Beer Tax

The petition is entitled Scrap the tax on pints of beer and the explanatory notes say

"If you enter a public bar, you pay zero rate tax on beer sales."

Yet another "But why?" Why beer? Should this apply to all drinks bought in pubs? What about restaurants? The supermarket? What about packets of peanuts? But above all - why? What's wrong with paying a tax on something that is - no, really, it is - a luxury, not a necessity?

I'm beginning to think I need to create yet another category: WHYYYYYYY?

New Tax System

The petition is entitled Abolish ALL individual tax's and replace with a fair single bill system and the explanatory notes say

"Our system of paying various & numerious tax's, many based on income or expenditure rather than benefit recieved, is completely unfair to all (particularly the people who are prepared to work hard for a living). This taxation should be replaced with a system where everybody in the UK, be them permenant or temporary, is given a single, detailed, bill for what it costs to live in the UK. Having a detailed bill will also allow the people of the UK to see where our money is spent, and can make informed choices about our leadership. Using this system would dramatically reduce the number of government bodies and employees who currently collect various tax's and therefore further reduce costs."

Apparently the petitioner doesn't like living in a moderately socialist society - doesn't, perhaps, believe in living in a society at all.

We do not pay our taxes for our benefit. We pay them that society benefits. In a very tiny way, the tax and benefit system is based on true communism: from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. This is justice. This is society. Action for the benefit of all.

And an insurance plan, of course, if you are entirely incapable of altruism. You pay your taxes to support the ill, the redundant, the elderly - and if/when you become ill, or redundant, or elderly, other people will pay their taxes to support you.

I wonder whether the petitioner is suggesting that the bill be based purely on the benefits to self (how on earth would you calculate road-use, library use, defence spending, for pity's sake?), or on a bill simply consisting of the total expenditure on societal things divided by the number of people in the UK (in which case - children? Do their parents pay?). Either way, it's sheer madness, as cim commented in response to my post Benefits and the NHS.

It astonishes me how few people have given thought to the purpose of the tax system as serving society. Perhaps they haven't thought about society at all. They need a good fwapping. I wish I thought that whoever writes the response to these petitions would provide one - but I fear that is over-optimistic in the extreme.

Car Engine Size

The petition is entitled reatly reduce road tax on bigger engine and the explanatory notes say

"surely road tax is in place to pay for fixing/replacing roads? then how come 6 months tax for me costs £100, where an almost identical car with a 1.6 engine costs much less, even though the damage caused would be the same? this extra money doesn't even appear to be used for carbon exchange projects, but on other ways to tax us using technology (pay per mile, speed cameras, congestion charges etc)"

Actually, since a larger-engined car is heavier than an otherwise-identical car with a smaller engine, I imagine they cause more road damage ...

Private Education Tax Rebate Again

The petition is entitled make public school fees income tax deductible and the explanatory notes say

"Whilst we support progressive taxation as a guiding principle of our social democracy, public school fees should be income tax deductible because of the tangible reduction to the burden on the public purse which results from sending a child to private school."

The petitioner clearly hasn't thought this through, just as the petitioner I wrote about in Tax Rebate on Private Education hadn't.

I, having no children at all, put no burden on the public purse by requiring them to be educated, but I pay my taxes towards that potential education all the same. I see a dentist privately but pay the taxes that support other people's NHS treatment, none-the-less.

Your taxes, petitioner, are for the education of society's children, not your children.

P.S. Ooh! I forgot to say - interesting that the petitioner only thinks this should apply to public school fees; only, that is, the "leading" private schools.

Benefits and the NHS

The petition is entitled make people pay a proportion of their benefits to the NHS and the explanatory notes say

"all people who are hard working tax payers have to pay for the NHS out of their wages, what about people who have never worked? They should have a reduction in their benefits and it SHOWN that the reduction is to pay for the NHS. There are many 16 year old mums who have never paid anything into the system who get the services of midwife, hospital for the birth etc etc .WHO DO THEY THINK PAYS FOR THIS SERVICE.If you are to reduce the benefit it may make them think twice if they can see that someone has to pay."

