clergy taxation

Some years ago the Inland Revenue created a vast amount of unnecessary work for itself by starting to tax Catholic priests on their "income".  Most of us have very little by way of income (usually just the stipends for the Masses we celebrate) and given our service to people/society status, it seems a little unnecesary to tax us on the little we receive.

Why is this idea important?

Some years ago the Inland Revenue created a vast amount of unnecessary work for itself by starting to tax Catholic priests on their "income".  Most of us have very little by way of income (usually just the stipends for the Masses we celebrate) and given our service to people/society status, it seems a little unnecesary to tax us on the little we receive.

Legalize Cannabis and Tax it

To help tackle the deficit Cannabis could be legalized and taxed. The resulting revenue would be collosal and could be used to pay for useful things in society such as Health, Education and so on. This would have the added benefit of removing nasty criminals from the loop and ensure that the distribution of Cannabis was under the auspices of Government rather than organized crime. The Govt should wake up and accept that Cannabis is already widely used in the UK and will continue to be so. We no longer have to pander to the old fashioned morality which suggests that Cannabis use is somehow immoral as it is not. It is NOT a vote loser but a vote winner so  politicians don't have to worry about being elected. Please see sense and do this. It makes sense on EVERY LEVEL. The politician who has the courage to introduce this as policy would be EXTREMELY POPULAR INDEED.

Why is this idea important?

To help tackle the deficit Cannabis could be legalized and taxed. The resulting revenue would be collosal and could be used to pay for useful things in society such as Health, Education and so on. This would have the added benefit of removing nasty criminals from the loop and ensure that the distribution of Cannabis was under the auspices of Government rather than organized crime. The Govt should wake up and accept that Cannabis is already widely used in the UK and will continue to be so. We no longer have to pander to the old fashioned morality which suggests that Cannabis use is somehow immoral as it is not. It is NOT a vote loser but a vote winner so  politicians don't have to worry about being elected. Please see sense and do this. It makes sense on EVERY LEVEL. The politician who has the courage to introduce this as policy would be EXTREMELY POPULAR INDEED.

Reduce business rates in town centres and increase them in out of town parks

Town centres all over the UK are dying and rates in many towns are prohibitive. I propose that town centre businesses have a reduced rating, as much as two thirds reduction. The lost revenue should be levied on to the out of town business and retail parks. They should also be taxed on the amount of cars they allow free parking for per annum.

The big multiples are simply being allowed to plunder opur towns just as the big banks are allowed to plunder our finances

Why is this idea important?

Town centres all over the UK are dying and rates in many towns are prohibitive. I propose that town centre businesses have a reduced rating, as much as two thirds reduction. The lost revenue should be levied on to the out of town business and retail parks. They should also be taxed on the amount of cars they allow free parking for per annum.

The big multiples are simply being allowed to plunder opur towns just as the big banks are allowed to plunder our finances

End discrimination against remote areas by central government

The policy of centralisation pursued in the UK for many decades has resulted in severe discrimination against communities in the remoter parts of England, Scotland and Wales. People in these communities pay the same taxes (both direct and indirect) as those living in large towns and cities, yet they are frequently denied essential services because central government deems it too expensive to provide them.

This mentality prevails, even though remote areas unquestionably have a greater need for such services than city areas. Examples of such discrimination are:

  • Fuel pricing

EU regulations allow for a reduced rate of VAT to be applied on petrol and diesel in remote areas. Even though countries such as Finland apply this policy in relation to their remote island communities, the UK government has never adopted it. As a result, petrol on the Scottish islands is priced as high as £1.33 per litre, in areas where public road or rail transport is virtually non-existent.

  • Digital TV and licensing

Despite massive publicity about the digital switchover, Freeview will not provide universal coverage within the UK. This situation is unjustified when everyone, irrespective of location, is legally required  to pay for a TV licence. The conclusion is that people in remote areas have paid for a digital TV service which is not being provided to them.

  • Broadband

There is no political will to provide the resources from central government to ensure that every location in the UK has access to a basic broadband service of at least 2mbps. Whilst funds, raised from general taxation, are made available to develop high-speed broadband for densely-populated areas, remoter communities are unfairly denied a basic service.
 

Why is this idea important?

The policy of centralisation pursued in the UK for many decades has resulted in severe discrimination against communities in the remoter parts of England, Scotland and Wales. People in these communities pay the same taxes (both direct and indirect) as those living in large towns and cities, yet they are frequently denied essential services because central government deems it too expensive to provide them.

