Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Privatising Pay As You Earn

by
21st Apr 2010
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The Conservatives have raised the idea of taking PAYE responsibility away from HMRC, but would it really work? Simon Sweetman assesses the case.

It’s not in the Conservative manifesto and when George Osborne suggested it a few weeks ago everyone thought this was one of his pre-breakfast good ideas which had gone cold by lunchtime, but no - his boys have been going round explaining how they are going to take PAYE away from HMRC and give it to the banks. The banks are probably the only organisations in Britain commanding less respect than HMRC for their day-to-day operations (and HMRC can hardly be blamed for stuffing up the economy).

The idea is to use BACS (run by VocaLink, owned by a cartel of banks). This idea is not new. On the whole, BACS works (though remarkably slowly when you’re waiting for the payment). HMRC was actually thinking about it as the future of PAYE a few years ago and rejected it as too expensive, which leads us to the extra ‘are they sure they know what they’re talking about?’ bit – these proposals would presumably involve scrapping the expensive new PAYE computer system which is just coming online and will hopefully get through its teething troubles (which seem to be caused by legacy work) and start functioning properly next year. Junking a system that actually appears to work is a new one.

What will happen?

The accompanying guff says that 96% of salaries are paid using the BACS system already - a figure that must have been subjected to some sleight of hand, as far more than 4% of wages are paid in cash. I suspect the 96% of salaries applies to those paid by big business, and let us not forget that half the employees in the UK work for SMEs. Let us also not forget that PAYE also applies in particular to pensions.

They claim very particularly that this will end delays in payment of PAYE at a stroke. It might solve the problem of those who won’t pay if the banks whistle the money straight out of the employer’s bank account without so much as a by your leave, but what about those who can’t pay yet? It then goes on to say that there will be increased tax revenues of £1bn a year through the collection of correct tax, as if suddenly everybody is going to get everything right. It talks about everyone having a ‘personal account’.

What’s in it for employers? 

They wouldn’t have to do the calculation but what they would need to do is report the gross pay for each employee – or more precisely the taxable and NIC-able amounts of gross pay. Unfortunately this is the difficult bit, with employers already having software to do the next bit. Just about everything it takes away is already done by software, and by free software for the smallest.

One thing that is not in it for employers is cashflow – the gross amount is whistled out of the employer’s account first thing, so there’s no hanging on until the 19th to pay the tax. But what if the money’s not all there on payday?

What is in it for employees?
Nothing much – they get their net pay in the same way, even if it comes to them from VocaLink rather than the employer. However, what if they think it’s not right? They can’t ask the employer any longer, because the employer won’t know anything. They can’t ask HMRC, because HMRC won’t have worked it out. Are the banks going to have extra call centres?

It will also save money because 25,000 payroll staff can be made redundant - whether that includes the payroll staff of businesses, people working for payroll bureaux and people working in accountants’ offices as well is not clear. However, a lot of small accounting firms rely on payroll services as bread and butter work. A rough survey of payroll professionals found that 90% were against the proposals, while the other 10% didn’t understand it; although, to be fair, one would hardly expect them to applaud something that could make them redundant.

Other problems
What about other deductions from pay, CIS, SMP, student loans, and attachment of earnings? I think most people would cavil at the thought of the state controlling a bank account in their name and deciding what goes in and out of it. I suspect that they might be even less keen on the idea of a private company doing it.

Another consideration is where the figures come from - for instance, for the reintroduced married couples’ allowance? Presumably it would come from tax returns, so there would have to be some kind of mutual access between the individual taxpayer’s account and the tax return data.

There are a lot of questions, and one suspects that this has been set up by people whose only experience is with big business. This is set up for a world where everyone is online and their broadband works, which is not where we live now.

Oh, and who’s going to pay for it? Finally, why (given it will affect almost everyone in the country and supposedly will save billions) is it not in the manifesto for people to discuss?
 

Follow the election issues that matter on AccountingWEB

Replies (32)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

John Stokdyk, AccountingWEB head of insight
By John Stokdyk
21st Apr 2010 09:05

IPP survey results

We've seen some headline results from a survey the Institute of Payroll Professionals conducted, and they don't look too good for the Tory propsals. Out of 252 members who responded to the survey, 88% were against the idea 10% were unsure - leaving less than 2% in favour.

Another of the ideas put forward was monthly submission of returns rather than the annual process now in place. Responses were less certain here, with 43% against, 26% in favour and 32% unsure.

