The first thing that needs to be said is that public sector procurement rules need to be tighter in some areas and more lenient in others. Public procurement spending isn’t being done very well and costs the taxpayers a lot more than it should. Working for the government/taxpayers, should come with clear advantages and clear rules in the form of law that mean companies/businesses and people who under preform, do not get advantages treatment. On the flip side, companies who do well, are ranked as such and are allowed to earn more profit, be placed higher and get other advantages such as a directors tax break up to 10%.
Why? It is paramount and vital that in a free market economy, anyone doing work for the public and charity sectors are doing it well. That we all get value for money and that anyone who fails to live up to fair expectations isn’t allowed (as they are now) to continue gaining work and providing poor quality service/works or goods.

Tax is vital and it is unfair that some try dodge tax all together as this only places a heavier burden on everyone else. Tax law will be introduced that mean anyone caught breaking tax law, would be severely punished financially. We would make sure that the risk, benefit analysis was such that it wouldn’t be worth the risk. IE, avoidance of paying £200K tax should not come with a £50K max fine. Meaning even if you get caught, you are still much better off as has happened! We are clearly not talking about a couple of pounds oversight. Accounting errors and alike. And the burden of proof will shift to the state to prove guilt, rather than the individual prove innocence.

Is it fair that someone who works very hard, long hours and dedicates their life to a job should pay more than someone who doesn’t? The answer is no, however we also recognise that this is a life style choice and effort from one individual can match the effort from another with different pay awards. To that end, we will look to higher earners to pay more. We will not however, tax the wealthy unjustly and over and above what is fair.
Why? Time and time again we see examples of wealthy individuals leave the UK, (because they can afford to) due to having to pay too much tax. Clearly, it is better to get a good amount of tax from people like this rather than them leave the UK meaning we get nothing from them. Examples are Jackie Stewart, F1 racing driver and more recently, Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Ineos business owner.

VAT, especially at different rates for different items depending on use is complicated and takes up a lot of time and effort during accounting. We do not want to see, at least in the first instance, a drop in the amount of tax the government has to spend. Our Armed forces, NHS and many more deserve to get the right compensation and need the right equipment for the work they do. We need to spend these funds so that you, the people of the UK get the very best treatment available at our hospitals. Our children get the best education and the armed forces have the best equipment, especially protection when it comes to doing their jobs. Clearly I could name a lot of very worthy government functions, but needless to say, all taxation spend is here to benefit us all as and when required.
Simply put, VAT is in our opinion, not a good way to tax people and takes up far too much time and effort in the administration of it for both government and businesses.

Once you have been taxed on your income, for national spend, the next tax would be local government spend. It should always be made public down to the very last pound, what this money is being spent on. National security is the only area that would be left with an overarching figure that doesn’t go into detail. This will encompass areas such as special forces, Intelligence services and other national security issues. Challengeable only by a random public jury under secrecy, and that it will remain secret unless the democratic majority of the jury find reason to publish. Playouts from any government agency for non-disclosure agreements (gagging orders) would be banned! Inheritance tax would also be banned.
Even pay of senior public servants would be made public. Other taxes such as corporation tax will be maintained until it can be phased into a very low threshold. This will make the UK a very good place to do business. Import and export will be used to make sure our goods and services and getting the best advantage on the market with multi bilateral agreements in place.

