Simplify UK GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles)

In common with other members of the British Property Federation, British Land PLC supports the objectives in relation to the future of UK GAAP. However using IFRS for SMEs as the basis for UK GAAP is not the right approach because of the substantive difference between IFRS and UK GAAP and the onerous obligations of IFRS. The result is likely to be an overly complex and duplicating regulatory burden on SME businesses (Tier 1 reporters), particular when these are subsidiaries of larger businesses (Tier 2 reporters). The danger is that many companies will end up adopting full IFRS across their whole group despite the unnecessary expense.

Why is this idea important?

In common with other members of the British Property Federation, British Land PLC supports the objectives in relation to the future of UK GAAP. However using IFRS for SMEs as the basis for UK GAAP is not the right approach because of the substantive difference between IFRS and UK GAAP and the onerous obligations of IFRS. The result is likely to be an overly complex and duplicating regulatory burden on SME businesses (Tier 1 reporters), particular when these are subsidiaries of larger businesses (Tier 2 reporters). The danger is that many companies will end up adopting full IFRS across their whole group despite the unnecessary expense.

homes government to save money 300,000,000

 

saving money

I think this is something that the government has got to look at, why you ask it is costing the tax payer hundred of million of pounds all over the uk.

You have rented properties, council

You have rented properties, private rented

You have part rent part buy

You have properties to buy

build cost £36,000 year 1985

Councils properties you pay rent over 5,10,15,20 years that’s it, cost to build £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

Private rented you pay the rent over 5,10,16,20 years that’s it, costs to build £36,000 after 10 years property is worth £83,000.

Part rent part buy you pay rent up to about 10 years and buy, you buy the lease or freehold, it cost to build £36,000 sold for £47,000, property in worth £83,000 but these are being sold at a loss we the tax payer are giving home’s away for free or part of them

These properties should be sold at the market value

Buy your property you pay £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

I do not see any difference between rented properties, rent part buy property, and buy a property after

10 years all have the same market value, if same area, same type of construction

Why is this idea important?

 

saving money

I think this is something that the government has got to look at, why you ask it is costing the tax payer hundred of million of pounds all over the uk.

You have rented properties, council

You have rented properties, private rented

You have part rent part buy

You have properties to buy

build cost £36,000 year 1985

Councils properties you pay rent over 5,10,15,20 years that’s it, cost to build £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

Private rented you pay the rent over 5,10,16,20 years that’s it, costs to build £36,000 after 10 years property is worth £83,000.

Part rent part buy you pay rent up to about 10 years and buy, you buy the lease or freehold, it cost to build £36,000 sold for £47,000, property in worth £83,000 but these are being sold at a loss we the tax payer are giving home’s away for free or part of them

These properties should be sold at the market value

Buy your property you pay £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

I do not see any difference between rented properties, rent part buy property, and buy a property after

10 years all have the same market value, if same area, same type of construction

Amendment to Money Laundering Regulations to help the self employed small business

Dear Cameron,

I am now semi retired after 40 years as an accountant. My turnover was only £1400 for the year ending 31.3.2010 but on 1.10.2010 I will have to pay the £120 Money Laundering Regulation Fee, the fee would be the same even if my turnover was £50000.

As you will appreciate £120 is 8.5% of my turnover(my turnover will be much the same in the current tax year). I have to absorb most of this fee myself and consider it to be excessive given the value of my turnover. Could you please consider setting a turnover limit below which the fee is not payable, I would suggest £10000,or alternatively, having a fee which is on a sliding scale based on turnover.

 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Cameron,

I am now semi retired after 40 years as an accountant. My turnover was only £1400 for the year ending 31.3.2010 but on 1.10.2010 I will have to pay the £120 Money Laundering Regulation Fee, the fee would be the same even if my turnover was £50000.

As you will appreciate £120 is 8.5% of my turnover(my turnover will be much the same in the current tax year). I have to absorb most of this fee myself and consider it to be excessive given the value of my turnover. Could you please consider setting a turnover limit below which the fee is not payable, I would suggest £10000,or alternatively, having a fee which is on a sliding scale based on turnover.

