Stop Councils taxing below the personal tax allowance

Those below the personal tax level (for income tax) are amongst the poorest people and way below the poverty level. Yet councils can charge tax BELOW THIS LEVEL. This is morally unacceptable. 

It also ushers in a volume of bureaucracy  to calculate the amount of so-called 'benefit' to be set against the charges. Volumes of unintelligible letters are posted by the Council eg. I had 3 posted seperately on the same date, several about my owing 07p (!) from spring 2008. Countless hours of council staff time are involved.

Let the Councils – and the Government – obtain its finances from those with the ability to pay,not off the backs of those who struggle for basic existence.

Why is this idea important?

Those below the personal tax level (for income tax) are amongst the poorest people and way below the poverty level. Yet councils can charge tax BELOW THIS LEVEL. This is morally unacceptable. 

It also ushers in a volume of bureaucracy  to calculate the amount of so-called 'benefit' to be set against the charges. Volumes of unintelligible letters are posted by the Council eg. I had 3 posted seperately on the same date, several about my owing 07p (!) from spring 2008. Countless hours of council staff time are involved.

Let the Councils – and the Government – obtain its finances from those with the ability to pay,not off the backs of those who struggle for basic existence.

Remove tax on vans for field service workers.

Currently home-based field service engineers lose £3000 of their tax allowance because they have access to a company vehicle which is treated as a benefit.

 What is not taken into consideration is that a van is actually a mobile workplace without which they cannot do their job, not a luxury.They have no choice as to whether or not they have a van, it is a requirement in order for them to carry all the tools and spares necessary.

 Previously, as long as there was not private use there was no tax charge, which was fair.

Why is this idea important?

Currently home-based field service engineers lose £3000 of their tax allowance because they have access to a company vehicle which is treated as a benefit.

 What is not taken into consideration is that a van is actually a mobile workplace without which they cannot do their job, not a luxury.They have no choice as to whether or not they have a van, it is a requirement in order for them to carry all the tools and spares necessary.

 Previously, as long as there was not private use there was no tax charge, which was fair.

Stop musicians paying VAT on their Agent’s commission

Musicians who don't earn enough to register for VAT have to pay VAT on the commission they pay to their Agent's. This needs to stop. Most Agent's are VAT registered so they have all the complicated paperwork set up anyway. We have to pay a 15% commission fee to our Agent on every fee we are paid and they charge us 17.5% of that 15% as well.

Why should we have to pay their VAT? Please put a stop to this. Let them charge us a commission for getting us the gig and for doing the paperwork etc but make them pay their own VAT.

Why is this idea important?

Musicians who don't earn enough to register for VAT have to pay VAT on the commission they pay to their Agent's. This needs to stop. Most Agent's are VAT registered so they have all the complicated paperwork set up anyway. We have to pay a 15% commission fee to our Agent on every fee we are paid and they charge us 17.5% of that 15% as well.

Why should we have to pay their VAT? Please put a stop to this. Let them charge us a commission for getting us the gig and for doing the paperwork etc but make them pay their own VAT.

Exempt charities from all VAT

If you want to support charities, ask the government to exempt charities from paying VAT.  It will not only be provide them with real source of income, it will also save them a lot of paperworks and headaches around the numerous rules guiding VAT rules relating to charities. 

Why is this idea important?

If you want to support charities, ask the government to exempt charities from paying VAT.  It will not only be provide them with real source of income, it will also save them a lot of paperworks and headaches around the numerous rules guiding VAT rules relating to charities. 

Abolish requirement for electronic filing of company accounts

In view of the huge cost to business of what has been described as this "time bomb", please abolish the requirement for company accounts to be electronically filed in iXBRL language from 1st April 2011.

Why is this idea important?

In view of the huge cost to business of what has been described as this "time bomb", please abolish the requirement for company accounts to be electronically filed in iXBRL language from 1st April 2011.

Stop HMRC sending out 2 copies of all paperwork.

