The Bank Withdrawal Tax.

Tax only money in the bank and take it only when money is withdrawn from the account. Take the tax, 3% of the withdrawal, from the money left in the account and deposit it in the governments tax account.

This tax could be introduced simply by adding a couple of lines to the bank program that controls our accounts and deposits and withdrawals. When you get your ATM slip it will have a couple of extra lines. It says already, amount withdrawn, balance and amount available. With this tax, the extra lines would say, tax paid, and, tax payable.

Why is this idea important?

Tax only money in the bank and take it only when money is withdrawn from the account. Take the tax, 3% of the withdrawal, from the money left in the account and deposit it in the governments tax account.

This tax could be introduced simply by adding a couple of lines to the bank program that controls our accounts and deposits and withdrawals. When you get your ATM slip it will have a couple of extra lines. It says already, amount withdrawn, balance and amount available. With this tax, the extra lines would say, tax paid, and, tax payable.

Move income tax, to a tax on dirty energy

 

If we want to encourage clean energy development and lower electricity use, we should raise taxes on emissions created by power plants, so that dirty energy costs more to produce than clean energy. 

If a tax based on the amount of pollutants a power station produced was raised significantly it would make renewable energy economically advantages.  Making clean energy cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels would lead to a surge in renewable energy projects.  This would lower pollution, create a secure energy supply and help the economy through investment.

Obviously this would lead to higher energy prices.  The government should offset this by lowering income tax.  Maybe the Liberal Democrats could get their 10,000 income tax threshold.  Those on fixed incomes would also need an increase, paid for by the emissions tax.  This would be a fairer system of taxation.  

Why is this idea important?

 

If we want to encourage clean energy development and lower electricity use, we should raise taxes on emissions created by power plants, so that dirty energy costs more to produce than clean energy. 

If a tax based on the amount of pollutants a power station produced was raised significantly it would make renewable energy economically advantages.  Making clean energy cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels would lead to a surge in renewable energy projects.  This would lower pollution, create a secure energy supply and help the economy through investment.

Obviously this would lead to higher energy prices.  The government should offset this by lowering income tax.  Maybe the Liberal Democrats could get their 10,000 income tax threshold.  Those on fixed incomes would also need an increase, paid for by the emissions tax.  This would be a fairer system of taxation.  

Fund Local Authorities with local income tax.

The concept of Council Tax was ill thought out and rushed in as a knee jerk response to replace the Community Charge.  The Community Charge was an excellent idea because it was based on the not unreasonable notion that everyone in a society should contribute to funding the services which they all receive in one way or another.  One person living alone would sensibly pay less than a family of 4 or 5 or more living in an identical property next door.

The old rating system was totally bankrupt and becoming untenable and unworkable; it needed replacing.  Whether or not the Community Charge was the ideal solution to replace it is open to debat,e but what I firmly beleive most people would agree with is that Council Tax is now in the same boat as the former rating system at the end of its life.  Council Tax combines the worst aspects of both the rating system and the Community Charge in that it presupposes that the house you live in is in direct correlation to your personal wealth and hence your ability to pay; it then also includes any other people in the property when over the age of 18 but does not make them responsible for their contribution, hence the entire burden falls on the householder.

Many thousands of people bought properties during the period of the Community Charge, properties they would not have considered previously because of the burden of rates.  These same people are now assumed to be of a certain wealth for no better reason than the Council Tax band which their property has arbiitrarily been put into when they are actually no better off than they were previously.

Council Tax has increased remorselessly and it is the higher bands which take most of the starin because the percentage increase is applied to an ever increasing larger sum than is the case in the lower bands.  That having been said the overall level of Council Tax is now as untenable and unrealistic as was the former Rates System.  On a personal note our Council Tax has increased by around 185% since we have been in our property; would that our income had similarly increased.

Council Tax is putting the same artificial brake on the housing market that Rates did and making it particularly difficult for people to get onto the housing ladder even if they can get a mortgage because they still have to consider the onerous burden of ongoing Council Tax.  A mortgage does eventually end, Council Tax doesn't; even if you can afford the house the Council Tax makes it an unrealistic option to purchase a house that is otherwise affordable.

It used to be a Liberal Democrat policy to replace Council Tax with a local income tax and I would fully support this idea should it be resurrected.  The only proviso I would make is that it should be administered by the Inland Revenue and not the Local Authorities and it should be a set at a uniform rate, not variable from one council area to another; any genuine shortfalls being made up from the government support grants.  It makes ultimate sense that those who can afford to pay should pay and your ability to pay should not be based, and more often than not erroneously, on the banding of your house.

