Tax the rich.

 

My idea is simple: To lay on a much higher percentage of tax to the richest people in the country. In 1980's America the wealthly were taxed as much as 90% percent of their income and still had plenty of money. It was only when corporations started gaining more say in politics and more footholds in the White House that the rich were afforded a lot of tax breaks while the working class had to pick up the slack.

The same applies to our country, the wealthy are not taxed as much as they should be because they have all the power. The current arguement against raising taxes seems to be, if you tax rich people too much they will leave the country and our economy will suffer. So the wealthy are effecticvley telling the goverment what to do here.

Maybe some wealthy investors will leave, but I bet some will most will stay and realise what they are doing is for the good of everyone and they should be proud they are able to sacrifice a portion of their wealth to make their country better. They get the chance to be the great philantropists of our times. We need a serious change in attitude, in a world were 1% of the population controls more weatlh then the other 99% it's time to rethink our priorities and ask that 1% to do the right thing and help the rest of us.

Why is this idea important?

 

My idea is simple: To lay on a much higher percentage of tax to the richest people in the country. In 1980's America the wealthly were taxed as much as 90% percent of their income and still had plenty of money. It was only when corporations started gaining more say in politics and more footholds in the White House that the rich were afforded a lot of tax breaks while the working class had to pick up the slack.

The same applies to our country, the wealthy are not taxed as much as they should be because they have all the power. The current arguement against raising taxes seems to be, if you tax rich people too much they will leave the country and our economy will suffer. So the wealthy are effecticvley telling the goverment what to do here.

Maybe some wealthy investors will leave, but I bet some will most will stay and realise what they are doing is for the good of everyone and they should be proud they are able to sacrifice a portion of their wealth to make their country better. They get the chance to be the great philantropists of our times. We need a serious change in attitude, in a world were 1% of the population controls more weatlh then the other 99% it's time to rethink our priorities and ask that 1% to do the right thing and help the rest of us.

Abolish the time limit on paying retrospective National Insurance Contributions

Abolish the time limit on paying retrospective National Insurance Contributions

 

If you have a hole in your NI record, either because you did not have a job yet did not claim benefits,or because your employer did not pass on the deductions he took from your pay, then you can make voluntary contributions to fill in the gap – but only up to a certain time. After that time it is too late. People who wish to pay into the state coffers should not have to do it within a time limit.  It may be that you only find out about the gap when it is too late, as in the case of the employer defaulting.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the time limit on paying retrospective National Insurance Contributions

 

If you have a hole in your NI record, either because you did not have a job yet did not claim benefits,or because your employer did not pass on the deductions he took from your pay, then you can make voluntary contributions to fill in the gap – but only up to a certain time. After that time it is too late. People who wish to pay into the state coffers should not have to do it within a time limit.  It may be that you only find out about the gap when it is too late, as in the case of the employer defaulting.

get rid of MP’s

we pay thousands each year for Mp's

let have a real voting system were we vote for max 20 people.  

the get rid of the rest they do nothing of any value, but line their own pockets 

It would save the country thousands 

Why is this idea important?

we pay thousands each year for Mp's

let have a real voting system were we vote for max 20 people.  

the get rid of the rest they do nothing of any value, but line their own pockets 

It would save the country thousands 

Let each individual decide where their individual tax is spent

Have all individually based taxes decided on where to be spent by the specific individual paying them.

Let each person specify on their tax return or online where thier specific individual taxes are spent, whether it be; education, healthcare, infastructure, defense, transport, energy, or any other area. This doesn't have to be limited to income tax and can be applied to any other individually based tax. Any other less popular areas could then be supported by non individually based taxes. It probably wouldn't work well with VAT and shouldn't apply to large private corporations but otherwhise would be a very good idea.

Why is this idea important?

Have all individually based taxes decided on where to be spent by the specific individual paying them.

Let each person specify on their tax return or online where thier specific individual taxes are spent, whether it be; education, healthcare, infastructure, defense, transport, energy, or any other area. This doesn't have to be limited to income tax and can be applied to any other individually based tax. Any other less popular areas could then be supported by non individually based taxes. It probably wouldn't work well with VAT and shouldn't apply to large private corporations but otherwhise would be a very good idea.

