Lower 12.8% employers National Insurance to reduce unemployment.

 

I own a technology company employing 100 staff. We use computers to design bridges and machinery.

Last year I visited India to set up deals with other design offices and we been subcontracting design work to India ever since. Our competitors are also doing this.

We pay 12.8% employers NI for all our UK staff and no NI for Indian staff.

I visited many large design offices that have been moved from the UK and US

The trend of subcontracting design work to India is growing.

These are technology jobs that are being lost and it is not good for the UK and the training of youngsters.

The company in next door makes umbrellas and has to compete with imports from China.

He pays 12.8% empolyers NI for all his staff.

Its no wonder we all buy cheaper Chinese products.

If we are to have any hope of competing internationally and stop the flow of jobs out of this country we must reduce the 12.8% employers NI.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I own a technology company employing 100 staff. We use computers to design bridges and machinery.

Last year I visited India to set up deals with other design offices and we been subcontracting design work to India ever since. Our competitors are also doing this.

We pay 12.8% employers NI for all our UK staff and no NI for Indian staff.

I visited many large design offices that have been moved from the UK and US

The trend of subcontracting design work to India is growing.

These are technology jobs that are being lost and it is not good for the UK and the training of youngsters.

The company in next door makes umbrellas and has to compete with imports from China.

He pays 12.8% empolyers NI for all his staff.

Its no wonder we all buy cheaper Chinese products.

If we are to have any hope of competing internationally and stop the flow of jobs out of this country we must reduce the 12.8% employers NI.

 

 

SIMPLIFY THE TAX SYSTEM

We have too many taxes. 

Abolish VAT and employees National Insurance and add them to Income Tax. 

Abolish employers National Insurance and add it to Corporation Tax. 

Abolish Stamp Duty and Inheritance Tax and make up the difference with either Income Tax or Corporation tax.

Rationalise the tax system into Income Tax, Corporation tax and Capital Gains Tax.. 

Why is this idea important?

We have too many taxes. 

Abolish VAT and employees National Insurance and add them to Income Tax. 

Abolish employers National Insurance and add it to Corporation Tax. 

Abolish Stamp Duty and Inheritance Tax and make up the difference with either Income Tax or Corporation tax.

Rationalise the tax system into Income Tax, Corporation tax and Capital Gains Tax.. 

Remove the requirement to pay Business Rates by sporting clubs

As an amateur football club, that re-invests any profits made from its social club back in to our facilities and the community, we are required to pay business rates based on the size of a our ground, stand and clubhouse. This is a tremendously high financial burden that could more directly be put to the better good of the community.

Why is this idea important?

As an amateur football club, that re-invests any profits made from its social club back in to our facilities and the community, we are required to pay business rates based on the size of a our ground, stand and clubhouse. This is a tremendously high financial burden that could more directly be put to the better good of the community.

the necessity of fairness

'We are in this together';

Abolish all means that allow tax avoidance, evasion and minimisation, including Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, etc.

Amend regulations that allow all attempts to circumvent the above via loopholes and other means including tax havens.

Abolish all regulations and loopholes that allow access to tax havens.

Abolish all regulations that allow VAT avoidance  by retailers selling through The Channel Islands and similar Crown territories.

Abolish all regulations that allow  avoidance of proper and fair tax on all bonuses, under what ever name, in both private as well as public sectors.

Abolish regulations that make shareholder votes on pay and other matters 'advisory only' rather than mandatory.

Why is this idea important?

'We are in this together';

Abolish all means that allow tax avoidance, evasion and minimisation, including Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, etc.

Amend regulations that allow all attempts to circumvent the above via loopholes and other means including tax havens.

Abolish all regulations and loopholes that allow access to tax havens.

Abolish all regulations that allow VAT avoidance  by retailers selling through The Channel Islands and similar Crown territories.

Abolish all regulations that allow  avoidance of proper and fair tax on all bonuses, under what ever name, in both private as well as public sectors.

Abolish regulations that make shareholder votes on pay and other matters 'advisory only' rather than mandatory.

Remove the requirement of having a guarantee when opening a duty deferment account

Get rid of the need for a guarantee when setting up a duty deferment account.  It's unnecessary and burdensome and adds extra expense which isn’t necessary.

 

Goods imported from abroad are liable for import duty tax.  If you are importing through a large courier company then the courier company will usually pay this on your behalf and then invoice you before delivery.  For the privilege of handling the payment for you the courier company will usually add on an administration fee as well of around £15 a consignment – which for a firm like ours accumulated to hundreds of pounds a month.

