Help for Small Business

I run a small restuarant and have been trading for just over a year. It has been hard to beat the ressesion but we are still paying the bills. For the 1st quarter of this financial year I registered for VAT. The overall running costs of a restuarant is high, staff, rent,rates, serevices in the region of £60k.   As most of our purchases are non-vatable we cannot claim much back. We are a very seasonal business and do most of our trade in the summer. I was devistated when I  was told my VAT bill is £4000 for the 1st Quarter of the year. All of our cashflow to help us through the winter has been eroded in this one bill. Surely this isn't a fair tax for a fairly new business who's turnover is going to be under £150k we are not even in a profit situation yet. We have now regerstered for the flat rate but that doesn't really help as we then can't claim any VAT back that we have paid so it works out that it is just in our favour but only by a few pounds. I can't see any help from the government in my situation. 

There should be a fairer system for the small start up business possibly on a sliding scale for VAT.

    

Why is this idea important?

I run a small restuarant and have been trading for just over a year. It has been hard to beat the ressesion but we are still paying the bills. For the 1st quarter of this financial year I registered for VAT. The overall running costs of a restuarant is high, staff, rent,rates, serevices in the region of £60k.   As most of our purchases are non-vatable we cannot claim much back. We are a very seasonal business and do most of our trade in the summer. I was devistated when I  was told my VAT bill is £4000 for the 1st Quarter of the year. All of our cashflow to help us through the winter has been eroded in this one bill. Surely this isn't a fair tax for a fairly new business who's turnover is going to be under £150k we are not even in a profit situation yet. We have now regerstered for the flat rate but that doesn't really help as we then can't claim any VAT back that we have paid so it works out that it is just in our favour but only by a few pounds. I can't see any help from the government in my situation. 

There should be a fairer system for the small start up business possibly on a sliding scale for VAT.

    

Replace income tax and nh contributions by a payrolltax

Income taxes and nh contributions are simply a penalty on working and are also highly intrusive placing the worker in an adversarial position to the government !

A payroll tax similar to that in France of around 60% for which the employer alone is responsible would bring in more revenue,and would crush the "black economy" since only the employer would have to declare the payroll and its total amount . If he did not declare an employee  he would be at that person's mercy thereafter since the employee would be committing no offence ,only the employer ! There would be no more tax dodging by working "on the side" since there would be no benefit to the employee to do so ! The "worker would keep every penny he earned;

The system would of course have to be phased in over a period of time and vat on luxury goods would be increased as would high value property taxes so that if the rich made themselves employees they would still have to pay more for what they wanted in order to live their customary  lifestyle.Tax havens and tax dodging would become redundant !

Why is this idea important?

Income taxes and nh contributions are simply a penalty on working and are also highly intrusive placing the worker in an adversarial position to the government !

A payroll tax similar to that in France of around 60% for which the employer alone is responsible would bring in more revenue,and would crush the "black economy" since only the employer would have to declare the payroll and its total amount . If he did not declare an employee  he would be at that person's mercy thereafter since the employee would be committing no offence ,only the employer ! There would be no more tax dodging by working "on the side" since there would be no benefit to the employee to do so ! The "worker would keep every penny he earned;

The system would of course have to be phased in over a period of time and vat on luxury goods would be increased as would high value property taxes so that if the rich made themselves employees they would still have to pay more for what they wanted in order to live their customary  lifestyle.Tax havens and tax dodging would become redundant !

Vat charged on zero-rated items at cafes(specifically Motorway Services)

Currently we are all paying Vat on zero-rated items purchased at Motorway Services (the cafe sections) If you are prepared to eat your cake ,purchased with your coffee ,away from the seating area then you should be entitled to receive the assumed 17.5% vat paid on these items as a refund.

 The question at each of these venues should be asked are you sitting in or are you eating out . Many customers are completely unaware that they are paying Vat on certain items in these outlets because they are simply sitting eating at the venue .If you took your cake etc. and ate it in the car or outside then Vat should not be charged. It should be a compulsary question 'sit in or eating out?' and the appropriate pricing regime applied according to the answer given.This would save the consumers money,probably more product would be sold (as the products would be cheaper) and probably more seats would be freed up at the venues.Details of the answer would have to be recorded as HMRC would require this as proof.(surely a minor software tweek)

Doubtless ,the Motorway Services owners are actually not gaining from the current situation as the extra Vat will be getting paid the HMRC ,Hopefully? and as they are dedicated catering outlets they are probably forced to charge Vat on thes items by HMRC but clearly if you are unaware of this as a consumer why ,if you intend eating in the car ,would you pay more at the cafe than say WH smith next door for the same snack!