Calculate benefits and tax credits per individual, not per couple

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Why is this idea important?

Calculate jobseekers allowance and working tax credits on adults' individual NI contributions and work history – not on what their partner earns.

Allowing businesses to submit expenses evidence in digital format rather than paper original

 






Scrap the requirement for businesses to keep paper records and instead allow scanned and digital documents to be kept.

 

The insistence of tax inspectors on seeing paper originals (for example of expenses) is obsolete, and creates more onerous (and less green) duties of filing, and the hassle of having to retain years of paperwork.

 

There is no more security from fraud in paper (which can be easily produced with today's desktop publishing abilities), than there is in a digital scan.

 

This would be a great relief to small businesses and easier to maintain and process.

 

Of course there is no need to completely abolish paper, but the alternative should be allowed, at least as a start.

Why is this idea important?

 






Scrap the requirement for businesses to keep paper records and instead allow scanned and digital documents to be kept.

 

The insistence of tax inspectors on seeing paper originals (for example of expenses) is obsolete, and creates more onerous (and less green) duties of filing, and the hassle of having to retain years of paperwork.

 

There is no more security from fraud in paper (which can be easily produced with today's desktop publishing abilities), than there is in a digital scan.

 

This would be a great relief to small businesses and easier to maintain and process.

 

Of course there is no need to completely abolish paper, but the alternative should be allowed, at least as a start.

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why our drug laws are not working

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Why is this idea important?

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Scrap National Insurance contributions & increase Tax

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.

 

 

Scrap VAT exemption

Scrap VAT exemption.  For everyone, every organisation.  Because many more people and organisations would pay it, it would be able to be reduced.  Probably to single figures.

Many SMEs spend a lot of time figuring it out (for those who do not know, business people consider VAT a way of making commerce collect taxes for the government).

Prices to the consumer would probably not change – just be differently built up – as the firms supplying retialers and supply chains would have to charge slightly more to cover the tax they would now pay, instead of andlessly doing the run-around to avoid it, adding it up every quarter etc.

Value Added Tax whatever it's purpose, applies no less to firms supplying firms than to retailers supplying end consumers.

Because it would be so much lower, it would no longer be thought unfair to apply it to everything, objections ought to be weakened eg about gas being taxed with VAT.

I rather suspect that in the end, VAT is a way of making 'normal' people subsidise the lucky few who benefit from not paying it too.

VAT evasion would be a thing of the past.  Second hand cars would be VAT-able, everything, no question.

It is a purchase tax, in all but name.  Many other countries have it, why not just make it dead simple.  Avoidance would be impossible – 'How much for cash mate?' would be obsolete.

My guess is, it ought to be 10% across the board, for everything bought and sold, used or new.  Ebay would have to pay, everyone would.  It's a doddle to work out at 10% as well!

best regards,

Ian Margetts, West Yorkshire.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap VAT exemption.  For everyone, every organisation.  Because many more people and organisations would pay it, it would be able to be reduced.  Probably to single figures.

Many SMEs spend a lot of time figuring it out (for those who do not know, business people consider VAT a way of making commerce collect taxes for the government).

Prices to the consumer would probably not change – just be differently built up – as the firms supplying retialers and supply chains would have to charge slightly more to cover the tax they would now pay, instead of andlessly doing the run-around to avoid it, adding it up every quarter etc.

Value Added Tax whatever it's purpose, applies no less to firms supplying firms than to retailers supplying end consumers.

Because it would be so much lower, it would no longer be thought unfair to apply it to everything, objections ought to be weakened eg about gas being taxed with VAT.

I rather suspect that in the end, VAT is a way of making 'normal' people subsidise the lucky few who benefit from not paying it too.

VAT evasion would be a thing of the past.  Second hand cars would be VAT-able, everything, no question.

It is a purchase tax, in all but name.  Many other countries have it, why not just make it dead simple.  Avoidance would be impossible – 'How much for cash mate?' would be obsolete.

My guess is, it ought to be 10% across the board, for everything bought and sold, used or new.  Ebay would have to pay, everyone would.  It's a doddle to work out at 10% as well!

best regards,

Ian Margetts, West Yorkshire.

Look to Monaco

If we are to have some form of Inheritant Tax why don't we copy Monaco, there is no tax for children or spouse, brother's and sisters 8%, uncles and aunts neices and nephews 10%, other relatives 13% and none related 16%.