Whether or not a local income tax is introduced Council Tax is desperately in need of reform to ease the burden it has now become for thousands of households across the country whose Council Tax is actually more than they pay for their mortgage.

Why is this idea important?

The concept of Council Tax was ill thought out and rushed in as a knee jerk response to replace the Community Charge.  The Community Charge was an excellent idea because it was based on the not unreasonable notion that everyone in a society should contribute to funding the services which they all receive in one way or another.  One person living alone would sensibly pay less than a family of 4 or 5 or more living in an identical property next door.

The old rating system was totally bankrupt and becoming untenable and unworkable; it needed replacing.  Whether or not the Community Charge was the ideal solution to replace it is open to debat,e but what I firmly beleive most people would agree with is that Council Tax is now in the same boat as the former rating system at the end of its life.  Council Tax combines the worst aspects of both the rating system and the Community Charge in that it presupposes that the house you live in is in direct correlation to your personal wealth and hence your ability to pay; it then also includes any other people in the property when over the age of 18 but does not make them responsible for their contribution, hence the entire burden falls on the householder.

Many thousands of people bought properties during the period of the Community Charge, properties they would not have considered previously because of the burden of rates.  These same people are now assumed to be of a certain wealth for no better reason than the Council Tax band which their property has arbiitrarily been put into when they are actually no better off than they were previously.

Council Tax has increased remorselessly and it is the higher bands which take most of the starin because the percentage increase is applied to an ever increasing larger sum than is the case in the lower bands.  That having been said the overall level of Council Tax is now as untenable and unrealistic as was the former Rates System.  On a personal note our Council Tax has increased by around 185% since we have been in our property; would that our income had similarly increased.

Council Tax is putting the same artificial brake on the housing market that Rates did and making it particularly difficult for people to get onto the housing ladder even if they can get a mortgage because they still have to consider the onerous burden of ongoing Council Tax.  A mortgage does eventually end, Council Tax doesn't; even if you can afford the house the Council Tax makes it an unrealistic option to purchase a house that is otherwise affordable.

It used to be a Liberal Democrat policy to replace Council Tax with a local income tax and I would fully support this idea should it be resurrected.  The only proviso I would make is that it should be administered by the Inland Revenue and not the Local Authorities and it should be a set at a uniform rate, not variable from one council area to another; any genuine shortfalls being made up from the government support grants.  It makes ultimate sense that those who can afford to pay should pay and your ability to pay should not be based, and more often than not erroneously, on the banding of your house.

Whether or not a local income tax is introduced Council Tax is desperately in need of reform to ease the burden it has now become for thousands of households across the country whose Council Tax is actually more than they pay for their mortgage.

Land Tax

First of all I would like to thank Nick Clegg for this opportunity to have some useful input directly into government policy. My personal circumstances are that my current landlord has given me 60 days notice to leave my private let (via a letting agent) house because he needs to sell in order to repay certain debts he has acquired in the current economic climate.

The area I live in there simply isn’t any housing available to let privately, and those that are coming onto the market are well above my finical means. I earn too much for the local council to help me. I need to be homeless for a minimum of 30 days before the council can offer any help.

There are plenty of empty houses in the area I drive past dozens on my way to work so who knows how many more there are in the side roads. These are of course investment properties whereby the owners are waiting for the property market to recover before they restore, develop, or just redecorate to sell on for a profit.

This is a situation that simply does not exist in Germany. The German government charges a ‘Land Tax’ on all property. With residential properties the residents pay the land tax as part of their council tax.

Often in some city areas the land tax is higher that the council tax thus encouraging property owners to have tenants occupying their properties as much as possible.

Why is this idea important?

First of all I would like to thank Nick Clegg for this opportunity to have some useful input directly into government policy. My personal circumstances are that my current landlord has given me 60 days notice to leave my private let (via a letting agent) house because he needs to sell in order to repay certain debts he has acquired in the current economic climate.

The area I live in there simply isn’t any housing available to let privately, and those that are coming onto the market are well above my finical means. I earn too much for the local council to help me. I need to be homeless for a minimum of 30 days before the council can offer any help.

There are plenty of empty houses in the area I drive past dozens on my way to work so who knows how many more there are in the side roads. These are of course investment properties whereby the owners are waiting for the property market to recover before they restore, develop, or just redecorate to sell on for a profit.

This is a situation that simply does not exist in Germany. The German government charges a ‘Land Tax’ on all property. With residential properties the residents pay the land tax as part of their council tax.

Often in some city areas the land tax is higher that the council tax thus encouraging property owners to have tenants occupying their properties as much as possible.

Council tax rethink

Council tax should be recalculated, instead of paying for your type of house, how many bedrooms you have and toilets…etc..etc.. you should pay a standard monthly fee which is fair to all people in every type of property.