This mentality prevails, even though remote areas unquestionably have a greater need for such services than city areas. Examples of such discrimination are:

  • Fuel pricing

EU regulations allow for a reduced rate of VAT to be applied on petrol and diesel in remote areas. Even though countries such as Finland apply this policy in relation to their remote island communities, the UK government has never adopted it. As a result, petrol on the Scottish islands is priced as high as £1.33 per litre, in areas where public road or rail transport is virtually non-existent.

  • Digital TV and licensing

Despite massive publicity about the digital switchover, Freeview will not provide universal coverage within the UK. This situation is unjustified when everyone, irrespective of location, is legally required  to pay for a TV licence. The conclusion is that people in remote areas have paid for a digital TV service which is not being provided to them.

  • Broadband

There is no political will to provide the resources from central government to ensure that every location in the UK has access to a basic broadband service of at least 2mbps. Whilst funds, raised from general taxation, are made available to develop high-speed broadband for densely-populated areas, remoter communities are unfairly denied a basic service.
 

Restructure taxation on pubs

Taxation on alcohol / pubs should be restructured according to location / type of establishment to protect rural / community pubs and ensure town centre high turnover places pay a higher contribution towards public safety, health, protection etc.

Why is this idea important?

Taxation on alcohol / pubs should be restructured according to location / type of establishment to protect rural / community pubs and ensure town centre high turnover places pay a higher contribution towards public safety, health, protection etc.

Make It A Legal Requirement That Local Councils Only Raise Charges Against Specific And Costed Expenditure.

All local councils should be required to set out their items for expenditure in advance of being able legally to raise charges, council tax or any other revenues or borrowing. It seems local authorities assume they can simply raise any money they can screw out of captive ratepayers and then decide what to do with it, e.g., pay themselves and their staff vast salaries, expenses and pensions that they can access quickly through allowing themselves to retire early.

All propsoed charges to be collected from homeowners and businesses to be set out in advance of any charges becoming legal and collectable.

This requirement is found to be neccessary with reference to recent developments where those elected and entrusted with local government use the system without due regard and concern for those who must pay for local governnment. They can't be trusted and we must be able to stop the extravagance and waste at source.

Why is this idea important?

All local councils should be required to set out their items for expenditure in advance of being able legally to raise charges, council tax or any other revenues or borrowing. It seems local authorities assume they can simply raise any money they can screw out of captive ratepayers and then decide what to do with it, e.g., pay themselves and their staff vast salaries, expenses and pensions that they can access quickly through allowing themselves to retire early.

All propsoed charges to be collected from homeowners and businesses to be set out in advance of any charges becoming legal and collectable.

This requirement is found to be neccessary with reference to recent developments where those elected and entrusted with local government use the system without due regard and concern for those who must pay for local governnment. They can't be trusted and we must be able to stop the extravagance and waste at source.

INCREASE TAXATION BURDEN ON RICHEST 10%

Increase all forms of taxation on the richest 10% of individuals in the UK…..

As Adam Smith advocated "taxation in line with ability to pay"…

Increase marginal rates of direct taxation

Increase VAT on luxury goods

Increase Inheritance and CGT on transfers of over £1million

Why is this idea important?

Increase all forms of taxation on the richest 10% of individuals in the UK…..

As Adam Smith advocated "taxation in line with ability to pay"…

Increase marginal rates of direct taxation

Increase VAT on luxury goods

Increase Inheritance and CGT on transfers of over £1million

Transferring Wealth from the State to the Citizen

In the current debate it seems that everyone has lost the will to advocate significant reductions in taxation.  It is as though victory has been conceded to socialism on the battlefield of the public services.  Is it not now the time for the Coalition to adumbrate the following truths?

 Taxation is evil – it may in some cases be a necessary evil – but it should be minimised at all costs.  Why? – because taxation involves the sequestration of wealth from the citizen by the politician so that the bureaucrat may then exercise choices, notionally on behalf of the citizenry, in how that wealth is to be disbursed.  In practice, the public sector is parasitic on the public purse, as it will always feed itself before it feeds the citizen.  Furthermore, in taking choice away from the citizen and exercising it by proxy, the public sector regularly commits monopsony – the denial of free and fair competition through the exercise of monopoly purchasing power within a rigged marketplace.  And this amounts to an assault on the most fundamental conservative value – freedom of the individual.

 Freedom is only evidenced when the individual can exercise choices in what they do and how they do it.  It is true that we have much freedom in many aspects of our lives – travel, speech, diet and association to name but a few areas.  But, even in those areas where the State exercises fairly loose constraints – through sensible regulation – true choices are only available to those who possess what economists call effective demand or discretionary spending power.  When the State sequestrates wealth through excessive taxation it shrinks the discretionary spending power of the citizen to such an extent that the taxation itself amounts to an assault on basic freedoms.  Further, when the state arrogates unto itself the right to administer the delivery of essential services, then the assault on freedom of choice is even clearer.

