The government needs to stop all companies who blatantly avoid paying their fair share of tax for example boots the chemist ,Starbucks etc. They need to get their act together and change the laws pronto. This would see a quicker end to the national deficit, which has gone up not down and an end to many cut backs for the elderly etc. If everyone went on like these companies our country would soon go down the pan so why are the government letting this happen? It’s an absolute disgrace.
Why is this idea important?
The government needs to stop all companies who blatantly avoid paying their fair share of tax for example boots the chemist ,Starbucks etc. They need to get their act together and change the laws pronto. This would see a quicker end to the national deficit, which has gone up not down and an end to many cut backs for the elderly etc. If everyone went on like these companies our country would soon go down the pan so why are the government letting this happen? It’s an absolute disgrace.
I believe that TV LICENSE it is another way to tax people in benefit of BBC. We have too much tax and the Britain state became very expensive and unfair.
Why is this idea important?
I believe that TV LICENSE it is another way to tax people in benefit of BBC. We have too much tax and the Britain state became very expensive and unfair.
Stamp duty should be paid on the difference between house prices when moving home not the total price of the new purchase.
Essentially I feel that the stamp duty system discourages economic mobility.
The desire to move to the right area is reduced by the burden of stamp duty.
For example if I got a new job in Sheffield and wished to move from Manchester the stamp duty would be applied even if my current house is exchanged for another house of equal value. Many houses are valued at over 250,000 and as such the cost would be £7500 at 3%.
That is a huge financial burden for a move that had no real improvement in property value.
In summary I feel stamp duty should be applied on the net difference in property prices. It should remain on all first properties and second homes.
Why is this idea important?
Stamp duty should be paid on the difference between house prices when moving home not the total price of the new purchase.
Essentially I feel that the stamp duty system discourages economic mobility.
The desire to move to the right area is reduced by the burden of stamp duty.
For example if I got a new job in Sheffield and wished to move from Manchester the stamp duty would be applied even if my current house is exchanged for another house of equal value. Many houses are valued at over 250,000 and as such the cost would be £7500 at 3%.
That is a huge financial burden for a move that had no real improvement in property value.
In summary I feel stamp duty should be applied on the net difference in property prices. It should remain on all first properties and second homes.
HMRC should have a statutory requirement to pay tax refunds within a set period of time. Paying interest on overdue refunds not made is a cop out.
Having waited over 3 months, phoned numerous times to be told that refunds are in progress is unacceptable. (Interestingly the HMRC will fine you £100 for late submission of tax return).
A proper customer service department that has the power to make decisions and enable action to be taken is required.
Wrong tax calculations from HMRC, MP expenses, pensions debacle how much more do we all have to take before the powers that be start to be accountable and provide a service to those who make the country tick?
Let's hope this website offers more than a cursory tick in the box!!
Why is this idea important?
HMRC should have a statutory requirement to pay tax refunds within a set period of time. Paying interest on overdue refunds not made is a cop out.
Having waited over 3 months, phoned numerous times to be told that refunds are in progress is unacceptable. (Interestingly the HMRC will fine you £100 for late submission of tax return).
A proper customer service department that has the power to make decisions and enable action to be taken is required.
Wrong tax calculations from HMRC, MP expenses, pensions debacle how much more do we all have to take before the powers that be start to be accountable and provide a service to those who make the country tick?
Let's hope this website offers more than a cursory tick in the box!!
VAT is here to stay and that is a given, rates will change.
Scrap this tax for public sector bodies and all those pseudo organisations that are funded via the public purse.
What will this achieve?
Save on red tape and people resource. It is pointless the Government providing budget then charge VAT on all our services….. yes we can charge it out to those who provide a service but not pay it ourselves. This will save on budgets and allow the people used in running and policing this huge 'silo' to concentrate on other more fundamentally administration needs. Those people resources at the HM Revenue end can focus more resource on finding and catching benefit fraudsters etc.. The largest issue we face today is policing the system. By getting rid of buereaucratic red tape that just pushes wooden dollars around is wasteful.