To get around this administration fee you can open an account with HMRC directly and handle the payments yourself however in order to do so HMRC ask for a guarantee from your bank to ensure they always get paid.  Which produces its own set of issues:

  1. Setting up a guarantee as a small business isn’t easy.  Administratively we found it very time consuming and it involved many conversations with our bank because no-one seemed to have the authority to sign off the guarantee. 
  2. You have to be credit checked just as if taking out a loan and whilst the guarantee is in place the bank in effect views it as a loan.  Having the guarantee in place therefore reduces the likelihood of being able to take out other banking services as they look at the overall risk over all your accounts.
  3. Once you have the guarantee set up you are charged an arrangement fee of something like 1.5% annually and a service fee of 0.055% a quarter, by the bank.  Therefore reducing the growth prospects of the business.

What is gained here?  Out of choice if there’s one account that a firm would always choose to pay it would be HMRC.  And if you don’t pay then they have their own enforcement officers in every region of the country who can give you a visit – they’re called the police!  This is just another burden on business and unnecessary red tape.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the need for a guarantee when setting up a duty deferment account.  It's unnecessary and burdensome and adds extra expense which isn’t necessary.

 

Goods imported from abroad are liable for import duty tax.  If you are importing through a large courier company then the courier company will usually pay this on your behalf and then invoice you before delivery.  For the privilege of handling the payment for you the courier company will usually add on an administration fee as well of around £15 a consignment – which for a firm like ours accumulated to hundreds of pounds a month.

To get around this administration fee you can open an account with HMRC directly and handle the payments yourself however in order to do so HMRC ask for a guarantee from your bank to ensure they always get paid.  Which produces its own set of issues:

  1. Setting up a guarantee as a small business isn’t easy.  Administratively we found it very time consuming and it involved many conversations with our bank because no-one seemed to have the authority to sign off the guarantee. 
  2. You have to be credit checked just as if taking out a loan and whilst the guarantee is in place the bank in effect views it as a loan.  Having the guarantee in place therefore reduces the likelihood of being able to take out other banking services as they look at the overall risk over all your accounts.
  3. Once you have the guarantee set up you are charged an arrangement fee of something like 1.5% annually and a service fee of 0.055% a quarter, by the bank.  Therefore reducing the growth prospects of the business.

What is gained here?  Out of choice if there’s one account that a firm would always choose to pay it would be HMRC.  And if you don’t pay then they have their own enforcement officers in every region of the country who can give you a visit – they’re called the police!  This is just another burden on business and unnecessary red tape.

Remove charge to stamp duty land tax (SDLT) on VAT

Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) is currently charged on the VAT-inclusive element of the purchase price of land or buildings and on the VAT-inclusive total of any rents paid under a lease of land or buildings. 

This charge should be removed so that SDLT is only levied on the VAT-exclusive purchase price and/or rent.

Why is this idea important?

Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) is currently charged on the VAT-inclusive element of the purchase price of land or buildings and on the VAT-inclusive total of any rents paid under a lease of land or buildings. 

This charge should be removed so that SDLT is only levied on the VAT-exclusive purchase price and/or rent.

PERMIT VAT REGISTERED BUSINESS TO INVOICE ANOTHER VAT REG BUSINESS NET OF VAT

At present a VAT reg. business has to add VAT to an invoice to another VAT reg.company.

The VAT on the invoice has to be then claimed back from C&E.

If a EU VAT reg business exports to a U.K. reg. VAT business they are allowed to invoice net of the VAT

Surely it will save huge amounts of admin money from C&E and also free unnecessary paperwork from a small business if U.K. invoices can be sent without VAT added to an invoice for a VAT reg business.

Why is this idea important?

At present a VAT reg. business has to add VAT to an invoice to another VAT reg.company.

The VAT on the invoice has to be then claimed back from C&E.

If a EU VAT reg business exports to a U.K. reg. VAT business they are allowed to invoice net of the VAT

Surely it will save huge amounts of admin money from C&E and also free unnecessary paperwork from a small business if U.K. invoices can be sent without VAT added to an invoice for a VAT reg business.

Abolish the need to submit an annual return to companies house

Abolish the need to submit an annual return to companies house for small businesses. Every year it costs me £15 just to log on to a web site, tick a box and click send. £15 may not sound like much but there are penalties for failing to submit the return and it can lead to losing your limited company.

Why not make it mandatory to submit a return only if something changes? There must be millions of small limited companies in which nothing changes from year to year, yet we have to jump through this stupid revenue-raising hoop.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the need to submit an annual return to companies house for small businesses. Every year it costs me £15 just to log on to a web site, tick a box and click send. £15 may not sound like much but there are penalties for failing to submit the return and it can lead to losing your limited company.

Why not make it mandatory to submit a return only if something changes? There must be millions of small limited companies in which nothing changes from year to year, yet we have to jump through this stupid revenue-raising hoop.

