It’s good to note that PCS, the union for most staff at /HM Revenue & Customs, is joining in tax protests today:
War on Want and the Jubilee Debt Campaign will join with campaigners from PCS in a rally against reductions in HMRC resources.
The protest will come on the eve of a day of mass action organised by the group UK Uncut, focused on the stores of communications giant Vodafone and Sir Philip Green's Arcadia, such as Topshop, over allegations of tax dodges.
War on Want, JDC and PCS say the poorest and most vulnerable people are being made to pay for an unsustainable and irresponsible financial system. They claim that there is a viable alternative to spending cuts.
The demonstration will take place outside the HMRC HQ to oppose UK government plans that would axe a further 13,000 jobs in HMRC on top of the 30,000 that have gone since 2005 and the closure of around 200 offices.
- What? Activists with 'Tax not cuts' model bomb will demonstrate against cuts in HMRC jobs and offices
- Who? The anti-poverty charities War on Want and Jubilee Debt Campaign with PCS union
- When? 1pm, Friday 17 December 2010
- Where? Headquarters of HM Revenue and Customs, 100 Parliament Street, Westminster, London SW1A 2BQ
These jobs are being shed at a time when the British economy is losing £120 billion a year through tax dodging, in the form of uncollected tax, illegal tax evasion and abuse of tax loopholes.
Again, I’m delighted to see my work being put to such good use.
And if you doubt that there’s an issue at HM Revenue & Customs note this from the BBC:
A staff survey at HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has revealed a startling lack of faith in its senior management.
Only 9% of staff believed that change at HMRC was usually for the better; only 11% agreed that change was well managed; and only 11% had confidence in decisions made by senior managers.
The official survey, organised by the Cabinet Office, obtained 51,266 replies from staff - a 69% response rate.
A Revenue spokeswoman said the results were "really disappointing".
Overall staff "engagement" was judged to be worse than when measured in a similar survey last year and was worse than this year's result for the civil service as a whole.
The message is simple: you can’t run an effective tax system whist tearing it to shreds through cuts. And to run an effective tax system you need people in charge of it who believe in the virtues of tax. Right now that seems untrue of the board of HM Revenue & Customs and its senior directors and it certainly seems untrue of our politicians.
Which is why the tax gap is likely to get worse, not better, at least in proportionate terms.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Here is something I do not understand, and would appreciate an explanation if you could please:
1) You told us a couple of weeks ago that HMRC write all (most?) of the tax laws. I have no reason to dispute this.
2) There are (according to HMRC) umpteen squillions avoided, and according to your Tax Gap, that figure is even quite a bit higher.
Instead of suggesting HMRC need more staff, one could draw 2 other possible conclusions:
• HMRC aren’t much good at writing tax laws. They need to be replaced, not increased. And the laws need to be written in a fundamentally different way to that which they are written now. By your own standard, they are not working. Perhaps using Gladstone’s maxim ‘make compliance easy, breaking the law hard’. By your own figures, it seems the opposite is currently true, and by Gladstone’s standard, are ‘bad law’ and need to bear the brunt of blame for avoidance.
• HMRC put the loopholes in deliberately (and keep the laws vague, such as those relating to income splitting by spouses) to justify their need for more staff and power. As we discussed last week, that would only increase if we used a General Anti-Avoidance Principle as it becomes ‘tax by negotiation’. If this is so, then the whole thing looks like a giant scam which ought to be resisted.
Increasing the size of HMRC is a bit like the old joke ‘the food in this restaurant is terrible…and the portions are so small…’
And I am not sure the PCS is a completely disinterested altruistic observer on this matter – it has its own interests to serve.
@Adrian
Sure, HMRC management have got things wrong
We need purposive legisation
we need a General Anti-Avoidance Principle
We need to abolish the domicile rule
we need to reform company and tax law re small companies
And under the influence of neoliberals they have not done that
Sure I blame them for that
Now what’s your problem?
If you’re diagnosis is right, then aren’t protests against Philip Green’s companies, Vodafone etc which you seem to encourage a case of targeting the wrong people? Those companies can’t achieve any of the things you list. Wouldn’t you be better off (for the sake of your own cause) pointing them in the right direction?
Also, isn’t the PCS conflicted in this? They have an obvious self interest in a system that is labour intensive. And since HMRC staff are put in charge of the system, they can design a system that does just that — require lots of bodies.
I would regard a labour-intensive tax collection system to be a bug, not a feature.
“and under the influence of neo-liberals they have not done that’
Exactly who are you talking about? Democratically elected politcians? The non-dom rule as I understand it goes back to 1914. Before then, everyone (including UK-domiciled) were exempt from foreign source income. It was then changed, but non-doms were exempt, as I understand it, to placate foreigners (mostly Americans) whose support was required as pre-WWI tensions rose.
So non-dom is nearly 100 years old and has survived governments of all shades, some of whom could hardly be described as ‘neo liberal’. I don’t particularly like the rule, but to suggest it is an invention of ‘neo-liberals’ does not seem consistent with its long history.
