Make Accountants Accountable

Make accountants accountable and liable for late Company account submissions in place of the company where accounts have been submitted to them in good time.  It appears that an increasing number of accountants all over the country are  driving their clients into statutory penalties by submitting company accounts beyond the deadlines.  

As fee charging professionals they escape scot free while a company receives a fine and a 'black mark' . It is not practical to terminate the agreement with the accountants close to the deadline as the subsequent accountancy firm will have no time to submit the data in time. Where accountants and auditors do this they should take the whole blame in place of the company. 

 Where a company can show simply and clearly that the accountants have received the accounts in good time. The the complete blame and penalty should be shifted to the accountants. The same should apply to tax returns.

Why is this idea important?

Make accountants accountable and liable for late Company account submissions in place of the company where accounts have been submitted to them in good time.  It appears that an increasing number of accountants all over the country are  driving their clients into statutory penalties by submitting company accounts beyond the deadlines.  

As fee charging professionals they escape scot free while a company receives a fine and a 'black mark' . It is not practical to terminate the agreement with the accountants close to the deadline as the subsequent accountancy firm will have no time to submit the data in time. Where accountants and auditors do this they should take the whole blame in place of the company. 

 Where a company can show simply and clearly that the accountants have received the accounts in good time. The the complete blame and penalty should be shifted to the accountants. The same should apply to tax returns.

Vet Bills and VAT

Why is it neccessary to charge VAT on vet bills, I have just had another one of my ponies laid to rest, and on the bill it states euthinasia plus VAT, if I was to add up all the VAT that I have paid over the years, for horses dogs cats etc it would come to thousands, some people can hardly afford to take thier pets to a vet so we are seeing more and more abandoned and left to suffer, a reduction in the cost of the actual bill would be good, I know there are places out there where you can get your pet seen to for free but that is only if you are on benefits so if you are in a low paid job there is no extra cash, to most people thier pets are part of thier family so to try and rehome them would be heart breaking, come on stop VAT on poor defensless animals.

Why is this idea important?

Why is it neccessary to charge VAT on vet bills, I have just had another one of my ponies laid to rest, and on the bill it states euthinasia plus VAT, if I was to add up all the VAT that I have paid over the years, for horses dogs cats etc it would come to thousands, some people can hardly afford to take thier pets to a vet so we are seeing more and more abandoned and left to suffer, a reduction in the cost of the actual bill would be good, I know there are places out there where you can get your pet seen to for free but that is only if you are on benefits so if you are in a low paid job there is no extra cash, to most people thier pets are part of thier family so to try and rehome them would be heart breaking, come on stop VAT on poor defensless animals.

Simplify collection of duty on red diesel for boats

Either abolish the extra propulsion duty or introduce a flat rate for red diesel supplied to pleasure boats (eg on canals) . The current system of boaters declaring any proportion they wish and each supplier applying the regultions as they see fit is complicated, confusing and inconsistent. Small business do not have the time to negotiate the rate for each sale of fuel, and more to the point should not have to.

Why is this idea important?

Either abolish the extra propulsion duty or introduce a flat rate for red diesel supplied to pleasure boats (eg on canals) . The current system of boaters declaring any proportion they wish and each supplier applying the regultions as they see fit is complicated, confusing and inconsistent. Small business do not have the time to negotiate the rate for each sale of fuel, and more to the point should not have to.

Scrap Tax Exempt Status for Religion

Currently, money made by religions does not have tax. This is wrong. It is quite clear that some religions are run like businesses, and that this tax-exempt status merely helps rob the country and put more money into the hands of the rich.

The Archbishop of Canterbury lives in a palace, and owns two other homes. It is clearly wrong that he should have bought these homes with money that was tax-less.

We need to be secular, and stop pandering to religions.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, money made by religions does not have tax. This is wrong. It is quite clear that some religions are run like businesses, and that this tax-exempt status merely helps rob the country and put more money into the hands of the rich.

The Archbishop of Canterbury lives in a palace, and owns two other homes. It is clearly wrong that he should have bought these homes with money that was tax-less.

