Baliffs and Business

At present YOU are at danger (if you own a company and can be proved to have at ANY point operated your business affairs from you're own home… most start ups do so for cost benefits) – from having all you're household possessions seized and taken away in a lorry from a high court enforcement officer.

From personal experience (and shown all over the internet if you care to read thousands of other accounts of bad behaviour from these so called "Sherriff's"), these bullies bend the rules and use every trick in the book.

They will turn up to you're own house and say that unless you can not show receipts for every single item in the house, he has the right to take the view that the company could have bought everything in it, so he has the right to put all goods in a lorry – you can claim them back later through application (in reality they 'shift them on' at light speed and use stall tactics so you have no chance of getting them back).

What's more, I was only in my twenties and living at home, it was my parents house they attacked/threatened (my Mother was forced to run into town to pawn her rings to pay enough of the debt off to make him go away).  She was not even involved in the business.

This is immoral, but through sneaky use of loopholes in the law (in particular, the showing of receipts, and apparently the fact that if it is a Limited Liability company, high court enforcement officers are allowed  to cease even 'essential tools of the trade' -ie. your computers)…. these thugs are running riot – I must be one of thousands this kind of thing has happened to.

I proposed that any baliff or enforcement officer of the law must give 30 days to the defendant to allow someone working from home to put all of their company's possessions in storage for their seizure…  and if a high court enforcement officer is to enter someone's home, they must be allowed time to employ on the day of their entry into a property, someone such as a lawyer to act on behalf of the defendant to ensure that good practice goes on… this will also allow the person time to gather receipts for their house to prove what is theirs.  I propose also that an exact time should be given that any baliff is to attempt to enter any property so the same preparations can be made in any circumstance regarding baliff or enforcement action. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

At present YOU are at danger (if you own a company and can be proved to have at ANY point operated your business affairs from you're own home… most start ups do so for cost benefits) – from having all you're household possessions seized and taken away in a lorry from a high court enforcement officer.

From personal experience (and shown all over the internet if you care to read thousands of other accounts of bad behaviour from these so called "Sherriff's"), these bullies bend the rules and use every trick in the book.

They will turn up to you're own house and say that unless you can not show receipts for every single item in the house, he has the right to take the view that the company could have bought everything in it, so he has the right to put all goods in a lorry – you can claim them back later through application (in reality they 'shift them on' at light speed and use stall tactics so you have no chance of getting them back).

What's more, I was only in my twenties and living at home, it was my parents house they attacked/threatened (my Mother was forced to run into town to pawn her rings to pay enough of the debt off to make him go away).  She was not even involved in the business.

This is immoral, but through sneaky use of loopholes in the law (in particular, the showing of receipts, and apparently the fact that if it is a Limited Liability company, high court enforcement officers are allowed  to cease even 'essential tools of the trade' -ie. your computers)…. these thugs are running riot – I must be one of thousands this kind of thing has happened to.

I proposed that any baliff or enforcement officer of the law must give 30 days to the defendant to allow someone working from home to put all of their company's possessions in storage for their seizure…  and if a high court enforcement officer is to enter someone's home, they must be allowed time to employ on the day of their entry into a property, someone such as a lawyer to act on behalf of the defendant to ensure that good practice goes on… this will also allow the person time to gather receipts for their house to prove what is theirs.  I propose also that an exact time should be given that any baliff is to attempt to enter any property so the same preparations can be made in any circumstance regarding baliff or enforcement action. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legalise cannabis

I think cannabis should have been legalised, taxed and regulated a long time ago, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever that drugs like alcohol and tobacco are legal but cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. But when you look at the deaths from cannabis a different sort of picture seems to come to mind, there are no deaths from cannabis ever.

Legalising cannabis would also mean it can be used for medical purposes much like america's current dispensary system where patients who need it can finally be able to use the medicine to treat their illness. Cannabis is used to treat: HIV, aids, multiple sclerosis and even prevents and cures cancer.

