Vat charged on zero-rated items at cafes(specifically Motorway Services)

Currently we are all paying Vat on zero-rated items purchased at Motorway Services (the cafe sections) If you are prepared to eat your cake ,purchased with your coffee ,away from the seating area then you should be entitled to receive the assumed 17.5% vat paid on these items as a refund.

 The question at each of these venues should be asked are you sitting in or are you eating out . Many customers are completely unaware that they are paying Vat on certain items in these outlets because they are simply sitting eating at the venue .If you took your cake etc. and ate it in the car or outside then Vat should not be charged. It should be a compulsary question 'sit in or eating out?' and the appropriate pricing regime applied according to the answer given.This would save the consumers money,probably more product would be sold (as the products would be cheaper) and probably more seats would be freed up at the venues.Details of the answer would have to be recorded as HMRC would require this as proof.(surely a minor software tweek)

Doubtless ,the Motorway Services owners are actually not gaining from the current situation as the extra Vat will be getting paid the HMRC ,Hopefully? and as they are dedicated catering outlets they are probably forced to charge Vat on thes items by HMRC but clearly if you are unaware of this as a consumer why ,if you intend eating in the car ,would you pay more at the cafe than say WH smith next door for the same snack!

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently we are all paying Vat on zero-rated items purchased at Motorway Services (the cafe sections) If you are prepared to eat your cake ,purchased with your coffee ,away from the seating area then you should be entitled to receive the assumed 17.5% vat paid on these items as a refund.

 The question at each of these venues should be asked are you sitting in or are you eating out . Many customers are completely unaware that they are paying Vat on certain items in these outlets because they are simply sitting eating at the venue .If you took your cake etc. and ate it in the car or outside then Vat should not be charged. It should be a compulsary question 'sit in or eating out?' and the appropriate pricing regime applied according to the answer given.This would save the consumers money,probably more product would be sold (as the products would be cheaper) and probably more seats would be freed up at the venues.Details of the answer would have to be recorded as HMRC would require this as proof.(surely a minor software tweek)

Doubtless ,the Motorway Services owners are actually not gaining from the current situation as the extra Vat will be getting paid the HMRC ,Hopefully? and as they are dedicated catering outlets they are probably forced to charge Vat on thes items by HMRC but clearly if you are unaware of this as a consumer why ,if you intend eating in the car ,would you pay more at the cafe than say WH smith next door for the same snack!

 

Contact with Inland Revenue

There should be contact categories.; to provide efficient channel of priority messages from the public

 

eg. Tax return; estimate interest for tax year. done. send in form.

Then new details come to light.

No means of contact.

Letters take 9 weeks upwards.

Phones not answered.

no workable e-mail.

Effective contact closed.

 

Form should have priority followup code number.

+

e-mail code contact code number

to add to information as a matter of priority.

 

other contacts should also have easy sort categories for effecient public dialogue.

 

Also. Inland Revenue should be required to apply same penalties of payments to itself regarding refunds, as it demands of the public which it does not communicate with!

Why is this idea important?

There should be contact categories.; to provide efficient channel of priority messages from the public

 

eg. Tax return; estimate interest for tax year. done. send in form.

Then new details come to light.

No means of contact.

Letters take 9 weeks upwards.

Phones not answered.

no workable e-mail.

Effective contact closed.

 

Form should have priority followup code number.

+

e-mail code contact code number

to add to information as a matter of priority.

 

other contacts should also have easy sort categories for effecient public dialogue.

 

Also. Inland Revenue should be required to apply same penalties of payments to itself regarding refunds, as it demands of the public which it does not communicate with!

Encourage British Authors

Encourage British authors by giving them a financial lifebelt. Make the first £5,000 they earn from book publication each year tax free. even if they already pay income tax. Incentives will help first time authors and encourage published authors to go full time.

Expand the number of libraries monitored for author reward schemes and increase the number of British authors – not books – who receive payments based on library lending to 1,000. Raise the maximum author payment to £5,000 per year. (This might seem like spending more public money, but it will be self funding due to wages and taxes of publishers, printers, tax on films, etc – tax from just JK Rowling film would help hundreds of fledling authors.)

by lessimon

Why is this idea important?

