Petition Tag - enterprise

There are currently 5 unemployed people per vacancy in the UK: around 2.5 million unemployed, of whom around 1.5 million claim Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and only half a million vacancies. (Source: Office for National Statistics)

What if the 4 out of 5 who will never fill the existing vacancies could instead create their own jobs?

This proposal is based on a simple principle: "Use what we have, to do what we most want in our communities." (www.londoncreativelabs.com)

We envisage Jobcreator's Allowance as an optional alternative to JSA. Claimants will receive an equal amount of money, but instead of being required to show evidence of job search, they will participate in a job creation programme supported by a combination of peers and experts.

The programme will be carefully designed and tested to ensure it reliably generates job opportunities and sustainable business structures. One model already being prototyped is London Creative Labs' process of Skills Camps and Social Startup Labs: www.londoncreativelabs.com

The idea for this petition was developed by a group of 5 people (Hannah Lewis, Eric Donovan, Lana Lim, Ed Whyman and Al Mead) at a Social Startup Lab on 15 June (http://socialstartuplabs-1.eventbrite.com/).

If you wish to contribute to developing the proposal for Jobcreator's Allowance, please join us on:

- London Creative Labs: http://grou.ps/londoncreativelabs/groups/45685

- facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jobcreators-Allowance/123437034364378

View petition

This submission relies heavily on the Richard Report "Small Business and Government" to the Conservative Party of May 2008 (http://www.bl.uk/bipc/pdfs/richardreport2008.pdf)

The signatories agree wholeheartedly with the broad conclusions and recommendations of the Richard Report.

The following specific detailed suggestions could, in the signatories' opinions, be usefully added to government policy:

1. Open up the Enterprise Investment Scheme

The problem:
EIS Relief, while broadly excellent, has four main drawbacks:

It is not available to existing Directors of the investee company
It is restricted to ordinary shares
It is restricted to higher rate tax
It is relatively complex to administer

Solution:
Extend the scheme to
non-executive directors whether or not they already hold office.
genuine third party risk money, regardless of 'type' of investment: loans of greater than three years, preference shares, convertible loans.
to full tax relief. Not many basic rate taxpayers will wish to take advantage, but why not if they have the means? It will increase the gearing on the investment from the investor's perspective from 1 in 4 to 2 in 3.

Simplify the administration by
making the investor responsible through his tax return,
subject to penalty for wrongful claiming.
making the rules and exclusions simpler
Retain certain non-qualifying businesses
(property, financial services, investment and so forth)
and geographical and trade limitations
(must be UK domiciled with UK domiciled shareholders)
but otherwise de-restrict so as to facilitate taxpayer compliance and reduce administration costs

2. Develop the Research and Development tax credits

The Problem:
R&D tax credits are broadly very welcome but:

They do nothing to assist start-up research for new businesses which are (almost by definition) non corporation tax and non PAYE payers.
They fail to reflect the considerable risk taken by start up businesses, despite the very significant future benefits to the economy brought by successes.

The Solution:
Create a new system whereby
Loans against future tax credits: Create longer term commercial loans which can be granted to SMEs against future R&D tax credits (so the loan can be repaid from the tax credit when the company begins to pay tax); such loans to be underwritten by the government, hence written off in the event of company failure.
Matched funding: Private third party investment into qualifying SME R&D is matched by government, whether or not the investment already carries EIS relief. The qualifying utilisation of the matched funds should be guaranteed by the investor: if audit proves that the funds were not spent on a qualifying purpose, he has to repay the matching through the tax system.

Create new definitions of 'qualifying R&D'
technology, engineering, environment etc?
or create exclusions (sales methodology, administration, training)

This will allow early stage research to be very significantly funded by the government, but it will only follow market forces and third party investment, and policed through the existing administration of HMRC.

3. Change the Enterprise Loan Guarantee Scheme to be less asset based

The Problem:
EFG is simply not working as bankers will only provide loans against assets and small companies simply don’t have suitable security.

The Solution:
Government should underwrite the major part of each individual loan, with
lenders taking a small share of the risk to ensure sensible lending.