Also by having cannabis illegal it's making it easier for kids to get a hold of it. It's easier for kids to buy cannabis and other illegal drugs than buying tobacco or alcohol. If it was legal it should be sold to people 18+ keeping it away from children.

Industrial hemp, we could be using hemp for paper to save us cutting down trees, it's the strongest natural fibre in the world, you can eat hemp seeds as it contains all the essential amino acids, even using it for fuel, hemp is an amazing source for bio fuel and can also be used to make bio diesel.

And it would put an end to the failed cannabis prohibition that is currently going on, the prohibition has caused more harm than the cannabis it's self. Putting people in prison for drug posession is wrong, how can they be sent to prison for doing something that's not hurting anyone else.

Why is this idea important?

I think cannabis should have been legalised, taxed and regulated a long time ago, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever that drugs like alcohol and tobacco are legal but cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. But when you look at the deaths from cannabis a different sort of picture seems to come to mind, there are no deaths from cannabis ever.

Legalising cannabis would also mean it can be used for medical purposes much like america's current dispensary system where patients who need it can finally be able to use the medicine to treat their illness. Cannabis is used to treat: HIV, aids, multiple sclerosis and even prevents and cures cancer.

Also by having cannabis illegal it's making it easier for kids to get a hold of it. It's easier for kids to buy cannabis and other illegal drugs than buying tobacco or alcohol. If it was legal it should be sold to people 18+ keeping it away from children.

Industrial hemp, we could be using hemp for paper to save us cutting down trees, it's the strongest natural fibre in the world, you can eat hemp seeds as it contains all the essential amino acids, even using it for fuel, hemp is an amazing source for bio fuel and can also be used to make bio diesel.

And it would put an end to the failed cannabis prohibition that is currently going on, the prohibition has caused more harm than the cannabis it's self. Putting people in prison for drug posession is wrong, how can they be sent to prison for doing something that's not hurting anyone else.

Taxation and Representation

The clause in the Electoral Law that removes the right of expatriates after 15 years' residence abroad should be repealed for those expatriates who pay UK tax.

The fundamental principle is: No Taxation Without Representation.

Every UK citizen who pays UK tax, no matter where residing, should have an inalienable right to participate in choosing the government that will decide the level of taxation.

This particularly affects expatriate pensioners whose pension and tax levels are both decided by governnent.

I have already broached this subject directly with the Justice Department and via my UK MP, but so far there has been no indication what the government's policy is concerning the voting rights of expatriates who pay UK tax on their income.

Why is this idea important?

The clause in the Electoral Law that removes the right of expatriates after 15 years' residence abroad should be repealed for those expatriates who pay UK tax.

The fundamental principle is: No Taxation Without Representation.

Every UK citizen who pays UK tax, no matter where residing, should have an inalienable right to participate in choosing the government that will decide the level of taxation.

This particularly affects expatriate pensioners whose pension and tax levels are both decided by governnent.

I have already broached this subject directly with the Justice Department and via my UK MP, but so far there has been no indication what the government's policy is concerning the voting rights of expatriates who pay UK tax on their income.

Reform ASBO’s but don’t get rid of them!

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

Why is this idea important?

I think the Government has been misleading on the fact that ASBO's do not work, using Breach figures as the reason to abolish them. I have personally found ASBO's to be a wonderful Invention and i undertand that Conservertaves do not want to be associated with things that the Labour brought in, so change the name reform them but do not remove them.  in the aspect of child ASBO's more responsability should be on the parents and they should have some sort of punihment for letting this carry on.

 

ASBO's take too long to get, can be time consuming and make the many victims wait too long for Peace. But they do offer respite to the people who have to put up with the poor behaviour for a small few.

IR35 – Defining the contractor in legislation

IR35 is a perfect example of the tax system not being able to respond to changes in the economy or changes in the way people work.

HMRC are stuck in a world where everyone is either an employee or self employed but people don't work that way any more.