Encourage British authors by giving them a financial lifebelt. Make the first £5,000 they earn from book publication each year tax free. even if they already pay income tax. Incentives will help first time authors and encourage published authors to go full time.

Expand the number of libraries monitored for author reward schemes and increase the number of British authors – not books – who receive payments based on library lending to 1,000. Raise the maximum author payment to £5,000 per year. (This might seem like spending more public money, but it will be self funding due to wages and taxes of publishers, printers, tax on films, etc – tax from just JK Rowling film would help hundreds of fledling authors.)

by lessimon

nightmare vat!

I am a salon owner and employ staff,i am struggling to stay afloat i have had no wages for a year!

What narrow people don`t understand is we pay vat on every sale that goes through our tills before we pay wages,rent,rates etc…..i really dont know how the goverment expect things to get better . I pay good wages to my very hard working staff and treat them well,but that doesn`t help me pay thousands of pounds in tax!  I think alot of people are comnsidering giving up in business for this reason, i was better off when i was freelance which is pathetic! we need help asap!

Why is this idea important?

I am a salon owner and employ staff,i am struggling to stay afloat i have had no wages for a year!

What narrow people don`t understand is we pay vat on every sale that goes through our tills before we pay wages,rent,rates etc…..i really dont know how the goverment expect things to get better . I pay good wages to my very hard working staff and treat them well,but that doesn`t help me pay thousands of pounds in tax!  I think alot of people are comnsidering giving up in business for this reason, i was better off when i was freelance which is pathetic! we need help asap!

Either all salons charge VAT or none. Having a threshold creates an uneven playing field when it comes

Having a VAT threshold creates an uneven playing field.  Salonsin the same street are having to charge VAt while the salon next door doesnot This is obviously reflected in the price. In todayscurrent climate where customers are looking for thier money to go further. What chance do some of us have?

Either scrap VAT or reduce it but for goodness sake make it a fair tax. 

Why is this idea important?

Having a VAT threshold creates an uneven playing field.  Salonsin the same street are having to charge VAt while the salon next door doesnot This is obviously reflected in the price. In todayscurrent climate where customers are looking for thier money to go further. What chance do some of us have?

Either scrap VAT or reduce it but for goodness sake make it a fair tax. 

Lower VAT would mean lower prices and more employment

If hair salons had a reduction in the VAT rate then this could be passed on to the customers which would help increase business and enable smaller salons, just in the VAT bracket to employ more staff. This is really important in small rural towns that are struggling to survive.

Why is this idea important?

If hair salons had a reduction in the VAT rate then this could be passed on to the customers which would help increase business and enable smaller salons, just in the VAT bracket to employ more staff. This is really important in small rural towns that are struggling to survive.

No VAT for salons that employ people

If a salon employs a full time member of staff they should only pay 5% vat.This would create a lot more employment ,particularly in 2012 when every employer has to provide a pension for every member of staff no matter how small the business.   ( as seen in the FSB magazine june/july 2010 issue)                

Why is this idea important?

If a salon employs a full time member of staff they should only pay 5% vat.This would create a lot more employment ,particularly in 2012 when every employer has to provide a pension for every member of staff no matter how small the business.   ( as seen in the FSB magazine june/july 2010 issue)                

no threashold for start of vat If we must have vat.

 

VAT SHOULD BE 3% OF ALL TUNOVER  FROM THE FIRST £ .

Then it would be a much better tax. everyone would pay, making it better for employers of staff.

Not the situation where we can see businesses putting people on a selfe employment status just to keep their turover below the threashold to avoid paying VAT.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

VAT SHOULD BE 3% OF ALL TUNOVER  FROM THE FIRST £ .

Then it would be a much better tax. everyone would pay, making it better for employers of staff.

Not the situation where we can see businesses putting people on a selfe employment status just to keep their turover below the threashold to avoid paying VAT.

 

Reduce vat for all service industry i.e beauty,hair etc

As the owner of a small beauty salon our incentive to keep our profits under 60000 a year means we do not have to regester to pay vat, however once we go over this limit our profit  is then eaten ino considerably since our job is more about time and sevice given as opposed to a product being purchased.

As a result these industrys either restrict themselves (not good for the economy) or have to earn a huge amount to cover the vat being payed out before it can become profitable which then means enduring several years of breaking even before the profit comes in.

by reducing the vat for these industry would then allow more employees to be employed (increasing work) higher salaries to be paid (happier staff less likely to move ) and prices to remain competitive (i.e prices people are happy to pay therfore increasing public spendng.