 The has been much talk of late about the role of the State a commissioner of services, with competition being provided through a multiplicity of providers, some of whom may be in the private sector.  It is important to recognise that true competition only exists when an individual citizen freely can make a value for money distinction between providers that are vying for trade in a free market place.  As anyone who has seen the public sector tendering process at work will attest, bureaucrat choice is a very poor substitute for the judgement of individual citizens about those choices which are in their own parochial and immediate best interests.

 Socialism has always sought to transfer wealth from rich to poor.  The principle mechanism devised to achieve this has been to tax the rich and to give benefits to the poor.  However, an additional mechanism, the arrogation by the State of power over the delivery of essential services, has somehow become enshrined as an essential component of wealth redistribution policies.  Both of these socialist nostrums should be challenged.

 First, taxing the rich and giving benefits to the poor is a “Revenue” rather than a “Capital” solution.  State benefits will never enrich the poor; they just institutionalise the poverty trap. The Coalition, should seek to transfer wealth, not just benefits, to the poor.  The sale of council houses to their tenants was a classical example of compassionate capitalism and we should urgently search for new ways of wealth creation for the poorest in society.

 Second, if we believe that true freedom is only achieved when individuals have the wealth to exercise free choices about all the goods and services that they might wish to purchase, then the purchasing decision must be transferred from the bureaucrat to the citizen in every feasible circumstance.

 Third, if we believe that capitalism is the preferred method for the delivery of goods and services – because the profit motive moderated by competition is the best mechanism for delivering quality at the lowest cost – then the Coalition have an obligation to ensure that, in every practical circumstance, public services should be delivered by profit seeking private enterprises operating freely within a competitive marketplace.

 These ideas can be unified under a single policy strap-line – “Transferring Wealth from the State to the Citizen”.  We should set out a programme to transfer ownership to our citizenry, of the all those state enterprises which cannot be defended as “Natural Monopolies”.  Every hospital and every school should be incorporated as a limited company with share capital distributed to all in the relevant catchment area.  It would be important to transfer the shares to citizens rather than sell them – millions of citizens would become capitalists at a stroke, able to trade their shares or to retain them as profitable investments.

 Equitable education funding would be achieved by distributing vouchers to parents each year for the purchase of the national curriculum from any school of their choosing. By moving every school to the private sector, the damaging class-divide between the state sector and the independent sector would be removed – all schools including those in what is now called the independent sector would take these vouchers. A continuum of provision from independent schools would emerge, with some charging nothing, some charging for extra curricular activities and some charging significant top-up fees.

 Healthcare, free at the point of need, would be preserved for all emergency and acute conditions, and in a highly subsidised form for all treatment of chronic conditions, by the introduction of a hypothecated tax that funded insurance payments to all patients.  Citizens could choose their insurer from within a competitive marketplace.   Emergency and acute care would be paid for directly by the insurer according to locally agreed schedules of rates for specified healthcare interventions. These rates would be negotiated between insurers and hospital companies within a free market.  Chronic care would be subject to citizen choice of provider and basic care would be reimbursed by their insurer with “Optional Extras” paid for out of advance voluntary contributions or ad-hoc top-up fees.  Thus the principle of free healthcare at the point of need would be retained for all accident and acute care, whilst a regime of differential insurance premiums would disincentivise the adverse lifestyle choices that require greater reliance on the healthcare system.

Why is this idea important?

In the current debate it seems that everyone has lost the will to advocate significant reductions in taxation.  It is as though victory has been conceded to socialism on the battlefield of the public services.  Is it not now the time for the Coalition to adumbrate the following truths?

 Taxation is evil – it may in some cases be a necessary evil – but it should be minimised at all costs.  Why? – because taxation involves the sequestration of wealth from the citizen by the politician so that the bureaucrat may then exercise choices, notionally on behalf of the citizenry, in how that wealth is to be disbursed.  In practice, the public sector is parasitic on the public purse, as it will always feed itself before it feeds the citizen.  Furthermore, in taking choice away from the citizen and exercising it by proxy, the public sector regularly commits monopsony – the denial of free and fair competition through the exercise of monopoly purchasing power within a rigged marketplace.  And this amounts to an assault on the most fundamental conservative value – freedom of the individual.

 Freedom is only evidenced when the individual can exercise choices in what they do and how they do it.  It is true that we have much freedom in many aspects of our lives – travel, speech, diet and association to name but a few areas.  But, even in those areas where the State exercises fairly loose constraints – through sensible regulation – true choices are only available to those who possess what economists call effective demand or discretionary spending power.  When the State sequestrates wealth through excessive taxation it shrinks the discretionary spending power of the citizen to such an extent that the taxation itself amounts to an assault on basic freedoms.  Further, when the state arrogates unto itself the right to administer the delivery of essential services, then the assault on freedom of choice is even clearer.