There are hundreds of thousands of 'contractors' in the UK. This word is not defined in tax law currently and does not sit well with the employed or self employed duality of HMRC. IR35 was a cack-handed attempt to address this gap (and grab some extra tax by enforcing it in a bullying draconian way at the same time!).

What is a contractor?

– They are NOT employees – they do not have a salary (they invoice for their time like any other supplier), they ave no benefits (no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, no employee discounts etc). They find their own work on a fixed term basis and negotiate their rates directly with the client.

– They are NOT the same as Temps. Contractors tend to be knowledge workers in IT, Financial Services, HR, Retail etc.  They tend to be highly paid in terms of day rate.

– They work through their own legal entity, Ltd company or partnership. This means that they pay and collect VAT, run their own payroll, keep company accounts, take out liability insurance etc.

– Some employ others but most work on their own (what the Professional Contractors Group refers to as micro-businesses).

– They work at risk – taking responsibility for their own errors, building up reserves to cover periods where there is no work etc.

IR35 was an attempt to define what constituted employment. It is a complete failure for many reasons:

1) The rules are too vague and open to interpretation. If you pay PAYE you know how much you have to pay each month and you pay it. With IR35 HMRC can decide to investigate you at any time and apply the rules as the local inspector sees fit.

2) It fails to recognise that people do not go contracting soley to avoid tax. They do it for a number of reasons – Freedom from control, flexibility, better rates of pay and they are willing to give up all the benefits and security of being an employee to achieve that.

3) HMRC cannot see beyond employed or self employed and does not understand the contract market or the way they work.

 

What is required?

Define the contracting in statute as a new employment type and tax rules and rates that apply.

This definition should be:

An individual that engages in work on behalf of a client for a daily rate for an extendible fixed term and without receipt of any employee benefits (sick pay, holiday pay, life cover, medical benefits, pension, employee discounts, overtime, Notice period). The individual must perform the functions of a supplier and must submit invoices, have the necessary insurances in place and provide fully audit-able accounts and returns.

If this definition is met then the individual is a contractor and can remunerate themselves as allowed for the entity which they work through e.g. if a Ltd company then by salary, dividends and bonus as required. Tax will be paid in the dividends, salary and bonus as currently with the Ltd company paying corporation tax.

Dividends from contracting companies should be paid at a 40% rate instead of the 32% rate to bring it in to line with other earnings. National Insurance would not be payable but obviously the 20% corporation tax on the profits will make up the majority of that difference. Dividends should be able to be split between husband and wife as recently up held at the court of appeal (The Arctic systems case).

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

IR35 is a perfect example of the tax system not being able to respond to changes in the economy or changes in the way people work.

HMRC are stuck in a world where everyone is either an employee or self employed but people don't work that way any more.

There are hundreds of thousands of 'contractors' in the UK. This word is not defined in tax law currently and does not sit well with the employed or self employed duality of HMRC. IR35 was a cack-handed attempt to address this gap (and grab some extra tax by enforcing it in a bullying draconian way at the same time!).

What is a contractor?

– They are NOT employees – they do not have a salary (they invoice for their time like any other supplier), they ave no benefits (no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, no employee discounts etc). They find their own work on a fixed term basis and negotiate their rates directly with the client.

– They are NOT the same as Temps. Contractors tend to be knowledge workers in IT, Financial Services, HR, Retail etc.  They tend to be highly paid in terms of day rate.

– They work through their own legal entity, Ltd company or partnership. This means that they pay and collect VAT, run their own payroll, keep company accounts, take out liability insurance etc.

– Some employ others but most work on their own (what the Professional Contractors Group refers to as micro-businesses).

– They work at risk – taking responsibility for their own errors, building up reserves to cover periods where there is no work etc.

IR35 was an attempt to define what constituted employment. It is a complete failure for many reasons:

1) The rules are too vague and open to interpretation. If you pay PAYE you know how much you have to pay each month and you pay it. With IR35 HMRC can decide to investigate you at any time and apply the rules as the local inspector sees fit.