Once again HMRC have sent both my husband and myself identical copies of child tax credit paperwork. Given that both of our NI numbers and income details are quoted in both copies, this is plainly not a data protection issue.What an utter waste of paper and postage!

Why is this idea important?

Once again HMRC have sent both my husband and myself identical copies of child tax credit paperwork. Given that both of our NI numbers and income details are quoted in both copies, this is plainly not a data protection issue.What an utter waste of paper and postage!

Increase import tax on food items

We all know about the decline in our own farming. There are many programmes on television now showing us how and where our food is produced and we all want to reduce our food air miles.

With companies like Mc Donalds importing their chicken from south America because it is cheaper, surely it would be of benifit to increase import tax on such products so that our farmers could supply firms like these.

Buying food items out of season, as we all know, is now a way of life, and I dont think we would be able to change the mindset of the general public, but making out of season imported food items more expensive, then we may start to change the buying habits of a lot of people looking for cheaper produce at that time of year. Which will be non imported british grown food.

It may well be impractical to increase import tax on all food items, but surely we could start with the food items we know we can produce well in this country. Cows, sheep,pigs and chicken. The government should make it impossible for a person to buy a lamb cheaper from New Zealand than from Wales.

Finally, with UK farmers employimg more staff and making more money for themselves, this would increase the amount of income tax paid, which also helps the british economy.

Its all very well and good buying meat, fruit and vegetables from overseas, but it shouldnt be so cheap to do so.

Why is this idea important?

We all know about the decline in our own farming. There are many programmes on television now showing us how and where our food is produced and we all want to reduce our food air miles.

With companies like Mc Donalds importing their chicken from south America because it is cheaper, surely it would be of benifit to increase import tax on such products so that our farmers could supply firms like these.

Buying food items out of season, as we all know, is now a way of life, and I dont think we would be able to change the mindset of the general public, but making out of season imported food items more expensive, then we may start to change the buying habits of a lot of people looking for cheaper produce at that time of year. Which will be non imported british grown food.

It may well be impractical to increase import tax on all food items, but surely we could start with the food items we know we can produce well in this country. Cows, sheep,pigs and chicken. The government should make it impossible for a person to buy a lamb cheaper from New Zealand than from Wales.

Finally, with UK farmers employimg more staff and making more money for themselves, this would increase the amount of income tax paid, which also helps the british economy.

Its all very well and good buying meat, fruit and vegetables from overseas, but it shouldnt be so cheap to do so.

Increase staff levels at H M Revenue & Customs

Rather than looking to cut staff at the H M Revenue & Customs (HMRC) offces the coalition government should be looking to double the workforce. 

You may ask – Why ?

There is simply not enough staff at the HMRC offices to deal with day to day queries.  With all the cuts in the staff the HMRC simply do not have the resources to collect tax which is outstanding.  This includes having the staff to deal with Tax Investigations. 

By increasing staff levels will increase the number of staff dealing with Tax Investigations which will increase the level of tax the government brings in. 

At the moment there is a 3 months delay (yes 3 months) for the HMRC to reply to post.  With the right amount of staff this will bring delays down to 2 weeks which will increase efficiently and productivity across the board.

With taxpayer's records being up to date, staff can then be used to deal with the pressing issues such as outstanding Tax Returns and outstanding tax to pay.

 

Why is this idea important?

Rather than looking to cut staff at the H M Revenue & Customs (HMRC) offces the coalition government should be looking to double the workforce. 

You may ask – Why ?

There is simply not enough staff at the HMRC offices to deal with day to day queries.  With all the cuts in the staff the HMRC simply do not have the resources to collect tax which is outstanding.  This includes having the staff to deal with Tax Investigations. 

By increasing staff levels will increase the number of staff dealing with Tax Investigations which will increase the level of tax the government brings in. 

At the moment there is a 3 months delay (yes 3 months) for the HMRC to reply to post.  With the right amount of staff this will bring delays down to 2 weeks which will increase efficiently and productivity across the board.

With taxpayer's records being up to date, staff can then be used to deal with the pressing issues such as outstanding Tax Returns and outstanding tax to pay.

