In 2010, the US government passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) obliging US citizens, regardless of dual citizenships and even though they may not have lived in the US since childhood, to self-report their non-US assets and to pay US tax on foreign income if the foreign tax should be less than US tax. For example, if such persons sell their home, then they are liable for American capital gains tax on the sale as the UK levies no such tax. FATCA obliges all non-US financial institutions to search through their customer databases to identify those customers suspected of being US citizens and to disclose the account holders' names, addresses, and the transactions of most types of account. It requires foreign financial institutions to require all foreign account holders (not just US citizens) to certify their foreign status. In 2014, The Economist called FATCA's "extraterritoriality stunning even by Washington's standards." FATCA potentially affects 173,470 people born in the US by chance but many of whom left the country as small children and have since been resident in the UK and are UK citizens. Following FATCA's passage, many such "accidental Americans" suffered closure of their bank accounts: a 2014 survey of US citizens in other countries by Democrats Abroad found that 12.7% of respondents had been denied financial services by their banks, making it harder for accidental Americans to live and work in their countries of residence. Accidental Americans often no owe US income tax, but must spend thousands of dollars in accounting fees to prove that fact, and face potential fines of tens of thousands of dollars for paperwork errors. Those who have spent their lives planning for their retirement without considering the US tax consequences of the non-US financial instruments they hold may find that US taxation wipes out most of their returns on investments. UK residents suspected to be US citizens are separated out at their financial institutions for differential treatment, based upon their place of birth and nationality. Discrimination according to national origin is prohibited in most countries and by the European Convention on Human Rights. American Citizens Abroad, a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of the millions of Americans residing outside the United States, points out that FATCA's problem is citizenship-based taxation. The United States and Eritrea are the only countries in the world which impose taxation and reporting requirements on citizens living abroad permanently. The Guardian reports that Americans living abroad feel financially terrorized by FATCA requirements. According to research by Democrats Abroad: "These survey results show the intense impact FATCA is having on overseas Americans. Their financial accounts are being closed, their relationships with their non-American spouses are under strain, some Americans are being denied promotion or partnership in business because of FATCA reporting requirements and some are planning or contemplating renouncing their US citizenship”. The US will not allow accidental Americans to renounce citizenship until they have filed five years’ of tax returns. Due to the rise in applications, the fee for renouncing citizenship was raised by roughly 400 percent in 2015 to $2,350. According to a recent piece in The Economist, a UK resident who was born in America but moved to Britain as a child, “recently received a huge bill from the IRS [the US Internal Revenue Service], out of the blue, for many years of unfiled taxes. He had not realised that he owed anything; he had always paid taxes promptly in Britain. The IRS was so aggressive that he feared he might lose his technology business; he even discussed divorce with his wife as a way to shield their assets. In the end, he settled for a six-figure sum.” In 2014, the UK Government entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement whereby financial institutions in the UK report information about US accounts to HMRC. HMRC then provides the information to the US. The UK government has estimated that the cost to British businesses will be £1.1 billion to £2 billion for the first five years, in order to locate the US citizens. HMRC estimates its own one-off IT and staff project costs at approximately £5m, with ongoing annual costs of £1.4m from this year. FATCA’s effects on UK citizens who by accident of birth are deemed American means that the UK Government’s cooperation with FATCA must end. The relationship between the British state and its citizens is founded on an implicit contract whereby, in exchange for obedience to the law and performance of their civic duties, citizens have a right to the state’s protection.

It is important to us because we want younger people to be able to hace access to more jobs at a younger age.

PERSONAL PRIVACY: The Digital Economy Bill currently before Parliament will introduce compulsory age verification without guaranteeing privacy protections for subscribers. This omission risks users’ personal details and private sexual preferences being exploited for commercial gain and/or leaked into the public domain. SEXUAL FREEDOM: Consensual adult sex should not be outlawed, yet this Bill will prohibit the publication of depictions of sexual activities that are legal to perform. This Bill imposes a financial burden on free, amateur and niche commercial websites, affecting sexual minorities by denying them from freely expressing their sexuality.

Anti-immigrant hate crime in the UK has increased fivefold over the past few months (according to the National Police Chiefs' Council). The UK media has, in the words of the United Nations human rights chief, peddled "sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse" and "vilification, intolerance and politicization of migrants." Migrants are routinely portrayed as less-than-human, and unworthy of dignity and respect. The Daily Express alone is responsible for headlines such as "BRITAIN MUST BAN MIGRANTS" and " SEND IN ARMY TO HALT MIGRANT INVASION." Specsavers: is this your vision? We are calling on you to take a stand, and no longer tacitly endorse the demonisation of migrant communities by the Daily Express. Just earlier this year, the newspaper was forced to publish a correction after press watchdog IPSO ruled that a piece entitled 'Europe's leaders have no plan to cut immigration' inflated and distorted migration figures. The impact of this kind of media rhetoric is not limited to the newspaper stands: it has real-life, divisive consequences. By withdrawing a recent front-page advert from the Daily Express, you have recognised that what your brand appears alongside, matters. We call on you to take this further and withdraw all financial and symbolic support for a newspaper that is notorious for inciting racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Families where the spouse of a disabled adult are already on an extremely low income so having to pay the bedroom tax, which carers for children where for example one parent may be earning an adequate wage are already exempted from, is not only discriminatory, it leads to further financial pressure on top of the stress of being a carer.

