please review the CIS monthly return deadline. My husband and I run a small building buisiness where we employ subcontractors on a regular basis. Each month we are required to send in a monthly return for the CIS tax. if we are late we get fined. however for a small one man office this means restictions i have had to plan house/office moves, illness! and holidays around this deadline so as not to incurr a fine.
we work hard during the spring to autumn season and take holidays and time off when we are naturally quiet. however we have to plan these breaks around the monthly tax deadline even if we have a £0 return, still needing to submit the relevant paperwork. this also means that we can spend no more than 4 weeks away from the computer and accounts. (i know this sounds a lot but we work continuously for 8 months of the year without break)
i use sage to generate my accounts and there is a 6 month opt out button but this is too long. please make this more small business friendly. we do not have the luxury of office cover.
Why is this idea important?
please review the CIS monthly return deadline. My husband and I run a small building buisiness where we employ subcontractors on a regular basis. Each month we are required to send in a monthly return for the CIS tax. if we are late we get fined. however for a small one man office this means restictions i have had to plan house/office moves, illness! and holidays around this deadline so as not to incurr a fine.
we work hard during the spring to autumn season and take holidays and time off when we are naturally quiet. however we have to plan these breaks around the monthly tax deadline even if we have a £0 return, still needing to submit the relevant paperwork. this also means that we can spend no more than 4 weeks away from the computer and accounts. (i know this sounds a lot but we work continuously for 8 months of the year without break)
i use sage to generate my accounts and there is a 6 month opt out button but this is too long. please make this more small business friendly. we do not have the luxury of office cover.
Stamp duty exemption for new Zero Carbon homes sounds like a good idea but…
It only applies to the first sale. Given that the vast majority of zero carbon homes are built by individuals and not by building companies stamp duty would have already been paid on the plot and there would never be a first sale.
This legislation is therefore a waste of paper as virtually no one will get the relief.
It would be more useful to give Stamp Duty relief to all Level 5 and Level 6 houses on every sale.
Why is this idea important?
Stamp duty exemption for new Zero Carbon homes sounds like a good idea but…
It only applies to the first sale. Given that the vast majority of zero carbon homes are built by individuals and not by building companies stamp duty would have already been paid on the plot and there would never be a first sale.
This legislation is therefore a waste of paper as virtually no one will get the relief.
It would be more useful to give Stamp Duty relief to all Level 5 and Level 6 houses on every sale.
Do not allow local authorities – or any other governmental bodies – to charge a tax for work place car parking.
Why is this idea important?
Do not allow local authorities – or any other governmental bodies – to charge a tax for work place car parking.
Make an easy form to fill in to recognise a company which has ceased trading as dormant.
Why is this idea important?
Make an easy form to fill in to recognise a company which has ceased trading as dormant.
Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times. That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.
Why is this idea important?
Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times. That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.
With the NHS suffering from dealing with obesity we have taken no real measures to stop this other than advertising to an unwilling public. We should raise taxes on both the producers and the consumers for "bad food". So for example if Burger King wish to sell bad food then they should pay for the privilege. Similarly the VAT should be supplemented on this type of food (whether based on sugar, fat or salt content or just by type ie burgers, chips etc). The funds should then be ploughed into the NHS for treating this kind of abuse. The govt has raised large amounts of tax from alcohol and cigarettes but not this latest danger.
Why is this idea important?
With the NHS suffering from dealing with obesity we have taken no real measures to stop this other than advertising to an unwilling public. We should raise taxes on both the producers and the consumers for "bad food". So for example if Burger King wish to sell bad food then they should pay for the privilege. Similarly the VAT should be supplemented on this type of food (whether based on sugar, fat or salt content or just by type ie burgers, chips etc). The funds should then be ploughed into the NHS for treating this kind of abuse. The govt has raised large amounts of tax from alcohol and cigarettes but not this latest danger.
Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.
The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.
Why is this idea important?
Alcohol, and tobacco, are both currently legal high type drugs, and are both scientifically proven to be not only dangerous to health, but are also highly addictive drug.