Corporate Tax Restructuring For British Companies In A Downturned Economy

This small island nation is continually swamped by foreign made goods which we could manufacture here in Britain. To turn the economy round for this nation we need to be tougher on those who would spoil this nation and it’s economy for their own profit.

Those who import parts or whole goods which we in Britain could manufacture, must be taxed at the highest rate to deter companies from continually flooding this country with cheap imports to the detriment of local manufacturing.

Such companies would be cheap textile and clothing importers, foreign car dealers, amongst many others.

I propose we institute a three band tier of taxation for companies depending on what industry they are in.

LOWEST BAND.

This would apply to British companies manufacturing all goods within the British Isles.

SECOND BAND.

This would apply to those companies who import some of their product, like certain parts to make a product, from abroad to be manufactured here.

HIGHEST BAND.

This would apply to companies who import all their product from abroad, such as importers of foreign cars and motorbikes, television and electronic goods, which flood our shops to the exclusion of British made goods.

Those foreign manufacturers who want to get around this would have to set up manufacturing here in Britain and employ a British workforce, then they can sell their goods here and pay the lowest band of taxation.

Stimulation of local manufacturing sector in Britain is now overdue – successive governments have done nothing to redress the balance. With this severe downturn in our economy the time to act is upon us. It would improve employment, balance of payments deficit, and imbue into the British people new hope for the future.

We in Britain are a sovereign nation and within it’s borders we can do as much as we please – we will not interfere with import tariffs – we will create a new income tax structure within Britain, to lessen the importation of cheap goods on our market – and we have every right to do so.

British manufacturing in this nation will once again reign supreme like it did in Victorian times when we got used to seeing labels saying: “Made In England”.

V.A.T. could be reduced or scrapped on British made goods, but left in place or even raised on foreign made imports.

Those companies who used to dump foreign made goods on the British public for their own profit, would soon find they are making no profit at all.

EXEMPTIONS

Tax exemptions for the highest band who need to import essential equipment or machinery, such as needed in hospitals, could be granted.

UNEMPLOYMENT

We have 2.5 million people unemployed and more coming out of our schools all the time and every effort must be made to close our doors to unnecessary imports ruining our manufacturing base. This proposal is such a way to achieve it. No time should be lost in implementing it. Procrastination will not solve it – action will!

 

Why is this idea important?

This small island nation is continually swamped by foreign made goods which we could manufacture here in Britain. To turn the economy round for this nation we need to be tougher on those who would spoil this nation and it’s economy for their own profit.

Those who import parts or whole goods which we in Britain could manufacture, must be taxed at the highest rate to deter companies from continually flooding this country with cheap imports to the detriment of local manufacturing.

Such companies would be cheap textile and clothing importers, foreign car dealers, amongst many others.

I propose we institute a three band tier of taxation for companies depending on what industry they are in.

LOWEST BAND.

This would apply to British companies manufacturing all goods within the British Isles.

SECOND BAND.

This would apply to those companies who import some of their product, like certain parts to make a product, from abroad to be manufactured here.

HIGHEST BAND.

This would apply to companies who import all their product from abroad, such as importers of foreign cars and motorbikes, television and electronic goods, which flood our shops to the exclusion of British made goods.

Those foreign manufacturers who want to get around this would have to set up manufacturing here in Britain and employ a British workforce, then they can sell their goods here and pay the lowest band of taxation.

Stimulation of local manufacturing sector in Britain is now overdue – successive governments have done nothing to redress the balance. With this severe downturn in our economy the time to act is upon us. It would improve employment, balance of payments deficit, and imbue into the British people new hope for the future.

We in Britain are a sovereign nation and within it’s borders we can do as much as we please – we will not interfere with import tariffs – we will create a new income tax structure within Britain, to lessen the importation of cheap goods on our market – and we have every right to do so.

British manufacturing in this nation will once again reign supreme like it did in Victorian times when we got used to seeing labels saying: “Made In England”.

V.A.T. could be reduced or scrapped on British made goods, but left in place or even raised on foreign made imports.

Those companies who used to dump foreign made goods on the British public for their own profit, would soon find they are making no profit at all.

EXEMPTIONS

Tax exemptions for the highest band who need to import essential equipment or machinery, such as needed in hospitals, could be granted.

UNEMPLOYMENT

We have 2.5 million people unemployed and more coming out of our schools all the time and every effort must be made to close our doors to unnecessary imports ruining our manufacturing base. This proposal is such a way to achieve it. No time should be lost in implementing it. Procrastination will not solve it – action will!

