How to combat tax evasion
1) tell your electorate you are going to crack down on tax evasion, get votes
2) instruct tax officers to go and hunt smalltime tax evaders (the welfare mom that got a 20 euro/week cleaning job), and make them pay huge fines
3) pat yourself on the back on tv for succesfully cracking down on tax evasion, just don't mention it was only welfare moms
4) use the fines to bribe subsidize the big companies that do the real tax evasion, so you can get a nice management position with them once your political term is over
5) profit
That is the exact opposite of profit tbh
smh neoliberalism fam
I have a feeling the UK is going to get a... new tax soon.
probably won't happen, but I just wanted to say this here because in the 5% chance it actually occurs I want justification to laugh.
Laugh... or you know... cry because it is sad.
I have a feeling Canada is going to get a... new law soon.
probably will happen, and I just wanted to say this because there is a 100% chance it will occur and I'll laugh anyways
Laugh... or you know... cry for muh canuck laws
The major issue I can immediately see is that even if you WIN the case you are still out 1,200 Euros ONTOP of whatever legal fees you have accrued. It punishes workers for daring face their employers. If you lose the case but had every reason to sue, you are now paying a lot of money that you might not be able to afford.
Oi m8 we use the Turkish Lira in the United Kingdom of New Australia
It would have made more sense as a deposit that can be confiscated should your case been seen as frivolous.
Or rather it hurts people with real legitimate claims... because those people might have an issue paying that much money.
Yeah, it serves as a real sword of damocles over the heads of employees who were unlawfully dismissed because they have to be
sure they've got enough evidence to win before they take it to court. It was introduced by a
new labour-thatcherite tory unholy alliance of market deregulation joint political review of how malicious or weak claims were hurting business. There was a mechanism in place where the winning party could get their legal costs paid for by the losing party, but when it came to businesses when they won they still had to pay the costs
99% of the time. Which is money lost, work lost, time spent fighting a court battle, generally shit for business and liable to put people under
So over the course of 15 years lablibconopolis introduce all this kinda stuff to deter shit claims. Of note, is that the lablibconocopia did not simply seek to destroy all employer-employee relations, as they instead directed them to mediators, people like
these guys, who step in and try to get the whole conflict sorted out amiably outside of legal channels - and if that fails, then move onto legal channels. This keeps the courts more open to more serious cases and is just good practice all round. The whole money barrier to getting your case heard however, has been a complete failure, having not stopped or noticeably reduced malicious or weak cases coming forward:
"There is little evidence that fees may have served to encourage parties to seek alternative ways of resolving their disputes. That evidence is just as likely to have been the result of the introduction of Acas early conciliation as it is of the levying of issue and hearing fees. See Acas Research Paper 04/15, Evaluation of Acas Early Conciliation 2015. We are concerned that as many as six out of ten potential claimants who entered early conciliation neither settled their potential claim via Acas nor subsequently presented a claim to the Tribunal. Acas has found some evidence that this group may be being dissuaded from pursuing a claim by the prospect of fees."
That's from
this judge, who also notes this:
"Most significantly of all, we consider that the introduction of fees has had a damaging effect upon access to justice. Although there has been a very large reduction in new claims across all jurisdictions – perhaps as much as 70 per cent – the cases that have been most obviously affected are the short track and standard track cases. Employment Judges now see very few short track cases (claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, redundancy pay, etc), the obvious inference being that a combined fee of £390 represents a considerable investment in proportion to what might be a relatively modest sum at stake, particularly given that the respondent might be insolvent and that the rate of enforcement of Employment Tribunal awards remains disappointing. The standard track cases (typically unfair dismissal claims) attract a combined fee of £1,200 – which does not compare well with the mean and median awards made in successful unfair dismissal complaints. We conclude that the fees and remission scheme act as a very clear disincentive to bringing what might otherwise be claims that are not obviously weak or unmeritorious."
So basically if you've been fucked out of your severance pay and that pay was <£1,000 you're not going to risk paying <£1,000 for it, least of all if you're already in financial troubles and cannot afford to lose anything
So yeah this gov policy didn't fix the previous problem and just created a new problem. This policy benefits no one lol
Author
Topic: UK Snap Election Thread - Darth May (Read 42181 times)