Possibly, although this is the classic story of a service which was run hourly through an area where most people have cars and didn't want to use the bus anyway because it took too long and went round the houses to get to anywhere useful. Those that did use the bus did so at morning and evening commute times. Now bus has gone and everyone is complaining. Rather than adjusting the service to match the demand, the operator cancelled it.
I suspect that this is a story that is run on the transport NG as often as IMM mentions combi boilers and heatbanks.
Payment should be based on amount of services used, not on size of property. Why would one assume that the size of one's house is in any way related to ability to pay?
For example, in California, property tax valuation is done when properties change hands. This goes some way towards protecting the older or retired person who wishes to remain where they are.
Anything related to ability to pay should be done via income rather than property ownership which is not a good measure of that.
This is a rubbish argument. Services provided by local councils cannot in any sense be related to the size of your property. But if you really want to stick to it, I would like to campaign to have my local elections vote weighted by the appropriate amount too.
It won't happen is my bet. Reason being that the next general election is due in 2005 (latest 2006), and no government likes to go to the polls with large tax increases just behind them.
More likely is my view that there will be a moderate rise next year, maybe 5%. Then in 2006 when Labour have got back in it'll be back to
But if you added all the expense claims they would come to perhaps 1-2% of what your council spends. When I went to work for RB Kingston in 1975 all the admin and clerical work for a fair sized department was done by one not overly paid clerk and a couple of PT assistants. When I left ten years later, personnel and management services had half a floor, and most of them were on fairly generous salaries by council standards. And, if the mocking of the ads in the Guardian is only half justified, it's got a lot worse since.
But that of course is patently unfair. Capital assets and no income? High council tax.
Low occupancy rate in large house? High tax.
4 kids in council semi, each one generating skads of shit, all being run here there and everywhere in the family cars, all using schools, hospitals, and just about every other council privided facility. bugger all tax.
Poll tax was far fairer. If it had been introduced gradually, it would have been a huge success.
There comes a pont where taxing people who appear to be wealthy (but have no income) and use virtually no resources, whilst letting those who abuse the free systems available for all they are worth, totally skews the market system in favour of....
It was hard. I needed to highlight the crass increases of our local authority in a letter to the county newspaper, so I spent several hours on the internet, collating and cross-referencing the figures I quoted. I can't remember which individual sites I visited, though. Probably the information is in a single publication (on or offline), if one knows where to look!
Oh, I agree that the fairest system of all must be based on one's ability to pay and consumption of services. However, that is not the system we have at the moment. The current system is based purely on size of property, which can only be a ball-park figure and which I freely accept is nonsensical to many residents.
One reason why I support the Lib Dems is that they support a local income tax in place of council tax. Until then, what other instant fix could the Government have come up with? The council tax was all a bit of a panic measure anyway, after the poll tax riots. Although I know that there are many older people living in large houses on a low pension, the unavoidable fact is that their *worth* in goods and chattels must be greater than that of a similar resident in a smaller house. After all, anyone in a large house whose size is no longer needed is free to downsize to a smaller house, realise the capital, and save money by paying less council tax. I agree that it is not ideal, but apart from replacing council tax altogether with a much fairer system, I don't see how the anomalies can be avoided.
Oh, and please don't quote California at me! We are talking soley about the inequities of council tax in Great Britain. Let Arnie sort out whatever mess the Californians have got themselves into by voting Republican. Judging by the run on the dollar, all Americans are in for a roller coaster ride under the Bushies.
At least you like getting to the nub of your point quite quickly! I admire that.
That is not the intention. It's just a case of doing the sums. Faced with a potential civil war over the poll tax the Government had to seek an alternative solution, which was council tax. Given a certain sum of money that a particular local authority needs to provide services, the decision then has to be taken on how to divvy up the amounts paid by individual households. The Government could simply have said, we will divide said sum of money by number of households. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that that would have unleashed, as most people would have seen such an allocation as completely unfair. To avoid as much of the wailing etc as possible, it was therefore decided to allocate properties to valuation bands, since the general feeling was that those who can afford a larger property must be earning more than those who cannot afford a larger property.