 

Help small charities to survive

Small, independent voluntary organisations that endeavour to help and support those in adversity should be exempt from Companies House bureaucracy which forces 'ordinary' people to pay large fees to professionalsto help them navigate the intricacies of company law which would potentially otherwise entrap them.  The guidelines for forming Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs) promised by the last government three years ago never materialised.  CIOs were intended to exempt small organisations from the £5K annual income threshold and enable them to become 'respectable' charities without having to register as companies.   My idea is that the CIO guidelines or something very similar should be published without further delay.

Why is this idea important?

Small, independent voluntary organisations that endeavour to help and support those in adversity should be exempt from Companies House bureaucracy which forces 'ordinary' people to pay large fees to professionalsto help them navigate the intricacies of company law which would potentially otherwise entrap them.  The guidelines for forming Charitable Incorporated Organisations (CIOs) promised by the last government three years ago never materialised.  CIOs were intended to exempt small organisations from the £5K annual income threshold and enable them to become 'respectable' charities without having to register as companies.   My idea is that the CIO guidelines or something very similar should be published without further delay.

HMRC Investigation Commonsense please

As a professional dealing with HMRC on a daily basis, many do a good job on a daily basis. However, when it comes to Tax Investigations into Accounts the same old issues come up time and time again. The main bugbears are:-

  • Stock and Work in Progress. Invariably HMRC try to change a basis of a valuation particularly where a professional independent valuation has not been obtained on the grounds of cost. It they successfully change the basis, then the opening and closing valuations are uplifted. The result is very actual little increase in profits.
  • Debtors. These are receipts that have not been received at the year end but the work done was in the year. Technically HMRC are correct under accounting principles. If the work was done in the year then it should be recognised in the Accounts for that year. However many businesses that are under Cash Accounting for VAT only record income when received not when the work was done.
  • Private Use. Where a proprietor of a small business works from home it is inevitable that there will be mixed use of domestic services. Many an hour has been spent arguing about proportions.

In the case of the first two the issue is one of timing. Over the lifetime of a business all the income of that business is recorded and taxed. The simplification of Cash Accounting has not been extended to Direct Taxation.  The third is one of cost effectiveness. Is it really worthwhile arguing? Why should Joe Public have to concede that it is not. I would introduce the following Investigation standards.

  • Where a business is either very small or is under Cash Accouting I would exclude Stock, Work in Progress, Debtors and Creditors from any HMRC Investigation. The main check should be that income is being declared.
  • For Private Use I would introduce de minimus limits whereby HMRC will not even bother looking at expenses based on turnover of the business and average bill levels and for payments over that level accept a split that the Taxpayer and his Accountant can demonstrate is a just and reasonable split between business and private use.

 

Why is this idea important?

As a professional dealing with HMRC on a daily basis, many do a good job on a daily basis. However, when it comes to Tax Investigations into Accounts the same old issues come up time and time again. The main bugbears are:-

  • Stock and Work in Progress. Invariably HMRC try to change a basis of a valuation particularly where a professional independent valuation has not been obtained on the grounds of cost. It they successfully change the basis, then the opening and closing valuations are uplifted. The result is very actual little increase in profits.
  • Debtors. These are receipts that have not been received at the year end but the work done was in the year. Technically HMRC are correct under accounting principles. If the work was done in the year then it should be recognised in the Accounts for that year. However many businesses that are under Cash Accounting for VAT only record income when received not when the work was done.
  • Private Use. Where a proprietor of a small business works from home it is inevitable that there will be mixed use of domestic services. Many an hour has been spent arguing about proportions.

In the case of the first two the issue is one of timing. Over the lifetime of a business all the income of that business is recorded and taxed. The simplification of Cash Accounting has not been extended to Direct Taxation.  The third is one of cost effectiveness. Is it really worthwhile arguing? Why should Joe Public have to concede that it is not. I would introduce the following Investigation standards.

  • Where a business is either very small or is under Cash Accouting I would exclude Stock, Work in Progress, Debtors and Creditors from any HMRC Investigation. The main check should be that income is being declared.
  • For Private Use I would introduce de minimus limits whereby HMRC will not even bother looking at expenses based on turnover of the business and average bill levels and for payments over that level accept a split that the Taxpayer and his Accountant can demonstrate is a just and reasonable split between business and private use.

 

End Empty property tax

At the current time Council Tax is charged on empty property after the property has been un occupied for six months – subject to a couple of exceptions. This is a flawed Law based on flawed logic.

Where did the last Government feel that the “income” was going to come from to pay the Council Tax?

If the property is part of a large portfolio then maybe some of the rental income from other property will support the empty property but this means there will be less Corporation Tax paid on the bulk of the Portfolio.

If on the other hand the property is the only “buy to let” property owned by an individual in an effort to “save” for a pension where is the income going to come from to pay this tax? It will come from the “taxed” salary of the owner as he has no tenant to pay the Council Tax. This is such a disincentive to his efforts to save he will get out of the market as soon as he can. We try to help ourselves and the nation and we are beaten over the head at every turn.

