In the course of my day job, I have to give my boss a round-up of the Sunday business pages to keep track of all the latest news and features. Not surprisingly, the Sundays are full of stuff right now about Britain’s ‘super-rich’, such as those folk brokering lots of mergers and takeovers at the moment (see my post below defending private equity). Well, the socialist looters among us will be thrilled to know that the enemies of personal enrichment are alive and kicking. Here is a job ad in the Sunday Times:
“HM Revenue & Customs. Make a real difference, take our information to a new level” (I liked that bit)
“Attractive six-figure package – central London”
I am sure it is very attractive.
“You probably know HM Revenue & Customs as the people who collect tax but there’s far more to it than that”
I bet there is. Go on, we are dying to know.
“We play a vital role in law enforcement and protecting society”
Yep. When Gordon Brown fucked the UK pensions system, it was all about protecting society.
“90,000 work within HMRC, and we have over 40 million customers (taxpayers, claimants and others)
“Customers” – that is beautiful. And we ‘customers’ of VAT, income tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, national insurance (tax), etc, are being cared for by 90,000 caring, sharing, hugging, cuddly people. Terrific.
“In every sense we have a huge responsibility for society and the economy, so customer focus sits at the heart of everything we do”
I do not know who writes these adverts, but the Comedy Central Channel is always in need of new blood. Hire this person immediately.
This may not be unconnected with the data-sharing and data-mining powers in the UK Borders Bill and the Serious Crime Bill, which appear between them to abolish the old principle that Revenue information was used only for Revenue functions and never left the control of the Revenue save where they had to prosecute someone.
That principle of utter confidentiality and neutrality is the reason why the Revenue is constituted as a non-ministerial department, precisely in order that its powers be not exercised in pursuit of political goals or other departments’ agendas.
Another of Britain’s subtle institutional protections for liberty is in the process of being extinguished.
My first spontaneous thought on reading this was “Yeah. And Perry just went on a trip looking for turkeys to be ‘customers’ for his shotgun.”
It seems like that’s how they are understanding the word.
‘Customers’.
I’m sure that word once had connotations of ‘consumer choice’ about it.
James – Sadly the current term is ‘customer service’, with all the connotations of ‘consumer buggery’ one might imagine.
You can always tell when you have become a customer,the item you bought from abroad via the internet,suddenly disappears into thin air.If you are lucky a demand for VAT and or customs duty arrives in lieu.
This is usually from ParcelFarce who have also screwed a fee out of you for delaying your property.
In the old days this used to be called tribute.
“Yep. When Gordon Brown fucked the UK pensions system, it was all about protecting society.”
Gordon Brown works for Revenue and Customs? HMRC has taken over the Dept of Work and Pensions. Why did no one tell me this?
“Customers” is used because the people dealt with comprise a variety of individuals – as it says taxpayers, claimants and others – do you have any suggestions for a better word?
In every sense we have a huge responsibility for society and the economy, so customer [i.e. taxpayers, claimants and others] focus sits at the heart of everything we do”
So would you rather your taxes were collected by someone who focus on the interests of taxpayers and claimants. Can you articulate exactly what you find so funny about this concept because the only laughter I can hear is a bemused chuckle at this paranoid rant.
“In the old days this used to be called tribute.”
No Ron, in the old days buying booze and fags without paying excise duty was called smuggling.
If we are customers, then we should be capable of exercising choice. As if.
If we are customers to the Inland Revenue, then I am a customer of the mosquito.
I always have more respect for the “HM” entities as they are Her Majesty’s, and thus not His Slackjawed or His Oleagenousness’s, i.e. apolitical and, one would hope, for the common good of the nation.
Armed Forces, Police, Courts, Prison Service and Customs are at the core of what I consider the minimal State. I get VERY upset when I hear or am reminded at the erosion of their values, of their pollution by the sewer of political thought.
“If we are customers, then we should be capable of exercising choice. As if.”
You are able to exercise choice – for taxpayers – how you file your return, in many cases how you calculate your tax, and if a claimant whether you make a claim or not.
You are able to exercise a choice as to whether you pay a legally imposed tax – but that tax, whether to pay for a minimal or maximal state is imposed by the current and previous parliaments, not revenue and customs.
