Streamline the Tax and Benefits system.

National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)

The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.

Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.

This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)

Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)

The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.

After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.

The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.

Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.

Why is this idea important?

National Insurance should be merged with income tax. (And ideally local taxation should also be included in this merger)

The personal tax allowance abolished and should be replaced by an equivalent cash payment to all UK resident citizens. (This could be referred to as a basic income). All benefits would then be reduced by this amount.

Benefits would be phased out for those able to work, they would be replaced by guaranteed casual work being available. This work would initially be community work, whether it be helping charities or environmental schemes. It could be helping with local festivals for example.

This would be 5 days a month, there would be as much flexibility as possible in the timing. The entitlement would be transferrable between family members. It would approximately minimum wage. (Those with reduced basic income would be able to claim up to 10 days a month.)

Basic income would be based on the number of years spent contributing to the tax system. (Children on becoming 18 would be regarded as having up to 5 years of contributions, 1/2 a year for each year they have attended school in the UK.)

The minimum payment would begin after 5 years of contributions. This would be aimed to be approximately the difference between 1 day a week at minimum wage and current jobseekers allowance for a young person.

After 10 years of contributions this would raise to be equivalent to the difference between one day a week on minimum wage and the current adults’ JSA.

The state pension could also be merged with this system and could child benefit.

Once this scheme is running, a similar scheme would be introduced to replace rent and mortgage benefits.

Drastically reduce or remove council tax

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

Why is this idea important?

The introduction of council tax wasnt popular and i think we can all see why..

Every month we have to pay rent/mortgage at inflated prices, gas,electricity,water, phone, broadband, car tax, car insurance, road tax, tv license, and council tax.

the only reason i work is to not go to prison for unpaid bills and even still, i cant afford to live properly because of the ridiculous amounts of tax and forced things we have to pay for.

everything should be pay as you use.

We never get a voice. we never get a say and we are always ignored

tv license is to pay for BBC – if i watch itv or sky (which also costs money) i still have to buy a license tio support a station i dont watch or its a fine. so i have to buy a tv, pay for electric, buy a license, pay for sky and not watch bbc whilst still paying for it.

Bailiffs are another example of being let down by the government, money i have never owed, yet a bailiff turns up and bullys, harrasses and threatens innocent people – ask them if they can prove it, they say no and they dont have to and ruin your life.

council tax – my bins are never collected, i dont use the police or ambulance or fire or the council. if i did, id rather pay as i went (every one call i pay a months equivalent of council tax)

I pay the council and yet, they wont fix the pot holes, they dont clean the streets, they wont fix the lighting, or answer their phones.

Where else have we been ignored? Passports, i paid an inflated price to fund the id card scheme, which is scrapped, yet i bet the passport price doesnt get reduced? or a refund on the difference offered? or a refund to people with id cards?

We live to work to pay people and get nothing in return.

My bank…lloyds tsb..bailed out by tax payers money, i ask for a temporary 100 pound overdraft and i am told no because i am a financial risk?? yet my money – that i have no choice about where it goes – saved them.. helpful banking they promised me, yet refuses me overdraft or if i go 4p over drawn charges me £40 and says they cant stop the charge, which is unfair and the government have done nothing about.

You mighht read these, but nothing of use will ever been done, and we are destined to continue to live to line your pockets and have no life of our own.

lift ban on drugs

As we all know, some idiot believes that the way to  make drugs safe is to ban them and pretend there not there. NOT THE CASE IDIOT!!  Making drugs illegal makes the person using the drug a criminal, when in some cases the user is a law abiding citizen that just fancy's a lil buzz on the weekend or getting stoned and watching a funny film for laughs. LEGALISING DRUGS MAKES THEM SAFER! NOT GOING TO BE MIXED WITH OTHER CHEMICALS IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN CONTROL IT. FOR INSTANCE, LEGALISING CANNABIS, ADDING A AGE RESTRICTION AND THEM SELLING IN SHOPS PRODUCES REVENUE

Why is this idea important?