Before you write off this approach altogether, bear in mind that all this had to happen *quickly*. In an ideal world, the Government might have taken five or more years to introduce a system whereby all residents would pay only for the services they consumed. This, though, is fraught with its own problems. For instance, imagine a couple living together with two kids, but only people with children pay the "service charge" for local schools. If the couple isn't married, how do you legally force the mother or the father to pay up? You only have to look at the Child Support Agency and all of its problems over the past few years.
I believe there is more than a hint of sarcasm in there somewhere, but I cannot be bothered to find it.
That may well be true. We shall never know. The Government could just have shot poll tax rioters on sight, of course, to prevent London from being razed to the ground. Then they might have gained some wriggle room.
Which is why I am voting Liberal Democrat, as all sensible people will do at the next election.
I didn't say it was good, but I recognise that it is better than nothing. It's no use using hindsight to suggest better ways way back then. We now have now to contend with (if that doesn't sound a bit too much like a Rumsfeld competition entry). The council tax has now become a problem because the increases have been excessive. If council tax rises over the past few years had been at or below inflation (below to indicate how successful authorities had been in getting value for money), then most people would have simply paid up and the general grumbling would have remained at a fairly low hum. However, the current crisis was brought to a head because a number of pensioners quite rightly decided to take a stand and complain about the huge increase in 2002/3, which followed other quite large increases in previous years. Thus the crisis is almost wholly of the Government's making, as are all the other problems it has failed to get to grips with since Blair came to power (and I willingly, though no longer proudly, admit to having been a Labour voter in 1997).
No, it not a false assumption GENERALLY speaking. Taken across the board, you have three choices for deciding how to levy council tax. (1) Everyone pays exactly the same. (2) Smaller properties pay a larger proportion. (3) Larger properties pay a larger proportion. Now, which of those do you think the public at large would be most content with, given that there was no time for any other alternative solution?
The decision taken, number 3, was unfair to some. But both (1) and (2) would have been unfairer to more. In a situation where you have to have both legs amputated, it's not ideal, but you're still better off than the guy next to you who had to have both arms removed as well and could thereafter only feature as a knight in a Monty Python movie.
And why is this? I'm sure you will be dying to tell me!
I think that rates should be based on the total VAT that is paid by all business' in their area (or income tax).
Then the council can't keep keeping themselves in the style to which they have become accustomed... they will have to draw their in belts in the bad times, same as the rest of us. And it will focus their minds wonderfully on making a strong local economy their primary task.
But the LD idea of local income tax may well introduce its own problems. If you are a finance-aware Councillor on the Planning Committee you may decide that you'd much rather see a handful of seriously expensive executive houses built rather than lots of affordable flats for those on modest incomes. And as for sheltered housing for pensioners, no way! If mega-entrepreneur William Doors lets it be known that he'll move out of your Borough if PP for x is granted will you perhaps be influenced?
One of the dafter things that the last Tory government did, although well-intentioned - was the uniform business rates. AIUI all business rates go into one pot and are shared out according to some formula. The net result is that Council Tax payers in entrepreneurial LA's who have worked hard to encourage business investment (e.g. Kingston and Hounslow in this area) get next to no reward, whilst seeing their efforts benefit those who live in areas that are anti-business (e.g. Richmond).
Hmm, this forum could get seriously derailed on this particular topic.
LD isn't on my consideration list for casting votes I'm afraid. They tend to talk too much common sense for them to be politically effective if they held office. Plus they seem to be a party which sees a political opportunity and bases policy on that, rather than have some fundamental urge to impose a political will.
Labour have confused many people with their adoption of the Tory mantle in many areas (...but still tax and spend). Tories have lost the plot entirely since 97, I guess they have found it difficult to oppose many ideas that they themselves would have been proud of. Perhaps Howard will make a difference to that - I certainly hope so!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.