Rather than ripping up the existing PAYE system, IPP members suggested:

Investing in simplifications and improvements to the current systemDirect taxation of expenses and benefits via payrollCombining tax and NI into one deductionMore training for frontline HMRC staff.

IPP officials subsequently met with shadow business minister David Gauke to discuss the proposals and won assurances that payroll professionals would be consulted on any future changes.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By J Lessels
21st Apr 2010 10:10

What a joke

This is just the sort of kneejerk "roll back the frontiers of the state" approach which is making the Tories increasingly unelectable. No wonder Clegg is becoming so popular - look at the alternatives.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By aburt01
21st Apr 2010 10:38

Proposals...

As per the IPP research there is much to recommend simplification that leads to accuracy. 

Not sure that BACS processing time is the most appropriate or convenient time to calculate PAYE.

The small employers in my limited experience perform internet bank transfers, i.e. outside the BACS process.

If the Govt wants the cash sooner, then rein-in the payment-over date, i.e. instead of 19th of following month, say 5 days after payment to employee?. 

This could be achieved if done hand-in-hand with the process becoming much, much simpler.

The large employer will not save much on software costs, most notably because they will still have HR systems, with "NET-to-GROSS" payroll (anticipating the amount of tax and re-imbursing the employee), salary sacrifice, flexible benefits and other finance relates items built-in or alongside.

Any party is welcome to talk to our professional bodies to canvass ideas.  As long as I feel they then listen and adapt, then we have all learned from the process, and it's been worth-while.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Suzanneg
21st Apr 2010 10:39

April Fools

Someone please tell me they released this on April 1st!

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By 0098087
21st Apr 2010 10:41

Aghast

I am aghast at this insane idea. What if the money doesn't arrive in time. Osborne is showing himself to be even more of a total fool than I thought. I cannot believe people can even think of putting this man in charge of the treasury. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By NeilW
21st Apr 2010 10:42

Of course the sensible approach is simplification

The sensible approach is of course to scrap PAYE and replace it with PAYG - which is the responsibility of the individual not the employer.

Then employers credit the gross to a bank account marked as taxable income and the banks automatically apply the percentage notified by HMRC's computers for the NI number associated with the account. That would work for all payments with HMRC responsible for tuning the percentage (and that's where the call centres would be).

Allowances, benefits and other wrinkles would be credited to bank accounts directly by HMRC - much like tax credits are now, but hopefully without the mountain of dead trees that accompany that system.

The existing PAYE system is complex, struggles with multiple jobs and is a relic of the cash era. It has turned into a huge job creation scheme on all sides of the fence - money that could be better spent doing something far more productive.

Privatising PAYE without simplification (particularly the elimination of NI as a separate tax) is just asking for problems.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By NeilW
21st Apr 2010 10:50

Hardly suprising

Out of 252 members who responded to the survey, 88% were against the idea 10% were unsure - leaving less than 2% in favour.

Yes, and turkeys aren't too fond of Christmas either.

I'm pretty certain that if you went to employers and said 'just pay your employees the salary they are due gross, mark the payment as income and leave the rest to us' they'd sign up straight away.

PAYE is the accounting equivalent of digging holes and filling them back in again. It adds no value and can be done in a much simpler way.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 11:04

Privatisation of PAYE

Am I alone in thinking the entire world has gone mad?  First you almost completely ruin the Inland Revenue (as it then was) by heaping on it successively National Insurance and Tax Credits (various), then you merge it with Customs & Excise whilst at the same time reducing the number of significantly trained staff enormously and replacing them with call centre operators.  You make it almost impossible for any member of the public (certainly living anywhere in the Greater London area) to be able to contact anyone actually responsible for dealing with their tax affairs let alone be in a position to rectify anything that is wrong.  Now you propose to pass the administration of PAYE which (apart from the recent wrinkle with the bedding down of the new computer system hs worked very well in the past) into the private sector!  Golly how I wish I could emigrate!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 12:15

Brain Scan

Yet another example of why all politicans should be required to undergo an annual brain scan to confirm that there are are actually some "little grey cells" still there!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Vince54
21st Apr 2010 12:26

AEOs

As Simon states in his article, this may solve “the problem of those who won’t pay”, but what of those who won’t pay their other bills and are subject to AEOs?  This is mentioned as an additional problem along with CIS, student loans etc, but since attachable earnings aren’t known until tax , NICs and pension contributions have been calculated the AEO deduction cannot be made.  Also how will protected earnings be dealt with in respect of AEOs?