 

no tax for employees paid by tax funds to reduce wasteful handling fees

For those employees who are paid directly from tax e.g. NHS or civil service employees it makes no sense to raise tax to pay them and then tax them part of their wage — this reults in doubling handling of the tax revenue and as everyone in business no no LEAN process is ever designed to double handle goods or revneue

 

a simpler and more effeicent system would be to slowly over time reduce those in public sector to a 0% tax rate — their wages would of course be less than those in private sector but a focus on NET not gross pay equality qould ensure fairness

 

this could be achieved by a year on year pay freeze with comensatatory reduction in tax rate in line with inflation to ensure net wage increase

 

This is a radical rething but a review of the saving generated by a smaller Inland revenue tax would no only save on losses by double handling revenue but also alow effeicencies in reducing size of IR, sending out unneeded tax codes etc

 

Why is this idea important?

For those employees who are paid directly from tax e.g. NHS or civil service employees it makes no sense to raise tax to pay them and then tax them part of their wage — this reults in doubling handling of the tax revenue and as everyone in business no no LEAN process is ever designed to double handle goods or revneue

 

a simpler and more effeicent system would be to slowly over time reduce those in public sector to a 0% tax rate — their wages would of course be less than those in private sector but a focus on NET not gross pay equality qould ensure fairness

 

this could be achieved by a year on year pay freeze with comensatatory reduction in tax rate in line with inflation to ensure net wage increase

 

This is a radical rething but a review of the saving generated by a smaller Inland revenue tax would no only save on losses by double handling revenue but also alow effeicencies in reducing size of IR, sending out unneeded tax codes etc

 

Simplify and improve VAT accounting for Service Exporters

As an SME VAT accounting is a real pain – and it is huge pain without just reward.  I am a consultancy company and all my customers are overseas.  I am therefore unable to reclaim VAT incurred on my overseas expenses and for most of my non-EU customers – I dont charge VAT.  Why can I not reclaim this VAT through the normal VAT accounting process.  We should be making it easier for service exporters.

I have just spent 4 whole days working on my financial records so that I can submit my VAT return on time.  What a nonsense for the small and insignificant results.

Why not have a simplified and/or exemption process where companies like mine are always claiming rebates.  I feel like I am being penalised for being an exporter of services.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

As an SME VAT accounting is a real pain – and it is huge pain without just reward.  I am a consultancy company and all my customers are overseas.  I am therefore unable to reclaim VAT incurred on my overseas expenses and for most of my non-EU customers – I dont charge VAT.  Why can I not reclaim this VAT through the normal VAT accounting process.  We should be making it easier for service exporters.

I have just spent 4 whole days working on my financial records so that I can submit my VAT return on time.  What a nonsense for the small and insignificant results.

Why not have a simplified and/or exemption process where companies like mine are always claiming rebates.  I feel like I am being penalised for being an exporter of services.

 

 

 

Move environmental taxes from point of disposal to point of sale

Abolish Point of Disposal environmental taxes like the land fill tax.

Instead, allow land fill and recycling centres to accept commercial waste free of charge.

To pay for this, increase the rate of VAT on building materials, tyres, etc. (i.e. whatever the difficult to dispose of items are).  VAT is cheaper to collect, impossible to avoid. Ultimately, the same person will pay for the disposal, but much sooner, without the ability to avoid the tax by dumping the waste.

To encourage recycling, make 2nd hand items VAT exempt and reduce the VAT on recycled goods, if practical.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish Point of Disposal environmental taxes like the land fill tax.

Instead, allow land fill and recycling centres to accept commercial waste free of charge.

To pay for this, increase the rate of VAT on building materials, tyres, etc. (i.e. whatever the difficult to dispose of items are).  VAT is cheaper to collect, impossible to avoid. Ultimately, the same person will pay for the disposal, but much sooner, without the ability to avoid the tax by dumping the waste.

To encourage recycling, make 2nd hand items VAT exempt and reduce the VAT on recycled goods, if practical.