As we all know, some idiot believes that the way to  make drugs safe is to ban them and pretend there not there. NOT THE CASE IDIOT!!  Making drugs illegal makes the person using the drug a criminal, when in some cases the user is a law abiding citizen that just fancy's a lil buzz on the weekend or getting stoned and watching a funny film for laughs. LEGALISING DRUGS MAKES THEM SAFER! NOT GOING TO BE MIXED WITH OTHER CHEMICALS IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN CONTROL IT. FOR INSTANCE, LEGALISING CANNABIS, ADDING A AGE RESTRICTION AND THEM SELLING IN SHOPS PRODUCES REVENUE

Bankers, contribute to society!

Pardon this is not a repeal as more of an idea, and i ivite any one with knowedge on this to please tell me why it couldnt work all the top profit earners in the FSTE 100, 250 or whatever pay into a pot say 3% of all net profit for the top profit earner 2.5% for second place 1.5% for third ect ect and with that money the state could build schools for special needs learners, new nhs hospitals, beds feeding the homeless, hungry heating the frail or elderlys homes yes a direct tax on the (filthy) rich but think of the public realations and good publicity spin the companys could emplor, all im saying is top capitalists and profit earners get to the top by exploitation so why cant they give back a little to the people they exploit.

But they'll just invest capital in foriegn markets where no such rules exists, well make it a E.U policy for all countrys or hit them with Heavy fines (or jail) for turning there back on a country that is at war with terror.  

Why is this idea important?

Pardon this is not a repeal as more of an idea, and i ivite any one with knowedge on this to please tell me why it couldnt work all the top profit earners in the FSTE 100, 250 or whatever pay into a pot say 3% of all net profit for the top profit earner 2.5% for second place 1.5% for third ect ect and with that money the state could build schools for special needs learners, new nhs hospitals, beds feeding the homeless, hungry heating the frail or elderlys homes yes a direct tax on the (filthy) rich but think of the public realations and good publicity spin the companys could emplor, all im saying is top capitalists and profit earners get to the top by exploitation so why cant they give back a little to the people they exploit.

But they'll just invest capital in foriegn markets where no such rules exists, well make it a E.U policy for all countrys or hit them with Heavy fines (or jail) for turning there back on a country that is at war with terror.  

Scrap the CIS Scheme

Repeal all legislation imposing a different tax regime on the Construction Industry to the rest of the economy. The CIS scheme is complex (thanks to the Legal parasites), slow and unnecessary as the CBI reports that over 90% of Construction Industry paymenmts are on time and accurate. The current CIS scheme imposes fines on many small sub-contractors even when a mistake is entirely the fault of HMRC. Small businesses then have to find the time to appeal against these manifest injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all legislation imposing a different tax regime on the Construction Industry to the rest of the economy. The CIS scheme is complex (thanks to the Legal parasites), slow and unnecessary as the CBI reports that over 90% of Construction Industry paymenmts are on time and accurate. The current CIS scheme imposes fines on many small sub-contractors even when a mistake is entirely the fault of HMRC. Small businesses then have to find the time to appeal against these manifest injustices.

Do NOT decriminalize cannabis…

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Why is this idea important?

…LEGALIZE it.

It is important people undrestund the difference between legalizing and decriminalizing.

Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

Legalization is a process often applied to what are regarded, by those working towards legalization, as victimless crimes, of which one example is the consumption of illegal drugs .

Legalization should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations.

Prohibition of drugs causes crime, de-criminalise them!

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Why is this idea important?

 

We are all aware that the fight against drug use and abuse over the last 50 years has failed spectacularly, no one can deny this.

We are also aware that the increasing use of drugs illegally has increased the levels of crime and violence to levels not seen in the last 100 years.

The number of public servants, social workers, police, NHS staff etc has risen to levels never required before, this is in response to the attempt to stop the  illegal use of drugs.

The number of people in prisons has exploded, around 84,000 currently.

It would be irresponsible to enact legislation, as proposed by Ken Clarke, to reduce short term prison sentences until the de-criminalisation of drugs is tackled.

Many prisoners are there for petty crime offences to pay for the illegal use of drugs. They will be forced to continue to support their habit / addiction illegally if they are not jailed  and so crime will continue to increase.

It is plainly a nonsense to prohibit drugs, as it would be plainly wrong to end prohibition without a proper structure to allow drug users to avail themselves of drugs legally. 