We need to be secular, and stop pandering to religions.

speed up E101 applications, so the self employed can work unrestricted in the eu.

At the beginning of 2010 I was offered a contract in Sweden running march until dec. but i required an E101 to take it, My application took 13 weeks to process! In this time the company took on someone from holland instead as they take less than 24 hours to do the same paper work! this would have been worth 6.5k a month to my company and so aprox 2k a month to the tax man. for 9 months, thats 18k lost to your Gov. because of this delay at hm customs and rev!

I would also like HM customs and Revenue to be treated the same way as any other business would be! we should be able to hold them accountable for there errors! They are lightning fast to strike down on any one who does wrong by them, yet we cant touch them when they cause us massive losses.

Why is this idea important?

At the beginning of 2010 I was offered a contract in Sweden running march until dec. but i required an E101 to take it, My application took 13 weeks to process! In this time the company took on someone from holland instead as they take less than 24 hours to do the same paper work! this would have been worth 6.5k a month to my company and so aprox 2k a month to the tax man. for 9 months, thats 18k lost to your Gov. because of this delay at hm customs and rev!

I would also like HM customs and Revenue to be treated the same way as any other business would be! we should be able to hold them accountable for there errors! They are lightning fast to strike down on any one who does wrong by them, yet we cant touch them when they cause us massive losses.

Rewarding Ethical Companies Using The Tax System

I would like to propose the government considers making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

This provides a way for government to remove a raft of regulation and legislation while at the same time allowing businesses that treat their stakeholders well an opportunity to leverage their ethical behaviour so that it translates to the balance sheet.

 

By stakeholders in a business, I mean shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees, the environment and the community.

 

At the moment, the only measure of a company's success is the balance sheet. This determines the share price and thus the way the markets perceive a company. The only way a Government can truly influence this is through taxation and the best way governments can ensure ethics are maintained in business is by making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

Governments should empower organisations such as Trade Unions, Environmental Groups, Supplier Organisations, Local Councils, and Consumer Groups to set up ethical behaviour standards that represent what they consider the ethical way to conduct business. Government itself should also maintain a certification scheme that allows it to act against excessive bonuses and reward companies that employ people in development areas.

If a business meets these standards and gains certification, then that business should be exempted from a proportion of their tax bill – thus improving their balance sheet, profits and share price. A particularly good company that consistently achieves the highest ethical standards should therefore pay little or no tax.

The external bodies would be allowed to charge for certification so that they would be able to afford the resources to run them properly. It is also possible to allow different certification bodies to compete with each other over certification. E.g. Different Trade Unions could all offer their own schemes as could different environmental charities.

Companies would not be forced to accept expensive, over the top schemes because if a particular certification was too onerous, the companies would just choose to pay the tax instead.

However, it would introduce ethical frameworks that had a direct impact on share prices.

 

Sharp business practice is contagious. When a company discovers a way to cut costs at the expense of a stakeholder, they are able to compete that much more effectively against companies that try to uphold a higher standard of ethics. Of course, when there is a sufficient public outcry over a particular practice, governments and regulators have moved to legislate against it. Sadly they too often find that there is little they can do to stop it or it is too late to save some businesses.

One particular safeguard for the system to work is a strengthening of tax evasion legislation and punishments to make key executives directly accountable for making sure they are following the rules of the system and are being honest in all their dealings surrounding certifications.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to propose the government considers making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

This provides a way for government to remove a raft of regulation and legislation while at the same time allowing businesses that treat their stakeholders well an opportunity to leverage their ethical behaviour so that it translates to the balance sheet.

 

By stakeholders in a business, I mean shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees, the environment and the community.

 

At the moment, the only measure of a company's success is the balance sheet. This determines the share price and thus the way the markets perceive a company. The only way a Government can truly influence this is through taxation and the best way governments can ensure ethics are maintained in business is by making corporate taxation voluntary.