Quid pro quo for those willing to work

At present due to the benefit system -some passporting benefits if one is contemplating returning to work/should return to work are taken away to the disadvantage of the benefit claimant. Take single mothers for example, the cost of child care and loss of income support is greater than their new income –  Usually part-time wage and working tax credit so there is no reason to go back to work. This should be changed. A system where those on benefits will financially be the same should they start work should be introduced. This does not necessarily mean freezing benefits such as Child Tax Credit! It should be looked at from the other angle – i.e bolster the wages to initially meet current levels of benefits for a certain period. After this, in order to make the savings to the public purse, an incremental reduction to this top up should be considered as the new worker settles into work. Or alternative take away some mandatory/ generic expenses which people returning to work might incur. For example, pay something towards their travel expenses or child care for a certain period.

Why is this idea important?

At present due to the benefit system -some passporting benefits if one is contemplating returning to work/should return to work are taken away to the disadvantage of the benefit claimant. Take single mothers for example, the cost of child care and loss of income support is greater than their new income –  Usually part-time wage and working tax credit so there is no reason to go back to work. This should be changed. A system where those on benefits will financially be the same should they start work should be introduced. This does not necessarily mean freezing benefits such as Child Tax Credit! It should be looked at from the other angle – i.e bolster the wages to initially meet current levels of benefits for a certain period. After this, in order to make the savings to the public purse, an incremental reduction to this top up should be considered as the new worker settles into work. Or alternative take away some mandatory/ generic expenses which people returning to work might incur. For example, pay something towards their travel expenses or child care for a certain period.

Stop charities and volunteers needing expensive accident liability insurance

Charities and more specifically volunteers – village fetes, old traditional events, whatever – are currently dieing a death due to the reality of the need for insurance against negligence claims for accidents.  The rules are exactly as strict as they are for businesses and government organisations.  Volunteers do not want to take the risk of being held liable without insurance. 

I understand the need for some rules, but those without a  profit/governmental drive to do good work need to have disincentives to volunteering removed.  I suggest that rather than the current rules – essentially a 'balance of probabilities' test that an accident should have been avoided by following standard rules, which e.g. involve compulsory 'risk assesments' in advance without which a defence is unlikely to work – non-profit events should only be liable if they have caused an accident through the higher test of recklessness (eg the test for dangerous driving, 'the standard fell far below what would be expected).  This should avoid most if not all of the risk and/or insurance cost.  With a standard rule, those attending would know, and could be reminded, that they take on a level of risk – although in reality not much.

Why is this idea important?

Charities and more specifically volunteers – village fetes, old traditional events, whatever – are currently dieing a death due to the reality of the need for insurance against negligence claims for accidents.  The rules are exactly as strict as they are for businesses and government organisations.  Volunteers do not want to take the risk of being held liable without insurance. 

I understand the need for some rules, but those without a  profit/governmental drive to do good work need to have disincentives to volunteering removed.  I suggest that rather than the current rules – essentially a 'balance of probabilities' test that an accident should have been avoided by following standard rules, which e.g. involve compulsory 'risk assesments' in advance without which a defence is unlikely to work – non-profit events should only be liable if they have caused an accident through the higher test of recklessness (eg the test for dangerous driving, 'the standard fell far below what would be expected).  This should avoid most if not all of the risk and/or insurance cost.  With a standard rule, those attending would know, and could be reminded, that they take on a level of risk – although in reality not much.

Tax employers by commuting distances

There are dozens of carbon taxes, and I hope my idea should replace a plethora of them! Here's a tiny story to start: It started when my I considered my friend, call him John, a nurse, is employed by an agency who sends him 70 miles to Manchester every day to the hospital job they gave him. Actually there is a hospital just  a short walk from John's house. I am quite sure there are agency nurses travelling every day from Manchester to the hospital next to John's house. How clever we are to allow this! My idea is… make businesses audit the number of commuting miles made by their employees (and agency staff), and then tax these miles. This will cut commuting miles dramatically. It should stop employers carelessly dragging in employees from all over the country, when there are potential employees on their doorstep. Businesses can easily avoid the tax, by incentivising their employees to move closer to their workplace, or having them work more from home, etc. Businesses can also move closer to their employees, and 1) pay lower than city rates 2) pay out less in wages i.e. employees need less income to support their travel to work costs! 3) do some decent tax accounting against relocation expenses (for both staff benefits and workplace removals). The green benefits are obvious.