That way the nearer you are related the less you pay and those indirectly inheriting being expected to pay a percentage.

Why is this idea important?

If we are to have some form of Inheritant Tax why don't we copy Monaco, there is no tax for children or spouse, brother's and sisters 8%, uncles and aunts neices and nephews 10%, other relatives 13% and none related 16%.

That way the nearer you are related the less you pay and those indirectly inheriting being expected to pay a percentage.

THE DUTCH MODEL TRANSLATED FOR THE UK

regulated commercial supply under license to the coffee shops

 licensed coffee shops to sell to  public  that are of age also well trained staff in place to advise

allow the public to grow in an area of two meter square without license on condition they do not sell cannabis, but leave the seed trade open , this would still allow hobby growers to prefect better strains

no advertising

do not allow commercial cannabis premises to sell alcohol

 only allow premises to operate out of town away from pubs and schools

and can i just add, rescheduling cannabis would also allow better research for non toxic cancer cures and such
 

—————————————————————————————————————————–
i would go even further and say we should also ban supper markets and shops form selling alcahol and give all them powers back to the good old fashioned pub land lords ,but still allow home brewers to the same level


 

Why is this idea important?

regulated commercial supply under license to the coffee shops

 licensed coffee shops to sell to  public  that are of age also well trained staff in place to advise

allow the public to grow in an area of two meter square without license on condition they do not sell cannabis, but leave the seed trade open , this would still allow hobby growers to prefect better strains

no advertising

do not allow commercial cannabis premises to sell alcohol

 only allow premises to operate out of town away from pubs and schools

and can i just add, rescheduling cannabis would also allow better research for non toxic cancer cures and such
 

—————————————————————————————————————————–
i would go even further and say we should also ban supper markets and shops form selling alcahol and give all them powers back to the good old fashioned pub land lords ,but still allow home brewers to the same level


 

Legalisation of cannabis – follow the Dutch method. Limited number of plants per household, no artificial light to be used in production

The issue of Cannabis needs to be addressed.  There are many discussions on here about legalisation, the benefits of the drug and all sorts.  If this were to become a reality then I see certain criteria that would have to be met.  The main problems with Cannabis as viewed by the governement and some members of the public are:

1. The crime involved, drug dealing, supplying, violent crime etc etc.

2. The apparent health side effects (psychosis etc).

By taking a sensible approach to the problem then these can be circumvented.  the options for legalisation are:

1. Complete legalisation – buy, smoke, grow, sell openly and freely (some licences may be required).

2. Controlled legalisation.

I see the only workable answer as controlled legalisation.  If you follow the Dutch method they allow certain licenced coffee shops where you can take and buy cannabis – no alcohol is permitted in these venues.  Also in Holland one huosehold can grow up to 5 plants (previously a per person ruling but this was subject to abuse).  These plants can be grown on your premises but it is illegal to use artificial lighting to boost growth.

I feel that this method would work.  We could go one step further and issue permits to grow – like a shotgun licence. It could be based on a quick medical and the knowledge that the governing body has the right at any time of day to check that you are not using artificial lighting (as with a shotgun licence they can check yours are locked away safely).  You could even charge for this licecne to cover the costs.

If you went for complete legalisation then you could have controlled, licenced "coffee" shops.  These would provide a sizeable, taxable income to the government which would help with the deicit.  It could also boost tourism, however the view may be that it can only be sold to UK citizens.

Why is this idea important?

The issue of Cannabis needs to be addressed.  There are many discussions on here about legalisation, the benefits of the drug and all sorts.  If this were to become a reality then I see certain criteria that would have to be met.  The main problems with Cannabis as viewed by the governement and some members of the public are:

1. The crime involved, drug dealing, supplying, violent crime etc etc.

2. The apparent health side effects (psychosis etc).

By taking a sensible approach to the problem then these can be circumvented.  the options for legalisation are:

1. Complete legalisation – buy, smoke, grow, sell openly and freely (some licences may be required).

2. Controlled legalisation.

I see the only workable answer as controlled legalisation.  If you follow the Dutch method they allow certain licenced coffee shops where you can take and buy cannabis – no alcohol is permitted in these venues.  Also in Holland one huosehold can grow up to 5 plants (previously a per person ruling but this was subject to abuse).  These plants can be grown on your premises but it is illegal to use artificial lighting to boost growth.