 

Governments should empower organisations such as Trade Unions, Environmental Groups, Supplier Organisations, Local Councils, and Consumer Groups to set up ethical behaviour standards that represent what they consider the ethical way to conduct business. Government itself should also maintain a certification scheme that allows it to act against excessive bonuses and reward companies that employ people in development areas.

If a business meets these standards and gains certification, then that business should be exempted from a proportion of their tax bill – thus improving their balance sheet, profits and share price. A particularly good company that consistently achieves the highest ethical standards should therefore pay little or no tax.

The external bodies would be allowed to charge for certification so that they would be able to afford the resources to run them properly. It is also possible to allow different certification bodies to compete with each other over certification. E.g. Different Trade Unions could all offer their own schemes as could different environmental charities.

Companies would not be forced to accept expensive, over the top schemes because if a particular certification was too onerous, the companies would just choose to pay the tax instead.

However, it would introduce ethical frameworks that had a direct impact on share prices.

 

Sharp business practice is contagious. When a company discovers a way to cut costs at the expense of a stakeholder, they are able to compete that much more effectively against companies that try to uphold a higher standard of ethics. Of course, when there is a sufficient public outcry over a particular practice, governments and regulators have moved to legislate against it. Sadly they too often find that there is little they can do to stop it or it is too late to save some businesses.

One particular safeguard for the system to work is a strengthening of tax evasion legislation and punishments to make key executives directly accountable for making sure they are following the rules of the system and are being honest in all their dealings surrounding certifications.

Simplify Benefits System

First establish how much a person needs to live on. Allow anybody to claim this amount, no extras for lots of different things, one amount only. If you claim you agree to repay this amount as part of the tax system at an additional 50% of earnings until repaid. If you do not wish to claim it then you pay normal tax rates.

Example :-

Amount needed to live on £5000 per year

Tax at an additional 50% on first £10000 of earning, reducing to normal taxation rates when repaid.

So a person claims there allowance @ £5000

They earn £8000 per year

They repay £4000 (50% of £8000 earning)

They have a take home income of £9000 (£8000 + £5000 – £4000)

The figures above are only an example.

Why is this idea important?

First establish how much a person needs to live on. Allow anybody to claim this amount, no extras for lots of different things, one amount only. If you claim you agree to repay this amount as part of the tax system at an additional 50% of earnings until repaid. If you do not wish to claim it then you pay normal tax rates.

Example :-

Amount needed to live on £5000 per year

Tax at an additional 50% on first £10000 of earning, reducing to normal taxation rates when repaid.

So a person claims there allowance @ £5000

They earn £8000 per year

They repay £4000 (50% of £8000 earning)

They have a take home income of £9000 (£8000 + £5000 – £4000)

The figures above are only an example.

VAT – B2B

I think there is a need to scrap VAT on B2B, as the treasury  will not benefit from these transactions, in fact it will cost money as allot of small businesses will register for a flat VAT rate and pay back as little as 9%, on top of that the cost of processing these transactions.

 VAT should apply to end consumer only, benefits

1.  VAT is simpler to the Treasury and Business alike

2. Reduce fraud 

3. Make more money

and allot more……

Why is this idea important?

I think there is a need to scrap VAT on B2B, as the treasury  will not benefit from these transactions, in fact it will cost money as allot of small businesses will register for a flat VAT rate and pay back as little as 9%, on top of that the cost of processing these transactions.

 VAT should apply to end consumer only, benefits

1.  VAT is simpler to the Treasury and Business alike

2. Reduce fraud 

3. Make more money

and allot more……

Road Tax and Mandatory 3rd Party Car Insurance

Abolish road tax.

Add cost to petrol, this will force all road users to pay on a 'pay as you drive basis'.

This will surly cut the cost of the DVLA.

Add the cost of mandatory third party car insurance to the cost of fuel. EVERYBODY will be insured. You can TOP UP your insurance to fully comp if you wish.

No more police asking to check your insurance as you have it automatically!! The redundant people at the DVLA due to abolishing road tax can now deal with insurence 3rd party claims!

 

Sorry about any speeling mistakes but I am working.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish road tax.

Add cost to petrol, this will force all road users to pay on a 'pay as you drive basis'.

