Abolish employee national insurance

National Insurance has not been hypothecated for years.  When initially introduced it was set aside for welfare and the NHS but it is now simply another form of general taxation that largely duplicates income tax.  Abolish it.  Doing so would free employers from having to administer two independent tax systems with different rules, rates and thresholds.  It would also make an entire bureaucracy in the form of the National Insurance Contributions Office almost entirely surplus to requirements.  Income tax rates would of course need to be raised to compensate, but currently NI and income tax become payable at similar income levels.  This means you could achieve a roughly similar effect in broad brush terms by getting
rid of NI, raising the basic rate of income tax to 31%, and introducing a discounted basic rate for pensioners who do not currently pay NI.

I'll admit that there are one or two details that complicate the picture slightly.  Making this change in a revenue neutral manner would impact on the plans to raise the income tax threshold, but I am sure that it could still be raised by a slighty lower amount and the lowest paid would benefit as much as they would from a £10,000 basic tax allowance.  Benefits entitlement would need looking at as well.  The obvious approach would be to replace the
requirement that NI is paid with payment of income tax but if the objective is to take the lowest paid out of income tax altogether that would need addressing to ensure they do not lose future benefits entitlement.  However, I am sure addressing these details would be
easy enough for the Treasury experts to work out.

Why is this idea important?

National Insurance has not been hypothecated for years.  When initially introduced it was set aside for welfare and the NHS but it is now simply another form of general taxation that largely duplicates income tax.  Abolish it.  Doing so would free employers from having to administer two independent tax systems with different rules, rates and thresholds.  It would also make an entire bureaucracy in the form of the National Insurance Contributions Office almost entirely surplus to requirements.  Income tax rates would of course need to be raised to compensate, but currently NI and income tax become payable at similar income levels.  This means you could achieve a roughly similar effect in broad brush terms by getting
rid of NI, raising the basic rate of income tax to 31%, and introducing a discounted basic rate for pensioners who do not currently pay NI.

I'll admit that there are one or two details that complicate the picture slightly.  Making this change in a revenue neutral manner would impact on the plans to raise the income tax threshold, but I am sure that it could still be raised by a slighty lower amount and the lowest paid would benefit as much as they would from a £10,000 basic tax allowance.  Benefits entitlement would need looking at as well.  The obvious approach would be to replace the
requirement that NI is paid with payment of income tax but if the objective is to take the lowest paid out of income tax altogether that would need addressing to ensure they do not lose future benefits entitlement.  However, I am sure addressing these details would be
easy enough for the Treasury experts to work out.

Council Tax Collection

Councils have been given far too many powers over the collection of Council Tax. Council Tax is an unfair tax because of the amount that is required by councils when families are already struggling throughout the UK. Far too often people fall behind and end up with council tax bailiffs knocking at the door or get threatening letters from the council. 

Council Tax bailiffs are known to be some of the most threatening and agressive in the country. 

I would like to see an end to councils being able to sub contract collection of council tax debt out to companies that already have a bad name as bailiffs. It is rediculous to expect someone to have money to pay council tax debt when they simply do not have any money to pay in the first place. And it is totally wrong that a council tax bailiff is allowed to take away possessions for sale – even though they probably dump them anyway. 

I would like to see Councils have the power taken away from them to use sub contracted bailiffs. Where people owe Council Tax, then a more formal arrangement and realistic figure should be agreed to pay. I understand this happens already, but councils often ask for unrealistic figures to be paid which push families further into a black hole. In some cases pushing families into poverty and neglect.

Half of the problem why people end up in council tax debt black holes is because they are simply frightened of what might happen to them if they don't catch up on payments. If councils started to communicate better, get officers that are friendly and understanding on the ground collecting arrears then they may find it far easier to agree realistic figures.

At the moment council officers are allowed to hide behind a smokescreen and use staff to collect payments which are often inexperienced and make mistakes. The staff can also be very aggressive and demand rediculous payment schedules while threatening bailiffs. And worst of all there is no face to these people so no-one really knows who they're paying.

Council Officers should do they're own collections on foot, not from an office where they use staff. 

Why is this idea important?

Councils have been given far too many powers over the collection of Council Tax. Council Tax is an unfair tax because of the amount that is required by councils when families are already struggling throughout the UK. Far too often people fall behind and end up with council tax bailiffs knocking at the door or get threatening letters from the council. 