 

Replace income tax and nh contributions by a payrolltax

Income taxes and nh contributions are simply a penalty on working and are also highly intrusive placing the worker in an adversarial position to the government !

A payroll tax similar to that in France of around 60% for which the employer alone is responsible would bring in more revenue,and would crush the "black economy" since only the employer would have to declare the payroll and its total amount . If he did not declare an employee  he would be at that person's mercy thereafter since the employee would be committing no offence ,only the employer ! There would be no more tax dodging by working "on the side" since there would be no benefit to the employee to do so ! The "worker would keep every penny he earned;

The system would of course have to be phased in over a period of time and vat on luxury goods would be increased as would high value property taxes so that if the rich made themselves employees they would still have to pay more for what they wanted in order to live their customary  lifestyle.Tax havens and tax dodging would become redundant !

Why is this idea important?

Income taxes and nh contributions are simply a penalty on working and are also highly intrusive placing the worker in an adversarial position to the government !

A payroll tax similar to that in France of around 60% for which the employer alone is responsible would bring in more revenue,and would crush the "black economy" since only the employer would have to declare the payroll and its total amount . If he did not declare an employee  he would be at that person's mercy thereafter since the employee would be committing no offence ,only the employer ! There would be no more tax dodging by working "on the side" since there would be no benefit to the employee to do so ! The "worker would keep every penny he earned;

The system would of course have to be phased in over a period of time and vat on luxury goods would be increased as would high value property taxes so that if the rich made themselves employees they would still have to pay more for what they wanted in order to live their customary  lifestyle.Tax havens and tax dodging would become redundant !

Harmonisation of tax year and budget changes

The tax year should start at the beginning of the year, January 1st, and all changes to tax rates, NI etc. take place at exactly the same time. No changes during the year.

Why is this idea important?

The tax year should start at the beginning of the year, January 1st, and all changes to tax rates, NI etc. take place at exactly the same time. No changes during the year.

Increase Premium Savings Bond Holding

The current maximum holding of £30,000 could and should be increased to say £50,000 per person this would generate much needed cash for the Government to use with a cheap borrowing rate of only 1% (which is used for the cash prizes).

It should also be promoted better…unlike the Lottery you are guaranteed to get your money back!

Why is this idea important?

The current maximum holding of £30,000 could and should be increased to say £50,000 per person this would generate much needed cash for the Government to use with a cheap borrowing rate of only 1% (which is used for the cash prizes).

It should also be promoted better…unlike the Lottery you are guaranteed to get your money back!

HOW TO IMPROVE HOUSING MARKET FAST WITH A BETTER CONVEYANCING SYSTEM (i.e., take a leaf from North of the Border!)

 

When I moved from London to Edinburgh, I realised the big difference between the way houses are bought and sold in Scotland , and how it is done in England.

I know some folks living in England might not like to hear this, but the housing system of conveyancing in Scotland , I find, is a LOT MORE EFFECIENT, FAR SUPERIOR AND A LOT FASTER than in England (and Wales).

It took me several months to get the sales of my house  through in England, but in Scotland, I managed to offer, buy and own it in a matter of a couple of days !

For those who are not aware of how house sales works in England (and Wales) , and in Scotland, it goes something like this:

IN ENGLAND

In England, the vendor puts on his house for sale. The buyer sees the property, likes it and makes a bid. The vendor can accept the offer. However, the acceptance of the offer is not legally binding. If the vendor has another buyer who offers a higher price, he can turn change his mind with the first offer from the first buyer (i.e. "gazumping"). Likewise, if the buyer sees another property, he can say to the vendor he has changed his mind and move away. This could be he has found another property. The buyer can also wait until everyone is ready to exchange contracts before deciding to lower the offer on the property, threatening the collapse of a whole chain of house sales waiting for the deal to go through (the word "gazundering" is often used).