This will surly cut the cost of the DVLA.

Add the cost of mandatory third party car insurance to the cost of fuel. EVERYBODY will be insured. You can TOP UP your insurance to fully comp if you wish.

No more police asking to check your insurance as you have it automatically!! The redundant people at the DVLA due to abolishing road tax can now deal with insurence 3rd party claims!

 

Sorry about any speeling mistakes but I am working.

Abolish or complete IR35 regulations

As a contractor, I fall within the IR35 regulations, which means I get classed as an full time employee in order to  pay full PAYE tax,  but get no benefits such as holiday/sickness pay and can have my wages reduced with no consultation (as recently happened) with a take it or leave it attitude on by the employer (the government by the way).

If i'm classed by tax man as a permanent employee, then I should also benefit form the protection they have,

Refer to following link fo rmore information around this purely money grabbing bit of legislation:

http://www.contractorcalculator.co.uk/contractors_inside_ir35_employment_rights.aspx

Why is this idea important?

As a contractor, I fall within the IR35 regulations, which means I get classed as an full time employee in order to  pay full PAYE tax,  but get no benefits such as holiday/sickness pay and can have my wages reduced with no consultation (as recently happened) with a take it or leave it attitude on by the employer (the government by the way).

If i'm classed by tax man as a permanent employee, then I should also benefit form the protection they have,

Refer to following link fo rmore information around this purely money grabbing bit of legislation:

http://www.contractorcalculator.co.uk/contractors_inside_ir35_employment_rights.aspx

Cut Corporation Tax on first £10000 for small companies

If corporation tax was cut on the first £10000 for small companies (say up to £250000 turnover),it would allow those companies to put back some of their profit into the business to help them grow, perhaps even creating jobs.

Why is this idea important?

If corporation tax was cut on the first £10000 for small companies (say up to £250000 turnover),it would allow those companies to put back some of their profit into the business to help them grow, perhaps even creating jobs.

Double Taxation on Start Up Capital

Has anyone noticed that an entrepreneur is taxed twice on start up capital?

Once at the point of the income source ie capital gains and/or income tax.  Again when a small business owner draws a living wage that is then subject to PAYE.

My business a mineral exploration firm will not make profit until years 3 – 5.  All capital invested for exploration activities has been self funded to date, yet I am paying PAYE on the monies I have previously paid Capital Gains on.

Why is this idea important?

Has anyone noticed that an entrepreneur is taxed twice on start up capital?

Once at the point of the income source ie capital gains and/or income tax.  Again when a small business owner draws a living wage that is then subject to PAYE.

My business a mineral exploration firm will not make profit until years 3 – 5.  All capital invested for exploration activities has been self funded to date, yet I am paying PAYE on the monies I have previously paid Capital Gains on.

EMPLOYMENT STATUS RIDICULOUS

'Employment status' is a way that the government has gained control of people's lives, by making employers decide whether the person they are paying for a job is to be employed or is self -employed. 

In fact this policy has been made up as it has progressed over the years. We were investigated about 10 years ago by some tax officers, who did not tell us what they initially wanted. 

They infiltrated our lives and asked us personal questions about how we ran our business. Their aim, as it transpired, was to fine us and they did, £12,000, for labourers who worked for us for a week, or two weeks or 3 months. In fact they went back over the last 4 years, as far , as I can remember. They contacted the people who had done the work and spoke to them , as well. 

The criteria for self-employment at the time, was to have your van sign written. We have a van and have never had it sign written!!! and there is no arguement that we are self-employed, as we are main contractors in the building industry and registered employers. 

The other criterias have been made up, as tax officials dilberate about how to get their next victim. One of the criteria being that a self-employed person would use large tools, what (without swearing) does this mean. A plasterer, for example, has a trowl, brush and bucket. 'Sorry this istn't large tools madam' and they arn't self-employed.

We asked at the time why we were being targeted and why didn't they investigate large companies, like McAlpines. The officer I asked this question to, laughed at me, and said that 'you don't think we could investigate McAlpines do you, they are too big a company and it would take years'!!! GREAT. 