In Univesities it is easily identified how much income is private and public. Public income should also include grants from research councils etc as it is fundamentally public money. Real private monies raised from the private sector or individuals counts against them to ascertain a %age to be paid on services bills for VAT. eg if a uni has true 20% private funding then they should pay VAT at 20% of the prevailing rate eg if VAT at 20% (Jan2011) then the uni would pay VAT of 4% on all of it's invoices. If a Uni has now private money then it pays no VAT at all. This does not affect the paperwork as companies supplying goods and services would still 'charge' VAT but the user would not pay the VAT just the ex VAT figure….
This would save huge amounts of rec tape all over the country and drive out waste in the administration structure.
Why is this idea important?
VAT is here to stay and that is a given, rates will change.
Scrap this tax for public sector bodies and all those pseudo organisations that are funded via the public purse.
What will this achieve?
Save on red tape and people resource. It is pointless the Government providing budget then charge VAT on all our services….. yes we can charge it out to those who provide a service but not pay it ourselves. This will save on budgets and allow the people used in running and policing this huge 'silo' to concentrate on other more fundamentally administration needs. Those people resources at the HM Revenue end can focus more resource on finding and catching benefit fraudsters etc.. The largest issue we face today is policing the system. By getting rid of buereaucratic red tape that just pushes wooden dollars around is wasteful.
In Univesities it is easily identified how much income is private and public. Public income should also include grants from research councils etc as it is fundamentally public money. Real private monies raised from the private sector or individuals counts against them to ascertain a %age to be paid on services bills for VAT. eg if a uni has true 20% private funding then they should pay VAT at 20% of the prevailing rate eg if VAT at 20% (Jan2011) then the uni would pay VAT of 4% on all of it's invoices. If a Uni has now private money then it pays no VAT at all. This does not affect the paperwork as companies supplying goods and services would still 'charge' VAT but the user would not pay the VAT just the ex VAT figure….
This would save huge amounts of rec tape all over the country and drive out waste in the administration structure.
I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.
An example,
1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this
Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.
I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke
2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left
3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…
A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….
So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart)
The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.
In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.
Why is this idea important?
I'm sick of uncovering time and time again tax upon tax upon tax. I work hard, I have a good job, I've not been given this, I work as a minimum 6 days a week, if you took my gross salary and told someone what I earned, you would get wow thats a lot, if you took my gross salary and divided by the hours I actually work I probably earn just above minimum wage… but it doesnt feel like I get the rewards of my endeavours.
An example,
1. I get paid, income tax and National Health Insurance are deducted at source, I have no say in this
Both are calculated against my Gross Earnings and both are uncapped, even though once the first one has been calculated, the 2nd takes from money I just don't have. First Case of Tax Margin Stacking.
I Own a house, I have the occasional Drink, I drive a car, I smoke
2. I pay council tax on my house, I pay an alcholol tax on every drink I have, I pay fuel tax on every litre of fuel I use, I pay tobacco tax on every cigarette I smoke, all from previously taxed money i have left
3. On top of this I pay VAT on pretty much everything I purchase including the associated tax…
A conservative estimate of what I pay in taxes of various kinds v my gross salary I would suggest in the 70-73% of my gross earnings. Hardly rewarding is it….
So what's my beef, I work hard yet each month i barely break even and its down to the fact that I pay tax upon tax upon tax, over the years the government has introduced taxes this way to the point its virtually impossible to work out where I'm being taxed (and I think I'm relatively smart)
The whole taxation system needs an overhaul and return to basics, so that every individual can fully understand what they are paying and why.
In my line of business I use the following term when describing something that is fundementally broken "this has exceeded its design intent" I would suggest that the tax regime in the uk has exceeded its design intent and needs a major overhaul, features of which should remove tax margin stacking.