I feel that this method would work.  We could go one step further and issue permits to grow – like a shotgun licence. It could be based on a quick medical and the knowledge that the governing body has the right at any time of day to check that you are not using artificial lighting (as with a shotgun licence they can check yours are locked away safely).  You could even charge for this licecne to cover the costs.

If you went for complete legalisation then you could have controlled, licenced "coffee" shops.  These would provide a sizeable, taxable income to the government which would help with the deicit.  It could also boost tourism, however the view may be that it can only be sold to UK citizens.

Remove all disincentives to work

By getting rid of income tax and placing the burden of taxation on purchases you can remove all the disincentives to create wealth while at the same time help those on low incomes to have more cash available for the basics of surviving. We can reduce the cost to the country by making most of the tax inspectors and collectors into income generators rather than cost centres. We already have VAT on purchases. It must be within the abilities of the clever people at the HMRC to devise a stratified system whereby more VAT is charged on luxury items and less, or even none, on basics such as food and children’s clothing.

The tax amount would be set and collected at the point at which a product first enters the market and then transferred as a net amount, rather than as a percentage of the sale price to the next customer in the chain that finishes with the end user of the product. For example, the tax should be set when the manufacturer sells the product to a wholesaler or another manufacturer that incorporates that product into theirs, or  an importer first takes delivery of the product,  The tax could be set either on the cost price of the item or the Recommended Retail Price. Where the tax is applied to a service it is set on  the value at which the service is provided to the customer, for example the labour content of a bill for plumbing or building. The tax on the products used in these instances will already have been collected.

By transferring the tax as a net amount it will reduce the need for accountants and accounts staff to act as unpaid tax collectors, reducing the amount of time they spend on calculations, or checking calculations as well as reducing the cost to companies and the economy in general. This process will reduce the amount of paperwork needed and make the collection of the tax easier and cheaper. It will reduce the amount of people involved in setting and collecting the tax. The rate at which the tax is collected can be adjusted simply and remove the need for exemptions and prevent non-domicile residents from avoiding tax.

Why is this idea important?

By getting rid of income tax and placing the burden of taxation on purchases you can remove all the disincentives to create wealth while at the same time help those on low incomes to have more cash available for the basics of surviving. We can reduce the cost to the country by making most of the tax inspectors and collectors into income generators rather than cost centres. We already have VAT on purchases. It must be within the abilities of the clever people at the HMRC to devise a stratified system whereby more VAT is charged on luxury items and less, or even none, on basics such as food and children’s clothing.

The tax amount would be set and collected at the point at which a product first enters the market and then transferred as a net amount, rather than as a percentage of the sale price to the next customer in the chain that finishes with the end user of the product. For example, the tax should be set when the manufacturer sells the product to a wholesaler or another manufacturer that incorporates that product into theirs, or  an importer first takes delivery of the product,  The tax could be set either on the cost price of the item or the Recommended Retail Price. Where the tax is applied to a service it is set on  the value at which the service is provided to the customer, for example the labour content of a bill for plumbing or building. The tax on the products used in these instances will already have been collected.

By transferring the tax as a net amount it will reduce the need for accountants and accounts staff to act as unpaid tax collectors, reducing the amount of time they spend on calculations, or checking calculations as well as reducing the cost to companies and the economy in general. This process will reduce the amount of paperwork needed and make the collection of the tax easier and cheaper. It will reduce the amount of people involved in setting and collecting the tax. The rate at which the tax is collected can be adjusted simply and remove the need for exemptions and prevent non-domicile residents from avoiding tax.

Repeal Chancellery laws, and ban chancellery insurance

Chancellery insurance is a rip off waiting to sting home-buyers. While the amounts involved are relatively small compared to other costs of buying a house, it is just another way that the legal and insurance industries find to obstruct the housing market, and to take advantage of people by forcing them to take out policies that they do not want, and probably haven't budgeted for. Many will be forced into spending an extra hundred or two for this insurance. 

