-Government will efficiently be able to raise taxes from banking/ financial sector -The tax could reduce some speculation in the currency market -The tax would raise up to £100 billion for UK Treasury -The countries who are keen to introduce this tax, will follow our lead -We can end Austerity & the misery caused for 10 million families in UK -We can invest this extra source of revenue to make our economy work for all -We can bear pressure on our governments (under the influence of strong vested interests) to act for the common good. By putting your name to this petition, not only can we make a huge difference soon, we can also give hope for our future generations.

Whilst many of us do agree that high earners should probably pay more for living in social housing, an entire household on £30,000 (or £40,000 in London) a year just isn’t high or wealthy. That would consist of a couple earning just £15,000 each, and we know how hard it is to get by on that meagre amount. The current government are contradicting themselves when they say they’ll “make work pay” and they’re the party for the workers; yet if a social housing tenant works, they will now be penalised for it. If you live in social housing and you work, you will now face the prospect of losing your home. Many of these working families in social housing (just like most other people) have aspirations to get out of the poverty trap and use the opportunity of social housing to save for a deposit to one day buy their own home, thus freeing up the home for the next family who needs it. Now it is as though they are not allowed to have dreams or better themselves. All hope of saving for a decent mortgage have been ripped out from under their feet while they are pushed back down into the ground where they apparently “belong”. It is increasingly depressing that there is near to no hope for people’s futures. Mortgages aside, many families, especially those with children, will find it increasingly hard to manage day to day. These families could be forced to private rent, but not their own self contained flat as before, as the rents would again be too high, they will be forced into renting a room and sharing a house. Is this the way a family should live? We are regressing back to the days of overcrowded houses with notorious rip off landlords. The ONS says that a family of four will spend on average £517.30 per week. If both parents earned a total of £31,000, they would (after tax), have only around £465 to spend per week, this is well below the UK average. When their rents are raised to market level, where will they get the extra money from? This will result in more poverty, tenants giving up jobs or reducing their hours to earn under the threshold, or in worst case scenarios, couples splitting up or living apart to avoid being penalised for having a job or older working children being kicked out to reduce the household income. If these children are under 21, and on a low wage, how will they find housing without a Housing Benefit top up? Let’s cut out the “luxuries” of living, the ONS estimates that to live basically (rent/mortgage not included), a household will spend an average of £350 a week on bills, food, basic clothing, travel and health. This would leave a £30,000 earning home with about £100 a week to spend on their social housing rent. The average UK market rent is £960 per month, or £222 per week. How will these households meet the shortfall of market rent? Where will these families go? This petition is to ask for consideration that the threshold for Pay to Stay be increased to at least £60,000 per household (£70,000 for London). This would ensure that the average family is able to live without poverty, keep a roof over their head and still be able to save a little each month for a deposit to buy their own home, freeing up social housing without first making more people homeless. The current proposed threshold will only make one family homeless to rehome another, thus not bringing down homeless levels, and increasing the housing benefit spend. A consultation paper was produced which asked the opinions of experts in the field – Local Authority landlords, Private Registered Landlords, Tenant Representative Bodies, Private Landlords, and Individuals. A brief quote from the paper is below. Why was there a consultation when the majority of the views were not taken into account? “About a third of respondents thought that the threshold of £60,000 was appropriate. A smaller proportion thought that £80,000 should be the minimum, while the least favoured was £100,000. Social landlords largely preferred £60,000. There were also views that the threshold could be lower than £60,000, though not a consensus in favour of lowering the threshold. If the threshold was below £60,000 it could act as a disincentive to work, particularly for larger households and in high demand areas such as London. Those who favoured the threshold of £60,000 suggested it was reasonable and consistent with other Government policies involving income thresholds, such as access to affordable home ownership (although it was noted that the threshold may need to be adjusted to £74,000 for London, to align with London schemes) and the child benefit “cap”. There were also views that no more than 30% of a household’s income should go on housing costs; otherwise, it could start to impact detrimentally on the household’s budget.”

Mr Ellwood's recent claim that his MP's salary is insufficient shows a disregard for and disconnect from his many constituents who have accepted limited or no pay increases over recent years in order to boost the nation's economic recovery. Furthermore we feel that his enthusiasm for a pay increase of 10% at a time when public service employees are being restricted to rises of 1%, shows contempt for his electorate and a self-serving attitude which is not in the interest of his constituents.

The Living Wage is a concept which has been developed independently and it should not be hi-jacked by the Chancellor because he wants to pass the Minimum Wage off as something it is not. Only The Living Wage Foundation can set the Living Wage, by its own independent processes and no one, not even the Chancellor, can think of any other amount and pass it off as the real thing!