2) It fails to recognise that people do not go contracting soley to avoid tax. They do it for a number of reasons – Freedom from control, flexibility, better rates of pay and they are willing to give up all the benefits and security of being an employee to achieve that.

3) HMRC cannot see beyond employed or self employed and does not understand the contract market or the way they work.

 

What is required?

Define the contracting in statute as a new employment type and tax rules and rates that apply.

This definition should be:

An individual that engages in work on behalf of a client for a daily rate for an extendible fixed term and without receipt of any employee benefits (sick pay, holiday pay, life cover, medical benefits, pension, employee discounts, overtime, Notice period). The individual must perform the functions of a supplier and must submit invoices, have the necessary insurances in place and provide fully audit-able accounts and returns.

If this definition is met then the individual is a contractor and can remunerate themselves as allowed for the entity which they work through e.g. if a Ltd company then by salary, dividends and bonus as required. Tax will be paid in the dividends, salary and bonus as currently with the Ltd company paying corporation tax.

Dividends from contracting companies should be paid at a 40% rate instead of the 32% rate to bring it in to line with other earnings. National Insurance would not be payable but obviously the 20% corporation tax on the profits will make up the majority of that difference. Dividends should be able to be split between husband and wife as recently up held at the court of appeal (The Arctic systems case).

 

 

 

 

Decriminalize minor drug offences .

Decriminalize minor drug offences and tax the sector with legal state run outlets , thereby freeing up the criminal justice system for more pressing areas , destroying areas of the illegal trade in drugs that involves huge public  expenditure  and is largely ineffective.

Renforcing driving laws and workplace checks will provide adequate safeguard against abuse and in the case of cannabis will all but prevent the use of this type of drug as it remains in the bloodstream for up to 30 days .

Why is this idea important?

Decriminalize minor drug offences and tax the sector with legal state run outlets , thereby freeing up the criminal justice system for more pressing areas , destroying areas of the illegal trade in drugs that involves huge public  expenditure  and is largely ineffective.

Renforcing driving laws and workplace checks will provide adequate safeguard against abuse and in the case of cannabis will all but prevent the use of this type of drug as it remains in the bloodstream for up to 30 days .

Department for International Development: how to improve human rights in Uganda

My two ideas are

  1. Channel some existing aid via minority groups – womens groups or gay groups – so that if these groups are locked-up, there is nobody to cash the cheques.   I'm assuming that they would be prepared to cash cheques for large amounts of money and pay the money on to existing grant recipients, and that this could be monitored for any corruption.
     
  2. A long-term goal of linking human rights violations with higher EU import tariffs. I'm thinking of examples where a third world country gets a special zero tariff in order to help it develop, but the third world government is more interested in locking people up and killing people than development.

My hope is that the short-term policy and long-term policy combined would make it very hard for third world politicians to persecute minorities to get easy popularity, as the Kampala government is doing now.

Why is this idea important?

My two ideas are

  1. Channel some existing aid via minority groups – womens groups or gay groups – so that if these groups are locked-up, there is nobody to cash the cheques.   I'm assuming that they would be prepared to cash cheques for large amounts of money and pay the money on to existing grant recipients, and that this could be monitored for any corruption.
     
  2. A long-term goal of linking human rights violations with higher EU import tariffs. I'm thinking of examples where a third world country gets a special zero tariff in order to help it develop, but the third world government is more interested in locking people up and killing people than development.

My hope is that the short-term policy and long-term policy combined would make it very hard for third world politicians to persecute minorities to get easy popularity, as the Kampala government is doing now.

Encourage British Authors

Encourage British authors by giving them a financial lifebelt. Make the first £5,000 they earn from book publication each year tax free. even if they already pay income tax. Incentives will help first time authors and encourage published authors to go full time.

Expand the number of libraries monitored for author reward schemes and increase the number of British authors – not books – who receive payments based on library lending to 1,000. Raise the maximum author payment to £5,000 per year. (This might seem like spending more public money, but it will be self funding due to wages and taxes of publishers, printers, tax on films, etc – tax from just JK Rowling film would help hundreds of fledling authors.)

by lessimon

Why is this idea important?