Council Tax bailiffs are known to be some of the most threatening and agressive in the country. 

I would like to see an end to councils being able to sub contract collection of council tax debt out to companies that already have a bad name as bailiffs. It is rediculous to expect someone to have money to pay council tax debt when they simply do not have any money to pay in the first place. And it is totally wrong that a council tax bailiff is allowed to take away possessions for sale – even though they probably dump them anyway. 

I would like to see Councils have the power taken away from them to use sub contracted bailiffs. Where people owe Council Tax, then a more formal arrangement and realistic figure should be agreed to pay. I understand this happens already, but councils often ask for unrealistic figures to be paid which push families further into a black hole. In some cases pushing families into poverty and neglect.

Half of the problem why people end up in council tax debt black holes is because they are simply frightened of what might happen to them if they don't catch up on payments. If councils started to communicate better, get officers that are friendly and understanding on the ground collecting arrears then they may find it far easier to agree realistic figures.

At the moment council officers are allowed to hide behind a smokescreen and use staff to collect payments which are often inexperienced and make mistakes. The staff can also be very aggressive and demand rediculous payment schedules while threatening bailiffs. And worst of all there is no face to these people so no-one really knows who they're paying.

Council Officers should do they're own collections on foot, not from an office where they use staff. 

Pay As You Play Tax for Footballers

I think we should device a special taxation system for footballers. They should pay higher taxation if their teams lose matches.  They get paid this large amount of money because they are supposed to be good footballers and if they failed to do so they should refund some of this money back as taxes.i.e if anybody did not supply a service which they were paid to supply, they should refund the money back. We can call it 'pay as you play taxation'. This will really motivate them to train harder and try to perform well toI keep their wealth.If we did this here, the whole of Europe will follow. May be we could even extend the same concept to bankers and bosses of big organisations and we call it Performance Tax.

Why is this idea important?

I think we should device a special taxation system for footballers. They should pay higher taxation if their teams lose matches.  They get paid this large amount of money because they are supposed to be good footballers and if they failed to do so they should refund some of this money back as taxes.i.e if anybody did not supply a service which they were paid to supply, they should refund the money back. We can call it 'pay as you play taxation'. This will really motivate them to train harder and try to perform well toI keep their wealth.If we did this here, the whole of Europe will follow. May be we could even extend the same concept to bankers and bosses of big organisations and we call it Performance Tax.

IR35

IR35 views contract workers as 'disguised employees' and makes them subject to the same tax law as individual PAYE employees rather than companies

I would like to see one or the other.  Either treat contractors as full employees with the assosciated benefits and protections or as separate companies allowed to conduct their business as most other companies.

Why is this idea important?

IR35 views contract workers as 'disguised employees' and makes them subject to the same tax law as individual PAYE employees rather than companies

I would like to see one or the other.  Either treat contractors as full employees with the assosciated benefits and protections or as separate companies allowed to conduct their business as most other companies.

Abolish VAT on e-books

Printed books are zero rated for VAT which is fine.  e-books which use far less energy to produce and distribute are VAT rated.  This is anomalous.  e-books are still the printed word – even if virtual – and are likely to become the preferred method of reading books.  To encourage their use e-books should be zero rated.

Why is this idea important?

Printed books are zero rated for VAT which is fine.  e-books which use far less energy to produce and distribute are VAT rated.  This is anomalous.  e-books are still the printed word – even if virtual – and are likely to become the preferred method of reading books.  To encourage their use e-books should be zero rated.

tax avoidance / evasion

It used to be a cornerstone of tax law that evasion was illegal and avoidance was legal. In other words it was acceptable to arrange your tax affairs, within the law, to minimise your taxes. In recent years tax avoidance was made illegal so that arranging your affairs within the law was unacceptable if it saved you taxes. The (previous) government even set up structures where they could retrospectively change a tax law if they found it inconvenient.

Even at a time when the government needs tax revenue they, the Treasury and the Revenue will gain much more respect from taxpayers if fairness is re-introduced and making decisions within a clear and definite tax structure is available again.

Why is this idea important?

It used to be a cornerstone of tax law that evasion was illegal and avoidance was legal. In other words it was acceptable to arrange your tax affairs, within the law, to minimise your taxes. In recent years tax avoidance was made illegal so that arranging your affairs within the law was unacceptable if it saved you taxes. The (previous) government even set up structures where they could retrospectively change a tax law if they found it inconvenient.