Why is this idea important?

There are dozens of carbon taxes, and I hope my idea should replace a plethora of them! Here's a tiny story to start: It started when my I considered my friend, call him John, a nurse, is employed by an agency who sends him 70 miles to Manchester every day to the hospital job they gave him. Actually there is a hospital just  a short walk from John's house. I am quite sure there are agency nurses travelling every day from Manchester to the hospital next to John's house. How clever we are to allow this! My idea is… make businesses audit the number of commuting miles made by their employees (and agency staff), and then tax these miles. This will cut commuting miles dramatically. It should stop employers carelessly dragging in employees from all over the country, when there are potential employees on their doorstep. Businesses can easily avoid the tax, by incentivising their employees to move closer to their workplace, or having them work more from home, etc. Businesses can also move closer to their employees, and 1) pay lower than city rates 2) pay out less in wages i.e. employees need less income to support their travel to work costs! 3) do some decent tax accounting against relocation expenses (for both staff benefits and workplace removals). The green benefits are obvious.

Income Tax

Why is it that fraud to do with avoidance of Income Tax of nearly £100bn is 100 times that of the avoidance of VAT which is approx £1bn?

If VAT collection is so successful why can't we use similar methods to collect Income Tax?

Why is this idea important?

Why is it that fraud to do with avoidance of Income Tax of nearly £100bn is 100 times that of the avoidance of VAT which is approx £1bn?

If VAT collection is so successful why can't we use similar methods to collect Income Tax?

Removal of “courtroom tax” – not a real tax

I had to take legal action to get a client to pay. The dispute went to court. after a year of protracted legal wranglings in which the other side may no effort at all to settle.

My lawyer advised me that even if you win the court won't award 100% of your costs (typically a 1/3rd deduction). And I'm told this is to stop lawyers inflating their fees, so the principle seems sound.

In my case I won the full £7k I was claiming (ie too large for small claims court), but the legal fees of both sides were circa £12k.  However as expected the court refused to award 100% of the costs, and instead only 2/3rds hence I had to pay £4k of my costs, hence my net "win" was £3k of the £7k claimed even though the court found 100% in my favour.

I've spoken to other lawyers since and this is standard practice.  Why allow courts to penalise the winning side?  Surely if the deduction is sto stop lawyers overcharging then make the lawyers refund the 1/3rd of their fees to their winning client.

 


 

Why is this idea important?

I had to take legal action to get a client to pay. The dispute went to court. after a year of protracted legal wranglings in which the other side may no effort at all to settle.

My lawyer advised me that even if you win the court won't award 100% of your costs (typically a 1/3rd deduction). And I'm told this is to stop lawyers inflating their fees, so the principle seems sound.

In my case I won the full £7k I was claiming (ie too large for small claims court), but the legal fees of both sides were circa £12k.  However as expected the court refused to award 100% of the costs, and instead only 2/3rds hence I had to pay £4k of my costs, hence my net "win" was £3k of the £7k claimed even though the court found 100% in my favour.

I've spoken to other lawyers since and this is standard practice.  Why allow courts to penalise the winning side?  Surely if the deduction is sto stop lawyers overcharging then make the lawyers refund the 1/3rd of their fees to their winning client.

 


 

Tax on dividends

One anomaly created by the policies of the last government has given rise to an unintended consequence.
 
Those running their own business are able to form a company into which their earnings are diverted. Their remuneration is then arranged so that they are paid by way of a salary and dividends.
 