Burn this mad tax now.

 

Why is this idea important?

At the current time Council Tax is charged on empty property after the property has been un occupied for six months – subject to a couple of exceptions. This is a flawed Law based on flawed logic.

Where did the last Government feel that the “income” was going to come from to pay the Council Tax?

If the property is part of a large portfolio then maybe some of the rental income from other property will support the empty property but this means there will be less Corporation Tax paid on the bulk of the Portfolio.

If on the other hand the property is the only “buy to let” property owned by an individual in an effort to “save” for a pension where is the income going to come from to pay this tax? It will come from the “taxed” salary of the owner as he has no tenant to pay the Council Tax. This is such a disincentive to his efforts to save he will get out of the market as soon as he can. We try to help ourselves and the nation and we are beaten over the head at every turn.

Burn this mad tax now.

 

P11d Return of Expenses & Benefits – Directors Beneficial Loans

The P11d(b) Return of Expenses & Benefits in kind is an annual Return that employers have to complete to declare any Taxable Benefit in Kind of Expense payments paid in a Tax year. This has to be returned to HMRC by the 6th July and any resulting Class 1A National Insurance Contributions paid by 19th July. Whilst many of the questions are factual and should pose no problem from a Tax point of view, there is one area that can be very difficult to deal with.

This is where in close companies Directors tend to use a Current Account with the Company to meet their personal expenditure. The idea is that an Annual Dividend is declared (but not withdrawn from the Company) which in theory is used to meet those personal expenses. Once the Accounts are produced a further dividend is declared to top up the Current Account. Problems arise when the Director spends more than what is in the Account and it becomes overdrawn. From the Company point of view a Section 419 liability is incurred which is payable if the excessive borrowing cannot be repaid within 9 months of the end of the Accounting year when the Corporation Tax liability is due. If not cleared within 9 months the Section 419 liability is repayable 9 months after the Accounting year in which the excess borrowings are cleared.  Therefore apart from the fact that a Company has to wait for its Section 419 refund the system is workable.

The difficulty arises in that the excessive borrowings are until repaid an interest free loan, and that unless the total borrowings are below £5,000 they are reportable as a benefit in kind and the equivalent of the interest is subject to Class 1A National Insurance Contributions. The difficulty is that many small Companies do not know their way around the benefits code and have great difficulty in quantifying the total of any directors personal expenditure on a tax year basis and in many cases will not be aware that they have spent too much many months later when their Accountant tells them after the Accounts are done and also sometimes has to inform them that the Company has not made sufficient profits to clear the loan by way of dividend. In those cases where a beneficial loan has not been declared on the P11d Return months earlier, they become liable for a late declaration penalty and interest on late paid Class 1A NIC and will also likely to be the target of an Employer Compliance Review by HMRC.

To remove this difficulty which causes problems for Close Companies, their advisers and HMRC, I would take the following action

  1. Remove the question on Beneficial Loans to Directors and family members of Small & Medium Close Companies from the P11d Return.
  2. Amend the Company Tax Return so that Beneficial Loans for Small & Medium Companies can be declared on an Accounting year basis including a charge equivalent to the Employer's Class 1A rate in force for the Financial Year that ends on the 31 March in which the Accounting year ends in on the Return.
  3. I would give the Company two options: Either gross up the value of the beneficial loan at the marginal rate of the Director concerned for the tax year that ended in the year that the Accounts cover and add the amount to the total tax payable through the Corporation Tax system, so that in effect the Company is meeting the personal Tax liabilities of the Director or for the director to declare the value of the beneficial Self Assessment Tax Return for the Tax Year that ends in the Company Financial Year (by amendment without penalty if appropriate)

Why is this idea important?

The P11d(b) Return of Expenses & Benefits in kind is an annual Return that employers have to complete to declare any Taxable Benefit in Kind of Expense payments paid in a Tax year. This has to be returned to HMRC by the 6th July and any resulting Class 1A National Insurance Contributions paid by 19th July. Whilst many of the questions are factual and should pose no problem from a Tax point of view, there is one area that can be very difficult to deal with.

This is where in close companies Directors tend to use a Current Account with the Company to meet their personal expenditure. The idea is that an Annual Dividend is declared (but not withdrawn from the Company) which in theory is used to meet those personal expenses. Once the Accounts are produced a further dividend is declared to top up the Current Account. Problems arise when the Director spends more than what is in the Account and it becomes overdrawn. From the Company point of view a Section 419 liability is incurred which is payable if the excessive borrowing cannot be repaid within 9 months of the end of the Accounting year when the Corporation Tax liability is due. If not cleared within 9 months the Section 419 liability is repayable 9 months after the Accounting year in which the excess borrowings are cleared.  Therefore apart from the fact that a Company has to wait for its Section 419 refund the system is workable.

