London SE1 community website

Council tax

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Current: 4 of 6
Monday 12 March 2007 11.36am
Well said Jackie and by the way my partner had a Heart Transplant at 34 god knows how much it cost and continues to cost so that puts beingjdc argument completely out the window. Where as, most of those who live in overcrowded accomodation (in my experience)do so to save money.In my block we call it Hot Bedding they all go to work but on different shifts.If ever there was a case for Poll Tax!
Monday 12 March 2007 11.55am
Ros2 wrote:
that puts beingjdc argument completely out the window.

Without wanting to speak for him / her I'm pretty sure beingjdc was not at all suggesting that old people should pay more for the NHS because they use it more. He / she was surely just putting it to Jackie that if she wants to argue that people should pay for services in accordance to how much they use them (as she seems to with the services councils provide and are paid for in part through Coundil Tax) that she should probably be aware of where that argument might take her if applied to other services such as the NHS. I agree with beingjdc - I don't think public services should be paid for by people in proportion to the amount they are used - I think it should be related to people's income and / or wealth and hence their ability to pay.

Obviously reforming the financing of local government is not an easy issue or it wouldn't have cost a Prime Minister's (and possibly a Liberal Democrat leader's!) job or taken a review team at the Treasury many months to consider.
Monday 12 March 2007 12.43pm
At least with the Poll Tax everyone would pay something towards the cost. If means tested allowances could be made for those on low income. What I object to is those who live in overcrowed conditions in order to save on rent and avoid paying any contribution towards local services. I work 2 jobs in order to afford a resonable lifestyle and pay my way.Working every sunday is no fun but hey! it covers the Council Tax Water Rates and TV Licence. On the other hand I could shirk my responbilites not work as hard, become a low income statistic and sit back and let the rest of you pay for me. Happy Days
Monday 12 March 2007 1.31pm
Neil wrote:
Without wanting to speak for him / her I'm pretty sure beingjdc was not at all suggesting that old people should pay more for the NHS because they use it more. He / she was surely just putting it to Jackie that if she wants to argue that people should pay for services in accordance to how much they use them (as she seems to with the services councils provide and are paid for in part through Coundil Tax) that she should probably be aware of where that argument might take her if applied to other services such as the NHS.

Quite, thankyou. If we followed this logic we might just as well abolish tax entirely, and have a toll booth at the entrance to parks.

There's a lot of talk about parks and rubbish bins because they're what people see, but 75% of money disbursed by local councils goes either to schools and children in care, or home help / old people's homes, and I don't use any of those services. Most of the rest either goes on repairing roads (I don't drive) or management of council housing (I rent privately).

I don't demand to opt out of paying for schools because I don't have children, but I rather object to being told I'm not paying enough tax because I live in a shared flat - we don't have enough housing in London as it is, three cheers for rewarding people who use what there is efficiently.
Monday 12 March 2007 1.39pm
The only trouble Ros is with the Poll Tax it was virtually impossible to administer. Southwark has a transient population, and certain families were up in arms about paying it...One funny thing was when people said they were living in overcrowded conditions to obtain a council flat they then had to pay per head for that property, even if they were still at living at home! I think it was one of the most expensive taxes to be collected!
People had to have new bills when they moved..
If the Poll Tax returned I would be quids in!
Jac
Monday 12 March 2007 1.44pm
And heres something else to take into count. Single person households are the most environmentaly unfriendly. Not only do they take up more space per person. They also use proportionately more fuel and water. They have a washing machine, dishwasher, fridge, freezer, TV etc which require energy to produce and impact on the environment when thrown away. They also tend to produce more rubbish per head than larger households (al those ready meals for one!) Just thought I'd my tuppance worth as it looks like I need to post much more often if im going to get into the top 10.
Monday 12 March 2007 8.13pm
No offence, Jac, but that's such a sweeping generalisation!
I will accept that, as a single person, it takes me as much energy to heat my flat and run the fridge as it would take to heat the flat and run the fridge were two or more people living there.
Otherwise, though:
Living in a one-bedroom flat, I only take up more space than two people if they also live in a one-bedroom flat. There are loads of multiple occupancy dwellings with a spare bedroom, however. And a room for the computer ...
I definitely do not use more water than two or more people - there's only one of me having a shower and flushing the loo, and I don't generate much washing up (hence, no dishwasher)!
Likewise, I only run the washing machine when it's full - plenty of my friends living in 2+ people households run their washing machines just about all the time, and never on a full load, especially when they have children.
I have one TV, because I can only watch one TV; again, I know plenty of multiple occupation households with a TV in the lounge and one in every bedroom.
I put out one bag of rubbish a week.
I run all my appliances until they drop dead - no pester power pushing me to upgrade to the next best computer/phone/plasma TV/games console etc. when the 'old' one is only 2 minutes out of the factory! (plus, I'm tight and a bit of a luddite).

What I would say, though, is one of the few things shoring up the UK economy is single people - very few tax breaks and generally putting more into the pot than they take out because they're often self-supporting (they have to be: no-one else will pay the bills) and they don't have kids. My taxes are what makes it possible for lots of families to have a parent at home, either full-time or part-time, when the kids are young. Or for someone to quit their job to look after an elderly relative.

Oh! and I think I only get a 30% discount on the Council Tax for living alone, meaning I pay more Council Tax, proportionately, than a two-person household. In principle, the Poll Tax, as a per capita tax, is fairer than Council Tax. Where it went wrong, if memory serves, is that the Tories didn't get the means testing bit of it right. That, and lots of multiple occupance households realising what a bargain the rates had been!!
Jac
Monday 12 March 2007 9.14pm
McQueen They were not my views just interesting things to think about thrown up by a very interesting programme on radio 4 a few months ago. But you are also making sweeping assumptions. Just because you live in a one bed flat not every single person household does. In fact most live in a 2 bed or bigger hense why the majority of flat built are two bed. I live in a household of 4 have 3 bedrooms not one each so hense less space. Also I didn't say you would use more water than a two people but The average single person hosuehold does use more water per head than those in muiltiple dwellings ditto the amount of rubbish . You state one black bin bag, I put out 1 and half to 2 bags a week for the four of us (plus recycling). so less rubbish per head. So anyway I am in no way saying single households are wrong but there are still some intersting points to consider when weighing the pros and cons of mulitple occupancy vs single occupancy living.
Tuesday 13 March 2007 9.57am
Actually, what I said was "one bag of rubbish a week" - not one black bin bag, one small supermarket carrier bag-sized bag per week.
As to the rest of what you've said, I think it's largely b*llocks, to be frank. However, what is your solution to the "cons" of single occupancy living - make all us singletons share with each other, because we haven't 'done the right thing' for the environment by getting hitched??
Jac
Tuesday 13 March 2007 11.26am
McQueen wrote:
Actually, what I said was "one bag of rubbish a week" - not one black bin bag, one small supermarket carrier bag-sized bag per week.
As to the rest of what you've said, I think it's largely b*llocks, to be frank. However, what is your solution to the "cons" of single occupancy living - make all us singletons share with each other, because we haven't 'done the right thing' for the environment by getting hitched??

Oh come on. I think I have actually made it quite clear that they were not personal views but interesting points rasied in a radio programme that were worth thinking about/discussing. But at no time have I suggested people should get hitched or getting hitched is the only right thing to do. Stop putting words into my mouth.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Current: 4 of 6

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions