Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You don't have to oay any council tax if your property is used as the base for a religious order recognised by the state. Become a monk, turn your house into an abbey and your weekly bin collection is now a freebie.


I am now to be addressed as "Brother David".


;-)

I seem to remember that the Lib dems want to replace the council tax with a local income tax. To me this seems much fairer. If you have 3 wage earners in a house then you contribute more than than a pensioner living on their own. Old people can be left with a "valuble" property but no income. We dont ask the people who live nearer the coast to pay more for the Navy ergo....

iamyamyam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I seem to remember that the Lib dems want to

> replace the council tax with a local income tax.

> To me this seems much fairer. If you have 3 wage

> earners in a house then you contribute more than

> than a pensioner living on their own. Old people

> can be left with a "valuble" property but no

> income. We dont ask the people who live nearer

> the coast to pay more for the Navy ergo....


The problem with the Lib Dem model is that deprived areas / regions generate low revenue as the majority of families tend to be low income. Thus they have less to invest in services that such areas need - good schooling, work generation schemes, strong social support services - which perpetuates the area as a low income / deprived area.


It may be that "poll tax" models are like democracy - the worst form of govrernment except for all the rest.

Couples don't receive a 50% discount.


Also council tax isn't about paying money to receive services. Try ringing pest control if you're a private tenant - it's not available. Like most taxes, it is a bribe from the rich to the poor, to stop them from rising up and killing us.

Following on from CWALD "solutions" -


Scrap income support and provide a universal benefit for every adult. This should be a minimal "living amount". Everyone gets it no matter whether employed or not. This should ease the poverty trap where it is not worth the poorest people working because what they earn is off-set against benefit giving them no incentive to work. Then, if some people were prepared to live on the minimal benefit, so be it. Most people wouldn't. It might help prevent some people getting involved in the black market too.


It would also stop the Authorities having to chase benefit fraudsters. Instead they can go after the real cheats - tax dodgers.


citizen

I don't think anyone's suggesting that landlords pay council tax on their rented accommodation, simply people with two properties, ie one they live in and a holiday home or a pad in town for their own use, should be taxed at the same, or even higher rate.


citizen

The difficulty with the council tax is that, from what I can see, it can't make its mind up. Is it a tax on property or a tax on people? It seems to be a bit of both, which is why I can understand anomalies like the second home thing. You can't be in two places at the same time, so it would be unfair to tax equally on both properties seeing as council tax 'pays for the use of local services', even if the way the tax is worked-out is based on property.


I realise second homeowners are a dirty word in this thread, but it's not like they don't get clobbered with tax anyway (ie stamp duty).


At least you knew what the poll tax was for and why you were paying it (or, er, refusing to pay it as the case may have been ha ha). It's the lack of clarity which makes things difficult.

Personally, if you believe in a system where the better-off contribute more (which I do) then I think the LibDems local income tax idea is probably the fairest system on offer, though I might be less enthusiastic if/when the bill arrived.

I think in theory a local income tax could be a good thing, but it would be the same poor mugs shouldering the tax burden, while the wealthy pay for people to avoid it. I think the nice idea about a property tax, is that it's a bit difficult to hide a house so the owners would just have to cough up.
That's a good point *bob*, it's fine taxing the super rich, but many people are sat on a fortune but still live very basic lives. This country is great at taxing ordinary people to the hilt and offering nothing in return. I know many people who have been forced to sell up their homes because of Inheritance Tax, and it's not nice.

"Our team of experts has decided that Income Tax has not proved popular with the public and will therefore be abolished. It was started in order to finance the Napoleonic war in 1799 and we now believe that the time is right to announce the cessation of hostilities with Napoleon. Some of the money left in the coffers will be used to fill in our part of the Channel Tunnel in case no one has mentioned it to the French. Any remaining money will be strategically placed on a horse at the 3-30 at Haydock Park at odds of at least 12/1 in order to see us through until the next election. Income Tax will be officially replaced by people lending the government a bob or two at the end of the week when we?re a bit skint."


- Official Monster Raving Looney Party Manifesto.


Hopefully this will settle it.

Louisa - many people do unfortunately have to sell their homes or look for ways of financing an IHT bill, but with some fairly simple planning in advance most people can avoid such problems (by most people I mean all but particularly large estates, and even there most liabilities can be avoided).

Alachan - yes indeed.

Perhaps instead of spending zillions of pounds every year printing useless glossy 'advice' sheets (in 22 languages) for things that make no difference to your life, her Maj's government could provide a few genuinely useful tips such as to how to avoid hundreds of thousands of quid going to the taxman.


Oh yeah.. maybe not.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...