 The has been much talk of late about the role of the State a commissioner of services, with competition being provided through a multiplicity of providers, some of whom may be in the private sector.  It is important to recognise that true competition only exists when an individual citizen freely can make a value for money distinction between providers that are vying for trade in a free market place.  As anyone who has seen the public sector tendering process at work will attest, bureaucrat choice is a very poor substitute for the judgement of individual citizens about those choices which are in their own parochial and immediate best interests.

 Socialism has always sought to transfer wealth from rich to poor.  The principle mechanism devised to achieve this has been to tax the rich and to give benefits to the poor.  However, an additional mechanism, the arrogation by the State of power over the delivery of essential services, has somehow become enshrined as an essential component of wealth redistribution policies.  Both of these socialist nostrums should be challenged.

 First, taxing the rich and giving benefits to the poor is a “Revenue” rather than a “Capital” solution.  State benefits will never enrich the poor; they just institutionalise the poverty trap. The Coalition, should seek to transfer wealth, not just benefits, to the poor.  The sale of council houses to their tenants was a classical example of compassionate capitalism and we should urgently search for new ways of wealth creation for the poorest in society.

 Second, if we believe that true freedom is only achieved when individuals have the wealth to exercise free choices about all the goods and services that they might wish to purchase, then the purchasing decision must be transferred from the bureaucrat to the citizen in every feasible circumstance.

 Third, if we believe that capitalism is the preferred method for the delivery of goods and services – because the profit motive moderated by competition is the best mechanism for delivering quality at the lowest cost – then the Coalition have an obligation to ensure that, in every practical circumstance, public services should be delivered by profit seeking private enterprises operating freely within a competitive marketplace.

 These ideas can be unified under a single policy strap-line – “Transferring Wealth from the State to the Citizen”.  We should set out a programme to transfer ownership to our citizenry, of the all those state enterprises which cannot be defended as “Natural Monopolies”.  Every hospital and every school should be incorporated as a limited company with share capital distributed to all in the relevant catchment area.  It would be important to transfer the shares to citizens rather than sell them – millions of citizens would become capitalists at a stroke, able to trade their shares or to retain them as profitable investments.

 Equitable education funding would be achieved by distributing vouchers to parents each year for the purchase of the national curriculum from any school of their choosing. By moving every school to the private sector, the damaging class-divide between the state sector and the independent sector would be removed – all schools including those in what is now called the independent sector would take these vouchers. A continuum of provision from independent schools would emerge, with some charging nothing, some charging for extra curricular activities and some charging significant top-up fees.

 Healthcare, free at the point of need, would be preserved for all emergency and acute conditions, and in a highly subsidised form for all treatment of chronic conditions, by the introduction of a hypothecated tax that funded insurance payments to all patients.  Citizens could choose their insurer from within a competitive marketplace.   Emergency and acute care would be paid for directly by the insurer according to locally agreed schedules of rates for specified healthcare interventions. These rates would be negotiated between insurers and hospital companies within a free market.  Chronic care would be subject to citizen choice of provider and basic care would be reimbursed by their insurer with “Optional Extras” paid for out of advance voluntary contributions or ad-hoc top-up fees.  Thus the principle of free healthcare at the point of need would be retained for all accident and acute care, whilst a regime of differential insurance premiums would disincentivise the adverse lifestyle choices that require greater reliance on the healthcare system.

Abolish Road Fund Licence

Incorporate RFL onto the cost of fuel; this would generate about £300 million per annum; abolish the DVLA; a legal requirement to display proof that the vehicle is insured: no disc will mean that the vehicle is impunded and if not claimed within 2 weeks it will be crushed. This works in the Republic of Ireland and it could work here!

Why is this idea important?

Incorporate RFL onto the cost of fuel; this would generate about £300 million per annum; abolish the DVLA; a legal requirement to display proof that the vehicle is insured: no disc will mean that the vehicle is impunded and if not claimed within 2 weeks it will be crushed. This works in the Republic of Ireland and it could work here!

FLAT RATE TAX SYSTEM, make the UK the world’s financial centre !

I was thinking to start a small business until i realsied all the paper work i would have to do to comply with tax laws.

And never mind complying, 3-4 years in i'd have boxes of paper work that Govt. could come and look through any time they pleased, distracting me from my daily business, effecting my work load unnecesarily and perhaps even finding innocent mistakes i'd made, that might cause me fines and even accusations.

It wasn't worth the hassle.

Make a Flat Tax and set us free from this nonense of forms and rubbish.