Even at a time when the government needs tax revenue they, the Treasury and the Revenue will gain much more respect from taxpayers if fairness is re-introduced and making decisions within a clear and definite tax structure is available again.

Taxation for business’ big and small

As a small architectural business I find the present tax system far too complex. In particular the system in place for prepaying the tax on the future year’s anticipated income is not logical for small businesses who cannot confirm or predict their future work load, which a large business can do due to its volume of work and market share etc.

 

Please reflect on how Nigel Lawson as Chancellor completely modified the tax system in the 1980s when he made it as simple as possible and also logical. This philosophy was reflected by the massive upturn in Tax revenue received by the Treasury and a greater willingness for business to work with the new simplified tax system. The past Chancellor’s method of complex and stealth taxes has created a world of deceit and mistrust and unwillingness to be compliant with the Inland Revenue Tax regime.

 

Why is it that in Canada, where I was a resident in the 1960s, the Tax system has remained the same since that time, which is a logical and straightforward and is fair for all.

 

As an Architect the essence of good design is to achieve logical, simple and honest values in response to a particular brief and this will result in a good building giving many years of excellent service and value to the community. Thus the Tax system should follow the same philosophy so that it is honest, straightforward and logical for all private and business applications. Transparency and simplicity in the tax system will enable people to willingly and easily contribute tax payments. This will only happen when confidence is restored that the horribly complex and stealth tax regime implemented by Gordon Brown has been thoroughly reviewed and revoked.

 

A tax requires to be introduced on the very rich that use this country as a legitimate shield to their dubious international practices. At present they achieve virtual Tax avoidance yet enjoy our security as a Nation. If we are to continue with this distasteful practice then such people should be taxed in proportion to their established value on the international market not on some assumed Bank deposit account they hold in this country.

Why is this idea important?

As a small architectural business I find the present tax system far too complex. In particular the system in place for prepaying the tax on the future year’s anticipated income is not logical for small businesses who cannot confirm or predict their future work load, which a large business can do due to its volume of work and market share etc.

 

Please reflect on how Nigel Lawson as Chancellor completely modified the tax system in the 1980s when he made it as simple as possible and also logical. This philosophy was reflected by the massive upturn in Tax revenue received by the Treasury and a greater willingness for business to work with the new simplified tax system. The past Chancellor’s method of complex and stealth taxes has created a world of deceit and mistrust and unwillingness to be compliant with the Inland Revenue Tax regime.

 

Why is it that in Canada, where I was a resident in the 1960s, the Tax system has remained the same since that time, which is a logical and straightforward and is fair for all.

 

As an Architect the essence of good design is to achieve logical, simple and honest values in response to a particular brief and this will result in a good building giving many years of excellent service and value to the community. Thus the Tax system should follow the same philosophy so that it is honest, straightforward and logical for all private and business applications. Transparency and simplicity in the tax system will enable people to willingly and easily contribute tax payments. This will only happen when confidence is restored that the horribly complex and stealth tax regime implemented by Gordon Brown has been thoroughly reviewed and revoked.

 

A tax requires to be introduced on the very rich that use this country as a legitimate shield to their dubious international practices. At present they achieve virtual Tax avoidance yet enjoy our security as a Nation. If we are to continue with this distasteful practice then such people should be taxed in proportion to their established value on the international market not on some assumed Bank deposit account they hold in this country.

Change the rules on SORN vehicles

I think that if you SORN a vehicle you should only be penalised if you drive it. Several friends of mine SORNed their cars for various reasons (2 cars didn't run) and kept them in a residential parking space (although not part of their property).

They were not on the street or on council land or driving them around. However they still got fined. Not very fair really especially if you don't have a parking space and you are saving for them to be fixed because you are skint!

Why is this idea important?

I think that if you SORN a vehicle you should only be penalised if you drive it. Several friends of mine SORNed their cars for various reasons (2 cars didn't run) and kept them in a residential parking space (although not part of their property).

They were not on the street or on council land or driving them around. However they still got fined. Not very fair really especially if you don't have a parking space and you are saving for them to be fixed because you are skint!

Charities – why do we have to pay VAT?

As the Executive Director of a UK based Charity (Institute for Human Rights and Business) which is recognized as an expert institution by the UK Government and receives support from a number of Governments around the world, I am perplexed by the VAT rules as they apply to charities – as is our accountant.

