What taxes on other people would you support?

BobQ

I would put a convenience tax on any "drive through" desks. We have the fast food ones and the fuel sales ones, but how long until we adopt drive through bank ATMs or Off licences from around the world.

It is the height of laziness, so tax it and encourage some exercise

Kim_13

JP08 wrote: »

Bet you can't find anything that actually states that about burden of proof (in the UK at least) - because there's no such thing.


Also cycling third party liability insurance is ridiculously cheap - for £70 a year you can get Cycling UK family membership ("unlimited children") - which throws in £10M 3rd party cover for all. Simply because the likelihood of cyclists causing serious and expensive damage and injuries is just so much less than car drivers - they just can't hit with anything like as much energy.

A friend of the family had his car hit by a cyclist as he parked - car was stationery when hit. The cyclist's mother exaggerated the boy's injuries and claimed that the family friend was at fault. He couldn't prove that he didn't hit the cyclist (no witnesses, and family friend didn't have a dash cam until after the event; was prompted to get one after they scammed him) and they successfully claimed off his insurance something like 4 years after the event! It certainly seemed as though the process favoured the cyclist.

I hadn't realised there was 3rd party cycling insurance around - obviously only a minority will have it until such time as it is made a legal requirement.

Speaking of insurance, insurance premium tax should be reorganised. It shouldn't be on any insurance that is legally required. If it is the individual's choice to purchase the insurance, then I quite agree with the tax as is and perhaps up to the VAT level to cover some of the lost revenue.

Jonbvn

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't agree with taxing cyclists - it's something we want to encourage and they don't do any real damage to the roads or generate much traffic.

I'd be all for a simplified tax system though.

And getting rid of VED, instead adding maybe 5p/l to the cost of fuel.

Perhaps just a very heavy tax on lycra then?

CLAPTON

Kim_13 wrote: »

A friend of the family had his car hit by a cyclist as he parked - car was stationery when hit. The cyclist's mother exaggerated the boy's injuries and claimed that the family friend was at fault. He couldn't prove that he didn't hit the cyclist (no witnesses, and family friend didn't have a dash cam until after the event; was prompted to get one after they scammed him) and they successfully claimed off his insurance something like 4 years after the event! It certainly seemed as though the process favoured the cyclist.

I hadn't realised there was 3rd party cycling insurance around - obviously only a minority will have it until such time as it is made a legal requirement.

Speaking of insurance, insurance premium tax should be reorganised. It shouldn't be on any insurance that is legally required. If it is the individual's choice to purchase the insurance, then I quite agree with the tax as is and perhaps up to the VAT level to cover some of the lost revenue.

and if he had been hit by a car and the owner lied and blame him with no actual witnesses?
nothing at all to do with cyclists, just to do with dishonest people

grow up and join the real world :

BobQ

Pennywise wrote: »

Yep, completely agree, ALL state benefits should be subject to tax on their worth.

But, let's not stop there. NIC should also be charged on ALL income that is subject to tax. As it stands, it's just a tax on workers, and needs to be extended to those living on other forms of income such as dividends, investment income, property income, pensions, etc.

The problem with this is NIC is a tax (insurance) related to specific things, such as unemployment. Why should retired people pay to insure against being unemployed?

zagubov

I'd put a tax on rap music and earmark the income to subsidise singing lessons.

HornetSaver

I'd bring in a 75% lifetime income tax (and travel ban) on those convicted of fraud who are unable to repay at least half of what they stole.

I'd stick a zero onto the size of fine of every motoring offence (with the obvious exclusion of private parking tickets). I'd then actively encourage motorists to provide the powers that be with evidence of dangerous driving to the police via dashcam - including speeding and obstructing a busy road, and split the fine 50/50 with them.

And I'd stick 10p duty on a pint of lager, compensated by taking 10p off a pint of real ale. The treasury would still be quids in, and yet the world would be a better place.

westernpromise

I would put a tax on people pronouncing H as "haitch", on people who say "could of" instead of "could have", and on women who do their makeup on the Tube.

I would tax pensioners on being old. I would repeal the latter the instant I became a pensioner myself, of course - this is about taxes I am happy for other people to pay.

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

The problem with this is NIC is a tax (insurance) related to specific things, such as unemployment. Why should retired people pay to insure against being unemployed?

Perhaps this is what it was introduced as but now with benefits being universal and no hypothocation of taxes that is just an old fashioned socialist pipe dream.

JP08

westernpromise wrote: »

I would put a tax on people pronouncing H as "haitch", on people who say "could of" instead of "could have".

We could have a grammar Nazi tax ! Then we can add a fine list to the above.

People using abherrant apostrophes.
People using "there", "their" and "they're" incorrectly.
People who say "pacifically" instead of "specifically".
People who use the word "literally" as means of emphasis.