The revenue will increase because A. people and businesses won't be burdened spending a fair percentage of their time and money on tax compliance. B. The Govt. won't be motoring through hundreds of millions running a massive bureaucracy to collect such complex taxes that there is probably no one who fully understands, and half the country with errors in their returns, and C. because it will promote honestly. It won't be worth cheating on a reasonable flat tax, because its easy to deal with and you can sleep at night.

You need to make Govt. relevant again, make some radical changes to things, the 20th Century ideas are bankrupt. We are in the information age now, we need clean, quick simple, no nonsense taxes. Not stuffy complicated, confounding and even worrying forms to fill in that are easy to make mistakes on. Take the governance out of Government.

Why is this idea important?

I was thinking to start a small business until i realsied all the paper work i would have to do to comply with tax laws.

And never mind complying, 3-4 years in i'd have boxes of paper work that Govt. could come and look through any time they pleased, distracting me from my daily business, effecting my work load unnecesarily and perhaps even finding innocent mistakes i'd made, that might cause me fines and even accusations.

It wasn't worth the hassle.

Make a Flat Tax and set us free from this nonense of forms and rubbish.

The revenue will increase because A. people and businesses won't be burdened spending a fair percentage of their time and money on tax compliance. B. The Govt. won't be motoring through hundreds of millions running a massive bureaucracy to collect such complex taxes that there is probably no one who fully understands, and half the country with errors in their returns, and C. because it will promote honestly. It won't be worth cheating on a reasonable flat tax, because its easy to deal with and you can sleep at night.

You need to make Govt. relevant again, make some radical changes to things, the 20th Century ideas are bankrupt. We are in the information age now, we need clean, quick simple, no nonsense taxes. Not stuffy complicated, confounding and even worrying forms to fill in that are easy to make mistakes on. Take the governance out of Government.

Expatriate Taxpayers’ Voting Rights

Under current arrangements expatriate UK citizens lose their voting right after 15 years.

This disenfranchisement should not apply to those who continue to pay UK taxes on all or part of their income, no matter where they live, or for how long they have been abroad.

The fundamental principle is: "No taxation without representation". This implies that UK taxpayers should always have the right to participate in UK General Elections and contribute to choosing the government(s) that will decide how much tax they will pay.

Expariate pensioners are particularly disadvantaged by the '15 year' bar becasue their incomes are often quite low, so any changes in tax-rates has disproportionate effects.

The disenfranchisement effected by the 15 year ban is contrary to natural justice basic democratic human rights and social fairness.

The Electoral Law should be amended to repeal this provision.

Why is this idea important?

Under current arrangements expatriate UK citizens lose their voting right after 15 years.

This disenfranchisement should not apply to those who continue to pay UK taxes on all or part of their income, no matter where they live, or for how long they have been abroad.

The fundamental principle is: "No taxation without representation". This implies that UK taxpayers should always have the right to participate in UK General Elections and contribute to choosing the government(s) that will decide how much tax they will pay.

Expariate pensioners are particularly disadvantaged by the '15 year' bar becasue their incomes are often quite low, so any changes in tax-rates has disproportionate effects.

The disenfranchisement effected by the 15 year ban is contrary to natural justice basic democratic human rights and social fairness.

The Electoral Law should be amended to repeal this provision.

Clarification of Fuel Duty whilst using ‘Veg oil’ in diesel cars.

Try finding out about it. It's nigh on impossible to find a straightforward answer on HMRC website. There's lots of information about SELLING biodiesel but I couldn't find anything about the tax position of those who use it. Even other websites that advise on the use of veg oil seem confusing (probably because they're confused themselves)!

I've known someone have their car seized and left stranded by the tax police on the A1 literally hundreds of miles away from home for running his diesel car on veg oil.

Why make it so hard for people to use a much more environmentally friendly fuel in their cars?

Why is this idea important?

Try finding out about it. It's nigh on impossible to find a straightforward answer on HMRC website. There's lots of information about SELLING biodiesel but I couldn't find anything about the tax position of those who use it. Even other websites that advise on the use of veg oil seem confusing (probably because they're confused themselves)!

I've known someone have their car seized and left stranded by the tax police on the A1 literally hundreds of miles away from home for running his diesel car on veg oil.

Why make it so hard for people to use a much more environmentally friendly fuel in their cars?

Eliminate ISAS

ISAS are pointless from the point of view of getting people to save. The only people who benefit are those who already had money to invest and are just able to invest it in a tax efficient way. If they were eliminated all those people involved in managing and selling  ISAS could go and do something productive

Why is this idea important?