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently we are all paying Vat on zero-rated items purchased at Motorway Services (the cafe sections) If you are prepared to eat your cake ,purchased with your coffee ,away from the seating area then you should be entitled to receive the assumed 17.5% vat paid on these items as a refund.

 The question at each of these venues should be asked are you sitting in or are you eating out . Many customers are completely unaware that they are paying Vat on certain items in these outlets because they are simply sitting eating at the venue .If you took your cake etc. and ate it in the car or outside then Vat should not be charged. It should be a compulsary question 'sit in or eating out?' and the appropriate pricing regime applied according to the answer given.This would save the consumers money,probably more product would be sold (as the products would be cheaper) and probably more seats would be freed up at the venues.Details of the answer would have to be recorded as HMRC would require this as proof.(surely a minor software tweek)

Doubtless ,the Motorway Services owners are actually not gaining from the current situation as the extra Vat will be getting paid the HMRC ,Hopefully? and as they are dedicated catering outlets they are probably forced to charge Vat on thes items by HMRC but clearly if you are unaware of this as a consumer why ,if you intend eating in the car ,would you pay more at the cafe than say WH smith next door for the same snack!

 

Ammend VAT to make charities exempt when buying in services

Many charities apply for public funding for projects. They then put out tenders or calls for people to deliver services. This can be anything from building works to arts organisations delivering projects. VAT registered companies who apply are often asked to tender for costs inclusive of VAT because the charity is not vat-registered themselves, and cannot reclaim the vat and won't have the money in their budgets as a "just incase of VAt".Some funders dont like contingency.  This means some suppliers are deemed expensive, not because of cost, but because of financial regulation. We propose that if a charity contracts a vat-registered company, the charity can re-claim the vat back.  OR, the company can supply VAt 0% invoices to charities, who, by definition, are not providing luxury but necesary services. When VAT goes up to 20% this will have a huge impact on charities who's applications for funding  will not have taken this into account and may have an affect on exisiting services. As a supplier currently delivering for a trust, I know they cannot afford an extra 2.5% VAT hike to pay for us in the new year. Are we expected to aborb that by offering a reduced serivce, or lose out ot a non-wat regsitered organisation?

Why is this idea important?

Many charities apply for public funding for projects. They then put out tenders or calls for people to deliver services. This can be anything from building works to arts organisations delivering projects. VAT registered companies who apply are often asked to tender for costs inclusive of VAT because the charity is not vat-registered themselves, and cannot reclaim the vat and won't have the money in their budgets as a "just incase of VAt".Some funders dont like contingency.  This means some suppliers are deemed expensive, not because of cost, but because of financial regulation. We propose that if a charity contracts a vat-registered company, the charity can re-claim the vat back.  OR, the company can supply VAt 0% invoices to charities, who, by definition, are not providing luxury but necesary services. When VAT goes up to 20% this will have a huge impact on charities who's applications for funding  will not have taken this into account and may have an affect on exisiting services. As a supplier currently delivering for a trust, I know they cannot afford an extra 2.5% VAT hike to pay for us in the new year. Are we expected to aborb that by offering a reduced serivce, or lose out ot a non-wat regsitered organisation?

Scrap VAT on used goods

A lot of used items are sold by small businesses. This is one angle they have over supermarkets who are increasingly cherry picking  items from others . Bearing in mind private people can sell items without VAT and use online auction sites, it is making one area that small businesses had very difficult.

Why is this idea important?

A lot of used items are sold by small businesses. This is one angle they have over supermarkets who are increasingly cherry picking  items from others . Bearing in mind private people can sell items without VAT and use online auction sites, it is making one area that small businesses had very difficult.

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.

Apply full VAT to new build on green land

The present VAT system needs to be reversed: at present new build is zero rated while work to existing buildings attracts full VAT. New build on GREENFIELD SITES should have full VAT applied – developers love greenfield because it is cheaper so their profit margins are greater. Introduce a sliding scale of VAT: reduced rate on brownfield development and refurbishment of derelect property, zero rate for 'green' initiatives, lower rates for householders employing certified builders doing the work, to stop the cowboys, cash in hand.  There's lots that could be done with a radical rethink in this area. Properly planned, this could generate more VAT revenue with smaller amounts but coming in from more sources.

Why is this idea important?