The salary is typically pitched at a level where they pay a nominal amount of national insurance (both employees' and employers') and so are eligible for state benefits available including an element of S2P (assuming they are contracted in). Because of current thresholds this is unlikely to incur any income tax per se though clearly this would depend on the amount paid as salary.
 
The balance of their remuneration is paid as a dividend attracting 10% tax at source which is borne by the company. Provided the overall level of money extracted from the company is kept below the 40% threshold, they can expect to pay half the amount of tax that a normal employee would pay on a similar amount of income. This is because they effectively pay 10% on income up to the higher rate threshold rather than 20%.
 
This can be duplicated for married couples where the circumstances can be manipulated to fit the fiscal corset.
 
The simple answer would be to raise the witholding rate to the same level as the basic rate of tax – ie 20%.
 
So as to avoid disadvantaging pension funds and ISA investors, the excess over the current  witholding tax of 10% (or whatever level is chosen)could be reclaimed within pension and ISA funds.

Why is this idea important?

One anomaly created by the policies of the last government has given rise to an unintended consequence.
 
Those running their own business are able to form a company into which their earnings are diverted. Their remuneration is then arranged so that they are paid by way of a salary and dividends.
 
The salary is typically pitched at a level where they pay a nominal amount of national insurance (both employees' and employers') and so are eligible for state benefits available including an element of S2P (assuming they are contracted in). Because of current thresholds this is unlikely to incur any income tax per se though clearly this would depend on the amount paid as salary.
 
The balance of their remuneration is paid as a dividend attracting 10% tax at source which is borne by the company. Provided the overall level of money extracted from the company is kept below the 40% threshold, they can expect to pay half the amount of tax that a normal employee would pay on a similar amount of income. This is because they effectively pay 10% on income up to the higher rate threshold rather than 20%.
 
This can be duplicated for married couples where the circumstances can be manipulated to fit the fiscal corset.
 
The simple answer would be to raise the witholding rate to the same level as the basic rate of tax – ie 20%.
 
So as to avoid disadvantaging pension funds and ISA investors, the excess over the current  witholding tax of 10% (or whatever level is chosen)could be reclaimed within pension and ISA funds.

Abolish VAT

Replace the multi teared system of VAT by a single application of purchase tax to the end user.

In the present system:-

  • A company buys its plant and materials and pays VAT on sales and reclaims VAT on inputs. 
  • It sells its product and charges the wholesaler VAT and pays VAT for packing and transport and reclaims VAT it paid to the suppliers. 
  • The wholesaler charges VAT again to the retailer and reclaims the VAT on its inputs.  
  • Tthe retailer charges VAT to the consumer and reclaims the VAT it paid its suppliers.

All the layers of VAT require accounts and the VAT office has to supervise and check all these levels of accounting.

Why not replace all these multiple levels of accounting and checking by a single application of purchase tax at point of sale to consumers.  The Government receives the same amount of tax at a fraction of the administration cost and companies are relieved of the necessity to deal with a lot of unnecessary accounting.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the multi teared system of VAT by a single application of purchase tax to the end user.

In the present system:-

  • A company buys its plant and materials and pays VAT on sales and reclaims VAT on inputs. 
  • It sells its product and charges the wholesaler VAT and pays VAT for packing and transport and reclaims VAT it paid to the suppliers. 
  • The wholesaler charges VAT again to the retailer and reclaims the VAT on its inputs.  
  • Tthe retailer charges VAT to the consumer and reclaims the VAT it paid its suppliers.

All the layers of VAT require accounts and the VAT office has to supervise and check all these levels of accounting.

Why not replace all these multiple levels of accounting and checking by a single application of purchase tax at point of sale to consumers.  The Government receives the same amount of tax at a fraction of the administration cost and companies are relieved of the necessity to deal with a lot of unnecessary accounting.

Modify the money laundering regulations

The Money Laundering Regulations are too stringent. It has become very difficult to do something which used top be simple – such as changing signatories on a small club account where no transaction exceeds £500 and the total balance may be £1000.