ISAS are pointless from the point of view of getting people to save. The only people who benefit are those who already had money to invest and are just able to invest it in a tax efficient way. If they were eliminated all those people involved in managing and selling  ISAS could go and do something productive

Introduce Local Tax on Landlords

Landlords only pay income tax and sometimes a registration fee. Local Authorities should be able to inpose a local tax on landlords similar to local business taxes.  This would be especially helpful to university towns and cities where landlords they rent to students who make not contribution to local council revenue.. This would help to maintain the services that non council tax paying tenants make use of. 

Why is this idea important?

Landlords only pay income tax and sometimes a registration fee. Local Authorities should be able to inpose a local tax on landlords similar to local business taxes.  This would be especially helpful to university towns and cities where landlords they rent to students who make not contribution to local council revenue.. This would help to maintain the services that non council tax paying tenants make use of. 

Make churches pay taxes and pay benefits out of those

Religious organisations should no longer be able to avoid taxes.

Many have much political representation, and aggressively involve themselves in political campaigning, while clearly neglecting a main aim of what the religious claim they are all about – To help the needy and less fortunate.

So, being as how religious organisations have representation and involve themselves in political campaigning, society should ensure that a portion of their money at least goes to what the religious constantly claim they are all about – Helping those less fortunate.

Introduce taxation for all religious organisations, who have had many years being able to avoid taxes, yet claim to be charities, and put the money collected from those organisations to good use, in unemployment and other benefits and tax credits.

Why is this idea important?

Religious organisations should no longer be able to avoid taxes.

Many have much political representation, and aggressively involve themselves in political campaigning, while clearly neglecting a main aim of what the religious claim they are all about – To help the needy and less fortunate.

So, being as how religious organisations have representation and involve themselves in political campaigning, society should ensure that a portion of their money at least goes to what the religious constantly claim they are all about – Helping those less fortunate.

Introduce taxation for all religious organisations, who have had many years being able to avoid taxes, yet claim to be charities, and put the money collected from those organisations to good use, in unemployment and other benefits and tax credits.

Capital Gains Tax, annual allowance

I would like Capital Gains Tax to be abolished but I must be realistic and I accept that some form of tax on gains is necessary. The present system of tax and annual allowance is very unfair. If you are able to regularly "churn" your assets then you can make good use of your annual £10,000 allowance. If you invest for the long term then you cannot use any of your annual allowance and it is all lost. My suggestion is that any annual allowance not used may be rolled over. This would give every individual the same lifetime allowance.

Why is this idea important?

I would like Capital Gains Tax to be abolished but I must be realistic and I accept that some form of tax on gains is necessary. The present system of tax and annual allowance is very unfair. If you are able to regularly "churn" your assets then you can make good use of your annual £10,000 allowance. If you invest for the long term then you cannot use any of your annual allowance and it is all lost. My suggestion is that any annual allowance not used may be rolled over. This would give every individual the same lifetime allowance.

Inheritance Tax

The inheritance tax threshold should be much higher.

We work hard  and long hours to look after our families and want to give our children the best start in life and want to leave them something when we pass away.

We have already paid  the tax on our earnings, on our savings and on our investments on VAT, on rates, on national insurance. Yet when we want to pass what is left and is ours onto our children or life partners it is taxed yet again.

We ought to be allowed to look after our loved ones by trying to leave them what we have worked hard for, and paid for and ought to be allowed to leave it to them and not forced to give once again to the state.

Inheritance tax ought to be raised to £2 million to recognise the rise in property prices and to allow us to continue to work hard and to leave our loved ones something of real value, which they will be putting back into the economy.

Why is this idea important?

The inheritance tax threshold should be much higher.

We work hard  and long hours to look after our families and want to give our children the best start in life and want to leave them something when we pass away.

We have already paid  the tax on our earnings, on our savings and on our investments on VAT, on rates, on national insurance. Yet when we want to pass what is left and is ours onto our children or life partners it is taxed yet again.

We ought to be allowed to look after our loved ones by trying to leave them what we have worked hard for, and paid for and ought to be allowed to leave it to them and not forced to give once again to the state.

Inheritance tax ought to be raised to £2 million to recognise the rise in property prices and to allow us to continue to work hard and to leave our loved ones something of real value, which they will be putting back into the economy.

National Insurance IS Income Tax

Assumtions:

!  Generally the simpler a system the better it works and it will cost less to run.

2 Tax levels are intended to be set according to a peoples ability to pay.

3. Tax avoidance, usually working to the benefit of the richest membes of society, is legal and widespread.  

Suggestions:

1. Merge Employee contribution Tax and NI.  This would increase tax collected as the upper earnings level on NI contributions would disappear. It would simplify Payroll Administration for most companies and avoid yearly software rewrites/updates.

2. Use any staff released by implemeting 1 above, on investigating Tax and Benefit issues. Give them a financial Incentive. No results equals low pay.

Why is this idea important?

Assumtions:

!  Generally the simpler a system the better it works and it will cost less to run.

2 Tax levels are intended to be set according to a peoples ability to pay.

3. Tax avoidance, usually working to the benefit of the richest membes of society, is legal and widespread.  

Suggestions:

1. Merge Employee contribution Tax and NI.  This would increase tax collected as the upper earnings level on NI contributions would disappear. It would simplify Payroll Administration for most companies and avoid yearly software rewrites/updates.

2. Use any staff released by implemeting 1 above, on investigating Tax and Benefit issues. Give them a financial Incentive. No results equals low pay.

Make child maintenance payments tax deductible

Statistics suggest that 40% of fathers lose touch with their children post divorce or separation.  Despite a great deal of talk about equality, working fathers still do not enjoy equality in the family courts when it comes to orders for staying contact in relation tot heir children. Notwithstanding this continued inequality, generally working fathers are expected to provide for their children (and, rather inevitably, by doing so their ex-spouse or partner) both in terms of capital (for a new home) and income (by way of spousal and/or child maintenance).  Given the gross inequality in the system – coupled with the fact that maintenance payments are paid from net income – it is little wonder that so many would be responsible fathers choose to buck the system and avoid making any maintenance payments, thereby causing the state to have to step in with over inflated tax credit payments.  In order to encourage fathers to assume greater responsibility for the financial well being of their children, I believe that at least chil maintenace payments – and possibly also spousal maintenance payments – should be tax deductible, so that the payer (normally, but not exclusively, the working father)  does not feel that the system is completely weighted against him.    

Why is this idea important?

Statistics suggest that 40% of fathers lose touch with their children post divorce or separation.  Despite a great deal of talk about equality, working fathers still do not enjoy equality in the family courts when it comes to orders for staying contact in relation tot heir children. Notwithstanding this continued inequality, generally working fathers are expected to provide for their children (and, rather inevitably, by doing so their ex-spouse or partner) both in terms of capital (for a new home) and income (by way of spousal and/or child maintenance).  Given the gross inequality in the system – coupled with the fact that maintenance payments are paid from net income – it is little wonder that so many would be responsible fathers choose to buck the system and avoid making any maintenance payments, thereby causing the state to have to step in with over inflated tax credit payments.  In order to encourage fathers to assume greater responsibility for the financial well being of their children, I believe that at least chil maintenace payments – and possibly also spousal maintenance payments – should be tax deductible, so that the payer (normally, but not exclusively, the working father)  does not feel that the system is completely weighted against him.    

Sunscreen should be zero rated for VAT

Given the rise in the number of people suffering from skin cancer, sunscreen products should be zero rated for VAT.

Therefore a change should be made to the EU agreement that does not allow the UK to introduce new zero rated taxes.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Given the rise in the number of people suffering from skin cancer, sunscreen products should be zero rated for VAT.

Therefore a change should be made to the EU agreement that does not allow the UK to introduce new zero rated taxes.

 

 

 

Help save our pubs

A range of measures are required to help the pub trade. For example:

To allow breweries to own as many tied pubs as they like – the previous Tory govt 's steps to tackle the perceived lack of inter brewery competition has simply resulted in the rise of pub cos who are essentially property owners with no real interest in the trading profile of the pubs they own; often insisting they buy expensive drinks via them, to the detriment of trade, then when a pub closes, being more than happy to sell the premises for more lucrative re-development, e.g. housing. In rural areas this often strips a community of its only facility.

To allow pubs to serve alcohol to people aged 16 and 17, [possibly with a max %age alcohol level] thus reducing their need to buy cheap [shop sold] alcohol and consume it unregulated on the streets.

Reducing tax on alcoholic drinks sold and consumed in licensed premises – perhaps increasing it [to compensate] for sales via retail outlets.

To allow pubs some leeway to have indoor smokers areas, e.g. in pubs that either don't serve food or have a physical separation of eating/non eating areas and subject to proviso that staff  agree to work in such areas. Failing that why not permit an enclosed [unstaffed] smoking 'shed', etc, outside – to help contain warmth [think of all those gas patio heaters being used and their related co2 emissions !] and any noise that might disturb nearby residents.

To re-introduce restricted pub opening hours, partly  to cut down disturbance to nearby residents beyond a certain reasonable nightime hour and also avoid pubs having to be open [and staffed] for long hours with minimal trade throughout much of them – just because they are worried another pub may take the few customers available ?

Why is this idea important?