To make the tedious sale of the house take even longer go through in England and Wales, the buyer then usually have to go to a bank or building society after the bid of the property has been accepted,  to apply for a mortgage. Before the mortgage is approved, the lending bank or building society then send a surveyor who comes to see the property and then makes a report. The Lending bank then wait for the surveyor to write and send the report. They have to receive it, read it and only then decide whether to approve the mortgage.  This can take weeks – if not months.

IN SCOTLAND

This is not the same in Scotland. Under Scots Law, in their system of conveyancing, the survey is often made prior to a bid – or a bid is made "subject to survey". However, the buyer would have secured the mortgage BEFORE he makes the bid. The sale can go through in a matter of days !

When you make a bid in Scotland (unlike in England and Wales)and it is accepted, that is legally  binding. The buyer can face a hefty penalty, or even be sued, if he changes his mind. Likewise, the seller has to keep his side of the bargain. As a result, both "gazumping" and "gazundering" are extremely rare in Scotland.

In Scotland, there is also less chance of the collapse of the housing sales chain because of the failure of one deal along the chain.

I have spoken to estate agents in England and they all seem to agree the Scottish system of conveyancing is better. So why has it not been adopted in England? Is it because of "Pride" to refuse any idea from "North of the Border"?

If England (and Wales) were to adopt the Scottish system of conveyancing, house sales would go through more smoothly and faster. There is less gazumping and gazundering , and there is less chance of collapse of the housing sales chain. This could improve the housing market – and of course, it will help the TREASURY as well with more money from stamp duties.

Why is this idea important?

 

When I moved from London to Edinburgh, I realised the big difference between the way houses are bought and sold in Scotland , and how it is done in England.

I know some folks living in England might not like to hear this, but the housing system of conveyancing in Scotland , I find, is a LOT MORE EFFECIENT, FAR SUPERIOR AND A LOT FASTER than in England (and Wales).

It took me several months to get the sales of my house  through in England, but in Scotland, I managed to offer, buy and own it in a matter of a couple of days !

For those who are not aware of how house sales works in England (and Wales) , and in Scotland, it goes something like this:

IN ENGLAND

In England, the vendor puts on his house for sale. The buyer sees the property, likes it and makes a bid. The vendor can accept the offer. However, the acceptance of the offer is not legally binding. If the vendor has another buyer who offers a higher price, he can turn change his mind with the first offer from the first buyer (i.e. "gazumping"). Likewise, if the buyer sees another property, he can say to the vendor he has changed his mind and move away. This could be he has found another property. The buyer can also wait until everyone is ready to exchange contracts before deciding to lower the offer on the property, threatening the collapse of a whole chain of house sales waiting for the deal to go through (the word "gazundering" is often used).

To make the tedious sale of the house take even longer go through in England and Wales, the buyer then usually have to go to a bank or building society after the bid of the property has been accepted,  to apply for a mortgage. Before the mortgage is approved, the lending bank or building society then send a surveyor who comes to see the property and then makes a report. The Lending bank then wait for the surveyor to write and send the report. They have to receive it, read it and only then decide whether to approve the mortgage.  This can take weeks – if not months.

IN SCOTLAND

This is not the same in Scotland. Under Scots Law, in their system of conveyancing, the survey is often made prior to a bid – or a bid is made "subject to survey". However, the buyer would have secured the mortgage BEFORE he makes the bid. The sale can go through in a matter of days !

When you make a bid in Scotland (unlike in England and Wales)and it is accepted, that is legally  binding. The buyer can face a hefty penalty, or even be sued, if he changes his mind. Likewise, the seller has to keep his side of the bargain. As a result, both "gazumping" and "gazundering" are extremely rare in Scotland.

In Scotland, there is also less chance of the collapse of the housing sales chain because of the failure of one deal along the chain.

I have spoken to estate agents in England and they all seem to agree the Scottish system of conveyancing is better. So why has it not been adopted in England? Is it because of "Pride" to refuse any idea from "North of the Border"?