Every one should pay £80 a month, simple as that.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Council tax should be recalculated, instead of paying for your type of house, how many bedrooms you have and toilets…etc..etc.. you should pay a standard monthly fee which is fair to all people in every type of property.

Every one should pay £80 a month, simple as that.

 

 

Pensions – A very simple solution

Reform of the state pension is probably necessary if only to reduce the public spending.

However, people approaching retirement age now have little or no time to change arrangements for their retirement.

In addition, there's the paradox that some people want to retire at 65 (or 60 for women) whilst others wish to carry on working until their 70s or later.

So how do you solve this? Easy……This is such a simple solution, I have no idea why this hasn't been proposed before. (Figures provided by statistics.gov.uk and other public domain information)

The average annual pay per person in the UK (based on ~£500 per week) is £25,000.

Income tax payable on £25,000 per year is:-
Tax allowance ~£6,500
Calculate (£25,000 – £6,500) = £18,500 x 20% = £3,700

The annual state pension (min / max) is between £5,000 and £6,800 (depending upon 'marital' status).

Therefore, why not encourage people to work on beyond 65 but DON'T pay them a state pension. Instead, allowing them to avoid paying basic rate of income tax will save between £1,300 and £3,100 per annum per person. (Or £130 million to £310 million per 100,000 people per annum).

By doing this, everyone is happy – the Government, people who want to retire, people who don't want to retire, the taxpayer (who actually makes a "profit"), people who have planned for retirement but are still a few years off, etc., etc.

Why is this idea important?

Reform of the state pension is probably necessary if only to reduce the public spending.

However, people approaching retirement age now have little or no time to change arrangements for their retirement.

In addition, there's the paradox that some people want to retire at 65 (or 60 for women) whilst others wish to carry on working until their 70s or later.

So how do you solve this? Easy……This is such a simple solution, I have no idea why this hasn't been proposed before. (Figures provided by statistics.gov.uk and other public domain information)

The average annual pay per person in the UK (based on ~£500 per week) is £25,000.

Income tax payable on £25,000 per year is:-
Tax allowance ~£6,500
Calculate (£25,000 – £6,500) = £18,500 x 20% = £3,700

The annual state pension (min / max) is between £5,000 and £6,800 (depending upon 'marital' status).

Therefore, why not encourage people to work on beyond 65 but DON'T pay them a state pension. Instead, allowing them to avoid paying basic rate of income tax will save between £1,300 and £3,100 per annum per person. (Or £130 million to £310 million per 100,000 people per annum).

By doing this, everyone is happy – the Government, people who want to retire, people who don't want to retire, the taxpayer (who actually makes a "profit"), people who have planned for retirement but are still a few years off, etc., etc.

The Setting up of a Proactive Revenues team to locate and retrieve tax avoidance from all incomes.

too much emphasis is placed on the loss of revenue fromthose in receipt of benefits for which they are not necessarily entitled. The same vigour should be adopted and enforced to investigate and retrieve avoided taxation. Evidence suggests the loss to the Treasury is significant and would pay for the cost of funding investigative teams many times over.

It's about time this was no longer allowed to be treated as a lesser ' crime' than benefit fraud.

Why is this idea important?

too much emphasis is placed on the loss of revenue fromthose in receipt of benefits for which they are not necessarily entitled. The same vigour should be adopted and enforced to investigate and retrieve avoided taxation. Evidence suggests the loss to the Treasury is significant and would pay for the cost of funding investigative teams many times over.

It's about time this was no longer allowed to be treated as a lesser ' crime' than benefit fraud.

Simplify Tax, Reduce Administration and Target Consumerism

Two types of tax only are required- (i) Consumer tax and (ii) Financial (export) Tax.

(i)  Only consumption results in deterioriation of society's infrastructure, pollution and waste.  Therefore all consumption should be taxed as a means of funding the cost of such activities.

(ii)  To safeguard the nation against loss of assets, tax the monetary value of goods and money taken overseas.  This does not include export of goods which result in a net income to the UK.

As income, interest and bank balance, etc do not in their own right create damage, polution, etc these do not need to be taxed as there are no national costs arising. 

Why is this idea important?

Two types of tax only are required- (i) Consumer tax and (ii) Financial (export) Tax.

(i)  Only consumption results in deterioriation of society's infrastructure, pollution and waste.  Therefore all consumption should be taxed as a means of funding the cost of such activities.

(ii)  To safeguard the nation against loss of assets, tax the monetary value of goods and money taken overseas.  This does not include export of goods which result in a net income to the UK.

As income, interest and bank balance, etc do not in their own right create damage, polution, etc these do not need to be taxed as there are no national costs arising.