One poster mentions privatisation..well.. parts of DMB, HR, tax credits are/are about to be privatised and the results are not good. Consider this, private companies are trading to make a profit, they're not charities. Profit, rather than getting money into the Exchequer will always be their main concern.
ATOS assessing disability claimants are a prime example of how corrupting private enterprise can be. Something like 60% of appeals against their decisions are upheld.
Exactly.. ATOS is a very good example of a private company costing the taxpayer millions (tax gap anyone?)
ATOS employ nurses, doctors, midwives and physiotherapists, most of whom have undergone training in the NHS (taxpayer funded) who assess claimants on behalf of DWP and usually rule them fit for work even though the claimants own GP or NHS specialist has said they are not fit for work. The claimant appeals to the tribunal and has their appeal upheld.
The ATOS/DWP contract is fatally flawed in that the service level agreement makes little or no provision for ATOS to pay penalties as pointed out by the Public Accounts Committee....you really could not make it up!
you may like to google the rank and yank system which was once so beloved by Microsoft, Ford, Enron etc. (sorry couldn't post a link)
This appraisal system is being adopted by HMRC albeit in a modified form ... it will do little except demoralise staff further.
The previous posters who said Inland Revenue training was superior to what it is now are correct; the current training is ad hoc and DIY.. I'm sure you can imagine what the results of that sort of training are likely to be. This is because HMRC will not invest in trainers and training..very short sighted of them I'm sure you'll agree.
One poster mentions privatisation..well.. parts of DMB, HR, tax credits are/are about to be privatised and the results are not good. Consider this, private companies are trading to make a profit, they're not charities. Profit, rather than getting money into the Exchequer will always be their main concern.
as you say... a tax on jobs. If it was abolished, employers would be more likely to take on more workers. The primary (employees) NI goes to the NHS; the secondary (employers) NI goes God knows where...on MP expenses probably!
The trouble with HMRC is that they don't listen to their experienced staff who actually do the work before they bring in these new systems and then they end up throwing good money after bad when it all goes wrong; you're absolutley correct in that HMRC need a tax preson to bang the table on its behalf (which Dave Hartnett did do to a certain extent) and I honestly don't think Ms Horner will be in a position to do that!
Treasury Report This is what happens when everything gets centralised in an attempt to save money. For example;
Centralised post room (somewhere in Liverpool I think) so post goes from London to Liverpool, gets sorted gets sent back to London.....you can see where I'm going with this can't you.
Employer end of year section - now centralised in Newcastle....apparantly they are estimating 15 weeks to deal with queries because there just aren't enough staff to deal with the issues from all over the UK.
It's about time that HMRC realised that centralising everything does not work; Graham Black (the ARC union rep) is right the cuts have gone too deep and too fast.
What about Class 1 NIC? I think HMRC have left out a very common error which is that not all benefits attract a Class 1a NIC liability. If the employer makes a payment on behalf of the employee, this should be entered in Box B of P11D to pick up the Class 1 Charge, which should be collected through payroll at the time it is paid. Failure to do this means that only secondary contributions will be paid over (in reality the Class 1 a NIC liability which is of the same amount as secondary Class 1)
The loss for HMRC is the primary Class 1 NIC (employees contribution) and the subsequent knock on effect on the contributory principle.
RTI So.....does this mean that there will be less need for HMRC to carry out compliance checks and CIS checks as much of the information will be available to HMRC at their desk......?
My answers
Public/Private companies...spot the difference
Exactly.. ATOS is a very good example of a private company costing the taxpayer millions (tax gap anyone?)
ATOS employ nurses, doctors, midwives and physiotherapists, most of whom have undergone training in the NHS (taxpayer funded) who assess claimants on behalf of DWP and usually rule them fit for work even though the claimants own GP or NHS specialist has said they are not fit for work. The claimant appeals to the tribunal and has their appeal upheld.
The ATOS/DWP contract is fatally flawed in that the service level agreement makes little or no provision for ATOS to pay penalties as pointed out by the Public Accounts Committee....you really could not make it up!
you may like to google the rank and yank system which was once so beloved by Microsoft, Ford, Enron etc. (sorry couldn't post a link)
This appraisal system is being adopted by HMRC albeit in a modified form ... it will do little except demoralise staff further.
The previous posters who said Inland Revenue training was superior to what it is now are correct; the current training is ad hoc and DIY.. I'm sure you can imagine what the results of that sort of training are likely to be. This is because HMRC will not invest in trainers and training..very short sighted of them I'm sure you'll agree.
One poster mentions privatisation..well.. parts of DMB, HR, tax credits are/are about to be privatised and the results are not good. Consider this, private companies are trading to make a profit, they're not charities. Profit, rather than getting money into the Exchequer will always be their main concern.
as you say... a tax on jobs. If it was abolished, employers would be more likely to take on more workers. The primary (employees) NI goes to the NHS; the secondary (employers) NI goes God knows where...on MP expenses probably!
Hear Hear
Well said!
The trouble with HMRC is that they don't listen to their experienced staff who actually do the work before they bring in these new systems and then they end up throwing good money after bad when it all goes wrong; you're absolutley correct in that HMRC need a tax preson to bang the table on its behalf (which Dave Hartnett did do to a certain extent) and I honestly don't think Ms Horner will be in a position to do that!
Ahhh... you mean "unjust
Ahhh... you mean "unjust enrichment"........
Banks and building societies are prevented from doing this by way of the Consumer Protection from unfair trading (CPUTR) regulations
Treasury Report
This is what happens when everything gets centralised in an attempt to save money. For example;
Centralised post room (somewhere in Liverpool I think) so post goes from London to Liverpool, gets sorted gets sent back to London.....you can see where I'm going with this can't you.
Employer end of year section - now centralised in Newcastle....apparantly they are estimating 15 weeks to deal with queries because there just aren't enough staff to deal with the issues from all over the UK.
It's about time that HMRC realised that centralising everything does not work; Graham Black (the ARC union rep) is right the cuts have gone too deep and too fast.
What about Class 1 NIC?
I think HMRC have left out a very common error which is that not all benefits attract a Class 1a NIC liability. If the employer makes a payment on behalf of the employee, this should be entered in Box B of P11D to pick up the Class 1 Charge, which should be collected through payroll at the time it is paid. Failure to do this means that only secondary contributions will be paid over (in reality the Class 1 a NIC liability which is of the same amount as secondary Class 1)
The loss for HMRC is the primary Class 1 NIC (employees contribution) and the subsequent knock on effect on the contributory principle.
RTI
So.....does this mean that there will be less need for HMRC to carry out compliance checks and CIS checks as much of the information will be available to HMRC at their desk......?
Contact centres
Hear, Hear, well said!