If England (and Wales) were to adopt the Scottish system of conveyancing, house sales would go through more smoothly and faster. There is less gazumping and gazundering , and there is less chance of collapse of the housing sales chain. This could improve the housing market – and of course, it will help the TREASURY as well with more money from stamp duties.

repeal Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act

The Dormant Bank and Building Society Act allows the government to take and redistribute funds in a Dormant Bank Account if there has been no contact or activity on the account for 15 years, without informing the account holder. It is iniquitous that the last government saw fit to assume the power to raid these accounts.

Why is this idea important?

The Dormant Bank and Building Society Act allows the government to take and redistribute funds in a Dormant Bank Account if there has been no contact or activity on the account for 15 years, without informing the account holder. It is iniquitous that the last government saw fit to assume the power to raid these accounts.

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?

Revise Money Laundering Regulations

Amend these regulations so that a credit card company (Co-op Visa) cannot say to me that it is illegal for me to pay my credit card bill with cash!!

The Money Laundering Regulations are too wide in their application, causing unneccessay aggravation to honest citizens trying to carry out unremarkable transactions. They apply to activities with quite small monetary values. They also mean people feeling affronted at having to establish their identity over and over again. 

Why is this idea important?

Amend these regulations so that a credit card company (Co-op Visa) cannot say to me that it is illegal for me to pay my credit card bill with cash!!

The Money Laundering Regulations are too wide in their application, causing unneccessay aggravation to honest citizens trying to carry out unremarkable transactions. They apply to activities with quite small monetary values. They also mean people feeling affronted at having to establish their identity over and over again. 

Require Gov’t funded bodies to lodge cash in the Bank of England

It astonishes me that while the national government borrows money, local councils all over the country have been lending money to Icelandic and other banks, who naturally earn a 'spread' on relending it to others. Surely all tax-payer/government funded bodies (including the BBC, for example) should be required to invest their surplus funds with the Bank of England? This would reduce risk to the tax-payer and reduce cost to the goverment – and so to the tax-payer. The wasteful duplication of treasury department activities throughout the UK could be be eliminated at a stroke.

Why is this idea important?

It astonishes me that while the national government borrows money, local councils all over the country have been lending money to Icelandic and other banks, who naturally earn a 'spread' on relending it to others. Surely all tax-payer/government funded bodies (including the BBC, for example) should be required to invest their surplus funds with the Bank of England? This would reduce risk to the tax-payer and reduce cost to the goverment – and so to the tax-payer. The wasteful duplication of treasury department activities throughout the UK could be be eliminated at a stroke.

Conveyancing laws

The conveyancing laws for England, Wales and N Ireland need amending to be more in line with the Scottish laws whereby a contract is entered into when an offer is made on a property.   To be honest all I know is this part of the Scottish law and don't know what other differences there are but our laws cause so much stress to prospective housemovers not knowing sometimes until the last minute if a sale/purchase is going ahead.    Extra expense can also be incurred when a sale/purchase falls through.  A change in the laws would of course have an effect on the housing market and not being an economist or financial expert I have no idea what the effect  would be but would be very interested in an expert opinion.

 

Regards

 

Kath Lingard

Why is this idea important?

The conveyancing laws for England, Wales and N Ireland need amending to be more in line with the Scottish laws whereby a contract is entered into when an offer is made on a property.   To be honest all I know is this part of the Scottish law and don't know what other differences there are but our laws cause so much stress to prospective housemovers not knowing sometimes until the last minute if a sale/purchase is going ahead.    Extra expense can also be incurred when a sale/purchase falls through.  A change in the laws would of course have an effect on the housing market and not being an economist or financial expert I have no idea what the effect  would be but would be very interested in an expert opinion.

 

Regards

 

Kath Lingard

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'.

