SAYNOTO0870.COM - Inland Revenue

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

SAYNOTO0870.COM <---- Back to main website

NEW: MOBILE PHONE DEAL COMPARISONS
CHECK OUT OUR NEW MOBILE PHONE DEAL COMPARISON SERVICE. GET THE BEST DEAL ON A NEW PHONE

SAYNOTO0870.COM › Main Forum › Government and Public Sector › Inland Revenue

(Moderators: Dave, bbb_uk, CJT-80, Forum Admin, DaveM)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

Inland Revenue (Read 31,942 times)

derrick

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,124

Re: Inland Revenue
Reply #15 - Feb 24^th, 2009 at 11:43am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2009 at 2:44pm:

Is the free calls thing being misunderstood?

If you are on a BT residential line outside the "free" calls period, calls to 0845 numbers are cheaper than to geographic alternatives. For these callers we should perhaps be promoting 0845 numbers as alternatives to geographic numbers.

It is now only non-BT callers who now need geographic alternatives to 0845.

It was those calling within their BT packages who needed them until recently.

It still costs less to use a dial through number,(1899, 18185 18866 etc), for ALL users on/not on "inclusive",(NOT free), minutes to call 01/02/03 numbers, ALL other providers,(including dial through charge per minute to call 084/087 numbers), but 01/02/03 are charged, typically, 5p per call, not per minute.
Not a lot of people are on BTs anytime,(which includes daytime calls), and HMRC and most government departments only have restricted hours for ones on weekend unlimited package.

Therefore I disagree that "For these callers we should perhaps be promoting 0845 numbers as alternatives to geographic numbers. "

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Inland Revenue
Reply #16 - Feb 24^th, 2009 at 12:30pm

derrick wrote on Feb 24^th, 2009 at 11:43am:

I disagree that "For these callers we should perhaps be promoting 0845 numbers as alternatives to geographic numbers. "

So do I, but for quite different reasons.

There are other websites (e.g. MSE) that promote discount companies to enable consumers to get a possibly better deal on various products and services. It is for them to promote dodgy telephone service providers and to highlight perverse features such as BT offering calls to 0845 numbers more cheaply than geographic numbers during weekdays for those NOT on packages at this time.

It is fair enough for us to discuss these matters in our forum, but I understand the focus of "SayNo" to be on opposition to use of revenue sharing numbers. One way in which it seeks to undermine use of revenue sharing numbers is by providing geographic alternatives. Those who use the alternatives may save money, if not time and effort. Those on BT without the anytime option help the cause but cost themselves money if they call geo, rather than 0845, numbers during the daytime - this did not change in January.

We must also remember that if HMRC were to lose its subsidy from revenue sharing then the hole in its budget would have to be filled somehow.

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

derrick

Supreme Member

Offline

Posts: 1,124

Re: Inland Revenue
Reply #17 - Feb 24^th, 2009 at 3:45pm

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 24^th, 2009 at 12:30pm:

Those on BT without the anytime option help the cause but cost themselves money if they call geo, rather than 0845, numbers during the daytime - this did not change in January.

We must also remember that if HMRC were to lose its subsidy from revenue sharing then the hole in its budget would have to be filled somehow.

Not if they use 1899,1866,18185 etc!

HMRC,(and ALL other gov depts), should be funded,as they where set up to do, via general taxation, NOT covert phone numbers!!! "the hole in its budget would have to be filled somehow." This can be filled by stopping oversea/international aid etc, and that sort of thing can then be funded by people who want to do so via registered charities!
Anyway, they will tell you they do not receive finacial aid from said numbers!

« Last Edit: Feb 24^th, 2009 at 3:47pm by derrick »

IP Logged

SilentCallsVictim

Supreme Member

Offline

aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,494

Re: Inland Revenue
Reply #18 - Feb 24^th, 2009 at 4:38pm

I totally agree with the point that delivery of what I would term "public services" (that is not all departmental spending) should be funded by general taxation.

I thought that I had dealt with the issue of dodgy overseas telephone companies, that some say should not be supported because they are foreign, and was referring only to callers who used BT.

I fail to see any connection between HMRC using revenue sharing numbers and the DfID budget. The latter should be set appropriately, not made in any way conditional upon the former.

@fairtelecoms (tweets)

IP Logged

NGMsGhost

Supreme Member

Offline

The Forum Ghost of NonGeographicalMan<b
r />

Posts: 2,720
Surrey, United Kingdom
Gender: male

Re: Inland Revenue
Reply #19 - Mar 25^th, 2009 at 9:17am

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 24^th, 2009 at 4:38pm:

I totally agree with the point that delivery of what I would term "public services" (that is not all departmental spending) should be funded by general taxation.

Actually we have never been at all sure of your position ever since you first turned up in this discussion forum. One minute you seem to be with us and the next minute you are saying you can fully see why the government's departments and agencies decided to use 084 and 087 numbers. That is not the mindset of a true www.saynoto0870.com campaigner. True campaigners oppose all use of these numbers root and branch and at no time do they ever accept or endorse the excuses of the opposition for introducing them or refusing to scrap them.

Quote:

I thought that I had dealt with the issue of dodgy overseas telephone companies, that some say should not be supported because they are foreign, and was referring only to callers who used BT.

Are you opposed to international commerce then? Can I take it that you never ever buy and of the "dodgy" electrical goods, clothes or furniture made in China that now makes up the majority of stock in many UK high street stores. The Finarea group are based in Switzerland (part of the European Economic Area) but actually carry out billing through a subsidiary (Connect Telecom) that is a UK limited company registered with Companies House. So what exactly is dodgy about Finarea then? As a past customer I found a great deal more that was dodgy about the UK based TalkTalk/CPW group and their extraordinarily inaccurate billing practices and appalling customer service.

<div style=

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

SAYNOTO0870.COM › Main Forum › Government and Public Sector

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

(Moderators: Dave, bbb_uk, CJT-80, Forum Admin, DaveM)