Downing Street Says » Tax Credits/Overpayments

Put to him that the Government said any overpayments in tax credits due to computer errors would be written off, what would happen about the overpayments that occurred for other reasons, the PMOS replied that the system for paying back was laid down, and we had said that where there had been error, that would be written off. With regards to other payments, the Paymaster General outlined in the May statement various measures, one of which put the emphasis on communicating to claimants and the need to let us know when the circumstances improved. What was also announced was an increased liaison with voluntary groups who could help those who were vulnerable. The PMOS said people had to remember that a balance had to be struck here between on the one hand, allowing help to those who need it, and on the other hand a recognition that we were dealing with tax payers’ money. There was also a case that we had always made it clear that it was the duty for all those who receive a tax credit to let the authorities know if circumstances changed.

Put to the PMOS that the system "was designed to self-destruct", the PMOS said that the fact that over six million families and 10 million children had benefited from tax credits and the vast majority had not experienced any problems with their claims or payments. They also had an unprecedented take-up, with an estimated eighty per cent of eligible families claiming Child Tax Credit in the first year compared to just fifty seven per cent for Family Credit in its first year.

Asked if it was worth the Government reviewing such cases that would take a long time to resolve, the PMOS said there was a judgment to be made about tax payers’ money.

Asked if it would help to raise the tax thresholds, so that people on lower levels would not have to claim tax credit at all, the PMOS replied it was traditional and wise for people in his position not to comment on such matters!

Asked if the Prime Minister still had confidence in the Chancellor as he "was Mr. Big on this one", the PMOS said the Prime Minister continued to believe that his Chancellor was a huge asset to this country.

18 Comments »

Did you see that smug git Brown sitting next the Bliar in the Commons as he apologised for the Horlicks the Chancellor had made of the Tax Credit Scheme, if you think Bliar is bad, wait till that F***wit takes over
Comment by Colonel Mad — 22 Jun 2005 on 11:18 pm | Link
There’s something of the Tea Lady about Goodun Broon: a weak cup of tea, short on biscuits, a penny missing from the change and yet self-importantly pushing a squeaking trolley around and around and around. Sells tea – serves up slops.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 23 Jun 2005 on 6:13 am | Link
The part that really annoys me is that for decades EDS has been awarded huge contracts which it has consistently screwed up.
The question is this:

Who in the Civil Service or Government is the corrupt person who keeps awarding contracts to EDS?

Any other organisation would have followed EU regulations and permitted EDS to tender for these jobs but would then have thrown the documents into the nearest shredder.

The Inland Revenue are sticking to their guns at present and asking EDS to refund all of the write off – lets hope that the cabinet office and ministers don’t intervene to broker a compromise.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 23 Jun 2005 on 9:10 am | Link
Yes indeed, yet another EDS shambles at huge cost to the taxpayers. Interesting that the PMOS is now expressing some concern for ‘prudent’ management of these funds. Shame that this didn’t happen before, but what the hell – it’s other people’s money anyway.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 23 Jun 2005 on 11:34 am | Link
EDS did not get to be one of the largest Computer services company in the world by constantly screwing up, I suggest that a considerable part of the problem is with the client, to whit, the Bridge Jumpers in the Civil Service.
Comment by Colonel Mad — 24 Jun 2005 on 12:24 am | Link
The raison d’etre for EDS – like every other business – is to make money and to expand. It may well be that EDS has been badly led by incompetent Civil Servants, and the taxpayer is picking up the bill for HMG’s Officials (lack of) learning curve.

With all of its world-wide experience EDS should by now be able to anticipate the pitfalls and guide its clients.

But let’s get real: EDS has no moral responsibility, merely a contractual liability. And we all know where that leads us. This is the money-go-round.

‘Minister you’ll be very pleased to know that we’ve managed to do exactly what you asked. But that has raised a few issues….."
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 24 Jun 2005 on 9:24 am | Link
Tax Credits are a new Labour scam aimed at taking money from people without children and giving it to people with children. This is totally unjustified. I support trying to reduce poverty, but much of this money is given to people who aren’t remotely poor and don’t deserve it. The whole scheme should be abolished. This is as far as I know the first time the idea has been seriously challenged, everyone has thought it was wonderful until now, hopefully it will attract more criticism in future.
Comment by nik — 28 Jun 2005 on 3:24 pm | Link
The tax credits overpayments are some of the inland revenue’s wrong calculations, but a lot of people are jumping on the band wagon to have the overpayments written off. Denying that they even new that there was an overpayment, playing dumb.