“Customers” is used because the people dealt with comprise a variety of individuals – as it says taxpayers, claimants and others – do you have any suggestions for a better word?”
Victim springs to mind.
Giles, Gordon Brown is Britain’s finance minister. His policies drive what the Revenue and Customs do. One of his actions was to remove a large lump of money from corprorate pensions schemes. Hence my comment. Fairly simple to understand, I should have thought.
How about “victim”, old chap?
Yes, Giles, I am “paranoid” because I find it idiotic that people who are forced to surrender a large chunk of their wealth to an often wasteful and dangerous state are called “customers”, as if they had much choice over this state of affairs.
The state takes nearly half of my money and tells me a great deal how to spend the rest of it. If people are not upset about this, they should be.
It is people like you that keep this show on the road. Go fuck yourself
Once every four or five years I get to go to into a little booth and choose to put an X next to one name on a list of thieving bossy people.
That constitutes legally elected representatives who can steal a large proportion of my earnings and property and give it to a load of people I despise.
Calling victims of theft ‘customers’ is just adding insult to injury.
And don’t tell me I have choice as I cannot think of a single place I could move to where the situation would be much better.
I forget where I read it but the phrase ‘Don’t piss down my back and tell me its raining.’ sums it up.
Giles you are a twat.
“Customers” is used because the people dealt with comprise a variety of individuals – as it says taxpayers, claimants and others – do you have any suggestions for a better word?”
Oh, goody. A quiz.
Well now, let’s consult the Oxford Dictionary:
Customer
• noun 1 a person who buys goods or services from a shop or business. 2 a person or thing of a specified kind that one has to deal with: he’s a tough customer.
Doesn’t really work, does it? Let’s try another:
Helot
• noun 1 a member of a class of serfs . . . intermediate in status between slaves and citizens. 2 a serf or slave.
Much closer. First definition tags it pretty well. Perhaps we can expand with a less formal definition from the fellows on the west side of the pond. We’ll refer to Dictionary.com:
Mark
• Slang. a. An object of derision, scorn, manipulation, or the like. b. The intended victim of a swindler or hustler.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Confiscate the taxpayer’s hard earned resources, redistribute to an assortment of frauds, parasites, useless activities, and, lest we forget, lots of benefits for the collectors and re-distributors. And insist that the taxpayer likes paying. Makes him virtuous. Yes, both definitions are bang on.
Perhaps we should clarify just why tax collectors would use such words as “customer,” “service,” and “voluntary,” by identifying the methodology used by bureaucrats, statists, and leftoids everywhere. Back to Oxford:
Sophistry
1. A subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. 2. A false argument; sophism.
Remember the Red Queen’s statement? To wit: “Words mean what I say they mean, nothing more, nothing less.”
To citizens, words are used to communicate thoughts, concepts, explanations, from one individual to another. It is the thought, the concept, which is the substance of the communication. The words are tools.
To the collectivist (that’s you, Giles,) the word is the substance. It means what the collectivist says it means. Thus, the Marks are obligated by their status as Helots to absorb this Sophistry, to believe that they are Customers, being Served, and that their tribute is Voluntary. Words, in the twisted world of collectivists, are tools not for communication, but for control of thought.
I second the final advice of Jonathon and Nick.
Damn. “Jonathon” should read “Sir Johnathan Pearce”. Some smartass must have snuck in here and played with my keyboard.
Re: “90,000 work within HMRC, and we have over 40 million customers (taxpayers, claimants and others)
I suppose based on this we should start looking at ourselves as “Customers” of Burglars, Muggers and armed robbers, or would that be, the Burgling , Mugging and Armed Robbing “Communities”, respectively.
They do, after all, have a huger responsibility in the re-distribution of wealth. A concept no doubt close to our dear (and I mean expensive here) Chancellor’s heart.
I guess I should feel a bit ashamed of being so rude to Giles, since that was out of order. He was snide and deliberately missed the point of my post by a mile, but that was no excuse. mea culpa.
The customer is always right.
Mr Taxman, I ain’t paying 20k for this shit.
A troll should be treated as a troll Johnathan. Someone who sticks up for the idea that taxpayers are “customers” of the taxcollecters is just playing games.