• Savers are Losers. Stop it !
    This petition is presented for the purpose of creating a better framework of Interest rates and Taxes, as applied in an inflationary environment to High Street Savers. In this document the word 'real' is used to indicate that Inflation has been taken into account. Present Situation In the past 80 years there has been only one instance of an annual RPI deflation. That was 2009. A Saver is rarely rewarded with a positive real gain under the present methods of setting interest rates and income taxation. Each year the Saver pays income tax and loses a capital value related to Inflation. In Good Years, Savers are provided with a real gain, but real Income Tax is at a high rate, usually between 50 and 100%. Sometimes, Savers pay 100% real Income Tax and a real Capital Tax as well. In Bad Years, Savers pay real Capital Tax, together with a real Ex-Inflation Tax (excess of inflation over interest) . The last 12 years have been 'bad' years, except for 2009. Wealth Transfer For about the past 12 years Savers have been losing real Capital Value from their Savings due to inflation. These losses are not 'lost for all time and to all', but they are losses of capital value from Savers. This capital value is transferred to Debtors, as capital gain or other forms of value transfer. Essentially, due to the action of inflation Savers find their capital value reduced, while Debtors find their debts reduced. The conditions for such a Transfer is caused by devaluation of the GB Pound; recognised by; A) Statutory rate Inflation rate specified to Bank of England as 'monthly' & 'medium term' target, B) Actual Inflation experienced in the UK while the Bank of England attempts to hold Inflation to the Target. No Capital Transfer Tax nor Capital Gains tax is paid on such Transfers. No restitution is paid to Savers for these losses The ONS has no collected data by which to estimate the total value of transfers of such monies. As a first estimate of total UK Saver's losses caused by the current system of Tax&Inflation we can use annual devaluation of the UK Savers total Capital. BoE data suggest that UK Savers have about £1200x10^9 in Term Deposits, and about £800x10^9 in Sight Deposits. A total of some £2000x10^9. This capital loses value at the rate of devaluation/inflation. Say an annual loss of value of £20x10^9 for each 1% of Inflation. To prevent this loss it is suggested that Inflation should be reduced to Zero, or, that Savers should be reimbursed for losses caused by Inflation. It should be noted that currently most Saver accounts are held by Bank, Building Society, and other organisations, who as a matter of course make the calculations for, Interest paid, and Tax deducted. It appears more logical, therefore, to continue with this system, but make sufficient changes to provide a Saver with a real positive reward, after Tax. Proposal I Rarely is the interest paid to Savers, positive after tax and inflation. We suggest that legislation be enacted to provide a legal minimum savings interest rate. Higher rates will be set by 'market forces' It is proposed that there be a legal minimum rate of 1% above RPI Inflation. Proposal II The volume of Tax raised on Savings Interest is currently excessive because no account is taken of Inflation. A fair income tax on Savings Interest might be based on real income. It is proposed that an Index-link to both Savings' Capital Value & Interest, is used for Income Tax purposes. Proposal III An Income tax based on real income would yield a much smaller volume of tax. Were this tax reduced to zero rate, there would be no cost of collection. It is proposed that Savings Interest is declared tax-free. Proposal IV Were no change to be made to the Taxation System as applied to Saving Interest, it would be appropriate to modify the proposed Legal minimum interest rate for Savings, to allow for this taxation disadvantage. It is proposed that in such conditions the Legal Minimum rate of Savings Interest shall be 125% of the rate proposed above. This will over compensate those who do not pay income tax, and will be an insufficient adjustment of those who pay income tax at the 40 and 45% rates. For the purposes of this Petition we retain a simple flat rate tax concept, set at 20% or 1/5. It is proposed that the minimum rate of Savings Interest to be 5/4 x (RPI +1)%. Proposal V So that the lack of 'fairness' is removed, we have made the proposals above. Such a situation might return. We propose that a Treasury position of 'Savings Champion' shall be created by primary legislation. The specific duty of the Savings Champion will be to keep watch on above changes ( when they have been instituted by legislation) and report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they are not, or appear not to be, adhered to.
    30 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Mervyn Randall Picture
    Lloyds is an old english bank that is changing for the worse and has been owned by the english tax payer yet continued to not realise or accept that it cannot act in non-common sense, off-hand, aloof, over complicated and unreasonable manner when onteracting or communicating with its owners and customers. I have a very small company with a commercial account with lloyds and over a year ago they suspended the functioning of my visa debit card. They admitted it was in error. The forced £100 into my account without my knowledge. I refused this as compensation. They then offered £300 as final settlement. I refused this as it was not enough. I did not have my card for 9 days. I could not buy online. I had to wait for a new card to be sent ans them further for a pin code. When i said £300 is not enough to cover the loss of earnings, stress and compensation for the time to work on their error they sent a letter saying they would not deal with me anymore and the letter has bold capitals at the top saying 'final decision'. The time taken to deal with their error has been hundreds of hours. I have charged for this and invoiced them at there head branch in london. There has been no attempt at any level by lloyds to be approachable and embracing. There has been every attempt by lloyds to be detached, blocking and aloof. I then contacted the uk's financial ombudsman. After 3 or so months i got to a legal person under their adjudication system. I then had health issues and decided to pause the pursuit of compensation for my limited company and also to pursue the well overdue systemic change needed within lloyds, both for commercial accounts and also personal accounts. Lloyds also have my address wrong. This is how blinkered and basic the errors are. Behind every amazing sme business/startup is a person called the m.D, or ceo. Their lives,, and those of their family and friends are directly affected by the appalling behaviour of the uk's banking systems. Its time for deep systemic change within lloyds so great britains businesses can flourish, without being kicked in the face by the organisations that need to help them. I try so hard to strip emotion from this an stick to facts. However, this is near impossible as it is an emotive subject. And so it should be, we are talking about peoples lives and livelihoods. I am not bringing problems without solutions. This does not have to be convoluted, difficult and over-engineered. It is time to be compensated for all the trauma, frustration, distress, loss of business face, loss of earnings, loss of address (to lloyds), the many 100's of hours of deep analytic work, phone calls, letters, emails and recording all these. If you have the same story as me, and maybe you are simply exhausted from the fight, id like to hear from you however it has to be only facts and they have to be substantiated by you with a citation/date time stamps. I cannot do all this on my own but maybe collectivley we can create a register of actions, dates and times with how it cobbled your business and you. After the ppi scandals we now have new lloyds authorised and promoted malpractises coming out. This may be the right time to make a change for the better for everyone and to save a major long standing british institution. Please be aware this petition is first and foremost a petiton for change in culture, mission and dialogue and not a petition to get compensated. If that comes then all well and good but that may be a side-effect of the main petition. We need the uk's financial ombudsman onboard as well. It looks as though they are going through a rigourous and uneasy process of change but unlike lloyds, they are open, transparent, non aloof and reaching out for collaboration. This, and i cannot stress this enough, is an amazing surprising and wonderful discovery. I will be making a website where customers of lloyds can start entering dates, times, action, nonaction and proven affects. It cannot be a forum or hangout yet. We have to deal with only fact Eg: 1. Jan 2013-lloyds cancelled my business card with no notice 2. They admitted liablity verbally and by snailmail 3. They deposited money into my account with no notice and no reference number 4. They offered more money as compensation by snail mail letter 5. When i declined that amount they sent a snailmail letter saying go away and marked it 'final decision' Professionals and time-served heavyweights with a desire to change lloyds please join. We have elliott v lloyds tsb bank plc & anor [2012] ew misc 7 (cc) Citation: http://www.Scl.Org/site.Aspx?I=ed26547 Maybe start by writing a brief story Then start writing down facts Then order them chronologically Stay tenacious, focussed and humble and we can stop these crazy lloyds actions. £10 per day for being a few pounds overdrawn=bonkers
    23 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Philip Swift Picture
  • 50+ women being crucified by the new pension rules
    This is an important issue whereby many women over the age of 55 particularly will suffer financial hardship through no fault of their own. There has been no proper planning or compensation considered for or this small minority of women which will suffer as a result. Many women over 50 find themselves living alone and had always expected to retire with a state pension at 60. The new legislation has not given woman a fair enough amount of time to prepare for such a major financial disruption to their lives.
    252 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Susanna Young
  • A return to affordable council housing
    For many reasons. to house Britain's 1,500,000 homeless. to revitalise the building industry and its ancilliary suppliers. to return Britain to being a community in charge of its own destiny. We have the skills we have the labour and there's plenty of money around at very low rates of interest.
    20 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Malcolm Hart
  • Educating Future Generations (The Jackman Campaign)
    After conducting a survey we have found that a large majority of people believe that schools are not doing enough to prepare students for a working life. As 16 and 17 year olds, this is a problem that affects us [the organizers] and we believe that these skills could aid young people greatly in a very competitive job market. Furthermore, this lesson would also educate young people about the need to get into work, consequently motivating them to strive for greatness and follow their aspirations.
    8 of 100 Signatures
    Created by N A
  • Lower University Tuition Fees to reduce UK debt
    Students cannot afford tuition fees. It's not ok for them to have to pay huge debts when they start to earn a living wage. It is not ok for graduates to have to stay living at home for many years after graduating because they cannot afford to rent or buy.