The legal authority to sell these drugs needs to be removed, and they need to be added to the list of drugs covered by the new emergency drug control 'Temporary 1 year ban whilst it is investigated' legislation.
it is incredibly unfair that the self- employed have to pay their income tax in advance. in january we have to make a payment based on the previous years figures despite earning it or not, not that we know what our profict ill be for that year until april arrives. this is the most unfair tax ever. we should be paying income tax on what we earn – not what the tax man thinks we might earn
Why is this idea important?
it is incredibly unfair that the self- employed have to pay their income tax in advance. in january we have to make a payment based on the previous years figures despite earning it or not, not that we know what our profict ill be for that year until april arrives. this is the most unfair tax ever. we should be paying income tax on what we earn – not what the tax man thinks we might earn
The pensions’ regime for high earners could be made a lot simpler. We suggest for HMRC approved schemes:
-
For DC schemes
-
Abolish the LTA
-
Limit the annual contribution to £40k
-
For DB schemes
-
Have a maximum final pensionable salary of £120,000
-
Have a maximum accrual rate of one sixtieth of final pensionable salary (thus the maximum annual accrual would be £2,000, which if we assume a multiplier of 20 is similar to the DC limit)
-
Have catch all anti avoidance rule so that if benefits are enhanced in the 5 years prior to retirement, the maximum value of the enhanced benefits is say £200k (using a transfer value calculation).
-
If a person has entitlements in both DB and DC pension plans, the above limits would be pro-rated.
This DC proposal mirrors the way the ISA limits operate.
The administration of those people who are at or around the DC LTA is complex. Our proposal removes this complication.
Our DB proposal assumes a multiplier of 20 – so is unattractive for some, e.g. those aged 40, who are likely to move to another company in the next 10 years, will tend to prefer a reasonable DC alternative if the company offers it.
To preserve the Government’s goal of fiscal neutrality, the £40k and £120k figures could be varied, but the over-riding principles above could be intact.
We would urge the reduction in the maximum combined income tax and NI rates (soon to be 52%) down to the previous level of 40% as soon as possible. High tax rates create scope for tax avoidance. Lower tax rates remove the incentive for tax avoidance and, as history teaches us, lead to higher tax revenues.
Knowledge of likely future tax rates is integral to pension and wealth planning. Hence, we believe these issues should be considered together.
Why is this idea important?
The pensions’ regime for high earners could be made a lot simpler. We suggest for HMRC approved schemes:
-
For DC schemes
-
Abolish the LTA
-
Limit the annual contribution to £40k
-
For DB schemes
-
Have a maximum final pensionable salary of £120,000
-
Have a maximum accrual rate of one sixtieth of final pensionable salary (thus the maximum annual accrual would be £2,000, which if we assume a multiplier of 20 is similar to the DC limit)
-
Have catch all anti avoidance rule so that if benefits are enhanced in the 5 years prior to retirement, the maximum value of the enhanced benefits is say £200k (using a transfer value calculation).
-
If a person has entitlements in both DB and DC pension plans, the above limits would be pro-rated.
This DC proposal mirrors the way the ISA limits operate.
The administration of those people who are at or around the DC LTA is complex. Our proposal removes this complication.
Our DB proposal assumes a multiplier of 20 – so is unattractive for some, e.g. those aged 40, who are likely to move to another company in the next 10 years, will tend to prefer a reasonable DC alternative if the company offers it.
To preserve the Government’s goal of fiscal neutrality, the £40k and £120k figures could be varied, but the over-riding principles above could be intact.
We would urge the reduction in the maximum combined income tax and NI rates (soon to be 52%) down to the previous level of 40% as soon as possible. High tax rates create scope for tax avoidance. Lower tax rates remove the incentive for tax avoidance and, as history teaches us, lead to higher tax revenues.
Knowledge of likely future tax rates is integral to pension and wealth planning. Hence, we believe these issues should be considered together.
Bring back tax relief on private medical insurance.
Why is this idea important?
Bring back tax relief on private medical insurance.
Give tax relief on private school fees/education costs.
Why is this idea important?
Give tax relief on private school fees/education costs.
I have just spent 15 minutes on the phone to HMRC PAYE section to enquire which box to tick to complete the direct debit form to pay PAYE electronically – as we are being pressured to do by HMRC. The phone was eventually answered after holding for 8 minutes and having explained the problem, the person at the other end of the phone just read from the website, which is why I telephoned in the first place as the website does not give enough explanation.
It seems that you can only make a payment plan when paying on direct debit, not pay the exact amount that is due. If my assumption is incorrect, then please enlighten me because I have wasted so much time on this that I have covered the cost of the cheques and postage for the next few years!
Come on powers to be – small businesses need to be able to access information quickly – not to go round and round the HMRC website because part of the direction to information is missing elsewhere, or sit and have to listen to the same "sorry to keep you holding" message when you ring up. No wonder so many small businessmen just don't bother to get it right
Why is this idea important?
I have just spent 15 minutes on the phone to HMRC PAYE section to enquire which box to tick to complete the direct debit form to pay PAYE electronically – as we are being pressured to do by HMRC. The phone was eventually answered after holding for 8 minutes and having explained the problem, the person at the other end of the phone just read from the website, which is why I telephoned in the first place as the website does not give enough explanation.
It seems that you can only make a payment plan when paying on direct debit, not pay the exact amount that is due. If my assumption is incorrect, then please enlighten me because I have wasted so much time on this that I have covered the cost of the cheques and postage for the next few years!
Come on powers to be – small businesses need to be able to access information quickly – not to go round and round the HMRC website because part of the direction to information is missing elsewhere, or sit and have to listen to the same "sorry to keep you holding" message when you ring up. No wonder so many small businessmen just don't bother to get it right
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
Why is this idea important?
Children should remain with their parents until factual evidence (not hearsay) has been tested in a closed Court with media attendance and a full Jury.
Children should never be removed from their parents for 'risk of emotional harm'. When children are removed from their parents they always experience emotional harm by the removal.
The 'balance of probability' test is against the parent's human rights of a fair trial and should be changed to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
No child should be taken away from their parent without full assessment. Where the local authority have significant concerns but have not proved their case with factual evidence, beyond reasonable doubt by Jury, the Judge should order a residential assessment of the family in an Independent Family Assessment Centre which the family must attend BEFORE removal of the child from the parent.
No member of the court advisory service, particularly the legal guardians who advise the court on the best interests of the child should have any form of direct or indirect interest in any kind of adoption agency.
If the Independent family assessment centre substantiates the concerns of the local authority, with testable evidence such as CCTV, within a 3 month period the evidence should be presented to the Court during an application to remove the children from the parents.
If the Jury in the application decide that the threshold of 'actual significant harm is proved beyond reasonble doubt' using the evidence of the Independent Family Assessment Centre a care order should be made, otherwise the case should be closed.
While the family attend the Independent Family Assessment Centre any kinship assessment should be carried out on friends and family to be alternative carers for the children, should the local authority achieve a care order. The family should be allowed to remain at the Family Assessment centre until the kinship assessments are complete.
Parents should be given the opportunity to allow themselves to be properly investigated for a maximum period of 3 months under a Supervision Order. During that period the child should remain with the parents. At the end of the 3 month period the Local Authority, if they still have concerns, should apply to the Court for an order for a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment, for a further 28 day Supervision Order.
EVERY application made in family proceedings should be made to a closed court with media attendance, a full Jury and 'proved beyond reasonable doubt'.
A Supervision Order should be granted if there is a proved RISK of harm.
A Care Order should be granted if there is proved harm.
If the Local Authority cannot prove Risk of harm or harm beyond reasonable doubt within a maximum of 12 months the case should be closed. If the Local Authority later, after closing a case, have further concerns regarding the safety of the children the closed files should be provided to the Court and Jury.
The local authority should work with the parent to overcome any concerns they have regarding the parent's care of the children. This should include funding for counselling, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, family assisstance, education, protection from domestic violence.
Interim Care Orders should be abolished.
No child should be adopted without the explicit consent of the parent.
Every foster carer should be in a position to offer long term fostering. Everytime a child needs to change foster carer/placement an opportunity should be given to the parent to prove thier circumstances have changed and they should be given a further opportunity of a 3 month Independent Residential Family Assessment.
A parent should be given the opportunity to make an application to end a Care Order as frequently as they wish. At each hearing the Local Authority will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the circumstances that caused the child harm have not significantly changed. If they fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt, to a Jurty the Court should Order a Supervision Order for a maximum of 3 months or a further 3 month Residential Family Assessment, or the case should be closed.
While it is necessary to protect the safety of children, it is also necessary to protect the sanctity of the family. It is necessary to protect the Human Rights of the children and parents. Current Child proceedings strip families of all their Human Rights. The secrecy of the Family Justice System breeds corruption. The unaccountablity of the Local Authority leads to abuses of power.
The public do not have any faith in government services nor the goverment to protect them in a moral and just society. The current proceedings warn people not to engage with government services due to the risk of having their children taken away. Mothers are giving birth alone through fear of having their babies taken at the hospital, families are living a life on the run as they are scared of being found and having their children taken from them, partners are suffering abusive relationships because they are scared the social services will take their children if they call anyone for help. Parents are not taking their children to the doctor because they are scared they will be accused of the injury to the child and their child will be removed. Parents are not seeking counselling or rehabilitation from addictions or assistance in a crisis.
The overwhelming message to parents due to the current care proceedings and social services procedures is AVOID ALL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AS THEY WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN.
The public are then learning about the child sexual abuse which seems to be rife amoungst those in positions of power. We learn about Operation Middleton, Operation Ore, Holly Grieg, Child Abuse in the Catholic Church, Haut de la Garenne, Operation Lentisk, Commission to Enquire into Child Abuse, The Waterhouse Report amongst many of the other horrifying reports and we come to the conclusion that our children are being stolen unlawfully and illegally for sinister reasons.
Through child stealing by the government and paedophiles in power the public are losing faith and trust in their government. The people are learning about secret societies, the New World Order, satanic ritual and lawful rebellion. We do not wish to be ruled by satan worshipping elite. We wish to live in a moral and just society. God save our queen!
I run a small restuarant and have been trading for just over a year. It has been hard to beat the ressesion but we are still paying the bills. For the 1st quarter of this financial year I registered for VAT. The overall running costs of a restuarant is high, staff, rent,rates, serevices in the region of £60k. As most of our purchases are non-vatable we cannot claim much back. We are a very seasonal business and do most of our trade in the summer. I was devistated when I was told my VAT bill is £4000 for the 1st Quarter of the year. All of our cashflow to help us through the winter has been eroded in this one bill. Surely this isn't a fair tax for a fairly new business who's turnover is going to be under £150k we are not even in a profit situation yet. We have now regerstered for the flat rate but that doesn't really help as we then can't claim any VAT back that we have paid so it works out that it is just in our favour but only by a few pounds. I can't see any help from the government in my situation.
There should be a fairer system for the small start up business possibly on a sliding scale for VAT.
Why is this idea important?
I run a small restuarant and have been trading for just over a year. It has been hard to beat the ressesion but we are still paying the bills. For the 1st quarter of this financial year I registered for VAT. The overall running costs of a restuarant is high, staff, rent,rates, serevices in the region of £60k. As most of our purchases are non-vatable we cannot claim much back. We are a very seasonal business and do most of our trade in the summer. I was devistated when I was told my VAT bill is £4000 for the 1st Quarter of the year. All of our cashflow to help us through the winter has been eroded in this one bill. Surely this isn't a fair tax for a fairly new business who's turnover is going to be under £150k we are not even in a profit situation yet. We have now regerstered for the flat rate but that doesn't really help as we then can't claim any VAT back that we have paid so it works out that it is just in our favour but only by a few pounds. I can't see any help from the government in my situation.
There should be a fairer system for the small start up business possibly on a sliding scale for VAT.
Income tax is a temporary (technically) tax which penalises hard work and savings (double taxation). Replacing it with VAT would make citizens' lives easier and also penalise consumption which would be a 'green' approach to take. Would enable VAT to include a resources element to make use of resources more expensive and keep items such as food etc cheaper.
Why is this idea important?
Income tax is a temporary (technically) tax which penalises hard work and savings (double taxation). Replacing it with VAT would make citizens' lives easier and also penalise consumption which would be a 'green' approach to take. Would enable VAT to include a resources element to make use of resources more expensive and keep items such as food etc cheaper.
Why not make calculation/payment of Capital Gains Tax more like betting tax where you could pay an amount on the purchase price OR on any gain. The advantages are much simpler for the citizen, govt gets some income earlier.
Why is this idea important?
Why not make calculation/payment of Capital Gains Tax more like betting tax where you could pay an amount on the purchase price OR on any gain. The advantages are much simpler for the citizen, govt gets some income earlier.
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
Why is this idea important?
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
You asked for money-saving ideas. I should like to ask the cost to H.M.R.C. of refunding VAT to overseas visitors, and (supplementary question) why we do it.
When I pay VAT in France or Germany, or the various sales tax equivalents in the U.S.A. there is no refund available to visitors.
The answer to my first question is the sum you can save straight away by removing this unnecessary concession
Why is this idea important?
You asked for money-saving ideas. I should like to ask the cost to H.M.R.C. of refunding VAT to overseas visitors, and (supplementary question) why we do it.
When I pay VAT in France or Germany, or the various sales tax equivalents in the U.S.A. there is no refund available to visitors.
The answer to my first question is the sum you can save straight away by removing this unnecessary concession
Being part of the European union why do we have limits of what we can buy and WHY is there no set in stone limits that makes it understandable without loosing your car and money!!.
It is so unclear that nobody knows or understands the rules..
Why is this idea important?
Being part of the European union why do we have limits of what we can buy and WHY is there no set in stone limits that makes it understandable without loosing your car and money!!.
It is so unclear that nobody knows or understands the rules..
I agree – I wrote to Margaret Thatcher during her 'reign' to request that this be considered – thinking that she (as a female prime minister) would be more sympathetic to this assumption that sanitary towels are a luxury item. Not so. VAT on sanitary towels and tampons should definitely be scrapped.
Why is this idea important?
I agree – I wrote to Margaret Thatcher during her 'reign' to request that this be considered – thinking that she (as a female prime minister) would be more sympathetic to this assumption that sanitary towels are a luxury item. Not so. VAT on sanitary towels and tampons should definitely be scrapped.
I agree with the main comment. My partner has recently started a business and the tax and PAYE systems he has had to get to grips with are complex and time consuming. In addition the amount of VAT and corporation tax he is being asked to pay as a small limited company is ridiculous. No incentive.
Why is this idea important?
I agree with the main comment. My partner has recently started a business and the tax and PAYE systems he has had to get to grips with are complex and time consuming. In addition the amount of VAT and corporation tax he is being asked to pay as a small limited company is ridiculous. No incentive.
The clause in the Electoral Law that removes the right of expatriates after 15 years' residence abroad should be repealed for those expatriates who pay UK tax.
The fundamental principle is: No Taxation Without Representation.
Every UK citizen who pays UK tax, no matter where residing, should have an inalienable right to participate in choosing the government that will decide the level of taxation.
This particularly affects expatriate pensioners whose pension and tax levels are both decided by governnent.
I have already broached this subject directly with the Justice Department and via my UK MP, but so far there has been no indication what the government's policy is concerning the voting rights of expatriates who pay UK tax on their income.
Why is this idea important?
The clause in the Electoral Law that removes the right of expatriates after 15 years' residence abroad should be repealed for those expatriates who pay UK tax.
The fundamental principle is: No Taxation Without Representation.
Every UK citizen who pays UK tax, no matter where residing, should have an inalienable right to participate in choosing the government that will decide the level of taxation.
This particularly affects expatriate pensioners whose pension and tax levels are both decided by governnent.
I have already broached this subject directly with the Justice Department and via my UK MP, but so far there has been no indication what the government's policy is concerning the voting rights of expatriates who pay UK tax on their income.
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
Why is this idea important?
I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them. in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.
ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.
IR35 is a perfect example of the tax system not being able to respond to changes in the economy or changes in the way people work.
HMRC are stuck in a world where everyone is either an employee or self employed but people don't work that way any more.
There are hundreds of thousands of 'contractors' in the UK. This word is not defined in tax law currently and does not sit well with the employed or self employed duality of HMRC. IR35 was a cack-handed attempt to address this gap (and grab some extra tax by enforcing it in a bullying draconian way at the same time!).
What is a contractor?
– They are NOT employees – they do not have a salary (they invoice for their time like any other supplier), they ave no benefits (no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, no employee discounts etc). They find their own work on a fixed term basis and negotiate their rates directly with the client.
– They are NOT the same as Temps. Contractors tend to be knowledge workers in IT, Financial Services, HR, Retail etc. They tend to be highly paid in terms of day rate.
– They work through their own legal entity, Ltd company or partnership. This means that they pay and collect VAT, run their own payroll, keep company accounts, take out liability insurance etc.
– Some employ others but most work on their own (what the Professional Contractors Group refers to as micro-businesses).
– They work at risk – taking responsibility for their own errors, building up reserves to cover periods where there is no work etc.
IR35 was an attempt to define what constituted employment. It is a complete failure for many reasons:
1) The rules are too vague and open to interpretation. If you pay PAYE you know how much you have to pay each month and you pay it. With IR35 HMRC can decide to investigate you at any time and apply the rules as the local inspector sees fit.
2) It fails to recognise that people do not go contracting soley to avoid tax. They do it for a number of reasons – Freedom from control, flexibility, better rates of pay and they are willing to give up all the benefits and security of being an employee to achieve that.
3) HMRC cannot see beyond employed or self employed and does not understand the contract market or the way they work.
What is required?
Define the contracting in statute as a new employment type and tax rules and rates that apply.
This definition should be:
An individual that engages in work on behalf of a client for a daily rate for an extendible fixed term and without receipt of any employee benefits (sick pay, holiday pay, life cover, medical benefits, pension, employee discounts, overtime, Notice period). The individual must perform the functions of a supplier and must submit invoices, have the necessary insurances in place and provide fully audit-able accounts and returns.
If this definition is met then the individual is a contractor and can remunerate themselves as allowed for the entity which they work through e.g. if a Ltd company then by salary, dividends and bonus as required. Tax will be paid in the dividends, salary and bonus as currently with the Ltd company paying corporation tax.
Dividends from contracting companies should be paid at a 40% rate instead of the 32% rate to bring it in to line with other earnings. National Insurance would not be payable but obviously the 20% corporation tax on the profits will make up the majority of that difference. Dividends should be able to be split between husband and wife as recently up held at the court of appeal (The Arctic systems case).
Why is this idea important?
IR35 is a perfect example of the tax system not being able to respond to changes in the economy or changes in the way people work.
HMRC are stuck in a world where everyone is either an employee or self employed but people don't work that way any more.
There are hundreds of thousands of 'contractors' in the UK. This word is not defined in tax law currently and does not sit well with the employed or self employed duality of HMRC. IR35 was a cack-handed attempt to address this gap (and grab some extra tax by enforcing it in a bullying draconian way at the same time!).
What is a contractor?
– They are NOT employees – they do not have a salary (they invoice for their time like any other supplier), they ave no benefits (no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, no employee discounts etc). They find their own work on a fixed term basis and negotiate their rates directly with the client.
– They are NOT the same as Temps. Contractors tend to be knowledge workers in IT, Financial Services, HR, Retail etc. They tend to be highly paid in terms of day rate.
– They work through their own legal entity, Ltd company or partnership. This means that they pay and collect VAT, run their own payroll, keep company accounts, take out liability insurance etc.
– Some employ others but most work on their own (what the Professional Contractors Group refers to as micro-businesses).
– They work at risk – taking responsibility for their own errors, building up reserves to cover periods where there is no work etc.
IR35 was an attempt to define what constituted employment. It is a complete failure for many reasons:
1) The rules are too vague and open to interpretation. If you pay PAYE you know how much you have to pay each month and you pay it. With IR35 HMRC can decide to investigate you at any time and apply the rules as the local inspector sees fit.
2) It fails to recognise that people do not go contracting soley to avoid tax. They do it for a number of reasons – Freedom from control, flexibility, better rates of pay and they are willing to give up all the benefits and security of being an employee to achieve that.
3) HMRC cannot see beyond employed or self employed and does not understand the contract market or the way they work.
What is required?
Define the contracting in statute as a new employment type and tax rules and rates that apply.
This definition should be:
An individual that engages in work on behalf of a client for a daily rate for an extendible fixed term and without receipt of any employee benefits (sick pay, holiday pay, life cover, medical benefits, pension, employee discounts, overtime, Notice period). The individual must perform the functions of a supplier and must submit invoices, have the necessary insurances in place and provide fully audit-able accounts and returns.
If this definition is met then the individual is a contractor and can remunerate themselves as allowed for the entity which they work through e.g. if a Ltd company then by salary, dividends and bonus as required. Tax will be paid in the dividends, salary and bonus as currently with the Ltd company paying corporation tax.
Dividends from contracting companies should be paid at a 40% rate instead of the 32% rate to bring it in to line with other earnings. National Insurance would not be payable but obviously the 20% corporation tax on the profits will make up the majority of that difference. Dividends should be able to be split between husband and wife as recently up held at the court of appeal (The Arctic systems case).
in january when vat hits 20% this will im sure put alot of hairdressing business's unable to afford to stay trading, thus job losses. not good in the climate as it is. if they allow a vat cut to hairdressing or ( raise the threshold of vat ) this would make all the diffrence, as most have said its working in the EU why not here! im sure with all the money these people are paid in goverment someone should be able to make things fair, or is it still the old saying money goes to money.
Why is this idea important?
in january when vat hits 20% this will im sure put alot of hairdressing business's unable to afford to stay trading, thus job losses. not good in the climate as it is. if they allow a vat cut to hairdressing or ( raise the threshold of vat ) this would make all the diffrence, as most have said its working in the EU why not here! im sure with all the money these people are paid in goverment someone should be able to make things fair, or is it still the old saying money goes to money.