The difficulty arises in that the excessive borrowings are until repaid an interest free loan, and that unless the total borrowings are below £5,000 they are reportable as a benefit in kind and the equivalent of the interest is subject to Class 1A National Insurance Contributions. The difficulty is that many small Companies do not know their way around the benefits code and have great difficulty in quantifying the total of any directors personal expenditure on a tax year basis and in many cases will not be aware that they have spent too much many months later when their Accountant tells them after the Accounts are done and also sometimes has to inform them that the Company has not made sufficient profits to clear the loan by way of dividend. In those cases where a beneficial loan has not been declared on the P11d Return months earlier, they become liable for a late declaration penalty and interest on late paid Class 1A NIC and will also likely to be the target of an Employer Compliance Review by HMRC.

To remove this difficulty which causes problems for Close Companies, their advisers and HMRC, I would take the following action

  1. Remove the question on Beneficial Loans to Directors and family members of Small & Medium Close Companies from the P11d Return.
  2. Amend the Company Tax Return so that Beneficial Loans for Small & Medium Companies can be declared on an Accounting year basis including a charge equivalent to the Employer's Class 1A rate in force for the Financial Year that ends on the 31 March in which the Accounting year ends in on the Return.
  3. I would give the Company two options: Either gross up the value of the beneficial loan at the marginal rate of the Director concerned for the tax year that ended in the year that the Accounts cover and add the amount to the total tax payable through the Corporation Tax system, so that in effect the Company is meeting the personal Tax liabilities of the Director or for the director to declare the value of the beneficial Self Assessment Tax Return for the Tax Year that ends in the Company Financial Year (by amendment without penalty if appropriate)

Scrap partial exemption from VAT

VAT Partial exemption  is a measure which links vat reclaimable on outgoings to the amount of vat charged on  income. It affects many types businesses, especially those in the health and not for profit sector. The problem is the the proportion  is infernally difficult to work out  and involves creating elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of what usually comes down to a minor adjustment to the final figure.

Its calculation is time consuming, and full of "grey areas" so that  no one really understands it, least of all the inspectors who's job it is to monitor  its operation. Tax lost to HMRC by scrapping, I suggest is very small. 

Why is this idea important?

VAT Partial exemption  is a measure which links vat reclaimable on outgoings to the amount of vat charged on  income. It affects many types businesses, especially those in the health and not for profit sector. The problem is the the proportion  is infernally difficult to work out  and involves creating elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of what usually comes down to a minor adjustment to the final figure.

Its calculation is time consuming, and full of "grey areas" so that  no one really understands it, least of all the inspectors who's job it is to monitor  its operation. Tax lost to HMRC by scrapping, I suggest is very small. 

Provide a national insurance number when work permit granted

Whenever a non-British / EU passport holder wishes to enter the UK they are required to have a work permit.

However, once they start working, their employer will ask them for a national insurance number.  This is not a requirement to start work, but HM Revenue & Customs expect all employees, in time, to obtain a number.

This is granted after the employee attends an interview at Job Centre Plus, which usually has to be booked weeks or even months in advance.

My idea is why not simply grant a national insurance number when the work permit is issued? 

The interview system is presumably in part to protect the Taxpayer from NI number applicants applying for social security benefits as soon as they get the number.  The solution to that is simple – put a time limit of, say, 2 years before any social security benefits can be paid.

Why is this idea important?

Whenever a non-British / EU passport holder wishes to enter the UK they are required to have a work permit.

However, once they start working, their employer will ask them for a national insurance number.  This is not a requirement to start work, but HM Revenue & Customs expect all employees, in time, to obtain a number.

This is granted after the employee attends an interview at Job Centre Plus, which usually has to be booked weeks or even months in advance.

My idea is why not simply grant a national insurance number when the work permit is issued? 

The interview system is presumably in part to protect the Taxpayer from NI number applicants applying for social security benefits as soon as they get the number.  The solution to that is simple – put a time limit of, say, 2 years before any social security benefits can be paid.

Remove VAT from ladies sanitary products/incontinence products

VAT is meant to be for luxury items. I do not pay VAT on food as food is considered to be essential but many food items are not essential.

Sanitary towels and tampons are an essential product for ladies that have to be purchased on a regular basis throughout the year.

Also products designed for bladder incontinence are essential and as such should not be applicable for VAT.

Why is this idea important?

VAT is meant to be for luxury items. I do not pay VAT on food as food is considered to be essential but many food items are not essential.

Sanitary towels and tampons are an essential product for ladies that have to be purchased on a regular basis throughout the year.

Also products designed for bladder incontinence are essential and as such should not be applicable for VAT.