So they investigated us becuase we are a small business and venerable and can't afford big accountant and soilicitors fees. 

GET RID OF THIS RIDICULOUS, OBSTRUCTIVE, BIG BROTHER, SORRY YOU CAN'T WORK ATTITUDE. FREE ENTERPRISE PLEASE. LET US GET ON WITH OUR JOB. 

I hear from government that a new 'get you little people' policy has been proposed and basically, for the construction industry, you are not self-employed now unless you have people working for you. SORRY BUT WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH. Barristers, Solicitors, consultants, surveyors, blacksmiths, etc etc etc BEWARE you'll be next.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN FREEDOM , GIVE US BACK OUR RIGHTS AND OUR COUNTRY , IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. SEE YOU IN CHINA!!!!

Why is this idea important?

'Employment status' is a way that the government has gained control of people's lives, by making employers decide whether the person they are paying for a job is to be employed or is self -employed. 

In fact this policy has been made up as it has progressed over the years. We were investigated about 10 years ago by some tax officers, who did not tell us what they initially wanted. 

They infiltrated our lives and asked us personal questions about how we ran our business. Their aim, as it transpired, was to fine us and they did, £12,000, for labourers who worked for us for a week, or two weeks or 3 months. In fact they went back over the last 4 years, as far , as I can remember. They contacted the people who had done the work and spoke to them , as well. 

The criteria for self-employment at the time, was to have your van sign written. We have a van and have never had it sign written!!! and there is no arguement that we are self-employed, as we are main contractors in the building industry and registered employers. 

The other criterias have been made up, as tax officials dilberate about how to get their next victim. One of the criteria being that a self-employed person would use large tools, what (without swearing) does this mean. A plasterer, for example, has a trowl, brush and bucket. 'Sorry this istn't large tools madam' and they arn't self-employed.

We asked at the time why we were being targeted and why didn't they investigate large companies, like McAlpines. The officer I asked this question to, laughed at me, and said that 'you don't think we could investigate McAlpines do you, they are too big a company and it would take years'!!! GREAT. 

So they investigated us becuase we are a small business and venerable and can't afford big accountant and soilicitors fees. 

GET RID OF THIS RIDICULOUS, OBSTRUCTIVE, BIG BROTHER, SORRY YOU CAN'T WORK ATTITUDE. FREE ENTERPRISE PLEASE. LET US GET ON WITH OUR JOB. 

I hear from government that a new 'get you little people' policy has been proposed and basically, for the construction industry, you are not self-employed now unless you have people working for you. SORRY BUT WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH. Barristers, Solicitors, consultants, surveyors, blacksmiths, etc etc etc BEWARE you'll be next.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN FREEDOM , GIVE US BACK OUR RIGHTS AND OUR COUNTRY , IMMEDIATELY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. SEE YOU IN CHINA!!!!

Stop making private and personal details completely public

I typed my name into a search engine and one of the first results was a site on personal data, where it lists peoples addresses over the last 10 years, ages, directorships, phone numbers, people they have lived with etc. The electoral details can now be made private. The phone details can be ex directory. The directors details however are an anomoly and the age of the director is still readily available and renders the subject open to ID theft. My date of birth is private, I do not want it exposed online for all and sundry to see without restriction or audit. We are told not to reveal our private details on social networking sites, so why does Companies House insist on giving away the same details for others to publish online free of charge. I insist that my personal details be held at Companies House and are only available to anyone with a legitimate interest in credit checking – i.e. checking a Director’s credit should be subject to the same levels of security as checking a person’s personal credit via credit reference agencies. Insititutionalised ID theft risks are totally unacceptable.

Why is this idea important?