I believe that the money should be paid back at some time, but not written off as this goverment gives away too much tax payers money.
Comment by Hal — 20 Jul 2005 on 11:11 pm | Link
Regarding the above entry I have made, I would just like to comment on the previous post that was mentioned about child poverty and taking money from people who haven’t any children. This goverment don’t mean child poverty in the sence we know it, they call it child deprevation. I agree that the people who are getting it don’t deserve it entirley. I work for a department and know that self employed people are able to cook the books, therefore being entiltled to even more money ie tax credits. The single parents who do have the absent parent contributing to the childs welfare that none of this is taken into account therefore not only tax credits are there as a top up, but also the government have created the education maintenance allowance to encourage children to stay on in further education paying more money up up to \xA330 a week and I believe this is going to increase. This is all about figuires in unemployment and dangling that carrot. When the honest hard working people without children or those with children who clock up long hours and are only entitled to \xA310 a week with no education allowance if there children stay on in further education. I would say they have there priorities all wrong.
Comment by Hal — 20 Jul 2005 on 11:22 pm | Link
"The best chancellor we’ve ever had" – said the Bliar.

Brown is the half-wit cretin who, when gold was already at a low, announced to the world that in 3 months time he would sell half of Britain’s (OUR) gold reserves for a knock-down price (which of course forced the price even lower). Now WHO did he sell the gold to? Hands in the til? – you betcha.

see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/28/ngold28.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/11/28/ixportal.html

Or click "New Labour Treason" on:
http://www.jk5.net/issues.asp
Comment by jk5 — 21 Jul 2005 on 10:46 am | Link
‘Cretin’ is not an appropriate description here and is a profound insult to those of us who actually are cretins.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 21 Jul 2005 on 4:28 pm | Link
Apologies if "cretin" causes offense. "Cretin" or "cretinism" has been used as slang for sufferers of "congenital myxedema" (and sometimes other hypo-throidal conditions). This not strictly a correct use of the word and if you DO suffer from CM you should have been advised to NOT use the slang term for your affliction.

The English dictionary defines:
"Cretin" – "very stupid person"

This definition is entirely apropriate for Mr Brown.

Again, we thoroughly apologise if any offense was caused and will try to refrain from using this word in future.
Comment by jk5 — 22 Jul 2005 on 3:36 am | Link
I don’t think Brown is stupid – far from it. He may be many other things, such as devious, manipulative, mendacious, irresponsible etc etc, but stupid he certainly ain’t.

As to the full definition of the word ‘Cretin’ – it depends on which of the many (and there are at least fifteen) English dictionaries you may be using.

………and anyway, my comment was, ever so slightly, tongue in cheek.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 22 Jul 2005 on 8:04 am | Link
I don’t think Brown is stupid – far from it. He may be many other things, such as devious, manipulative, mendacious, irresponsible etc etc, but stupid he certainly ain’t.

As to the full definition of the word ‘Cretin’ – it depends on which of the many (and there are at least fifteen) English dictionaries you may be using.

………and anyway, my comment was, ever so slightly, tongue in cheek.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 22 Jul 2005 on 8:04 am | Link
I don’t think Brown is stupid – far from it. He may be many other things, such as devious, manipulative, mendacious, irresponsible etc etc, but stupid he certainly ain’t.

As to the full definition of the word ‘Cretin’ – it depends on which of the many (and there are at least fifteen) English dictionaries you may be using.

………and anyway, my comment was, ever so slightly, tongue in cheek.
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 22 Jul 2005 on 8:05 am | Link
If a person is entrusted with another’s asset (Brown was entrusted with OUR gold bullion) and that person sells the asset (without permisison of the owner) for very much less than it is worth then we must ask the question – "Is that person stupid or has he committed a crime?"

If the person compounds the nature of his act by first announcing to the world – "In 3 months time I will sell this asset for very much less than it is worth today." then one must ask – "is the person still just stupid or has he compounded his crime?" When the person makes such an announccement then clearly other people who own similar assets will quickly sell their assets before the price plummetts – this rush to sell in itself causing the price to fall quickly.

When the original owner of the asset returns (to sanity in our case) and asks "where is all my gold" and is told "I sold it and then I spent the money on something that is good for you" (maybe on a war in Iraq) – then at that point you would be entitiled to be very annoyed.

Indeed, I think you would demand some satisfaction in the courts even if the person’s act could only be proved to be stupid rather than negligent or even criminal.

Is Brown stupid for his act, was he just negligent (with the wealth of the United Kingdom) or has he committed a crime. He certainly cannot be acclaimed the "greatest treasurer of all time". If he has committed a crime then it was a crime against all the people of the UK. Is this not called TREASON?
Comment by jk5 — 22 Jul 2005 on 10:45 am | Link
Yes I agree many are playing dumb, most are working for the revenue/government though.
Comment by SJ — 21 Mar 2007 on 11:31 am | Link
Yes I agree many are playing dumb, most are working for the revenue/government though.
Comment by SJ — 21 Mar 2007 on 11:32 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Tax Credits/Overpayments

18 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries