Jonathan Bishop

8 Heol-y-Parc
Efail Isaf
Pontypridd
Mid Glamorgan
CF38 1AN
Phone: 07092107212
Email: jonathan@jonathanbishop.org.uk
Sunday 7 October 2012
Dear Owen,
So David Cameron has ruled out a mansion tax. As someone with one of the richest estates in the
country I would expect no different from him!
Contrary to his view, on the self-assessment form there should, in all fairness, be a box for people to
put the value of their estate on. Those with an estate worth for instance 60m or 6m should be
taxed on it, in the same way those on Housing Benefit with more than 6k of savings have their
benefit reduced.
I have written a lot on tax in the past, and passed my ideas onto you, who has passed them on to
ministers. With each response from a government minister I have reconsidered and revised my
resulting public policy.
The current tax and welfare system discourages risk taking amongst those born poor, and does
nothing to incentivise those born rich to do anything with their money.
The current system where self-employed entrepreneurs are taxed the same as people working as
employees and those who make money on their inherited wealth is unfair.
People who take risk to become entrepreneurs should be rewarded by only having to pay a 10% tax
(perhaps a flat tax). In order to encourage entrepreneurship and career progression, those who
choose to work as an employee should be taxed either pay 20% or 40%, depending on a factor other
than income.
People, like myself who are spending their savings on things like patents, hoping to get big future
returns for myself and the tax authorities, should be rewarded for such risk-taking by paying less tax
than those who sit on wealth or simply work for employers and create no new wealth directly.
People like Mr Cameron!
In order to encourage true entrepreneurship therefore, all entrepreneurs, whether your local
plumber or self-made million should only have to pay 10% tax on their income derived from
entrepreneurship. People, like myself who are spending their savings on things like patents, hoping
to get big future returns, should be rewarded for such risk-taking by paying less tax than those who
sit on wealth or simply work for employers and create no new wealth directly. People like Mr
Cameron!

People should be encouraged to come off benefits and not forced. To do this, people on benefits
should have to pay a tokenistic 20% tax. For the first two years when they go into work they have it
reduced to 10%, so they are better off in work than out of work. Employers should get tax relief for
taking on welfare claimants. This could be in the form of taking the 10% the employee would
normally pay as a tax credit, or there being no employers NI.
As an employer, the way the law currently is, I would never employ someone other than on a six
month fixed term contract, as I currently do. This is because with all the red tape from employment
law, it would be too risky for me as an SME to do so. By taking someone on for 6 months it means I
can take on the best person for the job, and then if they were the best person for the job, offer them
contingent work on a self-employment basis.
To stop me having to do this, the only thing the government need to is make many of the
employment benefits available to everyone, including those who are self-employed, administered by
the state. If it was the government that paid SSP/SMP/etc. then employers like me would not have
to worry about taking people on for longer than six months and losing our cash-flow. It would also
mean that women and disabled people would be more willing to become entrepreneurs for
instance, as they would not need to be employed in order to get SMP or SSP as appropriate.
I hope you will be able to share my current views with ministers for their consideration.
Best Regards,
Jonathan Bishop FBCS FRSA