Why is this idea important?

As the owner of a small beauty salon our incentive to keep our profits under 60000 a year means we do not have to regester to pay vat, however once we go over this limit our profit  is then eaten ino considerably since our job is more about time and sevice given as opposed to a product being purchased.

As a result these industrys either restrict themselves (not good for the economy) or have to earn a huge amount to cover the vat being payed out before it can become profitable which then means enduring several years of breaking even before the profit comes in.

by reducing the vat for these industry would then allow more employees to be employed (increasing work) higher salaries to be paid (happier staff less likely to move ) and prices to remain competitive (i.e prices people are happy to pay therfore increasing public spendng.

Cycle to Work Scheme – Transfer of Ownership

The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.

However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.

HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)

Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.

What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.

By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.

It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.

Why is this idea important?

The cycle to work scheme is currently a hugely popular way of enabling employers to offer their employee's the chance of obtaining a tax free bike with most people saving in the region of 40% off the cost of a bicycle and accesories. In return the employee has to enter into a hire agreement with their employees over a set period and repay the cost of the bike (Minus VAT and with tax benefits) in equal monthly payments.

However, HMRC are threatening the very existence of the scheme.

HMRC's rules mean that an employer cannot state to the employee that they will either agree to enter into discussions to transfer the legal ownership of the bike before they sign up to the scheme, thus putting people off the scheme (who is going to want to pay up to a £1,000 for a bike without the guarentee of at least being made an offer to ownership in the future)

Secondly, HMRC state that the employee needs to pay what is known as a ‘fair market value' for the bike and accessories, otherwise further tax implications will apply for the individual concerned. The only problem is that they offer no guidance on how to do this other than that you cannot apply a rate of transfer on bikes across the board.

What instead they propose is that the bike is individually assessed, what this means in practice is that this increases the administrative burden associated with the scheme increasing costs and wasting resources by over complicating the process. They give no guarentee that this complies with their vague ruling thus reducing confidence in the scheme.

By also making the process more complicated and daunting than it needs to be it also makes the scheme less attractive to individuals wanting to sign up which will simply result in less people cycling and only contributing to this country’s huge carbon footprint.

It would be much simpler if a set of nationally agreed guidelines are drafted stating that a bicycle packages’ value after a defined time period is a % figure of the bicycle packages original retail value. This would make the scheme much easier to administer and it would save a enormous amount of time and effort from for organisations administering the scheme. As I say it is not just private sector businesses that run this scheme but public sector organisations too. This is one way government could actually bring about increased efficiency in the public sector.

Minimum for tax collection

A small property maintenance company, managing own properties, with annual turnover less than £30,000. When registering the company HMRC did not want to hear from us until tax that could be paid exceeded £100 pa.  Due to recent legislation all monies now are held in a Trust.  The HMRC Trust office now tells us that we will have to pay tax on ALL savings income.  This year our income will be some £20. No problem in paying this, BUT what is the cost to the Trust office in collecting the £4.00.  Trust office says that there is no minimum fo collection.

Why is this idea important?

A small property maintenance company, managing own properties, with annual turnover less than £30,000. When registering the company HMRC did not want to hear from us until tax that could be paid exceeded £100 pa.  Due to recent legislation all monies now are held in a Trust.  The HMRC Trust office now tells us that we will have to pay tax on ALL savings income.  This year our income will be some £20. No problem in paying this, BUT what is the cost to the Trust office in collecting the £4.00.  Trust office says that there is no minimum fo collection.

Ammend VAT to make charities exempt when buying in services

Many charities apply for public funding for projects. They then put out tenders or calls for people to deliver services. This can be anything from building works to arts organisations delivering projects. VAT registered companies who apply are often asked to tender for costs inclusive of VAT because the charity is not vat-registered themselves, and cannot reclaim the vat and won't have the money in their budgets as a "just incase of VAt".Some funders dont like contingency.  This means some suppliers are deemed expensive, not because of cost, but because of financial regulation. We propose that if a charity contracts a vat-registered company, the charity can re-claim the vat back.  OR, the company can supply VAt 0% invoices to charities, who, by definition, are not providing luxury but necesary services. When VAT goes up to 20% this will have a huge impact on charities who's applications for funding  will not have taken this into account and may have an affect on exisiting services. As a supplier currently delivering for a trust, I know they cannot afford an extra 2.5% VAT hike to pay for us in the new year. Are we expected to aborb that by offering a reduced serivce, or lose out ot a non-wat regsitered organisation?

