- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 44,649
Taken from the Guardian, an actual letter sent by the
Inland Revenue:
Dear Mr Addison,
I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more
than prompt reply to our latest communication, and also to
answer some of the points you raise. I will address them,
as ever, in order. Firstly, I must take issue with your
description of our last as a "begging letter". It might
perhaps more properly be referred to as a "tax demand".
This is how we, at the Inland Revenue have always, for
reasons of accuracy; traditionally referred to such
documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless
stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily
through the letterbox on to the doormat" has been noted.
However, whilst I have naturally not seen the other letters
to which you refer I would cautiously suggest that their
being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses
and pissant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your
decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of
emergencies" is at best a little ill-advised. In common
with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders
of these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin” or, come
to that, a "sodding charity". More likely they see you as a
citizen of Great Britain, with a responsibility to
contribute to the upkeep of the nation as a whole.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some
spirit of truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay
"go to shore up the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is
the Public Services", a moment's rudimentary calculation
ought to disabuse you of the notion that the government in
any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned
party" yourself. The estimates you provide for the
Chancellor's disbursement of the funds levied by taxation,
whilst colourful, are, in fairness, a little off the mark.
Less than you seem to imagine is spent on "junkets for
Bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores" whilst far
more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for
example, "that box-ticking façade of a university system."
A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:
1. The reason we don't simply write "Muggins" on the
envelope has to do with the vagaries of the postal system;
2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of
those with nothing else to give" has never been considered
as a practice because even if the Personal Allowance didn't
render it irrelevant, the sheer medicallogistics involved
would make it financially unviable.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would
not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or
the other, I ought to point out that even if you did choose
to "give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in
India" you would still owe us the money.
Please forward it by Friday.
Yours Sincerely,
H J Lee
Customer Relations
Inland Revenue:
Dear Mr Addison,
I am writing to you to express our thanks for your more
than prompt reply to our latest communication, and also to
answer some of the points you raise. I will address them,
as ever, in order. Firstly, I must take issue with your
description of our last as a "begging letter". It might
perhaps more properly be referred to as a "tax demand".
This is how we, at the Inland Revenue have always, for
reasons of accuracy; traditionally referred to such
documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the "endless
stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited daily
through the letterbox on to the doormat" has been noted.
However, whilst I have naturally not seen the other letters
to which you refer I would cautiously suggest that their
being from "pauper councils, Lombardy pirate banking houses
and pissant gas-mongerers" might indicate that your
decision to "file them next to the toilet in case of
emergencies" is at best a little ill-advised. In common
with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders
of these letters do see you as a "lackwit bumpkin” or, come
to that, a "sodding charity". More likely they see you as a
citizen of Great Britain, with a responsibility to
contribute to the upkeep of the nation as a whole.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some
spirit of truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay
"go to shore up the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is
the Public Services", a moment's rudimentary calculation
ought to disabuse you of the notion that the government in
any way expects you to "stump up for the whole damned
party" yourself. The estimates you provide for the
Chancellor's disbursement of the funds levied by taxation,
whilst colourful, are, in fairness, a little off the mark.
Less than you seem to imagine is spent on "junkets for
Bunterish lickspittles" and "dancing whores" whilst far
more than you have accounted for is allocated to, for
example, "that box-ticking façade of a university system."
A couple of technical points arising from direct queries:
1. The reason we don't simply write "Muggins" on the
envelope has to do with the vagaries of the postal system;
2. You can rest assured that "sucking the very marrows of
those with nothing else to give" has never been considered
as a practice because even if the Personal Allowance didn't
render it irrelevant, the sheer medicallogistics involved
would make it financially unviable.
I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would
not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or
the other, I ought to point out that even if you did choose
to "give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in
India" you would still owe us the money.
Please forward it by Friday.
Yours Sincerely,
H J Lee
Customer Relations