Remove Money Laundering For Term Assurance Life Cover

At present all companies and regualted individual who provide life assurance to the public have to prove the identity of clients. This is reasonable when there is an investment content e.g. for an offshore bond but not for death only term assurance cover. Drugs cartels and terrorists will not shelter their ill gotten gains in these contracts as the only provide a benefit on death or disability. Any barrier that prevents more people from adequately protecting theirs families should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

At present all companies and regualted individual who provide life assurance to the public have to prove the identity of clients. This is reasonable when there is an investment content e.g. for an offshore bond but not for death only term assurance cover. Drugs cartels and terrorists will not shelter their ill gotten gains in these contracts as the only provide a benefit on death or disability. Any barrier that prevents more people from adequately protecting theirs families should be removed.

Money Laundering Regs

Restore the de minimis limit of £50,00 T/O for tax agents to allow for the preparation of tax returns.    I have had to give up part-time self employment due to the cost of regulation which accompanied the introduction of the legislation, and I suspect that I am not the only one.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Restore the de minimis limit of £50,00 T/O for tax agents to allow for the preparation of tax returns.    I have had to give up part-time self employment due to the cost of regulation which accompanied the introduction of the legislation, and I suspect that I am not the only one.

 

 

 

Abolish Whole of government accounts

Remove the requirement to collect data a second time for all local and central government bodies and the NHS to create the 'Whole of Government Accounts' each year where data has been collected for the last 5 years but will only be published this year.

 

These figures are meaningless with each body already preparing its own accounts and publishing them and the process simply creates another level of administration with a considerable cost.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement to collect data a second time for all local and central government bodies and the NHS to create the 'Whole of Government Accounts' each year where data has been collected for the last 5 years but will only be published this year.

 

These figures are meaningless with each body already preparing its own accounts and publishing them and the process simply creates another level of administration with a considerable cost.

Ombudsman Schemes

I have occasion to use the Financial Services Ombudsman and represent an individual in the Health, Legal Services, Water Services and Parliamentary Ombudsman Scehmes.

In all cases I found the processes to be incredibly slow

I found that the procedures were court like and this meant that it made it very difficult for a complainant to advancea complaint as it was difficult or impossible for a complaint to adduce the evidence necessary to bring a successful claim (defeating the purpose of avoiding going to court).particularly as the one complained of does not necessarily have to place its card on the table (as is the case for litigation)

The scope and terms of reference under which complaints can be made are narrow and narrowly interpreted so such schemes are very limited and highly skewed in favour of large organisations or bodies who have infringed the rights of the complainants.

Why is this idea important?

I have occasion to use the Financial Services Ombudsman and represent an individual in the Health, Legal Services, Water Services and Parliamentary Ombudsman Scehmes.

In all cases I found the processes to be incredibly slow

I found that the procedures were court like and this meant that it made it very difficult for a complainant to advancea complaint as it was difficult or impossible for a complaint to adduce the evidence necessary to bring a successful claim (defeating the purpose of avoiding going to court).particularly as the one complained of does not necessarily have to place its card on the table (as is the case for litigation)

The scope and terms of reference under which complaints can be made are narrow and narrowly interpreted so such schemes are very limited and highly skewed in favour of large organisations or bodies who have infringed the rights of the complainants.

Reform Money Laundering Regulations

These are overly onerous on companies and the public and create a lot of unnecessary paperwork and cost. They are applied to investments which are not conceivably of interest to money launderers (eg a small pension policy). Companies commonly ask individuals for several identity documents when there is any alteration to an account.  There is no consistency between one company's rules and another. Providing these documents can be time wasting, and/or expensive.

For example an individual with a small endowment or pension policy might be asked to provide their passport or a copy of their passport certified as "original seen", as well as copies of household bills, in order to simply get their address changed.  It is not longer easy to get a certified copy of a passport; banks refuse to do it, and solicitors will usually only do it for established clients.  If the financial company concerned is one that does not have local branches (eg Britain's biggest insurer – Aviva), the customer is left with little option except send valuable documents through the post.  This is not satisfactory, and likely to lead to identity theft.