Now is the time for the Coalition Government to tackle this huge drug issue and put it at the front of our agenda for dealing with many of the problems in our society.

Remove obstructive DWP rules on CTX and other in-work benefits

 

The idea that I am proposing is that the Government should take the advice of the 2006-07 Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee Report and review Council Tax benefits and the tapering off of all in-work benefits. The research has been done. The Report has been published. It’s available on-line on www.parliament.uk. Look at it again and give us back our freedom to go to work.

Millions of people in this country literally cannot afford to go to work because the DWP sets Council Tax benefits (or rebates) at such a low level. Many of the people on low incomes will not benefit at all from the recently announced raising of their income tax threshold because whatever they are given with one hand will be taken away by the other in reduced council tax benefit, (and, if applicable, reduced housing benefit too.) Their poverty will be perpetuated. Yet a Parliamentary Committee investigated CTX benefits and urged the Government to review these DWP rules as a matter of urgency three years ago.

In May 2007 a cross-party Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, chaired by Dr Phyllis Starkey, launched an enquiry into CTX benefit. This followed the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. Expert evidence and advice was given by several organisations, including the New Policy Institute, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and London Councils.

The Committee published its Report in August 2007. Paragraph 3 of its conclusions and recommendations finds that: “The council benefit taper, and its interaction with other parts of the tax and benefit system, can act as a disincentive to work. We recommend that the Government address this issue with some urgency and recognise the detrimental effects of the council tax benefit taper in its work on welfare reform.”

This recommendation was cross-referenced to Para. 17 of their Report which stated: “Sir Michael pointed out in his report on local government that the issue of work incentives is much wider than that of council tax reform. We Agree. Any reform is best considered in the context of wider welfare reform policy, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. As the Institute of Revenues Ratings and Valuations argued, a Government review of the council tax benefit taper is long overdue but the issue has been largely ignored by Government for some 20 years.”

And how does this translate into the reality of people’s lives? It means that benefits are tapered off so steeply that the amount people gain when taking on a minimum wage or part time job is so little that it doesn’t even cover the cost of transport to work. They are even worse off than living on benefits and cannot improve their lives by working. DWP regulations on Council Tax rebates prevent people from earning their living, and create difficulties for potential employers trying to take on new staff. It also prevents many people who, for various reasons such as poor health or new parenthood, can only work part time, from taking on a job, because they become liable for Council Tax before they even start paying income tax! So they have to remain on benefits even though, with a fairer CTX rebate system, they could work and be less of a burden on the state.

The Government Response to the Parliamentary Committee’s Report was published on 15 October 2007. The DWP dismissed the Report’s recommendation on the grounds that it was not affordable and that the only route for the poor to improve their lot was through the labour market. Yet the report had gone into great detail about how the poor were unable to improve their lot through the labour market because of the obstacles placed in their way by the DWP! This circularity of thought resulted in no progress in welfare reform and public money spent on this enquiry was spun into a vortex down the drain.

Governments pontificate about “the poor” as if they were a separate species or as idle creatures who must be bullied and cajoled into working. Or they talk about social mobility as a means to remove poverty, but we cannot all be, for example, lawyers, bankers or politicians. Here’s a really simple solution to the problem of poverty: pay people enough to live on. Reward them for working. Those who work in low status jobs are providing essential services for the rest of society. This is about recognising and rewarding their contribution and allowing them to live a decent life.  If employers cannot afford to pay a living wage to their employees then state subsidies become a necessity.

But the DWP has recently decided once more that tapering off these in-work benefits more gradually was still not affordable. Surely it’s more cost-effective for the State to support those in low-paid jobs with adequate in-work benefits than it is to leave people stagnating in long term unemployment, with all the costly social problems that that entails.  In-work benefits are cheaper than unemployment benefits. Cut costs. Reduce our dependence on the state. Restore our freedom to go to work. Enable employers to take on more staff. These DWP regulations are unnecessary and illiberal. Change them. Spread the burden of Council Tax fairly so people can go out and earn their living.

Why is this idea important?

