C
CAD
Guest
Very amusing letter from the Inland Revenue and published in the
Guardian....
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 fa?ade 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 medical logistics
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
Guardian....
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 fa?ade 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 medical logistics
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