I think they should still give car to people but make them pay for insurnce and road tax for the thing.
Stops all the freeloaders jumping on teh band wagon then
Why is this idea important?
I think they should still give car to people but make them pay for insurnce and road tax for the thing.
Stops all the freeloaders jumping on teh band wagon then
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.
Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.
having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.
I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.
Why is this idea important?
Like many, i have done the right thing and bought my own home so i'm not reliant on social housing, which is fortunate as i don't think i'd be eligable being the most discriminated against sector of society…. single white male without children.
having bought a house in need of investment, (the onle one i could afford), at great financial discomfort, i am now forced to pay council tax on this whilst i renovate it. This prevents me from investing in the house so i can live in it, at which time i will be eligable for a 25% discount.
I am investing in the local housing stock, but there is no incentive to do so. The council tax exemptions should be updated to ensure people who do the right thing are not penalised by local authorities.
Remove business rates from empty and/or unused premises
Why is this idea important?
Remove business rates from empty and/or unused premises
Give Failed Asylum seekers a Temporary NI number and allow them to work which would help reduce crime and the benefit cost until their application is processed.
Currently Asylum seekers are entitled to claim support
from the UKBA. This is £42.16 per
week for a person aged 25 and over, £33.39
per week for a person aged 18 to 24 and
£66.13 per week for couples.
A pregnant woman and children under three can claim
an extra £3 a week. A baby under one year
can claim an extra £5 a week.
Why is this idea important?
Give Failed Asylum seekers a Temporary NI number and allow them to work which would help reduce crime and the benefit cost until their application is processed.
Currently Asylum seekers are entitled to claim support
from the UKBA. This is £42.16 per
week for a person aged 25 and over, £33.39
per week for a person aged 18 to 24 and
£66.13 per week for couples.
A pregnant woman and children under three can claim
an extra £3 a week. A baby under one year
can claim an extra £5 a week.
Nick Clegg & Co laughs at the idea that smokers should be treated as human beings, we are expected to pay huge amounts of tax and shut up.
My idea is not to pay for any LEGAL smoking related product here, in our own country where we are treated in such a vile manner.
Buying cheaply, leagaly from the rest of Europe will withdraw all tax that finds its way to such as ASH.
Smokers have no choice, no say and until we are given this can vote with their money and refuse to be taxed, Legal, simple and very effective.
I would never have thought the EU could be useful, still wouldn't vote for it.
Why is this idea important?
Nick Clegg & Co laughs at the idea that smokers should be treated as human beings, we are expected to pay huge amounts of tax and shut up.
My idea is not to pay for any LEGAL smoking related product here, in our own country where we are treated in such a vile manner.
Buying cheaply, leagaly from the rest of Europe will withdraw all tax that finds its way to such as ASH.
Smokers have no choice, no say and until we are given this can vote with their money and refuse to be taxed, Legal, simple and very effective.
I would never have thought the EU could be useful, still wouldn't vote for it.
Currently we have these two systems of tax which are similar in many ways. As no tax is hypothecated, the argument that NI is for certain uses is bogus. Clearly, if we just had income tax on all types of income in would be more efficient to collect for both the government and business. Although this would be a radical step, people aren’t stupid and they would clearly see that the overall tax take was the same.
Why is this idea important?
Currently we have these two systems of tax which are similar in many ways. As no tax is hypothecated, the argument that NI is for certain uses is bogus. Clearly, if we just had income tax on all types of income in would be more efficient to collect for both the government and business. Although this would be a radical step, people aren’t stupid and they would clearly see that the overall tax take was the same.
The previous Conservative government introduced policies affecting unemployed people with mortgages.
Firstly, it increased the number of months before unemployed people could gain assistance with their mortgags to nine.
Secondly, to support this policy it expected mortgage holders to provide their own mortgage insurance cover in the event of unemployment.
Finally it added insurance premium tax to mortgage the policies of to those who were willing to cover themselves, even though it would save money to the treasuary should anyone become unemployed.