Small pubs

The british pub is a dieing breed and this is truely an upsetting thing for most of us. I believe it is due to supermarkets and off licences selling there alcohol at such cheap prices. You can get 30 cans of beer for less than 50p a can and the pubs can not compete with that. There needs to be some kind of change to the price the supermarkets can sell there alcohol at.

Pubs also have to deal with the smoking ban. While i agree with the ban for places serving food is it really necessary for the local pub that doesnt serve food and pubs that want the ban can still ban smoking on there premises.

There is also a problem with the extortionate rents that the pub cos are charging along with the price of the barrels the sell to the pubs as the prices are going up and up as small pub takings are plummeting.

Why is this idea important?

The british pub is a dieing breed and this is truely an upsetting thing for most of us. I believe it is due to supermarkets and off licences selling there alcohol at such cheap prices. You can get 30 cans of beer for less than 50p a can and the pubs can not compete with that. There needs to be some kind of change to the price the supermarkets can sell there alcohol at.

Pubs also have to deal with the smoking ban. While i agree with the ban for places serving food is it really necessary for the local pub that doesnt serve food and pubs that want the ban can still ban smoking on there premises.

There is also a problem with the extortionate rents that the pub cos are charging along with the price of the barrels the sell to the pubs as the prices are going up and up as small pub takings are plummeting.

Reduce Fuel Duty and Introduce Road Charging instead

Significantly reduce the amount of duty charged on fuel, and offset this by introducing road charging on all motorways, on all other major trunk routes and in all conurbations of over 50,000 people.

Why is this idea important?

Significantly reduce the amount of duty charged on fuel, and offset this by introducing road charging on all motorways, on all other major trunk routes and in all conurbations of over 50,000 people.

VAT, public and third sectors and self employed

I am self employed and 90% of my work is with the public and third sectors. Every month I work out and charge my clients VAT. Every quarter I pay it to HMRC. At some point in every year all my clients re-claim VAT. That's three lots of administration to get back to zero…. An exemption scheme would be great.

Why is this idea important?

I am self employed and 90% of my work is with the public and third sectors. Every month I work out and charge my clients VAT. Every quarter I pay it to HMRC. At some point in every year all my clients re-claim VAT. That's three lots of administration to get back to zero…. An exemption scheme would be great.

Flat Rate Income Tax/Simplification of Benefits

Our Income Tax system has become highly complex, particularly when allied to the benefits system. The cost of collecting tax and distributing benefits takes up far too high a proportion of the taxpayer's money and must be reformed.

Here are my suggestions. Please read them in the vein of ideas rather than firm proposals, as nobody outside of the Treasury could know the exact numbers involved. My main theme is simplicity and ease of administration, with consequent benefits to the tax bill.

Let's start with people on low incomes. I would suggest that a person on low incomes (say under 15,000 p.a) should pay no income tax, although should contribute to the NIC fund to help towards the cost of the NHS and the pension pot. However, in return, the income support benefits should be switched off. The net effect to the individual should be slightly positive, but the effect on the cost of administering their account would be highly beneficial.

For all people that fall into the income tax net, I propose  two flat rates of tax for all. People complain that the rich can afford to avoid taxes altogether, whereas the poor are trapped. My idea is to make the tax system so affordable that nobody bothers to avoid it. For example, from £15,000-99,999 people might pay 20%, and for £100,000+ say 25%. Tax and NIC would continue to be collected at source, and each taxpayer would file their annual return to deal with any other sources of income. No other costly-to-administer benefits (married people, child support) would accrue to this group. The benefits system will be refocussed only on those in genuine need of help, and might more usefully be distributed by local rather than central government as community intelligence could be a great help in weeding out the undeserving.

There would be serious penalties for those who refuse to pay their tax.

As a final incentive, I would suggest a national lottery-type draw to be held every month. All national insurance numbers would be entered and one in every thousand drawn out. These individuals would pay no tax for the next twelve months. It would appeal to the gaming nature of the British mentality and introduce an element of chance which might help allieviate the depression of 'death and taxes being the only sure things in life'.

Why is this idea important?

Our Income Tax system has become highly complex, particularly when allied to the benefits system. The cost of collecting tax and distributing benefits takes up far too high a proportion of the taxpayer's money and must be reformed.

Here are my suggestions. Please read them in the vein of ideas rather than firm proposals, as nobody outside of the Treasury could know the exact numbers involved. My main theme is simplicity and ease of administration, with consequent benefits to the tax bill.

Let's start with people on low incomes. I would suggest that a person on low incomes (say under 15,000 p.a) should pay no income tax, although should contribute to the NIC fund to help towards the cost of the NHS and the pension pot. However, in return, the income support benefits should be switched off. The net effect to the individual should be slightly positive, but the effect on the cost of administering their account would be highly beneficial.

