or 'less successful' than another group. We seem to suffer from it more than most other western societies.