Benefits and tax: astounding graphic

[Kumquat]

You have a nasty, unpleasant outlook on life, don't you?

I think you're right there. Potentially.

 

[severnside gull]

By the way, there are more people investigating benefit fraud because potentially there are 30 million fraudsters....that as opposed to 300 people investigating tax evasion from a much smaller pool of potential transgressors.

Wow!
I so hope you don't have a degree in math or economics...... I am already disillusioned enough with the quality of our education system.

 

[jgmcdee]

I find it interesting that the areas in the chart have been completely misrepresented. Comparing the area of the light blue circle (£16 billion) to the red circle, the red circle is twice as large as it should be. Idiots.

Surface areas of circles are notoriously hard to compare visually.

Personally I think that the EU should ban them from infographics.

 

[Albumen]

We may as well call the big red circle "Tory mates", that's why. The current government are transparent fraudsters, and nothing can be done about it until people can vote again. By then, they'll have set themselves and their mates up for life.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

With George Osborne seemingly determined to cut more benefits, thought I'd post this which is truly eye-opening if you don't know the statistics. According to the government's own figures, more is lost through benefit overpayment than benefit fraud - and they should actually be paying out a lot more because of the massive amount of unclaimed benefits.

Just to add a little tiny bit of balance to this statement - the government claws back most overpayments so it's not actually a loss ( or if it is then only a temporary one ).

 

[somerset]

You have a nasty, unpleasant outlook on life, don't you?

I have a real outlook sir (some of it may appear nasty, but that would depend on your own point of view,we live in unpleasant times)... garnered from multiple sources, all equally considered, then I form a view. Same as my politics, depending on the factors currently in the mix as far as our society, economy and my family considerations are concerned, that dictates where I might lend my vote and opinions. I dont form opinions simply because someone in the student union once told me it was fact, nor do I vote simply because my father voted for a particular party, or his father before him...... I think for myself.

 

[BLOCK F]

With George Osborne seemingly determined to cut more benefits, thought I'd post this which is truly eye-opening if you don't know the statistics. According to the government's own figures, more is lost through benefit overpayment than benefit fraud - and they should actually be paying out a lot more because of the massive amount of unclaimed benefits.

What's more, according to some estimates, tax evasion (most of it corporate tax evasion) costs the country a HUNDRED times more than benefit fraud (25 times more, even according to the government's own conservative estimates). The DWP has over 3,000 people investigating benefit fraud, but HMRC just 300 people investigating tax evasion - why?

Of course benefit fraud is wrong, but focusing on this and on increasing austerity measures aimed at the poor, rather than getting a small chunk out of the massive amount owed by the corporate evaders is surely ridiculous on any level.

Seems that avoidance and evasion have been lumped together.
There is a difference!
I would have serious doubts over most of this being corporate tax evasion,which is illegal.Tax avoidance maybe, but legal.Wonder how much 'paying cash in hand' is done in this country.Quite a lot I would reckon and most of this involving individuals and small businesses.
Personally,I have never thought that benefit fraud,whilst being wrong,is a huge problem in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Since1982]

It would be interesting to understand the breakdown of the Tax number ie how much is avoided (presumably legally), evaded (presumably illegally) and uncollected (presumably inefficiency / incompetence). Anyone know?

 

[hybrid_x]

the biggest veil of all nobody really ever picks up on is this.....

The Goverment spend a massive proportion of Tax on paying interest on loans to international banks, and the bank of england - which is not owned by the gov or people, it is an independent central bank that practically owns and selects the gov.

5 years ago people would scorn such a claim, but in a few years this will be common knowledge, if we get that far.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

With George Osborne seemingly determined to cut more benefits, thought I'd post this which is truly eye-opening if you don't know the statistics. According to the government's own figures, more is lost through benefit overpayment than benefit fraud - and they should actually be paying out a lot more because of the massive amount of unclaimed benefits.

What's more, according to some estimates, tax evasion (most of it corporate tax evasion) costs the country a HUNDRED times more than benefit fraud (25 times more, even according to the government's own conservative estimates). The DWP has over 3,000 people investigating benefit fraud, but HMRC just 300 people investigating tax evasion - why?

Of course benefit fraud is wrong, but focusing on this and on increasing austerity measures aimed at the poor, rather than getting a small chunk out of the massive amount owed by the corporate evaders is surely ridiculous on any level.

A couple of questions / points from this.