Why is this idea important?

These are overly onerous on companies and the public and create a lot of unnecessary paperwork and cost. They are applied to investments which are not conceivably of interest to money launderers (eg a small pension policy). Companies commonly ask individuals for several identity documents when there is any alteration to an account.  There is no consistency between one company's rules and another. Providing these documents can be time wasting, and/or expensive.

For example an individual with a small endowment or pension policy might be asked to provide their passport or a copy of their passport certified as "original seen", as well as copies of household bills, in order to simply get their address changed.  It is not longer easy to get a certified copy of a passport; banks refuse to do it, and solicitors will usually only do it for established clients.  If the financial company concerned is one that does not have local branches (eg Britain's biggest insurer – Aviva), the customer is left with little option except send valuable documents through the post.  This is not satisfactory, and likely to lead to identity theft.

Lower bank leverage increase capital requirements

well austerity is the way for the citizen so hows about the same for the banks. overleveraged and under capitalised banks and institutiions got us here . if we dont reduce their ablity to get involved in capitalism without capital we will be back here again in very short time

Why is this idea important?

well austerity is the way for the citizen so hows about the same for the banks. overleveraged and under capitalised banks and institutiions got us here . if we dont reduce their ablity to get involved in capitalism without capital we will be back here again in very short time

Remove the bank of england “nominees” act

We want to see exactly who owns the bank of england. “not just the brick and mortar building” but the equity and finances and loan capital that eminates from it.

Why is this idea important?

We want to see exactly who owns the bank of england. “not just the brick and mortar building” but the equity and finances and loan capital that eminates from it.

For the Coalition to introduce a Robin Hood Tax…

As some people know, a Robin Hood tax is a tax on banks and other financial institutions transactions.

There could also add piece of legislation in which, when enough money is raised (to combat the deficit), 40% of that tax income could go to some sort of Treasury Kitty that will be a bit like a savings account. The money saved could then could help future generations in this country when another version of the "Credit Crunch" comes along and the Country is suddenly in dire straits. It would come in very useful. 

Why is this idea important?

As some people know, a Robin Hood tax is a tax on banks and other financial institutions transactions.

There could also add piece of legislation in which, when enough money is raised (to combat the deficit), 40% of that tax income could go to some sort of Treasury Kitty that will be a bit like a savings account. The money saved could then could help future generations in this country when another version of the "Credit Crunch" comes along and the Country is suddenly in dire straits. It would come in very useful. 

Political Party access to Treasury books prior to a General Election

I do not think enough importance is given to the need to know how bad or good the country's finances are prior to a General Election. I believe that at least the 6/7 main political parties should have access to Treasury information in the threee months prior to an election. This should enable them to devise strategies and priorities which they should then present as manifesto commitments. Hopefull y then the fiasco of always blaming the unknown financial position on someone else might diminish and electors can choose who to vote for in the knowledge that they accept their financial stratagems. With this Government now running for a fixed period this three months rule should be introduced asap so that it is not left to the last minute to argue over and delay in Parliament.

Why is this idea important?

I do not think enough importance is given to the need to know how bad or good the country's finances are prior to a General Election. I believe that at least the 6/7 main political parties should have access to Treasury information in the threee months prior to an election. This should enable them to devise strategies and priorities which they should then present as manifesto commitments. Hopefull y then the fiasco of always blaming the unknown financial position on someone else might diminish and electors can choose who to vote for in the knowledge that they accept their financial stratagems. With this Government now running for a fixed period this three months rule should be introduced asap so that it is not left to the last minute to argue over and delay in Parliament.