Could bank accounts with low turnover be exempted from the regulations?

Why is this idea important?

The Money Laundering Regulations are too stringent. It has become very difficult to do something which used top be simple – such as changing signatories on a small club account where no transaction exceeds £500 and the total balance may be £1000.

Could bank accounts with low turnover be exempted from the regulations?

Repeal retrospective elements of section 58, 2008 Finance Act

Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act attempted to close a perceived tax avoidance loophole, legitimately used and annually declared to HMRC by thousands of self-employed contractors over the last decade.  However, in a move that is unprecedented in UK Tax history, section 58 then back-dated this legislation under the guise of a 'clarification' to 2002.  The legislation is currently being challenged under the European Human Rights act with a hearing due at the Court of Appeal in November.  I propose that this insidious and pernicious legislation, introduced by the previous Labour government, be repealed immediately for the reasons given below.

Why is this idea important?

Section 58 of the 2008 Finance Act attempted to close a perceived tax avoidance loophole, legitimately used and annually declared to HMRC by thousands of self-employed contractors over the last decade.  However, in a move that is unprecedented in UK Tax history, section 58 then back-dated this legislation under the guise of a 'clarification' to 2002.  The legislation is currently being challenged under the European Human Rights act with a hearing due at the Court of Appeal in November.  I propose that this insidious and pernicious legislation, introduced by the previous Labour government, be repealed immediately for the reasons given below.

Remove or extend the time period on tax free relocation allowances

Current HMRC rules around relocation policy is set at a maximum of £8,500 tax free alowance if you move to a new job within 1 year of the offer but with provision for parents of school children to apply for it beyond the year limit which can be granted at HMRC discretion. 

However, what about those people with caring responsiblities ? I delayed a relocation – offered by my employer – for 2/3 years in oreder to continue to provide respite care and a roof over the heads of my elderly parents, one of whom was diagniosed with Alzheimers. Instead I rented accommodation whilst returning home each week end to continue to support my elderly father's care of my mother.

Both parents (in their 80's) died within 6 months of each other and I was eventually able to move to once I had sold. However I was denied the tax free element (on the first £8,500 of the relocation) because of the current regulations. I was informed by HMRC reps that I should have a) turned down the new job offer (a promotion) at the time, b) moved my parents with me or c) put my parents into a home.

So here's my ideas:-

1) get rid of the time limit – its disciminatory and does not incenitivise people to be move to where the work is if they have family commitments. Instead regulate the number of times you can caim it by employer; and

2) an £8,500 tax free allowance for a full relocation is way out of date and needs increasing. 

  

Why is this idea important?

Current HMRC rules around relocation policy is set at a maximum of £8,500 tax free alowance if you move to a new job within 1 year of the offer but with provision for parents of school children to apply for it beyond the year limit which can be granted at HMRC discretion. 

However, what about those people with caring responsiblities ? I delayed a relocation – offered by my employer – for 2/3 years in oreder to continue to provide respite care and a roof over the heads of my elderly parents, one of whom was diagniosed with Alzheimers. Instead I rented accommodation whilst returning home each week end to continue to support my elderly father's care of my mother.

Both parents (in their 80's) died within 6 months of each other and I was eventually able to move to once I had sold. However I was denied the tax free element (on the first £8,500 of the relocation) because of the current regulations. I was informed by HMRC reps that I should have a) turned down the new job offer (a promotion) at the time, b) moved my parents with me or c) put my parents into a home.

So here's my ideas:-

1) get rid of the time limit – its disciminatory and does not incenitivise people to be move to where the work is if they have family commitments. Instead regulate the number of times you can caim it by employer; and

2) an £8,500 tax free allowance for a full relocation is way out of date and needs increasing. 

  

Cut back Intrastat and EC Sales requirements

These are the most laborius means of collecting statistics.

Is this data really that valuable?

And as for reverse charging VAT – it goes in and out and raises a princely NOTHING for HMRC!

Who exactly is gaining from all of the man hours that go into this (on both sides – Private Industry and Government) ?