 

As mentioned by one of the other respondents, another ill thought-out idea.  The big worry is that this (ill thought-out ideas, badly drafted legislation) appears to be more prevalent from all parties and does not bode well for the future whoever wins the election.

 

Thanks (0)
x
By rockallj
21st Apr 2010 13:12

Banks and payroll

This is a silly idea, if ever I heard one! The Tories surely want to be taken seriously by voters, don't they?

I agree that even HMRC are thought more highly of the banks at present!

I think the banks have their hands on too much taxpayers' money, as it is, without our say.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thacca
21st Apr 2010 14:24

If the idea is to protect tax revenues then I think it's a good

I'm going to go against the tide here.

I'm not sure what the exact idea is, but if the idea is that the gross leaves the employer's account and the net hits the employee's accounts and the tax HMRC's account simultaneously, with a 3rd party calculating the deductions. Then I think its a good idea.

Less admin for the employer; they only have to the calculate the gross.

No PAYE bad debts. I have seen far too many director's finance their businesses on tax debts. Presumably if bad debts are reduced the tax the rest of us pay will be reduced.

As I said I'm not sure if that is the idea, but if it is I then I think it the principal is a good one. 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
21st Apr 2010 14:52

Bad Debt reduction

Do you honestly think that any bad debt reduction would be passed on to the tax payer by any Government?

Sorry that ain't gonna happen.

Privatising PAYE not good. Privatising HMRC, with accountability, now that is a different story and could well work using front line HMRC staff and Accountants to set it up.

Cleggy looks more and more like the next PM as time goes on. His secret weapon Vince could well make the difference come polling day.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Apr 2010 16:59

Privatisation!?

So the Tories privatised everything when they were last in power, and what do they want to do if they get back in - privatise some more. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By atkinson-accountancy
22nd Apr 2010 10:26

Is there nothing they won't privatise?

This sort of comment really underlines what many have suspected all along - the Tory's only want to get into power to line their, and their friends pockets

What'll be next, sale and leaseback of the houses of parliament?

Why not float the BoE on the stock exchange?

--------------

Accountants Southampton

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mikewhit
22nd Apr 2010 12:15

It's all about footy

Maybe they want to get their hands on the PAYE from footballers' salaries, before the clubs go into administration and pay their fellow clubs and transfer agents preferentially to HMRC ...

Thanks (0)
Rebecca Benneyworth profile image
By Rebecca Benneyworth
22nd Apr 2010 12:19

if it ain't broke..

OK there are lots of things we would change about HMRC / tax administration etc, but this isn't one of them. As has been pointed out, recent issues with NPS will be ironed out soon, and I can see absolutely no benefit to anyone - the state, taxpayers, businesses of this barking idea. Surely someone at Conservative Central Office has talked to the payroll profession before coming up with this little nugget? (or should I have said "listended to"?)

The biggest issue in my view with PAYE is employers defaulting on payment, and the new penalties commencing now should make an impact on that. What HMRC needs is more bodies knocking on employers' doors on a daily basis asking where the money is. A significant investment in debt management "bodies" who don't sit on the phone making unpleasant phone calls, but actually get on their feet and go in search of money could transform collection - warnings about new penalties being issued at the same time. If every member of staff visitied 5 businesses three days a week business owners would soon learn how the world works.

Yes there is plenty of room for simplification, but while the likes of Portsmouth FC default on £17 million in tax (admittedly not all PAYE) this is where the effort is needed.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By thacca
22nd Apr 2010 13:31

Turkey's voting for Xmas??

I've got a vested interest in the situation staying as it is. I'm an accountant in practice and charge for payroll services, so if the system changed I would be worse off..... or maybe I could spend the time providing 'added value services' instead!

If I look at it from a neutral point of view it makes sense to me. What's the point of Rebecca's suggested improved debt chasing procedures if that can be removed all together by collecting the PAYE at source. Is that not  'efficency savings'? If I told my clients in future they could just pay their staff the gross payment and let the bank worry about the rest, and even better they do not have to pay me for calculating PAYE, I'm sure they would see that as an improvement. Of course those who rely on PAYE for cashflow would not like it. But should businesses be financed by tax debts?

Of course the government would waste the savings on something else but that's another story.