Encourage British authors by giving them a financial lifebelt. Make the first £5,000 they earn from book publication each year tax free. even if they already pay income tax. Incentives will help first time authors and encourage published authors to go full time.

Expand the number of libraries monitored for author reward schemes and increase the number of British authors – not books – who receive payments based on library lending to 1,000. Raise the maximum author payment to £5,000 per year. (This might seem like spending more public money, but it will be self funding due to wages and taxes of publishers, printers, tax on films, etc – tax from just JK Rowling film would help hundreds of fledling authors.)

by lessimon

unpaid tax

The Premier League Football Clubs get away with owing millions of pounds in taxes.  If they have money to buy players they can pay taxes – we have to, or be fined for non-payment.  Why is this?

Why is this idea important?

The Premier League Football Clubs get away with owing millions of pounds in taxes.  If they have money to buy players they can pay taxes – we have to, or be fined for non-payment.  Why is this?

repeal the smoking ban

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Reform Insurance Premium Tax (IPT)

Remove Insurance Premium Tax from premiums on all forms of insurance and add it to claims so that illegitimate claims are weeded out and reduce the overall cost of insurance.

Why is this idea important?

Remove Insurance Premium Tax from premiums on all forms of insurance and add it to claims so that illegitimate claims are weeded out and reduce the overall cost of insurance.

Remove TV and Radio Licensing

These days everyone has some use of TV and/or radio and it is very expensive to administer a system of collection and enforcement for the few who don't.

This can simply be added to taxation – tax on spending may work since it takes more from those who spend more.

But by reducing the administrative overhead there is no need to collect as much from the taxpayer and this should be recognised by making the new system revenue neutral to the Treasury/ BBC.

To prevent overfunding in future years, the funding should be assessedas against a per capita costing (i.e. work out what the funding per person would be and determine whether or not this would be a reasonable amount to give the BBC(.

Why is this idea important?

These days everyone has some use of TV and/or radio and it is very expensive to administer a system of collection and enforcement for the few who don't.

This can simply be added to taxation – tax on spending may work since it takes more from those who spend more.

But by reducing the administrative overhead there is no need to collect as much from the taxpayer and this should be recognised by making the new system revenue neutral to the Treasury/ BBC.

To prevent overfunding in future years, the funding should be assessedas against a per capita costing (i.e. work out what the funding per person would be and determine whether or not this would be a reasonable amount to give the BBC(.

Remove WEEE Regulations for Small Businesses

Remove the requirement to join a producer scheme for small and medium sized enterprises.

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE Regulations) embody in UK law the requirements of the EU Directive 2002/96/EU. Typically, the regulations in other EU countries have been applied differently and allow exemptions for small businesses, but in the UK this is not so.

The WEEE Regulations place a requirement on companies to join a producer scheme, typically this costs £1000 per year, with additional costs depending on the amount of WEEE by weight placed on sale in the UK

The basic idea of these regulations is make manufacturers pay for the disposal costs of electrical equipment at the end of it's life, and there is some logic in this for mass produced items such as televisions. However for small companies the costs are disproportionate and the red tape is a nightmare.

There are many ridiculous aspects to this legislation.

– Producers that exclusively export (whether to the EU or rest of the world) are not covered

– Producers that make equipment in other countries for sale here are not covered

– The emphasis on the weight of the product is unfair on, for example, lathe manufacturers whose products contain lots of cast iron and concrete to make them heavy, and only a small proportion of electronics.

This is an excellent example of the UK "Gold Plating" an EU Directive

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement to join a producer scheme for small and medium sized enterprises.

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (WEEE Regulations) embody in UK law the requirements of the EU Directive 2002/96/EU. Typically, the regulations in other EU countries have been applied differently and allow exemptions for small businesses, but in the UK this is not so.