- Arn't they talking about saving money from benefits payments which could mean they reduce the groups of people who can currently claim benefits (do multimillionaire pensions really need a free tv license? and so on) and not talking about saving the money by tackling benefit fraud and overpayments alone (if at all)

- Tax avoidance, it could be more expensive to persue non or under payers of tax than the debt they would recover if sucessfully persued? It looks to cover all tax avoidance and not just be corporations but could include individuals too.

- Corporation employ staff, would they pursue businesses for the full amount if it meant they would go out of business and the state would have less coming in form them, and also have to support those who lose their jobs as a result of that businesses failure.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Seems that avoidance and evasion have been lumped together.
There is a difference!
I would have serious doubts over most of this being corporate tax evasion,which is illegal.Tax avoidance maybe, but legal.Wonder how much 'paying cash in hand' is done in this country.Quite a lot I would reckon and most of this involving individuals and small businesses.
Personally,I have never thought that benefit fraud,whilst being wrong,is a huge problem in the overall scheme of things.

Unsurprising from the PCS, who are as left wing as they come. I know, because I belong to the PCS.

 

[Triggaaar]

Surface areas of circles are notoriously hard to compare visually.

Indeed. Which is why I measured their diameter and calculated the area. I'm not guessing, that red circle is twice as big as it should be, relative to the light blue circle.

 

[Hamilton]

I told you that you've gone and done it.

10 pages?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I find it interesting that the areas in the chart have been completely misrepresented. Comparing the area of the light blue circle (£16 billion) to the red circle, the red circle is twice as large as it should be. Idiots.

it's all about the radii

 

[Diego Napier]

...and that would be exactly right, until all 20k turn up and the police get a view of the attendees, and the mood of the attendees, who knows what could happen.

Exactly; aliens could land tomorrow and we could all be saved, or do I mean annihilated? Or both?

 

[Triggaaar]

it's all about the radii

Oh sweet jesus. You measure it, you do the calculations, then come back to me. Tip - you might find it easier to measure the diameter, and divide by two, than measure the radius.

 

[Kumquat]

A couple of questions / points from this.

- Arn't they talking about saving money from benefits payments which could mean they reduce the groups of people who can currently claim benefits (do multimillionaire pensions really need a free tv license? and so on) and not talking about saving the money by tackling benefit fraud and overpayments alone (if at all)

- Tax avoidance, it could be more expensive to persue non or under payers of tax than the debt they would recover if sucessfully persued? It looks to cover all tax avoidance and not just be corporations but could include individuals too.

- Corporation employ staff, would they pursue businesses for the full amount if it meant they would go out of business and the state would have less coming in form them, and also have to support those who lose their jobs as a result of that businesses failure.

Just on your second point about tax avoidance: it's not the cost of pursuing them that's deterring them from pursuing, it's the irrational fear (and threat) that certain corporations will pull out of the UK if they are forced to pay these taxes. This threat has always been a shallow one. Starbucks have proved that by making a gesture to pay a couple of years of these taxes. They will not leave. But the Government is scared of losing big business. The Tories have always been influenced unduly by the CBI and this is another example. It depends on your opinion of the Tories. Some feel they are fully supportive of these companies, others think they believe the threats. Either way, it's the wrong decision.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I find it interesting that the areas in the chart have been completely misrepresented. Comparing the area of the light blue circle (£16 billion) to the red circle, the red circle is twice as large as it should be. Idiots.

If the red circle is notionally 100%, the 30bn circle is actually 21% of the red rather than the 25% that the figures suggest. The 16bn circle is 7% of the red rather than 13%...so the light blue is too small rather than the red too big if we bring the other one into play.

Either way, the graphic designer would have been thinking about font size rather than accuracy!

 

[Triggaaar]

It's not quite that far out.

Yes it is.

If the red circle is notionally 100%...The 16bn circle is 7% of the red rather than 13%...just to be accurate like...

So you've measured it, and the 16bn circle is 7%, but should be 13% - allowing for errors in measuring, that's half / double - which is what I said.

Either way, the graphic designer would have been thinking about font size rather than accuracy!

If you're doing a chart to show differences, the chart needs to be accurate, otherwise you're just lying. Surely they have a bit of software that can create a chart, and not just ask a designer to create a couple of blobs.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes it is.
So you've measured it, and the 16bn circle is 7%, but should be 13% - allowing for errors in measuring, that's half / double - which is what I said.

Yes yes, I re-edited when I realised you were only referring to the little circle.

Crikey you're quick. I edited that pretty much straight away. You on the strong coffee??