The purpose of the insurance? The fixing of the local church roof. Surely this constitutes a tax. If this is the case, label it as such, and don't start hiding the avarice of insurance brokers under the fear and uncertainty of archaic laws.

Why is this idea important?

Chancellery insurance is a rip off waiting to sting home-buyers. While the amounts involved are relatively small compared to other costs of buying a house, it is just another way that the legal and insurance industries find to obstruct the housing market, and to take advantage of people by forcing them to take out policies that they do not want, and probably haven't budgeted for. Many will be forced into spending an extra hundred or two for this insurance. 

The purpose of the insurance? The fixing of the local church roof. Surely this constitutes a tax. If this is the case, label it as such, and don't start hiding the avarice of insurance brokers under the fear and uncertainty of archaic laws.

Road Tax and MOT

I think that Road Tax Prices should be met at the Petrol Pump,so the more you use the road the more you pay.Those not travelling thousands of miles a year would not be hit so hard.The idea of combining TAX and MOT as one issue is great as this would effectively guarantee that a car is legal / safe to be on the road.If it is not then on the spot heavy fines and car removal.Printed Plastic / vinyl security marked discs would also stop fraud.

Why is this idea important?

I think that Road Tax Prices should be met at the Petrol Pump,so the more you use the road the more you pay.Those not travelling thousands of miles a year would not be hit so hard.The idea of combining TAX and MOT as one issue is great as this would effectively guarantee that a car is legal / safe to be on the road.If it is not then on the spot heavy fines and car removal.Printed Plastic / vinyl security marked discs would also stop fraud.

Only 10% Council tax discount for an unoccupied property is unfair

When we moved to Ireland for a medical fellowship (part of my medical training). I have to pay 90% of my council tax. That is not fair! Not just for me but those who inherit an unoccupied property have to pay the same until the house is sold. This is a crazy punitive tax. A 50% discount (as it was before labour) I would accept.

See letter I received from Plymouth council;

I refer to your email sent to Mr x about council tax discounts.

Prior to 2003, if a property was nobody’s main residence but furnished, the law provided that all billing authorities should allow a 50% discount. From 1st April 2004, billing authorities were given the discretion to vary the amount of discount for such properties to some percentage between 10% and 50%. Plymouth City Council, by resolution of the Council, chose to reduce the discount from 50% to 10%. In my opinion, this has been done lawfully in accordance with government legislation, although if you want to challenge this resolution, I would suggest you contact your solicitor who will advise you of the procedure you would need to follow.

If the percentage was to be changed, it would need to be by a further resolution of the Council but would only apply to future years and not the current financial year.

With regard to the fact that you will not be getting anything for your money, I would advise that council tax is a tax on the occupation or ownership of domestic property and is not a payment for service. It could be that the owner of a property may have been permanently living abroad for years, not set foot in the UK for the whole of the financial year and pay no UK income tax but he would still be liable for council tax.

If you have any further queries, please contact me again.

Yours sincerely

Why is this idea important?

When we moved to Ireland for a medical fellowship (part of my medical training). I have to pay 90% of my council tax. That is not fair! Not just for me but those who inherit an unoccupied property have to pay the same until the house is sold. This is a crazy punitive tax. A 50% discount (as it was before labour) I would accept.

See letter I received from Plymouth council;

I refer to your email sent to Mr x about council tax discounts.

Prior to 2003, if a property was nobody’s main residence but furnished, the law provided that all billing authorities should allow a 50% discount. From 1st April 2004, billing authorities were given the discretion to vary the amount of discount for such properties to some percentage between 10% and 50%. Plymouth City Council, by resolution of the Council, chose to reduce the discount from 50% to 10%. In my opinion, this has been done lawfully in accordance with government legislation, although if you want to challenge this resolution, I would suggest you contact your solicitor who will advise you of the procedure you would need to follow.

If the percentage was to be changed, it would need to be by a further resolution of the Council but would only apply to future years and not the current financial year.

With regard to the fact that you will not be getting anything for your money, I would advise that council tax is a tax on the occupation or ownership of domestic property and is not a payment for service. It could be that the owner of a property may have been permanently living abroad for years, not set foot in the UK for the whole of the financial year and pay no UK income tax but he would still be liable for council tax.

If you have any further queries, please contact me again.

Yours sincerely

Taxing War Veteran Pensioners?