For all people that fall into the income tax net, I propose  two flat rates of tax for all. People complain that the rich can afford to avoid taxes altogether, whereas the poor are trapped. My idea is to make the tax system so affordable that nobody bothers to avoid it. For example, from £15,000-99,999 people might pay 20%, and for £100,000+ say 25%. Tax and NIC would continue to be collected at source, and each taxpayer would file their annual return to deal with any other sources of income. No other costly-to-administer benefits (married people, child support) would accrue to this group. The benefits system will be refocussed only on those in genuine need of help, and might more usefully be distributed by local rather than central government as community intelligence could be a great help in weeding out the undeserving.

There would be serious penalties for those who refuse to pay their tax.

As a final incentive, I would suggest a national lottery-type draw to be held every month. All national insurance numbers would be entered and one in every thousand drawn out. These individuals would pay no tax for the next twelve months. It would appeal to the gaming nature of the British mentality and introduce an element of chance which might help allieviate the depression of 'death and taxes being the only sure things in life'.

One Single Income Tax

The UK tax system is incredibly complex.

This complexity has two major draw backs – firstly it is very costly to collect administer. Secondly the complex system means mistakes are more likely and tax avoidance is possible.

Why is this idea important?

The UK tax system is incredibly complex.

This complexity has two major draw backs – firstly it is very costly to collect administer. Secondly the complex system means mistakes are more likely and tax avoidance is possible.

Cut Revenue&Customs overhead for Public Sector Tax

Public money appears to be going around in a circle, and on the way appears to be paying to keep people in the tax office busy unnecessarily at public expense.

The government pays salaries to the public sector, but at the same time takes a proportion back, involving the resources of Revenue & Customs to process. 

My concept is simply to remove the requirement for ALL public sector workers to pay tax and NI contributions by also simply reducing their pay from their current taxable gross salary level to what their net take home pay level would ordinarily be.

Conceptually, it seems an unnecessary step to pay a public worker with public money, and then spend public money on the processing required to take some of that money back in the form of tax and NI and any subsequent tax rebate claims.

Any tax rebate that a worker would normally be entitled to should be built into the terms and conditions of being a public sector worker and claimed as an expense.  This might also help to reduce tax avoidance by the fact that they would need to claim any extra allowance or expense from their employer rather than the faceless tax man.

Why is this idea important?

Public money appears to be going around in a circle, and on the way appears to be paying to keep people in the tax office busy unnecessarily at public expense.

The government pays salaries to the public sector, but at the same time takes a proportion back, involving the resources of Revenue & Customs to process. 

My concept is simply to remove the requirement for ALL public sector workers to pay tax and NI contributions by also simply reducing their pay from their current taxable gross salary level to what their net take home pay level would ordinarily be.

Conceptually, it seems an unnecessary step to pay a public worker with public money, and then spend public money on the processing required to take some of that money back in the form of tax and NI and any subsequent tax rebate claims.

Any tax rebate that a worker would normally be entitled to should be built into the terms and conditions of being a public sector worker and claimed as an expense.  This might also help to reduce tax avoidance by the fact that they would need to claim any extra allowance or expense from their employer rather than the faceless tax man.

Remove/reduce customs charges/VAT for imported toys, art and items not available in the EU.

I buy resin ball jointed dolls from outside the EU, they are handmade and different from bog standard toys on the high street, and NOBODY in the EU makes them so I am forced to buy them from Asia or America. Each doll costs upwards of £100 so  when they arrive in the UK I am smashed with VAT/customs charges etc. I think this is grossly unfair, and there are many, many more people like me! America doesn't put VAT on toys so why do we? When VAT goes up again I will most likely stop buying the dolls because I can't afford the extra VAT/customs charges – so global businesses are damaged and the UK taxman is left with nothing anyway! If you won't remove the VAT, then can you raise the value that gets taxed, so ordinary people can also enjoy having nice things? Example, instead of a measly £36 limit, raise it to £200!

Why is this idea important?

I buy resin ball jointed dolls from outside the EU, they are handmade and different from bog standard toys on the high street, and NOBODY in the EU makes them so I am forced to buy them from Asia or America. Each doll costs upwards of £100 so  when they arrive in the UK I am smashed with VAT/customs charges etc. I think this is grossly unfair, and there are many, many more people like me! America doesn't put VAT on toys so why do we? When VAT goes up again I will most likely stop buying the dolls because I can't afford the extra VAT/customs charges – so global businesses are damaged and the UK taxman is left with nothing anyway! If you won't remove the VAT, then can you raise the value that gets taxed, so ordinary people can also enjoy having nice things? Example, instead of a measly £36 limit, raise it to £200!