The WEEE Regulations place a requirement on companies to join a producer scheme, typically this costs £1000 per year, with additional costs depending on the amount of WEEE by weight placed on sale in the UK

The basic idea of these regulations is make manufacturers pay for the disposal costs of electrical equipment at the end of it's life, and there is some logic in this for mass produced items such as televisions. However for small companies the costs are disproportionate and the red tape is a nightmare.

There are many ridiculous aspects to this legislation.

– Producers that exclusively export (whether to the EU or rest of the world) are not covered

– Producers that make equipment in other countries for sale here are not covered

– The emphasis on the weight of the product is unfair on, for example, lathe manufacturers whose products contain lots of cast iron and concrete to make them heavy, and only a small proportion of electronics.

This is an excellent example of the UK "Gold Plating" an EU Directive

Abolition of the Licensing Act 2003 Section declaring IVAs an act of bankruptcy

The Licensing Act treats Individual Voluntary Arrangements as an 'act of bankruptcy' and so, if a licensee wants to start an IVA then they have, first, to replace themselves as the Premises Licence Holder with someone else. Failing that, the Insolvency Practitioner, in theory, can apply to take over. This is all well and dandy for large chains going into Administration, but for small pubs with historic debt, but now a good business (for which an IVA would be ideal), this, effectively, means they can't do an IVA as no IP is going to take on the premises licence and all the legal liabilities that go with it.

The law needs to be amended to exempt IVAs as acts of bankruptcy and triggering the failure of the premises licence.

Why is this idea important?

The Licensing Act treats Individual Voluntary Arrangements as an 'act of bankruptcy' and so, if a licensee wants to start an IVA then they have, first, to replace themselves as the Premises Licence Holder with someone else. Failing that, the Insolvency Practitioner, in theory, can apply to take over. This is all well and dandy for large chains going into Administration, but for small pubs with historic debt, but now a good business (for which an IVA would be ideal), this, effectively, means they can't do an IVA as no IP is going to take on the premises licence and all the legal liabilities that go with it.

The law needs to be amended to exempt IVAs as acts of bankruptcy and triggering the failure of the premises licence.

Keep drinking to pubs

There is no doubt that we are losing a British institution ie the pub.  There are many reasons for this and why we must try and save them but essentially it is because the current tax on alcohol is too high and makes a trip to the pub far too expensive.  It strikes me that we should treat alcohol in a similar way to food.  Take away food is exempt from VAT so why not reverse this idea and allow alcohol (or lower alcohol drinks – say 4% or less) that is drunk on the premises VAT free and alcohol tax free and charge VAT and high alcohol tax on any take away alcohol.  There has to be an incentive to go to the pub rather than buy a "six" pack from the supermarket and this idea or something along the same lines would skew in favour of drinking in licenced premises.

Why is this idea important?

There is no doubt that we are losing a British institution ie the pub.  There are many reasons for this and why we must try and save them but essentially it is because the current tax on alcohol is too high and makes a trip to the pub far too expensive.  It strikes me that we should treat alcohol in a similar way to food.  Take away food is exempt from VAT so why not reverse this idea and allow alcohol (or lower alcohol drinks – say 4% or less) that is drunk on the premises VAT free and alcohol tax free and charge VAT and high alcohol tax on any take away alcohol.  There has to be an incentive to go to the pub rather than buy a "six" pack from the supermarket and this idea or something along the same lines would skew in favour of drinking in licenced premises.

Amend the destination for revenue from speed cameras

Speeding fines are a form of voluntary tax – anyone who doesn't want to pay them can simply stick to the speed limit and they will not be fined.  Given that the offences take place in a local area why not allow local authorities to collect the revenue generated by this voluntary tax and invest it in their local area – either generally or perhaps with a hypothecated purpose of road repairs.

Why is this idea important?

Speeding fines are a form of voluntary tax – anyone who doesn't want to pay them can simply stick to the speed limit and they will not be fined.  Given that the offences take place in a local area why not allow local authorities to collect the revenue generated by this voluntary tax and invest it in their local area – either generally or perhaps with a hypothecated purpose of road repairs.

