| However, those without children will have an expectation that when
| they grow old the state will provide either/both services and/or
| pension in their old age.
I can assure you that I have very little expectation on that front :-(
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
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....
...you've guessed it. A typical Labah Votah.
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
Which is why I am voting Liberal Democrat, as all sensible people will
do at the next election.
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?
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
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!
On 2 Dec 2003 18:33:57 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Huge) wrote:
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 have to disagree.
Income is NOT related to asset value. What the council tax is,
currently, is an asset tax.
Lets say you collect fine art. Your whole life is dedicated to it. Yiu
have a million quids worth of pictures. The government decides that you
should pay 3 grand a year in 'tax' on it.
Lets take the revrse. You are a 'traveller'. You use the roads, you dump
rubbish where it pleases you. You use public toilets, and get free water
from teh council. Your kids attend the local schools, you use the
doctors and hospitals, You are constantly wasting police time, but you
DON'T OWN A HOUSE. So you pay nothing towards any of it.
Provding a deep disconnect between those who pay and those who use, is a
very dangerous ploy. Up to a point we accept a certain amount of it as a
way of reducing the (equally socially dangerous) gap bteween rich and
poor, but to extend it further to asset tax is to actually strike a blow
at the heart of capitalism, the ability to acquire and hold without
penalty capital assets.
We have seen this principle eroded, first by inheritance tax, that means
that no one except the National Trust or a undying corportae body can
own any of the great old houses. Then we had capital gains tax, that
equated the selling of assets with private income. Except strangely in
the case of ones own house...(too many votahs owner occupiers maybe?)
..and now council tax....based on someones estimate of what your house
MIGHT be worth...but if you bought it 60 yars ago, and have no income at
all, the government and council are going to force you to sell it
because you can't afford the rates...
In an ageing population, asset rich and income poor, this is going to be
as disastrous as the Poll Tax was.
Ofcourse, its all fitted in nicely with the Labour ideal of encouraging
class consciousness, and taxcing anyone wioth any visible sign of having
more dosh than the next man, ruinning it throgh teh government coffers,
to both pay off tyeh votahs, and also to ensure that NOTHING gets dine
EXCEPT bty the central government and its petty bureaucratic monions oin
teh councils - and lest face it, which coubncils will NOT get extra
funding, those in safe labour areas (bt low council tax rates) and those
in tory strongholds who it will be argued can squeeze more from their
constituents anyway. No, funds will go strictly to margiunal seats so as
to buy the votes...and teh bandwagon of increase centralisation,
incvreased bureacracy, and ever more of the (dominsihing, because no one
will want to work for money anymore) GDP circulatimng through the
In short, a countyry such as we almost had in teh 60's when anyone
capable of contributing to anything buggered off to work in the states,
helping it to become the No 1 economy in the world. Leaving this country
to languish in strikes, whingeing, and quietly staggering downhill to
the inevitable - Thatcherism.
Its about time teh voters woke up to the fact that neiher of the two
major parties have ANY interest in the population of this country. One
is trying to gain power to enforce a system of government that failed
everywhere it has been tried, and the other is merely concerned with
lining its own pockets and as many of the pockes of as few voters as is
necessary to win the election.
I know I know I know I know I KNOW!!
But ! ! ! ! !
We are where we are. The reason why the public are up in arms about
the council tax is PRIMARILY because of the huge increases.
Of course a fairer system would be possible, but that is not the main
point at issue here right now. The main point is only that pensioners
and other on low incomes cannot AFFORD to pay these excessive
increases. Esoteric arguments about how the actual bands are
calculated or allocated will not change this simple fact at all right
now, though changes in future may well bring about a fairer system
long term. The fact is, the council will be demanding a certain sum of
money and if this is not paid, then the council tax payer is in
Exactly. It is driving the elderly and retired straight into the tory vote.
Or lib dem vote.
Frankly I am not unhappy about that, as Labour seem nearly as corrupt
and seriously more incompetent than the tories, and definitely more
dangerous in their zeal to destroy anything that has worked for
centuries, and replace it with yet more middle management office spik.
'The Office' bears a starling resemblance to the Labour party.
Even in corruption, Tories did tend to hold their hands up and say,
fair cop, guv, when they'd been found out, whereas the Labour lot
never do. They always weasel their way out of any accusation, viz that
awful Margaret Hodge on Question Time last night. Look what it took to
see of Stephen Byers!
This Government is nothing like I imagined a Labour government would
be when I voted Labour in 1997. How the Blairites have totally changed
(and lost) the ethos of the Labour movement. I voted Lib Dem last time
and will do so next.
Thereby guaranteeing Labour another term in office, aided by the votes
of non-taxpaying 16-year olds.
Get real - it was the SDP who kept Mrs T in power for so long (plus the
political suicidal tendencies of Old Labour). If you don't like 'New'
Labour then eat humble pie and vote for the Tories.
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.