 

What is the British Government playing at?

Taxing pension is a crime! These people have paid all their lives into a system nad PAID for the NHS we currently enjoy today. Do you really think its fair to FURTHER tax pensions even though they have paid all their lives into the system?

This doubly goes for ANY war vateran reaching pension age! DO you think its fair to tax war vaterans on their pension, whislt if it were not for them You Mr Cameron, Mr CLegg would not even be talking about this, if it were not for these brave men and women? This country OWES them deeply. How do we pay them back? we shut them away in old peoples homes, tax their pension and make them pay even more?. What a disgrace, hang your heads in shame! We should honour these brave people and let them live the twilight years of their lives FREE from tax (on the pension that is)

 

gilgamesh

 

Why is this idea important?

 

What is the British Government playing at?

Taxing pension is a crime! These people have paid all their lives into a system nad PAID for the NHS we currently enjoy today. Do you really think its fair to FURTHER tax pensions even though they have paid all their lives into the system?

This doubly goes for ANY war vateran reaching pension age! DO you think its fair to tax war vaterans on their pension, whislt if it were not for them You Mr Cameron, Mr CLegg would not even be talking about this, if it were not for these brave men and women? This country OWES them deeply. How do we pay them back? we shut them away in old peoples homes, tax their pension and make them pay even more?. What a disgrace, hang your heads in shame! We should honour these brave people and let them live the twilight years of their lives FREE from tax (on the pension that is)

 

gilgamesh

 

Extend SOCA reports to those that have the information or scrap it.

I've always found it mildly amusing that accountants and solicitors are required to make tax fraud reports when they see tax evasion, but not those people who actually see them day to day, ie business brokers and estate agents.

If reporting of tax fraud isn't implemented widely it is ineffective. In which case why impose the cost on a small section of the business community.

Do it properly or scrap it.

Why is this idea important?

I've always found it mildly amusing that accountants and solicitors are required to make tax fraud reports when they see tax evasion, but not those people who actually see them day to day, ie business brokers and estate agents.

If reporting of tax fraud isn't implemented widely it is ineffective. In which case why impose the cost on a small section of the business community.

Do it properly or scrap it.

How to get some tax revenue from expatriates and tax exiles

The income tax regulations referring to UK residents whose money is earned outside the UK need to be simplified and made fair by making tax due proportional to time spent at home, as at present they are either not paying anything for time spent in the UK or are paying for time spent out of the UK.

Why is this idea important?

The income tax regulations referring to UK residents whose money is earned outside the UK need to be simplified and made fair by making tax due proportional to time spent at home, as at present they are either not paying anything for time spent in the UK or are paying for time spent out of the UK.

Get some tax from expats

If people work overseas but want to live in the UK it would be far fairer to charge a fraction of the tax they would have paid if earning in the UK based on how long they spend in the UK per year.

Why is this idea important?

If people work overseas but want to live in the UK it would be far fairer to charge a fraction of the tax they would have paid if earning in the UK based on how long they spend in the UK per year.

One version only of Small Company Accounts

The Companies House website has a very helpful Small Company Accounts template to enable web filing giving the minimum disclosure required by the Companies Act. This year HMRC (Corporation Tax) have started rejecting these abbreviated accounts and asking for a Directors' Report to be included in them. Most small companies (who have never been asked for this before) will have completed their accounts, adopted them at an AGM and sent them off to Companies House for filing before sending them to HMRC. The Directors Report, if included, is an integral part of the accounts, not just a page that can be added later.

Please can these two government departments get their act together to avoid this rediculous and time-consuming re-work for those in small companies who have enough legislation to keep up with at the best of times?

Why is this idea important?

The Companies House website has a very helpful Small Company Accounts template to enable web filing giving the minimum disclosure required by the Companies Act. This year HMRC (Corporation Tax) have started rejecting these abbreviated accounts and asking for a Directors' Report to be included in them. Most small companies (who have never been asked for this before) will have completed their accounts, adopted them at an AGM and sent them off to Companies House for filing before sending them to HMRC. The Directors Report, if included, is an integral part of the accounts, not just a page that can be added later.

Please can these two government departments get their act together to avoid this rediculous and time-consuming re-work for those in small companies who have enough legislation to keep up with at the best of times?