Council tax and new ways..........

[Mark]

Council tax and new ways to make you wish you lived somewhere else

(-

[Weatherlawyer]

Rupert Murcoded I somehow think yessss my precious?

[Alan]

Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'. And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

[Jonathan]

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

[John Cartmell]

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates paid by families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this anomaly right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at the edges it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't change it even if the coutry burnt.

Very unlikely. The rateable value took size and amenities into account but hardly 'backing onto a park'. How much was the difference?

[John Cartmell]

It's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps) and stops far too low. The old rateable value was far fairer - and there should not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10 times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.

[Jonathan]

What's not the poll tax? I was just asking WHY people say the complex and archaic rates system is better than the idea of poll tax.

*me confused *

Why? Does a single person living in a tiny house in the "right" area use 10 times as many amenities as a family of 5 in a council estate? Again, no-one's been able to clearly explain that one to me either!

[Andy Hall]

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That seems to me to be the fairest way.

[Brian Sharrock]

At the time, I was a single-working parent with wife and two ankle-snappers to feed, clothe and most expensively shod. One income, one Rates bill. My next-door arriviste neighbours had two working parents plus three adult children ... they had loadsamoney ... used to say 'Oh you must go on holiday to Spain with us .... we love it there!' Five Incomes, one {identical] Rates bill!

Don't regurgitate your 'millbank briefs' about widows and 'only effected the margins' ... what about the working-man that the fat-cat, directorship-grabbing, left-wing-spouting Labour politicians ignored.

The Labour party coordinated a 'Poll Tax' revolt -deliberately forcing amendments into the Bill which ensured that non-payment of 'Community Charge' would not affect delivery of Community services. In fact a totally separate data-base of payers was required; unconnected to electoral roll, library-membership, leisure-facility membership. then fomenting the rent-a-mob of trots. students and others they incited to riot in Parliament Square, until the Government backed down and abolished the poll-tax, replacing a 'personal' charge with a property charge.

Now that they are in power - inter alia;- Labour has outlawed all (non-authorised) protest outside Parliament [from Trafalgar Square to Lambeth Bridge] and are introducing a mandatory ID - which will assure(?) the delivery of Community services! And the latest wheeze is to revalue all property

-anybody want to bet that a 'value code' won't be assigned for 'number of adults resident'-? A poll-tax by stealth?

But; hey! 'I'm a pretty straight forward kind of guy, trust me !" It worked for Robinson, Mandelson, Blunkett, Fields, Mowlam ... they trusted 'im!

[<me9]

When we had our house revalued for rates, after building an extension, the value was solely based on the external dimensions of the property, and it's use. A different value (per sq foot) was used for garages and a higher value for bungalows.

We successfully had ours reduced on appeal, as the IR who did the valuations, hadn't a clue to the actual size of the house.

Much the same with the council tax, they used a mirror image of the plan of our street, so we were valued on the house opposite. We appealed and got it reduced, but I doubt if the people opposite appealed.

I have no sympathy with those in large houses who winge about council tax/rates, They have the capital of the house, If it is too large for them then they should sell up and move somewhere smaller.

[John Cartmell]

Because it's not the Poll Tax! Thatcher poisoned that option and anything is better.

It has always been based on an assumed ability to pay derived from the property value rather than amenity use. Everyone has appreciated that those using most amenties - eg elderly, sick & those with children - aren't the ones who can afford most. property values are a good option and redress the balance a bit for those not paying enough income tax (by fiddling their income) but living in big houses.

[John Cartmell]

Me too.

I hope they correctly got hit with Income Tax. Perhaps we should increase Income tax rates?

Did you get that from the Mail or the Telegraph?

[Snip]

[John Cartmell]

It depends whether you want a society or just individuals.

[Jonathan]

Interesting - so when someone holds a different opinion, it can't be their own?

[Jonathan]

Still don't see how that works out. Sounds like one of those "Communism works in principle" type of arguments.

I see your well made and clearly thought out argument - anyone with a nice house must be fiddling their income, therefore penalise them even more, therefore encourage those that aren't fiddling to think "what's the point" and fiddle anyway?

[Andy Hall]

"Society" is a nebulous thing. The idea of an individual is much more tangible.

That is not to say that those individuals with need should not, in some way be supported by those with the ability to pay. However, I don't think that this needs to entail the massive involvement by central and local government in the affairs of the individual that has increasingly happened in recent years.

I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education and other things that don't need to have state or local government involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as policing and security which probably do need to have central/local government involvement, but really that's about it.

With public sector spending spiralling out of control, it is certainly time for radical surgery.

[Brian Sharrock]

The topic under discussion is _Local Government funding_ . Stick to the topic and don't try your usual diversion tactics. Income tax rates are _not_ being addressed here.

No, but did you get your response of Millbank^WOld Queen St^S or your pager ? How many directorships have Mandelson and Blunkett grabbed?. Once again; Stick to the topic and don't try your usual diversion tactics

[John Cartmell]

Please go and buy yourself a course in basic logic. The links that you have described are entirely yours and have no connection whatsoever with what I wrote.

[Chris Bacon]

The problem is that it's too expensive in many ways, and divisive withing the government system.

Rubbish. Council tax was far fairer, and ought to be brought back as soon as possible.

Pshaw.

[John Cartmell]

Try reading what I replied to and see why I made the comment above.