@Adrian
No not the wrong people
Those people had choice and made the wrong one
That’s what the demos are saying
They aren’t alone
But the media need examples and they are examples of people who amde the wrong choice
As for non -dom – it’s shame on all of them
Re PCS – you show your ignorance of how the tax system works
Re PCS – please explain. You say at the top of the post they are the main union for HMRC staff.
I assume such staff pay union dues. And I assume PCS want more of such staff so the PCS can earn more such union dues. Therefore they have a self interest to want more PCS staff, which takes them out of the ‘disinterested observer’ category, and puts them into the ‘turkeys voting for Xmas’ category on the issue.
There’s nothing wrong with that of course, but as a result their views need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
What have I missed? I would appreciate being informed on such things. I don’t work in tax.
“As for non -dom – it’s shame on all of them” (and I assume you mean, successive governments since 1914).
AGREED!
so why is this demo outside HMRC surely your beef is with the people in the building diagonally opp 100PS or is that security too difficult. If you want HMRC to do a better job – support them
@Adrian
Simple
The tax system is not working
PCS rightly say it is because it is under resourced
If we want to clear our debt we collect our tax
So we give HMRC more resources
What’s the problem with that?
The problem is: the PCS’ view on whether or not the HMRC is (or is not) under-staffed is coloured by the fact that it financially benefits (in the form of an increased membership base) from an increase in staffing. It is a plain conflict of interest. It’s a turkey voting for Christmas.
Again, I have no problem with people defending their bread and butter. But that’s what PCS is doing plain and simple. And its actions and views should be read in that light. But it does them no credit that they can’t make their conflict of interest explicit in their promotional material to those who are unaware of it.
@Adrian
Respectfully – stop being crass
We are none of us. ever, objective
Only buffoons think they are
Of course they’re conflicted
So are you
Live with it
And stop posting crass neoliberal objections here – it’s you who is discredited by your faux commentary
@Adrian
Like any union, the PCS represents the views of its members. Staff at different levels of responsibility and expertise have views about how an organisation is being run; how it achieves its goals; how it can be more effective. These views aren’t always heard by senior management and a union is often able to take these up at a national level, particualrly when there’s a common theme or issue affecting several sites. I can think of many examples in my dealings with T&GWU over the years. Concerns raised at a local or regional level were acknowledged as needing elevation to the national joint management/union committee.
Sure the PCS would like to increase it’s membership, but it is by no means guaranteed that additional staff will automatically become PCS members. The closed shop has gone, and many people don’t join a union at all or prefer to remain with another union. The views of staff members and a unions’ interests are different. The union’s primary role is to represent the views of it’s members. Your argument might have some validity if unions never agreed manning/staffing levels, but they do. I’ve been in talks where unions have accepted and recognised the need for redundancies. They’d lose credibility if they always argued for more and more staff. They’d also lose some of their existing membership if they maintained that position. Support for a union quickly drains away if the members feel a union is making undue demands on the employer, or is seen as out-of-touch with its membership. It’s nothing like the black and white picture you want it to be. From your comments, I deduce you’ve never had any direct contact or experience in these areas, otherwise you wouldn’t be expressing what seems to be the general tabloid view. Don’t believe all you read in the newspapers – they also have interests and motives, including those who pen the story – but that’s a topic for another day.
@RichardSM
Thanks
Well put
“Of course they’re conflicted
So are you”
Please explain how. I don’t make a penny from whether staff at HMRC increases or not. There is a difference between being objective (I realise none of us is objective) and being conflicted.
RichardSM:
I take your point that the increase in membership is not guaranteed, but I am not sure that makes a difference to my original point. Even if they don’t actually make a penny from a single new member, there is the appearance of a conflict (they stand potentially to gain) and therefore its views need to be read in that light.
As I said, I have no objection to PCS’ activities – never knock another man’s racket, as they say. As I have said a few times on this site, the HMRC does need a good kick in the backside, at the top. The average officer is not at fault.
@Adrian
I disagree
I have no way of knowing you’re any less conflicted than anyone else
And those who shout loudest they’re not are usually those who are
@Adrian
Well, there might be the “appearance of a conflict” to you, but they are doing what they can to highlight the issue. They don’t get behind an issue in this way, if they don’t feel it has merit. Credibility and reputation are as important to a trade union as they are to any other body that wishes to be taken seriously.
I don’t think you understand how trade unions function. For the individual, joining a trade union is similar to becoming a member of a mutual insurance company. When an individual member has a claim, the union has to pay out (giving legal advice, taking up the case, providing representation). When members have a common cause or collective claim, it transforms into a raid on the union’s resources. Printing the literature, coordinating the members — possibly at various sites around the country, commissioning specialist advice, communicating with the press etc., soon runs up costs. Five-day-week, nine-till-five union positions quickly turn into extremely demanding roles requiring something close to 24hour availability. I really don’t know whether the union officers get paid for it or not, but if they do, then that’s another drain on union funds. If you’re interested in whether the members they may gain as the result of a campaign, outweighs the costs they pay out, why not write and ask them. They’re quite transparent organisations.
@Adrian
“…never knock another man’s racket, as they say.”
Well, that may be a maxim you follow, though I disagree with it completely. However, you go on to contradict yourself by knocking HMRC.