The present VAT system needs to be reversed: at present new build is zero rated while work to existing buildings attracts full VAT. New build on GREENFIELD SITES should have full VAT applied – developers love greenfield because it is cheaper so their profit margins are greater. Introduce a sliding scale of VAT: reduced rate on brownfield development and refurbishment of derelect property, zero rate for 'green' initiatives, lower rates for householders employing certified builders doing the work, to stop the cowboys, cash in hand.  There's lots that could be done with a radical rethink in this area. Properly planned, this could generate more VAT revenue with smaller amounts but coming in from more sources.

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.
 

Abolish Council Tax it is Obsolete Replace it with Local V.A.T.

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Why is this idea important?

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

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

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.

Equal VAT for new buildings & renovation. Green & saves our city’s

If you renovate or refurbish a building you have to pay VAT.
If you demolish it & build a new one you don't.
 
As a result thousands of reusable or should I say recyclable buildings are being demolished.
Some beautiful Victorian Edwardian & Art Deco ones lost forever & half the time replaced with dull cheep rubbish.
Which will probably be demolished themselves in 20 odd years as there so bad.
 
Not green at all, imagine the carbon foot print for demolition, removal of rubble, land fill for most of it,
manufacture of new materials, shipping them to the Uk no doubt, delivering them….
Reused building can have all the insulation & solar panels you need. So that not the reason to demolish.
 
Unequal VAT will make the UK look like Muiltonkeens in 50 years.
For example look at the old West Middlesex Hospital Site in Central London.
A Georges Victorian & Edwardian buildings ideal for converting with its courtyards & already 8or9 floors high so your never get planing for higher.
Now a huge hole in the ground with no plans for it.
If they don't want to lower vat on reuse & increase it on new build to level things out,
why can't they have some sort of green demolition tax on building built before the war ?
Its the 1960s all over again!

Why is this idea important?

If you renovate or refurbish a building you have to pay VAT.
If you demolish it & build a new one you don't.
 
As a result thousands of reusable or should I say recyclable buildings are being demolished.
Some beautiful Victorian Edwardian & Art Deco ones lost forever & half the time replaced with dull cheep rubbish.
Which will probably be demolished themselves in 20 odd years as there so bad.
 
Not green at all, imagine the carbon foot print for demolition, removal of rubble, land fill for most of it,
manufacture of new materials, shipping them to the Uk no doubt, delivering them….
Reused building can have all the insulation & solar panels you need. So that not the reason to demolish.
 
Unequal VAT will make the UK look like Muiltonkeens in 50 years.
For example look at the old West Middlesex Hospital Site in Central London.
A Georges Victorian & Edwardian buildings ideal for converting with its courtyards & already 8or9 floors high so your never get planing for higher.
Now a huge hole in the ground with no plans for it.
If they don't want to lower vat on reuse & increase it on new build to level things out,
why can't they have some sort of green demolition tax on building built before the war ?
Its the 1960s all over again!

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

Stop charging VAT on excise duty.

Currently the British Government charge excise duty on all types of fuel.  In addition to this the British Government charge VAT on the same products and an proportion of this is charged on the Excise Duty thereby taxing a tax.  Whilst this obviously brings in a significant amount of money for HM Treasury surely it is unjust to TAX a TAX.

Why is this idea important?

Currently the British Government charge excise duty on all types of fuel.  In addition to this the British Government charge VAT on the same products and an proportion of this is charged on the Excise Duty thereby taxing a tax.  Whilst this obviously brings in a significant amount of money for HM Treasury surely it is unjust to TAX a TAX.

Exempt charities from all VAT

If you want to support charities, ask the government to exempt charities from paying VAT.  It will not only be provide them with real source of income, it will also save them a lot of paperworks and headaches around the numerous rules guiding VAT rules relating to charities. 

Why is this idea important?

If you want to support charities, ask the government to exempt charities from paying VAT.  It will not only be provide them with real source of income, it will also save them a lot of paperworks and headaches around the numerous rules guiding VAT rules relating to charities. 

Income Tax

Why is it that fraud to do with avoidance of Income Tax of nearly £100bn is 100 times that of the avoidance of VAT which is approx £1bn?

If VAT collection is so successful why can't we use similar methods to collect Income Tax?

Why is this idea important?

Why is it that fraud to do with avoidance of Income Tax of nearly £100bn is 100 times that of the avoidance of VAT which is approx £1bn?

If VAT collection is so successful why can't we use similar methods to collect Income Tax?

Abolish VAT

Replace the multi teared system of VAT by a single application of purchase tax to the end user.

In the present system:-

  • A company buys its plant and materials and pays VAT on sales and reclaims VAT on inputs. 
  • It sells its product and charges the wholesaler VAT and pays VAT for packing and transport and reclaims VAT it paid to the suppliers. 
  • The wholesaler charges VAT again to the retailer and reclaims the VAT on its inputs.  
  • Tthe retailer charges VAT to the consumer and reclaims the VAT it paid its suppliers.