Abolish Capitalism

From it's humble roots in the merchant towns of 14th century Italy to it's explosion onto the world stage sweeping away the remnants of Feudal reaction in the American and French revolutions the bourgeoisie stood for the ideals of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death!". However it's revolutionary potential soon gave way to smug reaction and an alliance with the old aristocratic exploiting classes and with the entrance onto the world stage of the Gesamtarbeit ("Total worker") as a world-historic force and communism as the world-historic reality which it saught to assert against the inverted unreality of capitalism the bourgeoisie gave up it's claims to  assert the rights of the Third Estate. With the onset of the first world war and the worldwide insurrectionary wave that followed it beggining with the Red October in Russia and spreading out to the Novermber revolution and Spartacist uprisings in Germany and the biennio rosso in Italy as well as finding echoes in the rising British shop stewards movement and the Seattle general strike not only the bourgeoisie but capitalism as a world-historic system entered it's phase of decadence. The insurrectionary wave finally petered out after the collapse of the frankly feeble British general strike of 1926, but the message of "all power to the workers councils" against the rule of capital and especially it's statist and productivist left-wing had been made abundantly clear.

The phase of capitalist decadence, like the corresponding period of feudal decadence, has been characterised by a thousandfold increase in the power of the state in order to stave off capitalism's collapse. Part of this has been the statisation of the old workers institutions – the labour and social-democratic parties and "yellow" trade unions – in order to divert proletarian struggles away from revolutionary opposition to the existing state of things. The new role of the old institutions was seen quite clearly in events such as mai 68 when the French bourgeoisie was packing it's bags to flee to west germany only to have the trade unions and "official communist" party seperate the workers and end the wildcat strike. However it has also included the transformation of capitalism away from it's petty-proprietor free-trade phase into it's monopoly and state-monopoly phases.

In this era of capitalist decadence we are once again faced with that old choice offered to us by Friedrich Engels and recapitulated by Rosa Luxemburg – The dictatorship of the workers or the dictatorship of the market! Production, all sided in it's individuality and controlled collectively by all, or the generalised destruction of the productive forces by capitalism's relentless thirst for valorisation! Socialism or Barbarism!

Why is this idea important?

From it's humble roots in the merchant towns of 14th century Italy to it's explosion onto the world stage sweeping away the remnants of Feudal reaction in the American and French revolutions the bourgeoisie stood for the ideals of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death!". However it's revolutionary potential soon gave way to smug reaction and an alliance with the old aristocratic exploiting classes and with the entrance onto the world stage of the Gesamtarbeit ("Total worker") as a world-historic force and communism as the world-historic reality which it saught to assert against the inverted unreality of capitalism the bourgeoisie gave up it's claims to  assert the rights of the Third Estate. With the onset of the first world war and the worldwide insurrectionary wave that followed it beggining with the Red October in Russia and spreading out to the Novermber revolution and Spartacist uprisings in Germany and the biennio rosso in Italy as well as finding echoes in the rising British shop stewards movement and the Seattle general strike not only the bourgeoisie but capitalism as a world-historic system entered it's phase of decadence. The insurrectionary wave finally petered out after the collapse of the frankly feeble British general strike of 1926, but the message of "all power to the workers councils" against the rule of capital and especially it's statist and productivist left-wing had been made abundantly clear.

The phase of capitalist decadence, like the corresponding period of feudal decadence, has been characterised by a thousandfold increase in the power of the state in order to stave off capitalism's collapse. Part of this has been the statisation of the old workers institutions – the labour and social-democratic parties and "yellow" trade unions – in order to divert proletarian struggles away from revolutionary opposition to the existing state of things. The new role of the old institutions was seen quite clearly in events such as mai 68 when the French bourgeoisie was packing it's bags to flee to west germany only to have the trade unions and "official communist" party seperate the workers and end the wildcat strike. However it has also included the transformation of capitalism away from it's petty-proprietor free-trade phase into it's monopoly and state-monopoly phases.

In this era of capitalist decadence we are once again faced with that old choice offered to us by Friedrich Engels and recapitulated by Rosa Luxemburg – The dictatorship of the workers or the dictatorship of the market! Production, all sided in it's individuality and controlled collectively by all, or the generalised destruction of the productive forces by capitalism's relentless thirst for valorisation! Socialism or Barbarism!