The fundamental problem with this bit of lunacy (aside from the usual problem that the petitioner has clearly never discussed being on benefits with anyone who's actually on them) is that, of course, benefits are carefully calculated (in theory at least) to be a small but possible amount on which to live. If one took some of it away to "pay for the NHS", one would need, to be just, to increase the benefits by the same amount ... In other words, you'd increase admin complications (which would cost money) without getting any back - and what evidence do we have that this would "make [anyone] think twice"? None. Think twice about what, for that matter. It's a bit blooming late for these hypothetical teenage mums to think twice, isn't it?

Complete Tax Change

The petition is entitled facilatate a system where the collection of tax in done in a efficient manner and the explanatory notes say

"I ask to government to roll all taxes (current and future) including Vat, petrol tax, council tax, income tax, national insurance, passenger departure tax, road charging, inheritance tax, stamp duty (and any other taxes i may have forgotten)together. Then instead of all the complex tax collection methods make the tax system more efficient by taking 100% of each income and giving back an allowance to live on, say £20pw. An increased allowance would of course be payable to Members of Parliament and Ministers"

So what you're actually suggesting is that everyone's salaries/wages be paid to the government who then give out a "living allowance" which is the same for everyone, except for MPs who'll get more?

I'm trying to imagine out what would happen ... Workers would no longer be motivated to negotiate higher pay, so instead they'd negotiate lower pay (as low as possible, really) but "perks" - broadly what I'd probably try for, I imagine, would be for almost everything I spend money on to become classified as an "expense" which I could then reclaim from the company. I'd have to negotiate some kind of deal about exactly how much I could claim and what for. And presumably most people would do the same thing.

Of course, this proposal would vastly change our society: impossibly so. I strongly suspect the petitioner is joking - particularly given the final sentence. In short: BONKERS.

Reduce Fuel Tax

The petition is entitled Reduce the tax we motorists pay on fuel, and to have a maximum cap on fuel tax and the explanatory notes say

"When the recent petrol prices hit over £ per litre and over £1.10 per litre of diesel, the government were earning more in tax, the real price per litre if tax was capped would have been closer to 94pence approximately, but even this is TOO high, we pay the highest fuel duty in the world, and we need to stop paying extortionate amounts of money for fuel, These motorists are doctors, nurses, teachers, and so on. Without these people the country will stop."

My mother is a practice nurse who does home visits to her patients, so I am reasonably aware of the need for nurses, doctors, etc., to drive professionally.

That does not in any way, shape or form justify cutting fuel tax. If a person is required to drive for their job and considers that their pay shouldn't be covering the fuel costs, they should be coming to some arrangement with their employers to claim back the fuel costs incurred in their work. (My mother's mileage situation has changed since I actually lived in a house with her and I'm not 100% sure what arrangement she has currently. But some arrangement exists, certainly.)

To cut taxes for vast quantities of people in order to spare merely a few, when those few could easily be re-compensated in some other way, is ludicrous beyond belief.

I'm prepared to think it's possible that this petitioner is a well-meaning person to whom this idea (claiming costs back) hasn't occurred. But it seems to me equally likely that he's someone who objects to paying tax on his fuel as it is and thinks that this emotive argument might help him. He is, I sincerely trust, wrong, if this is his aim.

Rubbish and Water

The petition is entitled Consider this way of charging for rubbish collection to amount of water used and the explanatory notes say

"Rubbish collection to be charged in line with amount of water used."

No, no, no, that's far too logical! Let's charge for rubbish collection according to ... the cumulative heights of the people in a house! Or ... the number of windows! Or ...

Or perhaps we should stick with either rubbish collection being part of Council Tax or similar, or else charged on a volume (or weight) of rubbish basis. Rather than on something completely insane and irrelevant.

Restore Family Values

The petition is entitled Restore the Institution of Marriage and Family Values and Christianity and the explanatory notes say

"Restore the institution of Marriage,the family and Christian values in our society.Restore the tax advantages once given to support the family and stop supporting same sex relationships and secular values."

Firstly, what are "family values" exactly?

Secondly, why should any of this be restored? You provide no justification, Mr Petitioner, for your demand; no explanation of the harm done by "secular values" and "same sex relationships"; no reasoning, no logic, no mitigation for your bigotry.

Why on earth should we therefore pay attention to you? Muppet.