All the layers of VAT require accounts and the VAT office has to supervise and check all these levels of accounting.

Why not replace all these multiple levels of accounting and checking by a single application of purchase tax at point of sale to consumers.  The Government receives the same amount of tax at a fraction of the administration cost and companies are relieved of the necessity to deal with a lot of unnecessary accounting.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the multi teared system of VAT by a single application of purchase tax to the end user.

In the present system:-

  • A company buys its plant and materials and pays VAT on sales and reclaims VAT on inputs. 
  • It sells its product and charges the wholesaler VAT and pays VAT for packing and transport and reclaims VAT it paid to the suppliers. 
  • The wholesaler charges VAT again to the retailer and reclaims the VAT on its inputs.  
  • Tthe retailer charges VAT to the consumer and reclaims the VAT it paid its suppliers.

All the layers of VAT require accounts and the VAT office has to supervise and check all these levels of accounting.

Why not replace all these multiple levels of accounting and checking by a single application of purchase tax at point of sale to consumers.  The Government receives the same amount of tax at a fraction of the administration cost and companies are relieved of the necessity to deal with a lot of unnecessary accounting.

Reduce VAT for hair salons

Hair Salons are a very labour intentive business and therefore collect significant levels of tax for the goverment including VAT, Income Tax, NI etc etc.

The EU has recognised this additional burden by allowing member governments to reduce the VAT for this sector which provides employment  and  training for so many.

There are many economic arguments as to how this could work without the Government loosing much in Tax.

http://www.cutthevat.org.uk

Why is this idea important?

Hair Salons are a very labour intentive business and therefore collect significant levels of tax for the goverment including VAT, Income Tax, NI etc etc.

The EU has recognised this additional burden by allowing member governments to reduce the VAT for this sector which provides employment  and  training for so many.

There are many economic arguments as to how this could work without the Government loosing much in Tax.

http://www.cutthevat.org.uk

Scrap partial exemption from VAT

VAT Partial exemption  is a measure which links vat reclaimable on outgoings to the amount of vat charged on  income. It affects many types businesses, especially those in the health and not for profit sector. The problem is the the proportion  is infernally difficult to work out  and involves creating elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of what usually comes down to a minor adjustment to the final figure.

Its calculation is time consuming, and full of "grey areas" so that  no one really understands it, least of all the inspectors who's job it is to monitor  its operation. Tax lost to HMRC by scrapping, I suggest is very small. 

Why is this idea important?

VAT Partial exemption  is a measure which links vat reclaimable on outgoings to the amount of vat charged on  income. It affects many types businesses, especially those in the health and not for profit sector. The problem is the the proportion  is infernally difficult to work out  and involves creating elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of what usually comes down to a minor adjustment to the final figure.

Its calculation is time consuming, and full of "grey areas" so that  no one really understands it, least of all the inspectors who's job it is to monitor  its operation. Tax lost to HMRC by scrapping, I suggest is very small. 

Remove/reduce customs charges/VAT for imported toys, art and items not available in the EU.

I buy resin ball jointed dolls from outside the EU, they are handmade and different from bog standard toys on the high street, and NOBODY in the EU makes them so I am forced to buy them from Asia or America. Each doll costs upwards of £100 so  when they arrive in the UK I am smashed with VAT/customs charges etc. I think this is grossly unfair, and there are many, many more people like me! America doesn't put VAT on toys so why do we? When VAT goes up again I will most likely stop buying the dolls because I can't afford the extra VAT/customs charges – so global businesses are damaged and the UK taxman is left with nothing anyway! If you won't remove the VAT, then can you raise the value that gets taxed, so ordinary people can also enjoy having nice things? Example, instead of a measly £36 limit, raise it to £200!

Why is this idea important?

I buy resin ball jointed dolls from outside the EU, they are handmade and different from bog standard toys on the high street, and NOBODY in the EU makes them so I am forced to buy them from Asia or America. Each doll costs upwards of £100 so  when they arrive in the UK I am smashed with VAT/customs charges etc. I think this is grossly unfair, and there are many, many more people like me! America doesn't put VAT on toys so why do we? When VAT goes up again I will most likely stop buying the dolls because I can't afford the extra VAT/customs charges – so global businesses are damaged and the UK taxman is left with nothing anyway! If you won't remove the VAT, then can you raise the value that gets taxed, so ordinary people can also enjoy having nice things? Example, instead of a measly £36 limit, raise it to £200!

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.