Repeal Employee’s National Insurance Contributions

Originally conceived as a method of collecting money for pensions, this is not a hypothecated tax and now serves no distinct purpose.  By scrapping it and increasing income tax we could pay less and the govt would collect the same by removing a tier of civil servants responsible for administering it and losing the associated cost.

Benefits could be linked to payment of income tax (instead of NI) if desired.

Why is this idea important?

Originally conceived as a method of collecting money for pensions, this is not a hypothecated tax and now serves no distinct purpose.  By scrapping it and increasing income tax we could pay less and the govt would collect the same by removing a tier of civil servants responsible for administering it and losing the associated cost.

Benefits could be linked to payment of income tax (instead of NI) if desired.

Immediate Clean Slate for all Non-Fraudulent Tax Credit Overpayments

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Why is this idea important?

Write off all non-fraudulent tax credit overpayments whilst continuing to recover those resulting from claimant fraud.  This will save innocent, hardworking families from the distress and hardship caused by system-created errors, and will save the millions of pounds currently being wasted on forcing families who spent their awards in good faith to somehow find money they do not have.  Compassion and sound economics all in one!

Translation services

I agree that a huge amount of money could be saved by abolishing translation services. However I think that they should be available for anyone who has been in the UK for less than 6 months. Forms should in future be in English only. If anyone needs a translation then they should make their own arrangements unless they have only recently arrived here.

Why is this idea important?

I agree that a huge amount of money could be saved by abolishing translation services. However I think that they should be available for anyone who has been in the UK for less than 6 months. Forms should in future be in English only. If anyone needs a translation then they should make their own arrangements unless they have only recently arrived here.

The payment of tiny tax amounts that cost the government more collect than the amount recieved.

The government should cancel tax owed if it will cost more to collect than the actual amount being paid. For example, I know people who have had to pay amounts as small as 17p in tax, and in order to pay it have had to exchange letters and cheques etc. with the government – easily a couple of pounds of government money spent. If these taxes were not collected the government would actually be better off.

Why is this idea important?

The government should cancel tax owed if it will cost more to collect than the actual amount being paid. For example, I know people who have had to pay amounts as small as 17p in tax, and in order to pay it have had to exchange letters and cheques etc. with the government – easily a couple of pounds of government money spent. If these taxes were not collected the government would actually be better off.

Degree courses

This is up for review, and I am not sure that a student tax is the way forward, however, what should be top of the agenda, is making sure the students that study vocational courses, especially in science and engineering should be financially encouraged, and those that want to study media or archaeology etc can pay the full amount.

Why is this idea important?

This is up for review, and I am not sure that a student tax is the way forward, however, what should be top of the agenda, is making sure the students that study vocational courses, especially in science and engineering should be financially encouraged, and those that want to study media or archaeology etc can pay the full amount.

Tax evasion by churches

I suppose it would be too much to ask for churches to lose their tax exempt status, even though the rest of us will end up paying more. But many borderline organisations should be checked out.

The cult otherwise known as the church of Scientology is not even a real religion, but because it does a bit of drug rehab work to give it credibility, it is a registered charity.

If this continues then it should apply to Jedis, Trekkies and other UFO believers

Why is this idea important?

I suppose it would be too much to ask for churches to lose their tax exempt status, even though the rest of us will end up paying more. But many borderline organisations should be checked out.

The cult otherwise known as the church of Scientology is not even a real religion, but because it does a bit of drug rehab work to give it credibility, it is a registered charity.

If this continues then it should apply to Jedis, Trekkies and other UFO believers

Change VAT payable on House Renovations.

VAT can be reclaimed on materials used in New Build developments and on Listed Buildings, but not on materials used to renovation existing properties.

With thousands of empty properties across the country why not make it more attractive to developers to renovate these instead of building new housing.

Why is this idea important?

VAT can be reclaimed on materials used in New Build developments and on Listed Buildings, but not on materials used to renovation existing properties.

With thousands of empty properties across the country why not make it more attractive to developers to renovate these instead of building new housing.