 

The idea that I am proposing is that the Government should take the advice of the 2006-07 Communities and Local Government Parliamentary Committee Report and review Council Tax benefits and the tapering off of all in-work benefits. The research has been done. The Report has been published. It’s available on-line on www.parliament.uk. Look at it again and give us back our freedom to go to work.

Millions of people in this country literally cannot afford to go to work because the DWP sets Council Tax benefits (or rebates) at such a low level. Many of the people on low incomes will not benefit at all from the recently announced raising of their income tax threshold because whatever they are given with one hand will be taken away by the other in reduced council tax benefit, (and, if applicable, reduced housing benefit too.) Their poverty will be perpetuated. Yet a Parliamentary Committee investigated CTX benefits and urged the Government to review these DWP rules as a matter of urgency three years ago.

In May 2007 a cross-party Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, chaired by Dr Phyllis Starkey, launched an enquiry into CTX benefit. This followed the Lyons Inquiry into Local Government. Expert evidence and advice was given by several organisations, including the New Policy Institute, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and London Councils.

The Committee published its Report in August 2007. Paragraph 3 of its conclusions and recommendations finds that: “The council benefit taper, and its interaction with other parts of the tax and benefit system, can act as a disincentive to work. We recommend that the Government address this issue with some urgency and recognise the detrimental effects of the council tax benefit taper in its work on welfare reform.”

This recommendation was cross-referenced to Para. 17 of their Report which stated: “Sir Michael pointed out in his report on local government that the issue of work incentives is much wider than that of council tax reform. We Agree. Any reform is best considered in the context of wider welfare reform policy, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. As the Institute of Revenues Ratings and Valuations argued, a Government review of the council tax benefit taper is long overdue but the issue has been largely ignored by Government for some 20 years.”

And how does this translate into the reality of people’s lives? It means that benefits are tapered off so steeply that the amount people gain when taking on a minimum wage or part time job is so little that it doesn’t even cover the cost of transport to work. They are even worse off than living on benefits and cannot improve their lives by working. DWP regulations on Council Tax rebates prevent people from earning their living, and create difficulties for potential employers trying to take on new staff. It also prevents many people who, for various reasons such as poor health or new parenthood, can only work part time, from taking on a job, because they become liable for Council Tax before they even start paying income tax! So they have to remain on benefits even though, with a fairer CTX rebate system, they could work and be less of a burden on the state.

The Government Response to the Parliamentary Committee’s Report was published on 15 October 2007. The DWP dismissed the Report’s recommendation on the grounds that it was not affordable and that the only route for the poor to improve their lot was through the labour market. Yet the report had gone into great detail about how the poor were unable to improve their lot through the labour market because of the obstacles placed in their way by the DWP! This circularity of thought resulted in no progress in welfare reform and public money spent on this enquiry was spun into a vortex down the drain.

Governments pontificate about “the poor” as if they were a separate species or as idle creatures who must be bullied and cajoled into working. Or they talk about social mobility as a means to remove poverty, but we cannot all be, for example, lawyers, bankers or politicians. Here’s a really simple solution to the problem of poverty: pay people enough to live on. Reward them for working. Those who work in low status jobs are providing essential services for the rest of society. This is about recognising and rewarding their contribution and allowing them to live a decent life.  If employers cannot afford to pay a living wage to their employees then state subsidies become a necessity.

But the DWP has recently decided once more that tapering off these in-work benefits more gradually was still not affordable. Surely it’s more cost-effective for the State to support those in low-paid jobs with adequate in-work benefits than it is to leave people stagnating in long term unemployment, with all the costly social problems that that entails.  In-work benefits are cheaper than unemployment benefits. Cut costs. Reduce our dependence on the state. Restore our freedom to go to work. Enable employers to take on more staff. These DWP regulations are unnecessary and illiberal. Change them. Spread the burden of Council Tax fairly so people can go out and earn their living.

water conservation

Make water meters compulsory or make water rates high enough to make those people without water meters seriously consider whether they might not be able to save money by having a water meter installed voluntarily.

Why is this idea important?

Make water meters compulsory or make water rates high enough to make those people without water meters seriously consider whether they might not be able to save money by having a water meter installed voluntarily.