I wrote and complained at the the time and recieved a bland 'this part of moving towards indirect taxation' letter.
Why should I, and others like me, be taxed for the privilige of saving the govenment money and providing my own cover?
People who are free to pay their own mortgage insurance should not be shackled with IPT, as they are already paying taxes to fund mortgage cover for others through the taxation system.
This is nothing other than double funding.
Why is this idea important?
The previous Conservative government introduced policies affecting unemployed people with mortgages.
Firstly, it increased the number of months before unemployed people could gain assistance with their mortgags to nine.
Secondly, to support this policy it expected mortgage holders to provide their own mortgage insurance cover in the event of unemployment.
Finally it added insurance premium tax to mortgage the policies of to those who were willing to cover themselves, even though it would save money to the treasuary should anyone become unemployed.
I wrote and complained at the the time and recieved a bland 'this part of moving towards indirect taxation' letter.
Why should I, and others like me, be taxed for the privilige of saving the govenment money and providing my own cover?
People who are free to pay their own mortgage insurance should not be shackled with IPT, as they are already paying taxes to fund mortgage cover for others through the taxation system.
This is nothing other than double funding.
I am fed up with having to pay different taxes and contributions that just amount to money being taken out.
Why not just have one bill (taken from wages/earnings) to cover for different services that we will use (or could use) over our life time.
Obvious things could include: NHS, care service, roads, environment, transport, welfare, public cleanliness, police, education. pensions
others could include: waste management, fire services etc
Why is this idea important?
I am fed up with having to pay different taxes and contributions that just amount to money being taken out.
Why not just have one bill (taken from wages/earnings) to cover for different services that we will use (or could use) over our life time.
Obvious things could include: NHS, care service, roads, environment, transport, welfare, public cleanliness, police, education. pensions
others could include: waste management, fire services etc
Give tax relief on private school fees/education costs.
Why is this idea important?
Give tax relief on private school fees/education costs.
Isn't it about time that those among us who wish to perpetuate the species, pay for their upkeep.
In a modern society it is unthinkable that those tax payers who do not have children, (for whatever reason), should be asked to pay towards their maintenance.
If you can't afford to support them – don't have them!
One would not ask a neighbour to help pay towards ones mortgage or the car service, or even towards maintenance of ones wife – so why their children?
The idea of paying people to replicate is outdated – unless of course the government are anticipating another world war.
Why is this idea important?
Isn't it about time that those among us who wish to perpetuate the species, pay for their upkeep.
In a modern society it is unthinkable that those tax payers who do not have children, (for whatever reason), should be asked to pay towards their maintenance.
If you can't afford to support them – don't have them!
One would not ask a neighbour to help pay towards ones mortgage or the car service, or even towards maintenance of ones wife – so why their children?
The idea of paying people to replicate is outdated – unless of course the government are anticipating another world war.
Its a disgrace how we don't take care of our pensioners, we should increase state pensions, stop council tax and be given free fuel.
How would we pay for it ?
Who would not be willing to pay and increase in income tax for this?
Why is this idea important?
Its a disgrace how we don't take care of our pensioners, we should increase state pensions, stop council tax and be given free fuel.
How would we pay for it ?
Who would not be willing to pay and increase in income tax for this?
Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.
I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…
So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.
Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country ) as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.
Can anyone see my point ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???
Why is this idea important?
Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.
I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…
So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.
Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country ) as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.
Can anyone see my point ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???
Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?
Why is this idea important?