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
22nd Apr 2010 14:25

Unpaid tax collectors

The reason why PAYE is not paid at source and has to be paid by 19th April by employers is to recompense being unpaid tax collectors.

If an employer cannot (not will not) pay (eg they haven't been paid) what is the point of adding ludicrous penalties which only exasperates the situation.

If an employer has enough money to pay net but not gross what do you think they will do if they have to notify banks (or anyone else come to that)????

The majority of employers pay their taxes, maybe a little late sometimes. Of course you will always get the rogues. 

Again we have a situation where a sledge hammer is used to crack nut and the Tories wonder why they are not streets ahead in the polls

Thanks (0)
avatar
By gcfalco
22nd Apr 2010 16:51

save money?

So the banks wil lbe doing this for free will they?

Or once they have their cartel set up, would the charges will go through the roof as with credit card interest rates (healthy competition - or a cartel gouging customers with no where else to go to?)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
23rd Apr 2010 09:32

Is this real?

This story seems full of speculation and has no attribution. "... his boys have been going round explaining how they are going to take PAYE away from HMRC and give it to the banks ..." is as close as it gets to a source.

Is it real, or just a scare story?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
23rd Apr 2010 16:24

Good career move ?

It’s quite likely that whoever wins on 6th May will be there short term because of the sheer scale of the country’s problems which are not much talked about in the election debates.

 

So Osborne might be thinking long term about his career prospects  after a short spell in Government and what better employer than a bank with a new guaranteed income stream ?  Who was it who said the little people pay taxes and the big people take the tax money?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Peter Tucker
23rd Apr 2010 22:12

PAYE & Gross Payments

Just a couple of thoughts.

If this plan went ahead, there would need to be a third database owned and operated by BACS / VocaLink, in order to determine what Tax was to be deducted - what PAYE Code Number to operate - and what NI to deduct. Not everyone pays the same percentage of NI and not everyone has the same PAYE tax free allowances.

The "third database" would have to take account of the fact that an Individual may well want his / her occupational pension paid into one bank account and their salary from an Employer paid into a different bank account.

The idea that there would be a real time correlation between the Payroll database, the BACS / VocaLink database and HMRC's New PAYE Service implies that a lot of folk would have to improve considerably and when one considers the problems that HMRC created when they merged their PAYE databases and issued millions of incorrect PAYE Coding notices, well, call me synical but .....

Oh and does anyone realy believe that the Payroll Software companies would be thrilled at the prospect of changing their software so that the gross to net calculation was not undertaken by the Employer? Would they be issueing updated software pakages to each and every existing Customer, at no cost?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
26th Apr 2010 13:26

I like this ideal,

One of the main problems with the tax system is that HMRC does not know about all of a person’s income until a long time after the person has been paid the money.   Therefore the tax system is always trying to pay catch up (and predict the future) with tax codes etc – the benefit system gets even more problems with this.

If all my taxable income (including from the rental agent I use to rent out my house) was paid into the same current account, and marked as “taxable” on the BACS system, then the HMRC would have all the income numbers in real time.  We would still need tax forms for expensive that can be offset against rent, but at least the problem will be solved for most tax payers.   (Tax credits and other benefits could also make use of the same real-time data flow) Now if only I trusted anyone to be able to implement a new large computer system without problems! Getting from here to there will not be easy, but that does not mean we should not try. (Another option is for all employers etc to have to inform (online) HMRC about all payments each time a payment is made, and then HMRC could tell them how match tax to deduct taking into account the complete information about the persons income. ) 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
26th Apr 2010 14:34

Rental Income

As rental income is taxed seperately (there could be losses b/f from previous years etc. etc.) it couldn't work.

The Tories were only talking about PAYE anyway.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
26th Apr 2010 15:01

Why can't it work for Rental Income?

Most private rental income is var an agent, the agent already deducts there changes (and building maintenance costs) etc before paying the money over to the landlord.

Yes there will be other items (including interest on any loans) that need to be done by a tax form, so a tax form will still be needed, but as the landlord will get tax back when he complete his tax form, it is likely that his tax form will be completed quicker! As to past losses etc, HRMC already knows about these, there is no reason why the bank could not also tell HRMC about the interest they charge on all loans, so the landlord only has to tell HRMC about the loan when it is setup. Just because the current system works well for accountants, does not mean it can’t be change to work a lot better for everyone else!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By adoggett
26th Apr 2010 15:38

Privatise PAYE

Over the last ten years we have seen every state asset sold off... gold... at the lowest possible price, electricity, water, nuclear power, Post Office, under way... all we have left is the Royal Family and the inland revenue to sell.. and the french have indicated that they wish to purchase the Royal Family, after accidently losing their own 200 years ago..The running of the tax system will probably be thrown in as a BOGOF loss leader..