    70 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Joanna Crane
  • Stop Blocking Metalectrique's 1500 mile Battery
    Climate change is real and happening now. We must use the solutions we have and the long range, zero emission battery will remove vehicle CO2 and pollution emissions quickly. It will also provide UK with much needed industrial growth and prosperity. It is outrageous that UK govt has known about this solution since 2008 and has failed to back it and failed to stop it being blocked by the oil industry. We could have been driving clean, electric long range cars by now. We could have also started to reverse Climate change and reduced the ilnesses caused by city air pollution. It is vital to start up this technology now.
    34 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Trevor Jackson
  • HSBC - why did you close my account?
    We know that HSBC has reason to be cautious - they’ve been fined hugely for violating US sanctions and failing to implement money-laundering laws, as they should have been [2]. However negligent compliance procedures that led them to be fined doesn’t give them the license to close bank accounts on the basis of exaggerated fears. Many of the affected people are law-abiding and tax-paying individuals who feel they have been targeted by HSBC simply because their country of birth is subject to sanctions. The pattern of HSBC’s conduct and the lack of justification raises suspicion that this practice violates the Equality Act which prohibits UK institution from adopting measures discriminating on the basis of nationality, race and religion. [3] Having a bank account shut down on short notice - especially if people are traveling, when they are students or have a mortgage is incredibly stressful and a huge time burden. When such action is taken without justification, and individuals are led to fearing that they have been a target of unlawful discrimination, this can be a deeply unsettling experience. If HSBC has evidence to prove that the people whose accounts have been shut down were a genuine risk then they should make that evidence public and provide clear explanation to affected individuals. If HSBC has violated UK legislation through endorsing discriminatory practices it must adhere to the simple rule of law principles and (i) formally apologise to all affected persons whose bank account has been unlawfully closed, (ii) reopen those accounts, and (iii) ensure that their internal protocols are amended so that these kinds of actions aren't repeated. References 1. "HSBC: the bank that likes to say no to Muslim accounts," Giles Fraser, The Guardian, 30 July 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/hsbc-bank-no-muslim-accounts-finsbury-park-mosque 2."HSBC pays record $1.9bn fine to settle US money-laudering accusations," Jill Treanor and Dominic Rushe, The Guardian, 11 December 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/dec/11/hsbc-bank-us-money-laundering 3. "Discrimination: your rights" https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your- rights/types-of-discrimination "Equality Act 2010" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
    92 of 100 Signatures
    Created by sara haghdoosti
  • Implement a statutory maximum multiplier between the lowest and highest earners
    The vast majority of people are appalled by the massive gap between the very richest and the very poorest in society; a gap that over the past two or three decades has been ever widening. Most people are particularly dismayed at the growing need for those in work to need the crutch of benefits to bring their income up to a living wage. An effective way of combating this is to outlaw excess at the top and to obligate fairer wages at the bottom. A relative earnings limit which puts a statutory maximum multiplier on the earnings of the highest paid employee v the lowest, should go some way to curbing this inequality. For example, if that maximum multiplier were x50 (which itself is massive), then if a CEO wished to be paid earnings (including bonuses) of £1,000,000 per year, then the lowest paid employee must earn the equivalent of £20,000 full-time salary. This petition doesn't in itself suggest what that maximum multiplier should be but simply that there should be some degree of relativity. We also appreciate that the policy and any legislation needs to be drafted with considerable care, to ensure that all earnings are included (including bonuses, pensions and share options) and to ensure that lowest wages aren't disguised by outsourcing the lowest paid jobs to other bodies. However fear of loopholes and abuse should not stop the brightest politicians and economists from devising a workable and legally binding way of promoting fairness through a relative earnings limit. We do not see such a limit applied to personal investors in and entrepreneurs and creators of new ventures - only to employees within organisations.
    25 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Catherine Potter
  • Support Your Firefighters
    The government is threatening to change firefighters’ pension schemes, meaning all members will pay more, work longer and still get less. Pay more Before 2010, firefighters already contributed one of the highest proportions of their salary towards their pensions (11%), and in April this year it increased for the third year running. Firefighters typically now pay over £4,000 a year from a £29,000 salary, and the government has announced they will impose another increase in 2015. Work longer Firefighters will be expected to work until they are 60 however the government’s own report by Dr Tony Williams, published in December 2013, recognises that two thirds (66%) will not meet the current fitness standard. Firefighters, who are forced to retire at 55 due to a natural decline in fitness, could lose up to half of their pension or face the sack. Get less Firefighters will only receive the full pension they signed up for if they work for 40 years in the service which given current retirement and fitness rates is unlikely for the majority of firefighters.
    8,183 of 9,000 Signatures
    Created by Liam Reed Picture
  • stop mortgage tax relief for buy to let
    It will put money in the Treasury's coffers as well as ending a deep unfairness
    23 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Anne Renn
  • one roof one bill !
    because i live under one roof with 18 other flats, 62 under 3 roofs and we all get a bill for rain running of the roof and that really gets my back up. it needs to change now !
    8 of 100 Signatures
    Created by paul bosman