Whether something is branded illegal or legal has no effect on supply and demand nor any effect on whether people choose to take it. Drugs as harmless as cannabis are branded illegal for some reason, this to me shows that politicians know little about the drug and therefore why would I listen to their opinions on other drugs? Look at methadrone, before the media went crazy and hyped up the british public (which isn’t hard to do, most people will believe anything their precious daily mail says) I hadn’t even heard of it and minimal people were using it but as soon as the papers gave people the idea to use it low and behold everyone’s on it, the pub across the road from where I live is full of people ‘dronin’ off their face, before the methadrone ban it was full of people consuming alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. This is just one example of many how the ban hammer doesn’t work. You can’t wave a magic wand and it all goes away. The biggest risk for a heroin user is drug dealers, dirty needles and contaminated heroin not the substance itself. The same goes for most drugs branded illegal, the biggest risk for the consumer is the black market. More harm than good amounts from prohibition. Anyone who wishes to use any illegal drug can do so, prohibition doesn’t halt them in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with taking drugs every single one of has done so at one point or another whether it be alcohol, paracetamol, or crack cocaine. I can assure everyone on the planet people are not going to stop taking them and why should they? as long as not one other person is negatively effected by it. Its very simple either the government or respectable businesses regulate drugs or criminals will, it is a case of one or the other. These are the only two options when dealing with drugs. Drugs are THE most profitable business in the world, fact and criminals are reaping the benefits every hour of every day until this government decides to take the business out of their hands. Wouldn’t it be better for society if all addicts were registered and monitored as oppose to being left to their own devices funding the black market? Finally, who has the right to tell anyone else what they can do with their own body?
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
Why is this idea important?
National Insurance revenue goes into the general exchequer and is no longer ear-marked for pensions and benefits.
NI is an administrative burden on companies and the self-employed.
NI is subject to political manipulation (e.g. a recent promise not to raise taxes followed by an NI rate increase).
NI contributions are payable month by month so if your income is uneven, you may end up paying more than someone with the same annual income and this cannot be claimed back.
NI is unevenly applied with the poor paying disproportionately more than the wealthy (as it has a top end cap).
No government would ever dare introduce such a ridiculous, costly and unfair tax as National Insurance has slowly evolved into.
So why not simply abolish it ? increasing personal income tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employees contributions and .increasing corporation tax by an appropriate amount to roughly balance the lost employers contributions. Pension entitlement could be tied to income tax instead of NI payments.
Instead of having to submit VAT returns and payments quarterly it would be helpful for cashflow to be able to spread the payments out monthly as is the case with paye submissions. I know that for smaller businesses there is a scheme in place but cannot understand why it is not possible for all businesses to submit returns on a quarterly then spread the payments equally over the folowing 3 months
Why is this idea important?
Instead of having to submit VAT returns and payments quarterly it would be helpful for cashflow to be able to spread the payments out monthly as is the case with paye submissions. I know that for smaller businesses there is a scheme in place but cannot understand why it is not possible for all businesses to submit returns on a quarterly then spread the payments equally over the folowing 3 months
At the moment instalments are calculated by dividing the total council tax bill by ten and paying ten instalments starting from 1st April. I'm a pensioner who at the behest of the government has my annual retirement pension paid by thirteen instalments over the year. Why can't I pay my council tax by the same token i.e. thirteen payments over the year.
I've tried to get an answer from my district and county councils but there is no one so deaf who as those who won't hear! What other organisation gets 10% of its income in advance, even before the tax year starts and is paid in full after nine months and one day?
Why is this idea important?
At the moment instalments are calculated by dividing the total council tax bill by ten and paying ten instalments starting from 1st April. I'm a pensioner who at the behest of the government has my annual retirement pension paid by thirteen instalments over the year. Why can't I pay my council tax by the same token i.e. thirteen payments over the year.
I've tried to get an answer from my district and county councils but there is no one so deaf who as those who won't hear! What other organisation gets 10% of its income in advance, even before the tax year starts and is paid in full after nine months and one day?
Why should responsible drinkers be in effect fined for the irresponsible conduct of others?
Why is this idea important?
Why should responsible drinkers be in effect fined for the irresponsible conduct of others?
HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).
The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?
If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.
The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.
Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.
What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.
It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.
Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.
Why is this idea important?
HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).
The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?
If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.
The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.
Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.
What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.
It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.
Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.