Letter: Why different taxmen for the Queen and I?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: You report ('US firm takes over tax records', 23 May) that, after the forthcoming privatisation of part of the Inland Revenue, day-to-day control of the personal tax records of British citizens will be given to a United States company. Apparently an Inland Revenue spokeswoman said that the majority of the 2,000 staff involved would become employees of that company, but a few hundred would remain to run tax records for the Queen and other public figures such as MPs and judges.
I sincerely hope that your correspondent has it wrong. Surely, if the confidentiality of the proposed arrangements is good enough for the likes of me, it is good enough for these 'public figures'? If not, why is it thought to be good enough for ordinary people?
Yours sincerely,
R. M. GAZE
Edinburgh
23 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments