6 £2 billion of VAT fraud and where are HMRC? Posted on February 28 2016 Radio 5 Live has been asking the questions: <ore good work by the tireless Richard Allen. 6 6 Responses to “£2 billion of VAT fraud and where are HMRC?” Dave Hansell says: February 28 2016 at 10:03 pm Perhaps the recipient’s of this “welfare” are genetically inclined/disposed to fiddle their dues to society at large and freeload off the rest of us when it comes to paying for the infrastructure and support systems without which they would not make anything? Maybe we could ask Dr Adam Perkins for his view on those who sponge off society in this way and who “tend to be less conscientious and agreeable than the average person?” Or the Adam Smith institute? But I doubt even if they had the bottle they could not comment without copious amounts of bovine effluence. MayP says: February 29 2016 at 10:12 am Definitely think it is the Adam Smith Institute who are playing pretty fast and loose with the research rather than Dr Perkins himself who seems to be saying that because personality is partly formed by environmental factors [even if many of us might put it higher than that], a welfare state that increases the number of children born into disadvantaged households can proliferate ’employment-resistant personality characteristics’. So as far as I can see it doesn’t appear to be quite the discredited deterministic rubbish initially thought. The sad thing is that that the more this government increase the problems for the majority of families it will in turn automatically increase the problems for their offspring. So we are in effect mortgaging our social problems into the future – all for want of basic economic lucidity. On VAT fraud itself the most insidious part of it, like any evaded or avoided tax, is how it drives out those who endeavour to be straightforward and upright – and that harms every aspect of society. Justice has not only to done but seen to be done – but if HMRC is run by accountants that clearly isn’t part of th training course. Dave Hansell says: February 29 2016 at 1:03 pm I’ve an inkling that there are a great many families and communities in places like South Wales, South and West Yorkshire, the North East, Scotland and other “periphery” environs to the City State of Great London, whose ability to earn a living in steel production, coal mining, shipbuilding, transport,engineering and associated industries and local SME businesses dependent upon the employment provided in those industries has been forcibly removed and replaced with non jobs or zero hours contract lump jobs, who would be better able to advise on the subject of “disadvantaged households.” It’s sheer bone idleness on the part of those like Perkins to lay the onus of blame at the door of the victims whilst pointadly ignoring the far worse behaviours and negative impacts on society of those who deliberately destroy communities, fiddle their taxes, expect subsidies from the state and demand that their tax share be placed on everyone else’s shoulders. Behaviour and negative impacts which compete with, if not exceed, those from social security payments – the largest of which by the way is state pensions. Perhaps Perkins and his teenage level fan base at the ASI might spot a further lucrative opportunity to follow up this pseudo scientific bollox with a follow up book about how the poor are genetically and/or behaviorally inclined to live longer in order to sponge more off the state pension seeing as that is the largest item on the social security bill? As it is we have whole TV channels devoted to force feeding this nonsense “welfare” porn down our throats, from benefits “cheats” through to wass ends like Jeremy Kyle. Pretend wannabee academics and self styled think tanks, or whatever fancy title they like to call themselves, giving these odious notions some air of academic respectability is beyond the pale. But then those with money have always employed academics who are prepared to prostitute their calling. In the 1860’s or 70’s cotton owners in Lancashire employed academics from the University of Manchester to “prove” that it was impossible to cut the working day of mill workers from 12 hours a day to 11 hours a day because all the profit was made in the last hour and such a reduction in the working week from 72 hours to 66 hours would ruin them and put them out of business. The day these charlatans start pointing their “academic” research onto the beam of the behaviours of those who expect socialism for the rich, bail outs, subsidies, tax breaks, and no rules or regulations on their “right” to accumulate everything rather tHan the small mote in the behaviours of the “disadvantaged (as though it was their fault, period) will be the day they deserve to be taken seriously. As it is it will not be too long before the same will be said about the current middle classes and the technocrats as their livelihoods are destroyed by intelligent systems and they join the ranks of the “disadvantaged households.” Simon says: February 29 2016 at 10:26 am Dave-I’m planning to drop Dr. Perkins a line about his less than ‘scientific’ understanding of the monetary system and what constitutes agreeable/disagreeable behaviour. Perhaps if you write as well -he might question some of his clearly subconscious assumptions? Michael G says: February 29 2016 at 8:09 am HMRC are far too busy telling us how good they are to have time to take on something like this. Either they have to chase an enormous number of foreign shell companies for trivial amounts, or else take on the best corporate lawyers in the business. Far simpler to say you are dealing with it, do nothing, and wait to collect your gong. Ivan Horrocks says: February 29 2016 at 6:31 pm Just listened to the programme. Good stuff. But as it seems that most of the offenders are China based perhaps this is yet another deal that Osborne and Cameron engineered while on their fawning, give everything away, visits to China. And then a quite word – or a nod and a wink – in the direction of HMRC. All consistent with facilitating Osborne and Cameron’s commitment to Britain being “open for business” – and in the case of the Chinese, any kind of business will do.