Feed In Tariff for first movers

Feed in tariff benefit requires installation of proven technology by qualified installers.  This excludes first movers and amateur installation.  It hampers aquisition of new skills by unqualified, but experienced tradesmen.

Feed-In Tariff should be available, subject to inspection and evidence or calculation of energy saving, by Building Inspectors. 

New technology might be defined as one capturing less than 2.5% of the market, e.g. Exhaust Air Heat Pumps.

Why is this idea important?

Feed in tariff benefit requires installation of proven technology by qualified installers.  This excludes first movers and amateur installation.  It hampers aquisition of new skills by unqualified, but experienced tradesmen.

Feed-In Tariff should be available, subject to inspection and evidence or calculation of energy saving, by Building Inspectors. 

New technology might be defined as one capturing less than 2.5% of the market, e.g. Exhaust Air Heat Pumps.

Reduce VAT on improvements to that on new build

Improvements attract full rate VAT, new build only 5%.

Allow property owner to recover the difference in VAT by means of inspection by Building Control Inspector.

Why is this idea important?

Improvements attract full rate VAT, new build only 5%.

Allow property owner to recover the difference in VAT by means of inspection by Building Control Inspector.

The legalisation of cannabis as a tradable commodity

In todays society is it really fair to legalise a plant that nearly every single person in the country has used? Im seventeen years old and tried my first spliff at 13. Every single person i know smokes it and its even easier to get than alcohol. Why? BECAUSE its illegal. Alcohol is so hard to get when young because a person who serves someone who is underage, can get a criminal sentence but they can still make a profit from selling alcohol to people legally allowed to consume it, therefore they are more likely to enforce the law themselves. Thats why the alcohol laws work. sort of.

Cannabis is by far one of the most softest drugs on the streets. Your childs baby food probably has more harmful chemicals in than cannabis. It can also be used for medical purposes and hemp can be used to make biofuel, fabrics, robe and is an eco friendly alternative to paper. If cannabis was used in the same way as alcohol, not only would less people be using it but it would make it safer, reduce crime, prevent young people from using it and, the huge amounts of money that cannabis makes, wouldn't be going into the hands of the criminals, but would be put back into society in the form of taxes etc. 

List of drugs that have caused more deaths than Cannabis (in no particular order):

Heroin | Caffeine | Aspirin | nicotine | Cocaine | Alcohol | Methadrone (legal highs) |  ecstacy

 

Why is this idea important?

In todays society is it really fair to legalise a plant that nearly every single person in the country has used? Im seventeen years old and tried my first spliff at 13. Every single person i know smokes it and its even easier to get than alcohol. Why? BECAUSE its illegal. Alcohol is so hard to get when young because a person who serves someone who is underage, can get a criminal sentence but they can still make a profit from selling alcohol to people legally allowed to consume it, therefore they are more likely to enforce the law themselves. Thats why the alcohol laws work. sort of.

Cannabis is by far one of the most softest drugs on the streets. Your childs baby food probably has more harmful chemicals in than cannabis. It can also be used for medical purposes and hemp can be used to make biofuel, fabrics, robe and is an eco friendly alternative to paper. If cannabis was used in the same way as alcohol, not only would less people be using it but it would make it safer, reduce crime, prevent young people from using it and, the huge amounts of money that cannabis makes, wouldn't be going into the hands of the criminals, but would be put back into society in the form of taxes etc. 

List of drugs that have caused more deaths than Cannabis (in no particular order):

Heroin | Caffeine | Aspirin | nicotine | Cocaine | Alcohol | Methadrone (legal highs) |  ecstacy

 

Tax-free investment in UK-based small/new high-tech companies

Individuals or groups can invest in new (less than three years old?) or small (less than 25 employees?) companies that are based in the UK. Where investments are in companies founded on UK patents (from UK Universities?), those companies can claim the tax back, just like charity gift aid.

Investing groups might be pension funds, but maybe the amount they can invest might be limited (per company).

All profits on the original investment are tax free. Subsequent investments are tax-free too, as long as the company is still young/small.

Why is this idea important?