4. Create a 'Stock Exchange' for Innovation

Problem:
The chronic waste, and/or leakage, of 'British Inventiveness' which is an inevitable consequence of the traditional avenues of commercialisation open to Inventors.

Solution:
The microFunding secure internet marketplace where Big Business, SMEs and individuals can match 'Technical/Business Requirement' with 'Innovation/Invention' with 'Business skills' and with early stage 'Investment'.

5. Channel subsidy through qualified Business Advisors

The Problem
At present small sums of money are made available through a management and leadership grant. This is an effort by the government to “second guess” what small business needs. This leads to curious abuses for little direct impact

The Solution
Create a qualification/recognise existing qualifications that enable the government to ensure that business advice is provided by those with the appropriate experience.
Enable the qualified advisors to apply for appropriate levels of subsidy to meet the needs generated by Small Business.


These changes, especially if coupled with the above funding initiatives, will encourage and permit the creation of a customer-led enterprise state.

It will be market-driven, efficient, responsive and effective;

And it will not cost a King's Ransom to achieve.

View petition

On September 1998, Donald Kowalski a young man of 22yrs of age with a drug problem committed several B&E's. When his friend was arrested on an unrelated crime he admitted to a number of B&E's in the surrounding area. He implicated Don to save his own skin. He served ONLY 2-1/2 years on the same Conducting a Criminal Enterprise (CCE) charge and now he is on the run for several more crimes.

Instead of charging Don with only the crimes they had evidence of, they charged him under the RICO act, of(CCE)and combined all the charges into one. The problem: every B&E in a 14 county radius was thrown in, thus 50 cases were closed, the detectives basically patted each others back and closed their case load. Under the RICO law it says: #1 Proceeds of a crime are being used in some manner to run a business that continues criminal activity. #2 The criminal activity affects either interstate or foreign commerce, thus a federal crime. #3 The proceeds of such activity can be seized to compensate victims. Donald was unemployed owned no business or property and the crimes all occurred in the Eastern part of Michigan. Don's criminal activity did not meet the statutes as set forth by the RICO act.

However, a scared young man accepted a plea not realizing at the time the ramifications and not having competent counsel to make an informed decision. Before taking the plea he had not been informed that because he had 2 priors of UDAA and B&E at he age of 16, which they held it over until he turned 17 and tried him as an adult from 4 years previously that he would be charged as a habitual offender. Thus he was sentenced to a 20yr minimum and 40yr maximum. A single count of B&E carries up to 10 years. Run concurrently, even 14 counts, he would have maxed out over a year ago. Don has served over 11yrs now.

Since Donald's imprisonment he has achieved high honors in all his course studies, obtained his GED, Certificate of Completion for Substance Abuse, Narcotics Anonymous, Degree in Agriculture, Certification for Ordained Ministry, S.L.F Course for Owning and Operating a Business and Perfect Attendance.

I have researched many cases by far are worse than his. Such as: 2nd degree murder, out in ten yrs. 6 counts of embezzlement, served 3-1/2yrs. and 4 counts of criminal sexual conduct, served 8 yrs. 2 counts 1st degree home invasion, 2 counts safecracking, unarmed robbery, served only 5 years.
Heres an example:
www.state.mi.us/mdoc/asp/otis2profile.asp?mdocNumber=450831

In addition, Donald has secured an offer of employment and a place of residence. Donald has been rehabilitated and has come to the point where release is the best alternative. His sentencing was severe, especially for a non-violent offender with only two priors as a juvenile. It is time for Donald to come home, his wishes are to be with his son and family. We are requesting your support.

View petition

I am trying to get as many names as possible to help get UPN and the Enterprise producers to not cancel the show. Thanks for helping!

View petition

Recently, UPN and Paramount have cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise. Endinig it on may 13 2005. Supposely saying that there is low ratings towards the show.

Well there wrong and it's about time fans stand up and tell them "we want Star Trek" so we can save Star Trek for the 5th season and so on.

View petition

We, the undersigned, were dissapointed by the theme music used in the "Broken Bow" pilot episode to the your new Star Trek: Enterprise series, and would ask you to please consider changing the music in future episodes.

View petition