A range of measures are required to help the pub trade. For example:

To allow breweries to own as many tied pubs as they like – the previous Tory govt 's steps to tackle the perceived lack of inter brewery competition has simply resulted in the rise of pub cos who are essentially property owners with no real interest in the trading profile of the pubs they own; often insisting they buy expensive drinks via them, to the detriment of trade, then when a pub closes, being more than happy to sell the premises for more lucrative re-development, e.g. housing. In rural areas this often strips a community of its only facility.

To allow pubs to serve alcohol to people aged 16 and 17, [possibly with a max %age alcohol level] thus reducing their need to buy cheap [shop sold] alcohol and consume it unregulated on the streets.

Reducing tax on alcoholic drinks sold and consumed in licensed premises – perhaps increasing it [to compensate] for sales via retail outlets.

To allow pubs some leeway to have indoor smokers areas, e.g. in pubs that either don't serve food or have a physical separation of eating/non eating areas and subject to proviso that staff  agree to work in such areas. Failing that why not permit an enclosed [unstaffed] smoking 'shed', etc, outside – to help contain warmth [think of all those gas patio heaters being used and their related co2 emissions !] and any noise that might disturb nearby residents.

To re-introduce restricted pub opening hours, partly  to cut down disturbance to nearby residents beyond a certain reasonable nightime hour and also avoid pubs having to be open [and staffed] for long hours with minimal trade throughout much of them – just because they are worried another pub may take the few customers available ?

Amend Council Tax Order 1992 to allow people to live in their own homes without paying two lots of Council Tax

No. 549 Council Tax, England and Wales; Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 states (para 3) that “where a single property contains more than one self contained unit…..the property shall be treated as comprising as many dwellings as there are units included in it, and each such unit shall be treated as a dwelling”.    

The effect of this is that, once a house has been modified to be potentially usable as more than one “self contained unit”, it will forever afterwards be taxed as multiple dwellings, even if in practise it is being used as a single home.       

The above clause should be amended to read ““where a single property is being used as more than one self contained unit…..the property shall be treated as comprising as many dwellings as there are units included in it, and each such unit shall be treated as a dwelling”.     

Why is this idea important?

No. 549 Council Tax, England and Wales; Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 states (para 3) that “where a single property contains more than one self contained unit…..the property shall be treated as comprising as many dwellings as there are units included in it, and each such unit shall be treated as a dwelling”.    

The effect of this is that, once a house has been modified to be potentially usable as more than one “self contained unit”, it will forever afterwards be taxed as multiple dwellings, even if in practise it is being used as a single home.       

The above clause should be amended to read ““where a single property is being used as more than one self contained unit…..the property shall be treated as comprising as many dwellings as there are units included in it, and each such unit shall be treated as a dwelling”.     

Abolish all Taxation other than Income Tax and Abolish Regional Government

This may seem an extreme suggestion, but let me explain.  I'm not sure how many different taxes there are in the UK, but whatever number I guess at, it's sure to be wrong because new taxes are invented pretty regularly. Suffice to say there are hundreds.

The problem is that for every tax, and for every function of Government both nationally and regionally, there is a massive civil servant empire to be funded before the tax actually does what is intended.

The costs pile up, not only is there the obvious infrastructure, buildings to be bought, refurbished, offices to be built and equipped, there are also staffing costs, supervisory staff costs, and of course the obligatory higher staff with a group of directors who get paid annually what most of us will never see in our lifetimes.  In addition, there are the costs of their pensions which in the case of all, is index linked.  If any directors that are found to have done a less than satisfactory job, they are usually paid off with a few million pounds.

We have to pay for Scottish, Irish and Welsh regional governments, and of course the thousands of local government offices and staff, not to mention the biggest quango of them all – The EEC.

We are currently in a recession, and depending on who you listen to, the light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off, we can no longer afford these regional quangos

Why is this idea important?

This may seem an extreme suggestion, but let me explain.  I'm not sure how many different taxes there are in the UK, but whatever number I guess at, it's sure to be wrong because new taxes are invented pretty regularly. Suffice to say there are hundreds.

The problem is that for every tax, and for every function of Government both nationally and regionally, there is a massive civil servant empire to be funded before the tax actually does what is intended.

The costs pile up, not only is there the obvious infrastructure, buildings to be bought, refurbished, offices to be built and equipped, there are also staffing costs, supervisory staff costs, and of course the obligatory higher staff with a group of directors who get paid annually what most of us will never see in our lifetimes.  In addition, there are the costs of their pensions which in the case of all, is index linked.  If any directors that are found to have done a less than satisfactory job, they are usually paid off with a few million pounds.

We have to pay for Scottish, Irish and Welsh regional governments, and of course the thousands of local government offices and staff, not to mention the biggest quango of them all – The EEC.

We are currently in a recession, and depending on who you listen to, the light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off, we can no longer afford these regional quangos