In the UK what are citizens legally obliged to do (in order to not be fined)
Edited to add an important one that I forgot, because I don't have a TV myself. You need to: That's really about it, unless you're employing people or running a business turning over more than £81,000 per year (or doing one of a number of relatively unlikely things that require specific paperwork, such as owning a horse or farm animal (but not a dog or cat or similar)). It's not a bureaucratic country. None of those things except the driving licence/car tax/MOT test/car insurance will be a police matter if omitted, but you could be fined for them (although it's vanishingly unlikely that you'd be fined for not registering to vote and for jury service). You don't need to understand the law before being on a jury, because it's the judge's job to ensure that the jury understand the law as it relates to the case in front of them. A few pieces of paperwork jargon for you:
I mean its probably not set like that in a cynical sense, though yeah any time its coming from a private company it'll be as expensive as they think people can pay without losing their shit.   ps. things that are supposed to be human rights should just be on up to a certain amount. Obviously you don't want needless waste of resources so it'd be good to have some kind of overage fines. I don't think you understand human rights. Human rights aren't something enforced on someone, they are inherent in a person's humanity. If you don't want to participate in society (pay taxes) and would prefer giving up your citizenship or spending time in jail you can choose to stop paying taxes.   It is also important to realize corporations pay a smaller proportion of US tax revenue than they have since before world war 2. Corporations are not pulling their weight considering the benefits they are granted by the US Government.  Your silly argument against paying taxes because you think people worse off economically then you don't deserve the joy of having a family is depressing. The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of world and people are having on average far fewer children than in the past.  Having a lot of young people is beneficial to the country. The fact their parents are forced to work so much they can't raise their children adequately is a failure of the economy and society, not a personal failure of an individual. Unless you think a poor family in Idaho is responsible for the demise of global capitalism, the financialization of the economy, and the cultural counter revolution against the working class. This might be useful http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/individuals/cash-controls_en As far as I am aware there should be no issues with anything below 10000. But anything after that you have to declare. Aren't we doing something wrong if we must restrict people's financial transactions to be safe?  PS: To clarify: Shouldn't we arrange our lives in such a way that our safety isn't dependent on what financial transactions banks or others engage in? I brought this up to my CPA. She said don't do it. People used to do it, but now they're cracking down. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's the government so don't mess with them. I'm arguing that proclaiming that everyone in a certain area is part of some collective agreement isn't the same as actually having a collective agreement. Therefore, no person has an obligation to pay for it if he/she does not want to be a part of it. And no, they don't have an obligation to take positive action to reject it. With the corruption that goes on in these countries (China, Thailand, Etc), it's difficult for (US-UK) companies to comply with anti-corruption laws and still do business there. These countries demand bribes for permits, use of land etc. and if you don't pay expect to wait for these necessary things indefinetly... Are you suggesting when they break a law involving a small portion of their total business they pay fines involving all portions of their business?  I'm suggesting when they break a law, they pay fines related to the crime comitted. So relating how much their fine was on a tiny portion of their business should not be compared to total quarterly profits, unless those profits were related to the crime. Similar punishment methods to most crimes individuals commit. If you're an American, and willing to give up citizenship, good luck to you.  Otherwise, Uncle Sam still wants his due -- Americans are responsible for paying taxes on income earned anywhere on earth, regardless of their residence. All rules have unintended consequences.  The more complex the ruleset, the more difficult it is to predict the outcome.  The choice is fundamentally to constantly change the rules, and pile rules on top of rules, or simplify the rules and make them more permanent.   If what the MP was suggesting was tax-code simplification in order to reduce the unintended side-effects then I would call this smart.  However adding extra rules and making the tax-code denser and more difficult to follow I believe makes the 'intent' of the law _harder_ to follow, undermining the purpose of creating the new rules. "This page lays down the requirements for an ""unincorporated association"" to pay tax (i.e. any group that's not a registered entity). You pay tax is you make money from: it looks like you don't do any of those, so you don't need to file for taxes. There is another exemption that you don't have to file if it is likely that you would owe less than a hundred pounds taxes, which would also probably apply to you. There are many thousands of clubs and societies in the UK that don't need to register for tax purposes, so you are far from alone. It is probably worth creating an actual club (""Captain Insanity Server Club"") and keeping records of donations and expenses for the server. There isn't any need to legally incorporate or anything like that, though you might try having a separate bank account for it if you can get a free one, so that if the tax authorities ever audit you personally you can show them that the donations you received weren't income to you." If this happens, the solution isn't to force people to use sidewalks. It's to take the approach of London and make crossing at any point legal, and have it be the drivers responsibility to not hit people.  Laws in many cases are better when they reflect reality (and thus ease enforcement) rather than trying to shoehorn something impractical into place. The individual drivers are the ones who should be making the decision as to whether Uber's treatment of them is acceptable.  The notion that you, me, London's mayor, or any other third party should make that decision on their behalf is paternalistic and denies them their [agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28sociology%29).  Edit: hyperlink formatting. "Yes. You do have to pay taxes in the UK as well but it depends on how much you have already been taxed in the US. http://taxaid.org.uk/situations/migrant-workernew-to-the-uk/income-from-abroad-arising-basis-vs-remittance-basis Say, you have to pay 20% tax in the UK for your earnings here. You ARE required to pay the same percentage on your foreign income as well. Now, if your ""home"" country already taxed you at 10% (for the sake of example), then you only need to pay the ""remaining"" 10% in the UK. However, the tax law in the UK does allow you to choose between ""arising"" basis and ""remittance"" basis on your income from the country you are domiciled in. What I have explained above is based on when income ""arises."" But the laws are complicated, and you are almost always better off by paying it on ""arising"" basis." Who runs the courts? Would you have multiple competing courts? Courts usually work on the principle that one party doesn't want to be there; how would that work in a nationless world? What happens when a private enforcement agency gets a monopoly and then wants your stuff?  States work because we have representation, political recourse if there's abuse of the system (in theory).  A 'private enforcement agency' sounds like a fast track to a protection racket.  And also i'd argue that response by the state 100% is what is stopping 99% of people, look at the London 'riots' a few years ago - bunch of kids realized they could get away with it if they all went and looted a place at once, repeatedly happened until the ringleaders got caught or turned in to the authorities.   What right would a private organization have to restrict my freedom in a stateless society? Where does it get the constitutional power? Everything would just devolve into constant warfare between groups - until a single group outperformed the others of course and boom you've got a government again.