The best financial advice we have is that we should not register for VAT given that only a minority of our operational work is conducted in the UK (and nearly all our funding comes as donations) and obviously the book-keeping cost of registered and maintaining VAT records is significant. Yet, we are having to pay VAT on most of our administrative costs here in the UK.

It does beg the rather naive question as to why Charities are required to pay VAT at all. If our role is really one of public purpose (and perhaps this is not always the case for every Charity – e.g. some of the private schools with charity status) then it would it not be a wonderful thing to free us from paying VAT at all – allowing this resource to be channeled into our work – in our case in many emerging and developing countries as well as the UK.

I guess it might work by all interested Charities receiving a special VAT number – and being able to reclaim all VAT on a quarterly basis, but not required to charge VAT to others. It will also assist in dealings with other contractors based in the EU – to whom we currently have to pay VAT if not so registered in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

As the Executive Director of a UK based Charity (Institute for Human Rights and Business) which is recognized as an expert institution by the UK Government and receives support from a number of Governments around the world, I am perplexed by the VAT rules as they apply to charities – as is our accountant.

The best financial advice we have is that we should not register for VAT given that only a minority of our operational work is conducted in the UK (and nearly all our funding comes as donations) and obviously the book-keeping cost of registered and maintaining VAT records is significant. Yet, we are having to pay VAT on most of our administrative costs here in the UK.

It does beg the rather naive question as to why Charities are required to pay VAT at all. If our role is really one of public purpose (and perhaps this is not always the case for every Charity – e.g. some of the private schools with charity status) then it would it not be a wonderful thing to free us from paying VAT at all – allowing this resource to be channeled into our work – in our case in many emerging and developing countries as well as the UK.

I guess it might work by all interested Charities receiving a special VAT number – and being able to reclaim all VAT on a quarterly basis, but not required to charge VAT to others. It will also assist in dealings with other contractors based in the EU – to whom we currently have to pay VAT if not so registered in the UK.

Stamp Duty

A property costing £250,000 attracts 1% stamp duty at £2,500. A buyer of a property for £250,001 pays 3% on the whole sum £7500.03. A £1 addition to the price attracts an extra £5,000.03 in tax. That is a phenominal rate of taxation. Why isn't stamp duty taxed in bands so that it is 1% up to £250,000 and 3% on the amount over £250,000?

This is the way income tax works and there would be an outcry if income tax was treated like stamp duty. This would mean some earning £43,875 p.a. would pay 20% tax on the amount over the personal allowance but someone earning £1 p.a. more would pay 40% on all their taxable income. If it's unfair for income tax why is it not unfair for stamp duty?   

Why is this idea important?

A property costing £250,000 attracts 1% stamp duty at £2,500. A buyer of a property for £250,001 pays 3% on the whole sum £7500.03. A £1 addition to the price attracts an extra £5,000.03 in tax. That is a phenominal rate of taxation. Why isn't stamp duty taxed in bands so that it is 1% up to £250,000 and 3% on the amount over £250,000?

This is the way income tax works and there would be an outcry if income tax was treated like stamp duty. This would mean some earning £43,875 p.a. would pay 20% tax on the amount over the personal allowance but someone earning £1 p.a. more would pay 40% on all their taxable income. If it's unfair for income tax why is it not unfair for stamp duty?   

Remove Inheritance Tax

Tax on giving money that was taxed when earned originally – seems a double tax to me that  penalises people who save and look after their future. Lets get rid of this and promote people saving and looking after their future.

Why is this idea important?

Tax on giving money that was taxed when earned originally – seems a double tax to me that  penalises people who save and look after their future. Lets get rid of this and promote people saving and looking after their future.

Abolish Pre-Owned Asset Tax !

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Why is this idea important?

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Road Tax on foreign cars and Visas for visiting foreigners

Road Tax

Tax all vehicles that come into this country.Switzerland do this so it will create more jobs and revenue.

Road ax discs to be non transferable and if they are removed before the 12 month expiry date they will justfall apart and become invalid.These should cost a minimum of £20 per car.

Why is this idea important?

Road Tax

Tax all vehicles that come into this country.Switzerland do this so it will create more jobs and revenue.

Road ax discs to be non transferable and if they are removed before the 12 month expiry date they will justfall apart and become invalid.These should cost a minimum of £20 per car.

Increase taxes on imported food funding tax breaks for local produce

There should be a new tax levied onto all foodstuffs imported into the country, designed to be high enough to force the price to be increased in supermarkets and shops.