At the moment, British passports only provide two gender options; M and F. This is a problem as there are people who identify as neither of these genders. In 2014, a study (Titman, 2014) identified that 1 in 250 people choose another option when given the opportunity. YouGov studies have shown figures as high as 20% of people placing themselves between the poles of 100% male or 100% female. A simple solution is to add an X option on passports for those who want it. This is approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and is already in use in countries such as Germany, New Zealand, and Nepal. A survey of 79 non-binary people (people who do not identify as men or women) in the UK through the Beyond the Binary online magazine found that the vast majority reported feeling uncomfortable (100%) and unsafe (94%) being non-binary in the UK. The addition of the X marker on official documentation, such as passports, will validate the existence of non-binary identities, providing greater social and legal protection; making Britain a safer, more comfortable place for non-binary and genderqueer people. Lee-Anne is a non-binary person who says “I am misgendered in every shop I go into. It would be amazing if I could at least have the correct gender recorded on my official ID.” For non-binary people, there is an inability to have gender recorded correctly on medical, legal, educational, and other records. This leads to misgendering, dysphoria, as well as physical and mental health issues. It also validates harassment, discrimination and hate crime against non-binary people. It is imperative that this changes and an X marker is added to British passports.

Discriminates single people ,as not everyone in relationships,couples don't get charged extra

The government wants the young to get working but they do not want, I am not surprised they do not want to work for peanuts while someone who is over 25 will make double the wage of 16. The price of bread is not different for 16 year old person to what it is for 25 year old person, so I do not know why there is big wage gap.

I'm a transgender myself and would love to have SRS straight away but the rules are preventing me for having my wish I feel extremely uncomfortable in my body and am scared of going out as people stare, I have noticed other people in the same position who would love to have the rules changed so they feel more comfortable and I think this would give us the freedom we always wanted and give us the correct body and allow us not to feel trapped.

Right now, one in ten women lose their job when they have a baby here in the UK. This isn't acceptable. Pregnant women and mothers now face more discrimination at work than they did a decade ago according to research from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Here's what the Women and Equalities Committee recommended should become law: 1.The Government should publish a strong, specific communications plan for the awareness-raising and attitude-changing work it has agreed to undertake 2.Employers should have to do an individual risk assessment when they are informed that a woman who works for them is pregnant, has given birth in the past six months or is breastfeeding. 3.The right to paid time off for antenatal appointments should be extended to temporary and people on zero-hours contracts. All maternity rights should be reviewed to make them more equal regardless of the type of working contract you have. 4.The Government should increase protection from redundancy so that new and expectant mothers can be made redundant only in specified circumstances. (Paragraph 70) 5.The Government should review the three-month time limit for bringing a tribunal claim in maternity and pregnancy discrimination cases and should substantially reduce tribunal fees. 6.The Government should monitor access to free, good-quality, one-to-one advice on pregnancy and maternity discrimination issues and assess whether additional resources are required. Maternity rights should protect every woman in the UK. They should protect us from suffering discrimination in the workplace, due to pregnancy or maternity. They should make sure we aren’t passed over for promotion due to being on maternity leave, or that our employers block us from accruing any holiday whilst we’re off work. Let's make sure they our maternity laws are changed for the better, to protect all women.

Workers' rights in this country have been hard-won, but Brexit now gives the Government the chance to strip workers in Britain of their protections and rights at work. We can't allow that to happen. The Workers' Rights (Maintenance of EU Standards) Bill seeks to ensure that there is a floor of workers' rights below which no contract or employer can sink. This applies to rights such as protecting workers from redundancy if their company changes hands, health and safety rules and measures to protect employee representatives against detrimental treatment for carrying out their role. Please sign to support this bill and write to your MP to ask them to do the same. Draft letter here- http://www.melanieonn.co.uk/10_minute_rule

Unpaid carers save the nation around £162 billion every year. They often have to decide between paying bills, eating, or getting the person they care for to crucial medical appointments, or visiting them in hospitals or hospices. They also have their own lives to balance around caring, for example travelling from school, college, university or work to the person they care for on a regular basis; or in the case of intermittent carers, such as university students, if an emergency arises and they have to take time off and travel long distances to help the person they care for. Public transport is an essential service that should be financially accessible to carers. Various regions of the country have railcard schemes that provide discounts based on where people live, but there is no national scheme for rail or bus that does not depend on age or disability. There are benefits available to some carers depending on their circumstances, but even when they are awarded, travels costs are so high that it still becomes a struggle. The Government is already looking at improving the rights of carers and services provided to them, so I believe this is the right time to fight for concessionary or even free travel for carers. Please join me in asking for a carers railcard and bus pass, that would be life-changing for thousands of people. This petition was inspired by a Scotland-specific campaign, created by Amanda MacDonald.