 

Ashley Doggett FCA

Thanks (0)
avatar
By johnjenkins
26th Apr 2010 17:26

Refunds

Why should you give HMRC money and then have to claim a refund due on rental income. Losses could accrue for many years depending on the property. Look at the problems with CIS and that doesn't even go through a third party.

The best thing to do is for HMRC to take all our money and just give us what it thinks we need to live on.

I wonder what bank the Tories were thinking of using - not one owned by the government (sorry us) surely.

How long before we all went back to using cash!!!!!!!!!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By sandralee
26th Apr 2010 19:13

Privatising PAYE

Whilst I like the idea of not having to process payroll, and am all for simplifying the whole PAYE process,  it's the idea that the banks are the ones to have the plum job that doesn't sit well.

One has to question whether the banks have sufficient controls and processes (and the current global financial mess might suggest otherwise) to be able to execute the job. Also, let us not forget that the banks were audited, but this in itself did not provide an adequate mechanism for revealing errors in accounting treatment. As for corporate governance within the banks, no amount of process produced the correct result in the end.

Does anyone else think that handing over to the banks the responsibility of collecting income taxes seems a bit like rewarding them for their mistakes?

Simplify the PAYE process, yes, possibly even privatise it. Give it to the banks, no thanks.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Peter Tucker
26th Apr 2010 19:55

PAYE & Payroll - The Conservative Proposal

Just to clarify matters -

The current Conservative proposal to change the way in which PAYE is operated does not mean that Employers would avoid any Payroll duties. They would have to operate the calculation of the Gross Pay for each Employee, undertake payment of all Statutory payments and deductions. Having computed the gross payment to be made to the Employee, they would then be required to use the BACS / VocaLink system to make electronic payment to the Employees bank account.

The assumption has to be that everyone has accounts and connections to this system, and I would assume that there is no proposal to reimburse any costs which may arise from this requirement.

The input of the Gross pay by the Employer, into the BACS / VocaLink system would then trigger the deduction of Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions, allowing the Employees Net Pay to be deposited in their bank account.

Perhaps we all should be given the ability to see the demonstration model which HMRC has developed?

One further point, the PAYE tax free allowances of an Individual could be reduced to take account of any income that they were potentially receiving, thus assisting in HMRC obtaining Income Tax, In Year. Where this is not possible, the Self Assessment system would manage the payment of Tax.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mikewhit
27th Apr 2010 18:00

Big government by proxy ?

I thought the Tories were against interventionist big government .... how does handing control of your bank account over to an agent of HMRC square with that philosophy ?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Peter Tucker
27th Apr 2010 21:04

Reliance on HMRC Logic

Just discovered on HMRC website is the preposterous logic that some of the incorrect PAYE Notices of Coding which the New ( and expensive ) PAYE System issued, were caused, as HMRC views the situation, because -"the information submitted on form P14 (from the Employer or Agent) at the end of the year does not exactly match the information we hold on our main record. This may differ in respect of the works number or other details."

In orther words, the Employer or their Agent has had the temerity to send in a Form P14 which contained the details of Pay, Tax, NI and other details which were on the Payroll System, and since details other than Pay, Tax and NI did not match the information held on the HMRC PAYE system, clearly the Employer was indicating to HMRC that the Employee was employed twice. Well it is obvious, if the Works Number or Payroll reference did not match that held by HMRC, the Employer is at fault !!!!

What arrogant individual thought that the Payroll reference or Works Number held and use by an Employer was only changed when the Employee undertook another employment with the same Employer ???

Check out the following web page - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/annual-coding-mismatch.htm

So we have HMRC who clearly

are unable to apply the simple logic that a Payroll reference or Works Number is a means by which an Employer tracks employees on their Payroll database and not an indication of the number of employments heldassume that an Individual is likely to have more than one employment with the same Employer

who are capable of commissioning a Laptop demonstration of how Bacs / VocaLink can take the gross payment from an Employer and ensure that the correct Income Tax and National Insurance Contribution is deducted from the payment ....

Are we not adults who no longer believe in the fantastical ?

Thanks (0)