Imagine if manufacturers had to say how long they expect their products to last and backed it with a guarantee. For the first time people will be able to make a real choice when they buy something. e.g. "Do I get the £15 kettle that lasts 1 year? or the £30 kettle that lasts 5-6 years?" This makes things simple. We deserve to know what we are buying! "Planned Obsolescence" (where manufacturers purposefully design their products to break or be unfixable) is on the rise. It might bring profits in for shortsighted companies, but it is a growing disaster for the environment and it means that we are stuck buying the same shoddy things again and again. Having your kettle/hoover/dishwasher break is not just annoying, it traps people in a cycle of poverty. But there's something we can do! If people know how long something is expected to last, we can see if the "cheap prices" are really worth it. It's likely that companies will realise that have to do better, and up the durability of their products or risk having to publish some dismal figures. Us consumers have been trapped by these companies strategies for too long and it's time for us to get some power back. The power of choice. Please sign the petition. The planet will thank us all. We can do it! Tara PS. Follow and share the campaign with the hashtag #built2break

The Red Lion Public House dates back to the 17th Century, and is an important historic Grade II Listed building, and an irreplaceable feature of the village of Gedney Hill in rural Lincolnshire. In the past it has been a thriving business at the centre of the community, but in recent years neglect, mismanagement and underinvestment on the part of the owner has led to it's decline and closure. The building has now been sold to an individual who intends to convert the site into a house, and demolish part of the porch structure on the front of the oldest part of the listed building. This is now the only public house remaining in this area, and many local people believe that under the right ownership it could again be a popular venue and a successful and sustainable business. Please help to ensure the future of this vital hub of local village life by signing the petition.

The recent change to planning legislation means that permission is no longer required for businesses to change use, even in conservation areas. Rye Lane is be likely to be targeted by large chains looking to take advantage of this change. The problem is that this will put huge pressure on rents, pressure which many local, cherished independents are not likely to survive. The Direction will give time to planning officers to consider proposals in accordance with the development plan. We want Rye Lane to continue serving all its diverse Londoners, and supporting local creative economies, not letting them be priced out of Peckham.

In 2012 Theresa May announced that from April 2016 non-EU migrant workers will be required to earn £35,000 to stay in the UK, even if they have lived and worked here for more than 5 years. This devastating new immigration rule must be stopped, as immigrants who have lived and worked in the UK for longer than 5 years should have the right to stay regardless of their income. We cannot allow this policy to happen, as it will split up families, jeopardise the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and severely damage the economy. The Royal college of Nursing recently announced that this policy will cost the NHS MILLIONS because so many of it's nurses are non-EU migrants who earn under £35,000 and who will be deported under this policy. Recruiting new nurses will be time consuming and expensive, and will drain more of the money needed to save the NHS. Also, the average income for a UK born citizen is £26,600, so it is entirely unfair to deport immigrants who may earn more than the average UK born citizen, but less than £35,000. Please sign the petition to hopefully prevent this devastating policy from becoming reality.

Many ex service people are proud of their time but are reluctant to seek help. A piece of tin (medal) does not pay the bills but making pensions tax free would help many. Ask how many ex service people when they last had a holiday, unless they have additional incomes or supportive families they are struggling to exist on service and government pensions. £1200 a month does not go far when paying mortgage and bills.

Will you help to spread the word? We're filing a massive class-action lawsuit against the British Conservative government over its hugely unpopular, unfair and destructive Austerity plan. We see it as embezzlement of public funds. We need the best lawyer's support, and we believe we CAN WIN THIS. Please, SHARE THIS MESSAGE WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS via any and every means at your disposal, including but not limited to facebook, twitter, email and word-of-mouth. My email address is: [email protected] People can contact Michael Mansfield QCs Chambers directly, to tell him how much they value his support and how popular this cause is already and how it's quickly going to go viral. We want half a million petitioners, all the people who attended the June 20th march and rally to Parliament. http://www.mansfieldchambers.co.uk/contact-us/

Carers save the nation billions of pounds every year by looking after friends and relatives. They give up jobs, money and their personal lives to do this for no pay. The disabled cannot always work. No-one wants to employ people who may have to take a lot of time off sick or for hospital appointments. The poorest people in our country are getting poorer. Why? Because this Government wants to cut their supply line, along with the disabled and carers. We need to stand up for ourselves and each other. We need to stay alive. As an unemployable disabled carer, this latest round of cuts announced impacts on me in all three directions. Where will I be this time next year? Who knows?

Before the 2015 General Election, the National Audit Office (NAO), asked the DWP to release the costs of introducing Universal Credit. The DWP, needless to say, refused. The NAO then asked a judge to ask the DWP to release the figures. Again, they refused saying that they had to stay under lock and key until after the General Election.. The people of this country need to know the cost of implementing this benefit.