I typed my name into a search engine and one of the first results was a site on personal data, where it lists peoples addresses over the last 10 years, ages, directorships, phone numbers, people they have lived with etc. The electoral details can now be made private. The phone details can be ex directory. The directors details however are an anomoly and the age of the director is still readily available and renders the subject open to ID theft. My date of birth is private, I do not want it exposed online for all and sundry to see without restriction or audit. We are told not to reveal our private details on social networking sites, so why does Companies House insist on giving away the same details for others to publish online free of charge. I insist that my personal details be held at Companies House and are only available to anyone with a legitimate interest in credit checking – i.e. checking a Director’s credit should be subject to the same levels of security as checking a person’s personal credit via credit reference agencies. Insititutionalised ID theft risks are totally unacceptable.

Gift Aid reform for charities

Gift Aid helped to transform voluntary giving. By replacing the legalistic Deed of Covenant system, it enabled millions more people to give donations to charity that were tax efficient and brought millions of more pounds into charities.

However, it is still an administrative headache for charities to operate and they still miss out on thousands of potential Gift Aided donations from people who, for whatever reason, fail to make a Gift Aid declaration.

Also, Gift Aid currently misses out the extra income that could come in from higher tax rate payers.

I propose two things, neither new, but both still waiting to be implemented:

1. That Gift Aid becomes an "opt out" system, rather than opt in. This will increase Gift Aid revenue for charities and make administering Gift Aid far simpler, thereby reducing charities' costs.

2. Charities can claim the Gift Aid for the higher rates, as well as the basic.

Why is this idea important?

Gift Aid helped to transform voluntary giving. By replacing the legalistic Deed of Covenant system, it enabled millions more people to give donations to charity that were tax efficient and brought millions of more pounds into charities.

However, it is still an administrative headache for charities to operate and they still miss out on thousands of potential Gift Aided donations from people who, for whatever reason, fail to make a Gift Aid declaration.

Also, Gift Aid currently misses out the extra income that could come in from higher tax rate payers.

I propose two things, neither new, but both still waiting to be implemented:

1. That Gift Aid becomes an "opt out" system, rather than opt in. This will increase Gift Aid revenue for charities and make administering Gift Aid far simpler, thereby reducing charities' costs.

2. Charities can claim the Gift Aid for the higher rates, as well as the basic.

Scrap Payment on Account

Payment on Account for small businesses is a killer. For instance if you had a better year last year than this, you still have to pay tax in advance based on last year's profits, and then claim it back the following year. It's madness – guilty until proven innocent!

Why is this idea important?

Payment on Account for small businesses is a killer. For instance if you had a better year last year than this, you still have to pay tax in advance based on last year's profits, and then claim it back the following year. It's madness – guilty until proven innocent!

End tax reliefs and favourable treatment for Buy- to-Let

abolish the tax reliefs available to buy to let landlords (such as mortgage interest, etc), I would also advocate introducing new taxes.   Did you know we spend more on this than we do on social housing, how can that be right or justifiable?

Why is this idea important?

abolish the tax reliefs available to buy to let landlords (such as mortgage interest, etc), I would also advocate introducing new taxes.   Did you know we spend more on this than we do on social housing, how can that be right or justifiable?

Performance Tax

I think we should device performance taxation system for very high earner jobs which attract and affect public interest such as  footballers and bankers.Their taxes should be linked to their performance which means that if they failed to deliver high performance they should pay higher taxation 80%. On the other hand if they delivered good performance, worthy of their income, they will pay the usual rate for high income.  For instance they should pay higher taxation if their teams lose matches or their organisation lost in profit. After all, they get paid this large amount of money because they are supposed to be good in what they are doing and if they failed to prove that, they should refund some of this money back as taxes.i.e if anybody did not supply a service which they were paid to supply, they should refund the money back. We can call it 'performance taxation'and it only apply to certain jobs with income >1.5 million/year. This will really motivate them to achives higher standards e.g train harder and try to perform well toI keep their wealth.If we did this here, the whole of Europe will follow. This will be win win situation to the country. If they perform well, the country will benefit from their performance and if not the country will benefit from their tax money.

Why is this idea important?