Individuals or groups can invest in new (less than three years old?) or small (less than 25 employees?) companies that are based in the UK. Where investments are in companies founded on UK patents (from UK Universities?), those companies can claim the tax back, just like charity gift aid.

Investing groups might be pension funds, but maybe the amount they can invest might be limited (per company).

All profits on the original investment are tax free. Subsequent investments are tax-free too, as long as the company is still young/small.

All Newspapers should be subject to VAT at the full rate.

Certain good which are deemed as essentials are quite rightly exempt from VAT.  These include most food and drink for human consumption and also childrens clothes.  Books  are seen as providers of information and education and are also free from VAT.

Newspapers at one time could also be seen as an important source of news and information for people.  However, with more recent developments in technology, people no longer rely on newspapers as such information can be more easily be gained from radio, television and the internet.  At the same time standards within the newpaper industry have fallen.  Many people will be familiar with the 'Gotcha' headline from the Sun newspaper when the General Belgrano battleship was sunk causing the loss of many lives.  A similar headline in today's Daily Express refering to the suicide of Raoul Moat, reads 'Got Him'.

I do not wish to see the banning on newspapers but I do believe that they should be treated like most other non-essential products and be levied VAT at the full rate.  Anyone relying on a daily newpaper for their news and education would end up with rather a distorted view of the world.   In order to sell newspapers, editors/journalists regularly distort  and over sensationalise, and their obsession with celebrities and their affairs can not be seen as providing much needed service to the public as a whole.

Why is this idea important?

Certain good which are deemed as essentials are quite rightly exempt from VAT.  These include most food and drink for human consumption and also childrens clothes.  Books  are seen as providers of information and education and are also free from VAT.

Newspapers at one time could also be seen as an important source of news and information for people.  However, with more recent developments in technology, people no longer rely on newspapers as such information can be more easily be gained from radio, television and the internet.  At the same time standards within the newpaper industry have fallen.  Many people will be familiar with the 'Gotcha' headline from the Sun newspaper when the General Belgrano battleship was sunk causing the loss of many lives.  A similar headline in today's Daily Express refering to the suicide of Raoul Moat, reads 'Got Him'.

I do not wish to see the banning on newspapers but I do believe that they should be treated like most other non-essential products and be levied VAT at the full rate.  Anyone relying on a daily newpaper for their news and education would end up with rather a distorted view of the world.   In order to sell newspapers, editors/journalists regularly distort  and over sensationalise, and their obsession with celebrities and their affairs can not be seen as providing much needed service to the public as a whole.

Remove VAT on sanitary products

Removing the VAT on sanitary products for women.  We have no choice but to buy these products, but because of the VAT they are priced too high and this is unfair as they are not a luxury!

 

0% VAT is theonly fair option

Why is this idea important?

Removing the VAT on sanitary products for women.  We have no choice but to buy these products, but because of the VAT they are priced too high and this is unfair as they are not a luxury!

 

0% VAT is theonly fair option

Repeal/ Adjust the limit of 20 quid on earnings before Benefits can take most of it.

There is currently a reg in place that means that if you earn more than 20 quid whilst on JSA or Incap Benefits the local council can take every pound after the first 20 quid you earn per week.

It's part of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit  system basically.  It's called Permitted Earnings.

Disabled people get supported permitted earnings.  And that limit is about 80 quid per week, but the 20 quid limit is still valid.

So you get to earn say 70 quid, and then have to give 50 quid to the council.

Why is this idea important?

There is currently a reg in place that means that if you earn more than 20 quid whilst on JSA or Incap Benefits the local council can take every pound after the first 20 quid you earn per week.

It's part of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit  system basically.  It's called Permitted Earnings.

Disabled people get supported permitted earnings.  And that limit is about 80 quid per week, but the 20 quid limit is still valid.

So you get to earn say 70 quid, and then have to give 50 quid to the council.

Free up local housing by taxing second homes

Persons having second homes which are not permanently occupied (i.e. those using them for only a few weeks in the year and empty the rest of the time) could be subject to increased council tax and non-occupancy charges.

Why is this idea important?

Persons having second homes which are not permanently occupied (i.e. those using them for only a few weeks in the year and empty the rest of the time) could be subject to increased council tax and non-occupancy charges.