Paramount to our fundamental principles that every member agrees with, is the right to have access to our own cash. Only a jury of peers will have the right to take away funds directly from a bank account. This will only happen if proven the person was guilty of a crime involving gaining money through illegal means. Fines levied against an individual for example, will not be allowed to be taken from a bank account directly. For non-payment of fines you would be required to be taken to court.
This is extremely important considering the Canadian government, froze bank accounts of people protesting against them. This can NEVER be allowed to happen here!
We see that for ease considering technology, banks must provide a free card payment service. That card or phone is the predominant use of payments. We also note that cash in both coins and notes should always remain available. Not just for the tooth fairy, but for all the times we may not want or need to use a card.
What we do with out money is our business, and not the business of any form of government unless a jury decides it is illegal. Only the police have a duty to investigate illegal money and the banks should have no responsibility or say in where, what or how much we do with our money.
Our vision is one that allows cash machines to both dispense and collect physical money. To allow anyone who needs a payment card to ask for one in exchange for physical money from any cash machine or card dispensing machine. An example of this would be a homeless person walking into a leisure centre from the street. With £10 worth of coins or even less, be allowed and able to exchange this for a payment card with no name. The card would then be used to pay for access to the leisure facilities for a shower. Or for food at a cashless (card only) vending machine, or anything else. The value would decrease on the card until only £1 remained, when the card would need to be returned for reuse. At this point you could use it to add further funds for the individual, or return the card for a £1 coin return.
We feel this would be a great balance of convenience, security and privacy when it comes to our money.
No bank account information would be allowed to leave any bank without a warrant from a judge, and it could only then go to the police under law for investigation.
Protection from Government when it comes to money is a major requirement that only a few political parties of today value. (28th May 2023)

The right to a bank account. Nobody will be allowed to be refused a named, card standard bank account. This is vital for most people now in society and there is never a good reason to ban someone completely. This doesn’t meant access to overdrafts, loans or any other form of lending. Just a standard, pay in money, pay with card account. For a 100% mortgage, someone with a good income, a family guarantor and an ownership agreement of responsibility for paying the full amount back should anything go wrong, (Such as the property decrease in value and be sold) will have the right to a 100% mortgage. Also as long as they can pay it within their lifetime or have children it would pass to. The rates on these can be high and the money made from areas of banking such as this will go towards providing services such as the card and cash scheme as mentioned above.

Tax thresholds would right now look something like this for us.

We think this would be a fairer table. It would mean more money in peoples pockets who earn less. This is needed right now specifically with a cost of living crisis. It would also entice many more people who choose not to work, to enter the workplace. The incentive for working even a lower rate income is now much higher. The additional workers would make up a lot of the income lost from the rate as it currently is.
Considering the lack of economic migrants in our policy and the major policy change for people living off the state with a large reduction in cost. Some minor calculations, taking a lot of other factors such as the current high requirements for staff at present mean that the income would balance out.

This just shows as a minor example of how divergence in thinking can run a completely different system and make almost every aspect of the majority of peoples life better.

We will set up a 2% extra tax threshold for all tax rates including personal allowance.
Why? This will allow an additional 2% to be taken in tax to pay for things such as economic migrants and any other not strictly necessary initiatives by the government. You may make your name public on a register in order to signal your willingness to assist others. This will also allow everyone to identify the activists who simply wont put their money where their mouth is.

A 100% mortgage with a family payment option over generations, will allow everyone who gets themself into a good position to avoid social and rented housing. This would mean more people owning assets and would give many people different options for the future. It would also potentially mean easier transfers of assets down the family line and that more people would have more money to spend during their lifetime.

Who do we, (The UK) owe all our debt to? £2.5 Trillion
The list includes banks, building societies foreign counties and private businesses and institutions. Primarily it includes pension funds and insurance companies.
It is clear we, the Divergent party need to look into this further, but from what we can see, at least one of the banks is one the UK tax payers bailed out in order to prevent it failing. How can the UK government do that without mass reductions in debt?
It seems to us we are not using the leverage we have to get real benefits for public tax payers.

In conclusion. We are left with many questions. Without moving to socialism, that we clearly don’t want to do! How do we ensure that people are not been unjustly treated and over charged with the people running the systems getting extremely wealthy off the back of it?
Clearly those who work the hardest deserve to do better than those who put in no effort at all. However, the financial conduct authority and organisations like the competition and markets authority, need to do a much better job in making sure people have access to the right sort of banking facilities and that nobody is allowed to gain such a market hold as to produce a market area with no competition.
A real capitalist economy keeps pricing low by being competitive.