Definitely not UK Business!

 

Why is this idea important?

These are the most laborius means of collecting statistics.

Is this data really that valuable?

And as for reverse charging VAT – it goes in and out and raises a princely NOTHING for HMRC!

Who exactly is gaining from all of the man hours that go into this (on both sides – Private Industry and Government) ?

Definitely not UK Business!

 

Stamp Duty & Council Tax an Unfair Assumption of Wealth

Both Stamp Duty & Council Tax assume someones wealth according to their home.

This isn't a true reflection. Wealth should be measured by earnings & taxes raised against earnings.

If two people earn the same but one spends his money on holidays & drink the other on improving his home. The home builder is taxed more on his Council Tax. Not fair.

If they were both to move it is reasonable to assume that they will move to similar standard properties they left. The home builder will be taxed more on Stamp Duty. Not fair.

A household with 5 earners will pay the property based Council Tax bill between them = 20% each. A single person in a similar property will be hit with 75% of the bill, almost four times as much. Not fair.

In these days of uncertainty & the need for people to move where work is available the average working man can be forced to move several times in his career. Paying Stamp Duty at every move. Not fair.

The super rich rarely have to move for work so wont be caught with the same multiple Stamp Duty bills.

Personally I would rather see taxation on earnings & on VAT, a reflection of my ability to pay.

If you earn it you will someday spend it so you will pay VAT.

Centrally collected income tax & VAT would be simply transfered to local authorities from central government, payment based on each head of population on the voting register. Replacing Council Tax.

The whole Council Tax & Stamp Duty gathering infrastructure / cost would be eliminated.

Why is this idea important?

Both Stamp Duty & Council Tax assume someones wealth according to their home.

This isn't a true reflection. Wealth should be measured by earnings & taxes raised against earnings.

If two people earn the same but one spends his money on holidays & drink the other on improving his home. The home builder is taxed more on his Council Tax. Not fair.

If they were both to move it is reasonable to assume that they will move to similar standard properties they left. The home builder will be taxed more on Stamp Duty. Not fair.

A household with 5 earners will pay the property based Council Tax bill between them = 20% each. A single person in a similar property will be hit with 75% of the bill, almost four times as much. Not fair.

In these days of uncertainty & the need for people to move where work is available the average working man can be forced to move several times in his career. Paying Stamp Duty at every move. Not fair.

The super rich rarely have to move for work so wont be caught with the same multiple Stamp Duty bills.

Personally I would rather see taxation on earnings & on VAT, a reflection of my ability to pay.

If you earn it you will someday spend it so you will pay VAT.

Centrally collected income tax & VAT would be simply transfered to local authorities from central government, payment based on each head of population on the voting register. Replacing Council Tax.

The whole Council Tax & Stamp Duty gathering infrastructure / cost would be eliminated.

Make churches pay taxes and pay benefits out of those

Religious organisations should no longer be able to avoid taxes.

Many have much political representation, and aggressively involve themselves in political campaigning, while clearly neglecting a main aim of what the religious claim they are all about – To help the needy and less fortunate.

So, being as how religious organisations have representation and involve themselves in political campaigning, society should ensure that a portion of their money at least goes to what the religious constantly claim they are all about – Helping those less fortunate.

Introduce taxation for all religious organisations, who have had many years being able to avoid taxes, yet claim to be charities, and put the money collected from those organisations to good use, in unemployment and other benefits and tax credits.

Why is this idea important?

Religious organisations should no longer be able to avoid taxes.

Many have much political representation, and aggressively involve themselves in political campaigning, while clearly neglecting a main aim of what the religious claim they are all about – To help the needy and less fortunate.

So, being as how religious organisations have representation and involve themselves in political campaigning, society should ensure that a portion of their money at least goes to what the religious constantly claim they are all about – Helping those less fortunate.

Introduce taxation for all religious organisations, who have had many years being able to avoid taxes, yet claim to be charities, and put the money collected from those organisations to good use, in unemployment and other benefits and tax credits.