In conjunction, this could fund a tax break for all locally produced foods, making these foods cheaper to produce, stimulating local economies and farms and reducing the pollution caused by the massive container ships delivering food to this country that we can quite happily produce ourselves if we had the right incentive to do so.

This tax could also fund important technologies such as large greenhouse networks, producing fresh fruits that might not ordinarily be produced in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a new tax levied onto all foodstuffs imported into the country, designed to be high enough to force the price to be increased in supermarkets and shops.

In conjunction, this could fund a tax break for all locally produced foods, making these foods cheaper to produce, stimulating local economies and farms and reducing the pollution caused by the massive container ships delivering food to this country that we can quite happily produce ourselves if we had the right incentive to do so.

This tax could also fund important technologies such as large greenhouse networks, producing fresh fruits that might not ordinarily be produced in the UK.

Legalise Prostitution

Duplicate the treatment of prostitutes that Australia and some other 1st world countries use by legalising prostitution and giving them screening for STIs, protecting them from pimps and drug dealers, and in return taxing their income.

Why is this idea important?

Duplicate the treatment of prostitutes that Australia and some other 1st world countries use by legalising prostitution and giving them screening for STIs, protecting them from pimps and drug dealers, and in return taxing their income.

Abolish Pre-Owned Asset Tax !

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Why is this idea important?

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Council Snoopers

Abolish the laws that allow council inspectors right of entry to your property and assess  it for rises in council tax because you ahave a nice view or a nice garden or a drive. If I have a nice view it is because I paid for it when I bought the house and so subsequently have already been taxed for it through the extra stamp duty I've paid over a similar house without a view which is therfore cheaper to buy.

If I've spent money (what I've got left after been taxed to death!) on improving my home that cannot be used as justifcation to force enrty into my home and then charge me more for my council tax.

Instead make council tax based on Sq footage of floor space, so you aren't penalised for improving your home and you aren't rewarded for living in something that appears derelict  

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the laws that allow council inspectors right of entry to your property and assess  it for rises in council tax because you ahave a nice view or a nice garden or a drive. If I have a nice view it is because I paid for it when I bought the house and so subsequently have already been taxed for it through the extra stamp duty I've paid over a similar house without a view which is therfore cheaper to buy.

If I've spent money (what I've got left after been taxed to death!) on improving my home that cannot be used as justifcation to force enrty into my home and then charge me more for my council tax.

Instead make council tax based on Sq footage of floor space, so you aren't penalised for improving your home and you aren't rewarded for living in something that appears derelict  

Repeal of Cannabis Related Infringements

Cannabis is an intrinsic part of our culture as humans, the substance having been used for thousands of years; it hasn't been affected by the War on drugs that Nixon championed years ago, instead it continues to put money into the pockets of criminals. This same criminal status is then placed upon a citizen who is simply enjoying their drug of choice; simply because it isn't legally condoned as alcohol and tobacco are.

Countries like the Netherlands have shown for years that levels of Cannabis use do not sky rocket when the drug is more readily available and infact it can offer a large portion of taxable income for communities  – as Pubs do – as well as providing valuable tax funds for the government.

Studies like the one at the University of Keele have shown that the risk of psychosis from heavily smoking cannabis are not significantly or even noticeably increased.

Why is this idea important?

Cannabis is an intrinsic part of our culture as humans, the substance having been used for thousands of years; it hasn't been affected by the War on drugs that Nixon championed years ago, instead it continues to put money into the pockets of criminals. This same criminal status is then placed upon a citizen who is simply enjoying their drug of choice; simply because it isn't legally condoned as alcohol and tobacco are.

Countries like the Netherlands have shown for years that levels of Cannabis use do not sky rocket when the drug is more readily available and infact it can offer a large portion of taxable income for communities  – as Pubs do – as well as providing valuable tax funds for the government.

Studies like the one at the University of Keele have shown that the risk of psychosis from heavily smoking cannabis are not significantly or even noticeably increased.

Ring-fence ‘Green’ stealth taxes

 

Ring-fence all 'green taxes' so that they don't go into the treasury pot to top up government spending and must legally be spent on green and sustainable initiatives.

Why is this idea important?

 

Ring-fence all 'green taxes' so that they don't go into the treasury pot to top up government spending and must legally be spent on green and sustainable initiatives.