Contemplating - Indefinite Hunger Strike against Government

[StrengthInNumbers]

May be I am just depressed and will recover from it soon but more I think, more I feel I don't want government to get away with this. Having worked quite hard I will be able to pay whatever HMRC will ask of me but I cannot come to terms with why only me (us).

So currently government is going retrospectively and changing laws to make sure all pay fare share and clear the mess. But why are we not changing retrospectively from everyone

1. Cameron - our PM and his family - whatever they used in 1980 in overseas companies
2. Gauke - what he and his family earned while working on advising clients on tax avoidance
3. Google - change the law retrospectively for them as well
4. QCs - they gave opinion and caused all this mess - charge them as well
5. Accountants - they were at a the centre of it - charge them
6. Companies and staff - get companies selling EBT or anything similar to pay and staff to pay back salaries
7. HMRC staff and policy makers you said nothing on these schemes to me for 5 years.

If what the law at that time was does not matter and it was wrong then all in the food chain should be brought together and punished collectively to get this fixed.

I had just started work in UK, fellow contractor recommended this is how contractors work in UK and i started. I did not went asking for tax avoidance solution to an account to craft one for me. I was told this was compliant. This is similar to guy changing speed limits sign on highway and I followed what was on the sign. Now ok I should have paid attention to why the limit is different on this road but also the guy who changed should be punished.

My tax returns were being submitted every year. Until 2012 HMRC said nothing. IN 2012 Nov I got first letter and 1st Mar I was limited. If HMRC would have written to me after my first tax return, called me like they do a courtesy call after APNs, I would have moved away from this years ago.

This is plain injustice. IlikeTax says people at HMRC are full of integrity. How can they be? They are just recommending polices to collect from people they can easily from. All higher up in the food chain are being let go. But from us they can collect and thus they want all: iT, then interest, then IHT and then NI - all they can extract. We were already charged with 20% by scheme providers and now all this means we have nothing earned from those years.

Why hunger strike and give one's life for it? Because this is wrong and this is injustice. If you don't stand up against injustice then what do you stand for? If retrospective laws are being used they should be used for all wrong in this area and corrected for everyone. Right now the approach is make an example of people who started doing what was only available to select few.

If public wants to see me suffer then sure seeing my die of hunger will do a good job for them. Else after one has fallen dead hopefully public will start asking the same questions and details will be looked at instead of broad brush policy to help attain Mr Osbourne's and Gauke's political dreams.

What I am really contemplating is what should I tell my Kids? Fight for justice or everything goes?

[BattleCry]

This should make the blood boil.

George Osborne family business' £6m offshore deal - Channel 4 News

[BrilloPad]

In September 2003 a f4j member went on hunger strike. He was talked out of it - though if he would not have been dissuaded he would have been asked to continue his protest at the David Blaine tower bridge site. It was David Blaine's 44 day hunger strike that inspired the f4j person.

Try going without food for 7 days. It is very difficult.

The bigger question is whether you will get in publicity.

If you do, then you will be portrayed as tax evading scum. And that is just by the CUK members - the general public will be far more harsh.

The solution is people forming themselves into larger bodies(big group, NTRT) and taking action through the courts.

[NotAllThere]

...

If you do, then you will be portrayed as tax evading scum. And that is just by the CUK members - the general public will be far more harsh...

Yep. For such action to have any effect, you've got to be able to show the injustice. The problem is, even though it's unjust, in the eyes of many, you shouldn't have been doing it anyway, so the sense of righteous indignation is mitigated, and becomes "yeah, it's bit unfair", if that. You're coming into direct conflict with the politics of envy.

To extend the speeding analogy. You were doing 150mph on the stretch of road quite legally, by exploiting a loophole so the cops couldn't prosecute. Then they add a 70mph sign and prosecute you retrospectively for all the times you exceeded the new limit. Unjust - yes, but "you should have known that 150mph was too fast, you dangerous driving idiot, putting all our lives at risk".

Frankly, I think your kids would prefer anything to daddy being 6 feet under.

My parents taught me that the world is not fair and only pick the fights you can win. There are complicated (to the common man) legal issues involved, therefore it's likely that the solutions will also be complicated legal solutions.

[StrengthInNumbers]

The bigger question is whether you will get in publicity.

If you do, then you will be portrayed as tax evading scum. And that is just by the CUK members - the general public will be far more harsh.

That's why do this only after paying all APNs. I am a tax evading scum who was forced to pay my share. Now get others in line as well

[DonkeyRhubarb]

It is very hard to convince anyone that "getting paid in loans" was ok.

Many would throw us in jail given half the chance.

[StrengthInNumbers]

It is very hard to convince anyone that "getting paid in loans" was ok.

Many would throw us in jail given half the chance.

Agree but point here is all the people issuing loans and HMRC not saying nothing about it should also is NOT OK.

Why only penalise the loan taker and no one else in the chain especially as we are making new laws retrospectively as we go along? Under that time law they could not be penalise but with retrospective powers everyone can be and should be along with loan taker?

Why selectively only target contractors? Get everyone in line and go back and correct all. After all as government is saying we are all in this together and everyone should pay fair share. So where is fair share from people who created this?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why only penalise the loan taker

Because there would be no chance of getting the tax off the provider.

Take an average scheme with 500 users, each receiving on average £200,000 in loans. That's a potential tax take of 500 x 200,000 x 40% = £40M

At the end of the day, it's about the money.

[webberg]

First, whilst I have considerable sympathy for the way you feel, get some help. I've been where you are perhaps heading and I can tell you that it's not a good place. Recognise the symptoms now, admit them now and get some help - please.

Second, HMRC is not after just you. HMRC's motivation might be wrapped up in the "treating everybody equally" language we see pedalled for the media, but I think it goes much deeper. I think that having been exposed for poor performance in some high profile tax avoidance cases, they are so desperate to avoid a repeat that they are prepared to change the rules half way through the game.

Third, I think the politicians are pretty much to a man and woman, addicted to the benefits their position brings them but are scared of being anything other than bland wallpaper when it comes to action. Sure, they'll take on a case of a refugee, terrified for his/her life, who has made it to the UK and now may be sent back to an uncertain future. That buys the politician a few headlines and inches in the local rag. They will NOT want to be seen to be backing perceived tax avoiders in a long and protracted campaign.

The attention needs to be very much on HMRC incompetence and inaction that has created this situation.

They had the power and the information and did NOTHING.

Whilst we cannot expect active intervention in commercial businesses, a simple notice to individuals would have worked in many cases.

Last, this Government is DESPERATE for money. It may be their own mismanagement or the cumulative effect of serial Governments - doesn't matter. Having tried to steal money from the disabled, do you think that they will baulk at taking money from healthy, working, well paid people?

This is a fight and the decisive difference in any conflict is will power (morale).

Your user name says it all.

[LondonManc]

Because there would be no chance of getting the tax off the provider.

Take an average scheme with 500 users, each receiving on average £200,000 in loans. That's a potential tax take of 500 x 200,000 x 40% = £40M

At the end of the day, it's about the money.

Spot on. Like any debt collector, they'll go after those worth chasing. It's not worth their time spending £10k to chase £10k. They'll calculate an actuarial payout (probability * value) and go for the big wins. Getting the multinationals paying out a small percentage of what they're due is a decent win. Taking you personally for 40% of £200,000 is a big win because, as DR says, the pooling gives them critical mass.