"Council" Tip policy?

Page 5 of 6  
snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) writes:

Likewise. I'm more disposed to paying tax than Huge is, of course, but even I baulk at GBP1700pa when it takes all week to get one bin emptied.

There's some good Huntley-related stuff on uk.legal just now.
--
SAm.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2 Dec 2003 13:06:44 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

People get emotional about buses?
Actually, come to think of it, my kids do now that the operator has cancelled a service and they have to walk for 20 mins from the nearest stop; but that's another story.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[21 lines snipped]

Oh, yes. And trains, bicycles and all kinds of other stuff.

Quite. See you there, then?
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2 Dec 2003 13:59:30 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

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.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:29:11 +0000, Mike Mitchell

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 10%+.
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:29:11 +0000, Mike Mitchell

Interesting figures - may I enquire where you got these from?
PoP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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!
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Nov 2003 18:48:27 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

But your house must be REALLY big!
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what? Local taxes are for the provision of services. I pay the taxes, I get no services. And the taxes rise by more than the rate of inflation each and every year.
--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2 Dec 2003 12:33:30 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ukmisc.org.uk (Huge) wrote:

Yeah, but at least the Government is making SOME attempt to match ability to pay to the size of the bill. Stands to reason that those with larger properties are worth more, therefore they should pay more, just like smaller cars are taxed less than larger ones.
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:53:35 +0000, Mike Mitchell

Err no.
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.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Tony Williams.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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).
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wish we had the problems of a Bush/Republican administration. GDP growth 8%(?), interest rates around 1%, low inflation, low taxes, decisions taken in the national interest( steel tariffs, Kyoto) unlike Blair who has his own personal Scottish dream of being president of the Socialist state of the EU, with the UK ( England in particular) being told what to do by Berlin and Paris. The Republicans are in power in California as a result of Democrat politicians(Labour/Liberal) spending infinitely more than the tax revenue could provide (just like the UK?) and the voters deciding that professional power seeking party politicians are a liability and that a degree of reality is required over local taxation(council tax). Regards Capitol
Mike Mitchell wrote in message >Oh, and please don't quote California at me! We are talking soley

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Capitol wrote:

Don't forget it is all financed by huge leverage on a national debt that probably is 30-50 times its GDP. One huge house of cards that might one day come falling down.
SWMBO remarked that all politicains from all ages seem to share one common characteristic, they don't have any common sense, vision, or comprehension of what is really going on.
I cannot argue on that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:03:14 +0000, Mike Mitchell

Err. Point of order Mr Chairman.
Gray Davis is a Democrat.........
Arnie the Governator is tasked with sorting out the mess that he created. Apart from screwing up their energy purchases, he also rode rough shod over a subject close to the hearts of most Californians - their vehicular transport.
While this discussion is not about California, the parallels with Blair's modus operandi are remarkably similar.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
--
Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

Mail john rather than nospam...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:49:54 +0000, John Laird

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.
MM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Simple - no money no access to schools.
--
Alan
mailto:news2me_a snipped-for-privacy@amacleod.clara.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.