I think we should device performance taxation system for very high earner jobs which attract and affect public interest such as  footballers and bankers.Their taxes should be linked to their performance which means that if they failed to deliver high performance they should pay higher taxation 80%. On the other hand if they delivered good performance, worthy of their income, they will pay the usual rate for high income.  For instance they should pay higher taxation if their teams lose matches or their organisation lost in profit. After all, they get paid this large amount of money because they are supposed to be good in what they are doing and if they failed to prove that, they should refund some of this money back as taxes.i.e if anybody did not supply a service which they were paid to supply, they should refund the money back. We can call it 'performance taxation'and it only apply to certain jobs with income >1.5 million/year. This will really motivate them to achives higher standards e.g train harder and try to perform well toI keep their wealth.If we did this here, the whole of Europe will follow. This will be win win situation to the country. If they perform well, the country will benefit from their performance and if not the country will benefit from their tax money.

Flat rate of tax for contractors

There are nearly 1.5 million independent consultants in the IT industry and many more in other industries who spend a lot of time and money trying to keep up with the ever changing and ever more complex tax system.  I believe that it is time to simplify matters for all concerned.

I believe that this could be achieved by introducing a flat rate of taxation for all independent consultants earning under the large company threshold.  This could be set at 22% (with a guarantee of no increase for 3 years and a maximum tax level to be preset) on all income (no personal allowances) to include NI up to a threshold of £300,000 (at which they would be adjudged a large company).

Make it deductible at source (by the agencies through which they contract or by the client if on a direct contract).

Why is this idea important?

There are nearly 1.5 million independent consultants in the IT industry and many more in other industries who spend a lot of time and money trying to keep up with the ever changing and ever more complex tax system.  I believe that it is time to simplify matters for all concerned.

I believe that this could be achieved by introducing a flat rate of taxation for all independent consultants earning under the large company threshold.  This could be set at 22% (with a guarantee of no increase for 3 years and a maximum tax level to be preset) on all income (no personal allowances) to include NI up to a threshold of £300,000 (at which they would be adjudged a large company).

Make it deductible at source (by the agencies through which they contract or by the client if on a direct contract).

“Fit and Proper” register for bookeeping services

As a firm that is not regulated by a proffesional body we were required to register with the government for fit and proper persons status. This required us answering questions like " have you been convicted of a terrorist act". We duly paid over our fee not only for each individual within the firm but also an annual fee that allows us to trade as accountants, bookkeepers and payroll agents. This was supposed to put a stop to money-laundering and terrorist activities. I believe it is the law that anyone who is not affiliated with a proffesional body has to register as fit and proper if they deal in any way with accounts, bookkeeping and or payroll or they are not allowed to trade under penalty of fines etc. We are aware that there are many bookeepers etc out there who are not registered with the government and possibly never will be, I think mainly because they are not aware of the law. As a firm that is registered with HMRC as accountants why did we need to register with another government department? Surely not another government money raising excercise! Scrap this law and fee. If a bookeepers works only a couple of hours a week, they have the choice of not registering or not bothering to do those few hours through cost of the registration fee. If like us it is a proffession, let us get on with it and let HMRC decide whether we are doing our jobs properly. If a money launderer or terrorist is in this trade do you think he will actually register?

Why is this idea important?

As a firm that is not regulated by a proffesional body we were required to register with the government for fit and proper persons status. This required us answering questions like " have you been convicted of a terrorist act". We duly paid over our fee not only for each individual within the firm but also an annual fee that allows us to trade as accountants, bookkeepers and payroll agents. This was supposed to put a stop to money-laundering and terrorist activities. I believe it is the law that anyone who is not affiliated with a proffesional body has to register as fit and proper if they deal in any way with accounts, bookkeeping and or payroll or they are not allowed to trade under penalty of fines etc. We are aware that there are many bookeepers etc out there who are not registered with the government and possibly never will be, I think mainly because they are not aware of the law. As a firm that is registered with HMRC as accountants why did we need to register with another government department? Surely not another government money raising excercise! Scrap this law and fee. If a bookeepers works only a couple of hours a week, they have the choice of not registering or not bothering to do those few hours through cost of the registration fee. If like us it is a proffession, let us get on with it and let HMRC decide whether we are doing our jobs properly. If a money launderer or terrorist is in this trade do you think he will actually register?