Why is this idea important?

Many charities apply for public funding for projects. They then put out tenders or calls for people to deliver services. This can be anything from building works to arts organisations delivering projects. VAT registered companies who apply are often asked to tender for costs inclusive of VAT because the charity is not vat-registered themselves, and cannot reclaim the vat and won't have the money in their budgets as a "just incase of VAt".Some funders dont like contingency.  This means some suppliers are deemed expensive, not because of cost, but because of financial regulation. We propose that if a charity contracts a vat-registered company, the charity can re-claim the vat back.  OR, the company can supply VAt 0% invoices to charities, who, by definition, are not providing luxury but necesary services. When VAT goes up to 20% this will have a huge impact on charities who's applications for funding  will not have taken this into account and may have an affect on exisiting services. As a supplier currently delivering for a trust, I know they cannot afford an extra 2.5% VAT hike to pay for us in the new year. Are we expected to aborb that by offering a reduced serivce, or lose out ot a non-wat regsitered organisation?

Remove the requirement for home made biodiesel to be EN14214 compliant

Currently HMRC insists that home made biodiesel (i.e. exempt producers producing less than 2500l per annum for personal use) meets EN14214 in order to benefit from the reduction in road fuel duty.

However testing against EN14214 is very expensive and therefore makes home biodiesel production uneconomic  or very risky (in terms of a big bill from the taxman). Why have legislation saying you can produce up to 2500l of biodiesel and then make it impossible to do so.

The insistence on EN14214 also excludes the use of Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) which requires no processing. Producing biodiesel uses energy and leads to waste products.

Lifting the EN14214 requirement would encourage the use of biodiesel.

Why is this idea important?

Currently HMRC insists that home made biodiesel (i.e. exempt producers producing less than 2500l per annum for personal use) meets EN14214 in order to benefit from the reduction in road fuel duty.

However testing against EN14214 is very expensive and therefore makes home biodiesel production uneconomic  or very risky (in terms of a big bill from the taxman). Why have legislation saying you can produce up to 2500l of biodiesel and then make it impossible to do so.

The insistence on EN14214 also excludes the use of Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) which requires no processing. Producing biodiesel uses energy and leads to waste products.

Lifting the EN14214 requirement would encourage the use of biodiesel.

Tax parking charges and speeding fines

Its strange that the previous government over- regulated everything – except parking charges and speeding fines which were completely unregulated. These make £114M for local authorities with parking fees and fines extimated over £2BN. I don't mind paying for NHS parking charges when my daughter was dying in hospital last year, but £5/ hour to park on street in London or an airport is a rip off. It's high time local authorities and BAA were taxed so this money comes back into the economy, not into bonuses!

Why is this idea important?

Its strange that the previous government over- regulated everything – except parking charges and speeding fines which were completely unregulated. These make £114M for local authorities with parking fees and fines extimated over £2BN. I don't mind paying for NHS parking charges when my daughter was dying in hospital last year, but £5/ hour to park on street in London or an airport is a rip off. It's high time local authorities and BAA were taxed so this money comes back into the economy, not into bonuses!

repeal the repayment of tax credit overpayments

Not sure if this is the correct section but I think this would be immensely popular.

 

Today it was announced that many people – including single mothers – have been overpaid their tax credits, and will have to repay thousands.

 

Why not simply write off the whole lot?

In the first place, the government wrote off enormous sums re the latest banking crisis, and bailed out the banks. It seems only fair that on this occasion it should "bail out" the taxpayer, especially as this does not involve any actual payment.

Furthermore, to calculate and collect these payments including by threat of legal action would be absolutely enormous.

Why is this idea important?

Not sure if this is the correct section but I think this would be immensely popular.

 

Today it was announced that many people – including single mothers – have been overpaid their tax credits, and will have to repay thousands.

 

Why not simply write off the whole lot?

In the first place, the government wrote off enormous sums re the latest banking crisis, and bailed out the banks. It seems only fair that on this occasion it should "bail out" the taxpayer, especially as this does not involve any actual payment.

Furthermore, to calculate and collect these payments including by threat of legal action would be absolutely enormous.

Company bankruptcy – make former employees and customers the primary creditors.

The former employees and customers of companies placed in receivership should have

priority when the administrators make payments with the winding-up of the company..

Why is this idea important?

The former employees and customers of companies placed in receivership should have

priority when the administrators make payments with the winding-up of the company..

Remove National Insurance

National insurance, with its multiple thresholds and rates and P11 forms, is a nightmare to administer for a business and keeps hoards of civil servants in work.  Replace it with a simple fixed-rate payroll tax (or better, don't replace it with a simple fixed-rate payroll tax) and an uplift to income tax.

Why is this idea important?

National insurance, with its multiple thresholds and rates and P11 forms, is a nightmare to administer for a business and keeps hoards of civil servants in work.  Replace it with a simple fixed-rate payroll tax (or better, don't replace it with a simple fixed-rate payroll tax) and an uplift to income tax.

combine National Insurance with income tax

There is massive duplication of effort and cost in the administration and collection of income tax and National Insurance contributions from employed workers. The link between National Insurance contributions and benefits for employed workers is getting increasingly tenuous as years go by. For example, Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay don’t depend on National Insurance contributions; State Pensions are paid out of general taxation, not the National Insurance fund.

Why is this idea important?

There is massive duplication of effort and cost in the administration and collection of income tax and National Insurance contributions from employed workers. The link between National Insurance contributions and benefits for employed workers is getting increasingly tenuous as years go by. For example, Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay don’t depend on National Insurance contributions; State Pensions are paid out of general taxation, not the National Insurance fund.

Remove business rates from empty and/or unused premises

That business rate should be charged on empty premises or those currently not in use is unsupportable. It also adds rather largely to the cost of planning for the future. One can imagine a business person obtaining premise too large for current operations but with the extra space being available for the future should the business prosper. That this business person should be penalised for their confidence in the future is not only unfair but is a disincentive. 

Why is this idea important?

That business rate should be charged on empty premises or those currently not in use is unsupportable. It also adds rather largely to the cost of planning for the future. One can imagine a business person obtaining premise too large for current operations but with the extra space being available for the future should the business prosper. That this business person should be penalised for their confidence in the future is not only unfair but is a disincentive. 

Immediate Clean Slate for all Non-Fraudulent Tax Credit Overpayments

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Why is this idea important?

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Change VAT payable on House Renovations.

VAT can be reclaimed on materials used in New Build developments and on Listed Buildings, but not on materials used to renovation existing properties.

With thousands of empty properties across the country why not make it more attractive to developers to renovate these instead of building new housing.

Why is this idea important?

VAT can be reclaimed on materials used in New Build developments and on Listed Buildings, but not on materials used to renovation existing properties.

With thousands of empty properties across the country why not make it more attractive to developers to renovate these instead of building new housing.

Allowing businesses to submit expenses evidence in digital format rather than paper original

 






Scrap the requirement for businesses to keep paper records and instead allow scanned and digital documents to be kept.

 

The insistence of tax inspectors on seeing paper originals (for example of expenses) is obsolete, and creates more onerous (and less green) duties of filing, and the hassle of having to retain years of paperwork.

 

There is no more security from fraud in paper (which can be easily produced with today's desktop publishing abilities), than there is in a digital scan.

 

This would be a great relief to small businesses and easier to maintain and process.

 

Of course there is no need to completely abolish paper, but the alternative should be allowed, at least as a start.

Why is this idea important?

 






Scrap the requirement for businesses to keep paper records and instead allow scanned and digital documents to be kept.

 

The insistence of tax inspectors on seeing paper originals (for example of expenses) is obsolete, and creates more onerous (and less green) duties of filing, and the hassle of having to retain years of paperwork.

 

There is no more security from fraud in paper (which can be easily produced with today's desktop publishing abilities), than there is in a digital scan.

 

This would be a great relief to small businesses and easier to maintain and process.

 

Of course there is no need to completely abolish paper, but the alternative should be allowed, at least as a start.

Scrap National Insurance contributions & increase Tax

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.