keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Feb 4, 2022 14:15:26 GMT
Council tax rises are not the answer. Having competent managers who can manage departmental spend and ensure efficiency is the way forward. Continuing to tax people to cover up for incompetantance is easy but cannot continue forever. My council tax equates to an eighth if my take home. Potholes, rubbish and poor service does not represent value for money. Yes some councils are more efficient than others, but central govt funding has been savagely cut over the last decade or so and most councils have little room to make more cuts. I suspect you may be unaware how little of your council tax goes to pay for the things you mention. Collecting bins and fixing potholes have been squeezed because councils are obliged by law to pay for both adult and child social care, which are taking an ever-growing slice of their budget. See this article for details: www.newlocal.org.uk/articles/local-government-explained-part-2-what-do-councils-do/BG Spends 25%of what it collects on Council tax support which is 20% of what it spends on social services Of Total Spending 25% is Social Services, 33% is Education, 10% environment ( waste ) 6% is council tax support In real terms of the money I pay the Council £60 is spent paying others bills, and of the total council spending over £300 of my proportion goes on council tax support.
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 630
Likes: 856
|
Post by 09dolphin on Feb 5, 2022 9:07:31 GMT
When I bought my first flat in 1969 we didn't even bother to ask what the council tax was as it miniscule. Haven't times changed.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Feb 5, 2022 15:18:02 GMT
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Feb 5, 2022 23:33:42 GMT
I agree entirely
on my street we have a couple of very nice houses the rest being in this deprived area are band A or B despite 90% being worth over 100K ( And Wales has had a more recent revaluation than England )
I'd say the average household in my street has an income of £20K or so. for a couple the Council tax is £1400 on band A and £1635 or so on a band B
and for a single person £1050 which is a huge percentage of a standard state pension
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 6, 2022 16:15:09 GMT
I agree entirely on my street we have a couple of very nice houses the rest being in this deprived area are band A or B despite 90% being worth over 100K ( And Wales has had a more recent revaluation than England ) I'd say the average household in my street has an income of £20K or so. for a couple the Council tax is £1400 on band A and £1635 or so on a band B and for a single person £1050 which is a huge percentage of a standard state pension £20k is single full-time minimum wage (40hrs @ £9.50 from April = £19,760). Universal Credit brings council tax reductions, as does Pension Credit.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Feb 6, 2022 22:37:15 GMT
Most Jobs round here minimum wage but i'd say 1/3 are pensioners possibly 1/2 of those singles
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 7, 2022 13:03:48 GMT
Look at any 'deprived' area and there's never any shortage of betting offices, lottery ticket/scratch-card counters and fast food outlets.
Presumably there must be more spare cash floating around than we think, or they'd have all gone broke long ago.
Perhaps one thing leads to the other? They used to say that a fool and his money are soon parted and that gambling was the quickest way to the workhouse.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Feb 7, 2022 13:23:40 GMT
Look at any 'deprived' area and there's never any shortage of betting offices, lottery ticket/scratch-card counters and fast food outlets. Presumably there must be more spare cash floating around than we think, or they'd have all gone broke long ago. Perhaps one thing leads to the other? They used to say that a fool and his money are soon parted and that gambling was the quickest way to the workhouse. Unfortunately it does appear to be true, within walking distance I have 4 kebab shops, 2 Indian Take aways, and 3 chinese take aways. Plus a Greggs and 2 Bookies. But in the same radius 3 corner shops a mini supermarket , Iceland and Tesco, and a butcher, and a part time greengrocer we have 2 food banks as well we have no Bakery looking in recycling ( 0urs are open boxes ) so you can see in I think on average 80% of the cardboard is Pizza Boxes, probably 90% of metal and glass is beer tins or bottles, so it is a priorities thing
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 7, 2022 19:51:18 GMT
In common with half his schoolmates in London's East End shortly before WW2, my dad routinely wore no underpants to school beneath his trousers, because they couldn't afford them.
When I was a kid, he would fly into a rage if we dared to disrespect our food in any way, like flicking a pea at a sibling, as kids do. He had known food shortage and hunger. Indeed, his own father had spent a short time at His Majesty's pleasure for doing over his own electric meter, so desperate was he to feed his wife and 7 kids.
The words 'poverty' and 'deprivation' are flung around these days without any real understanding.
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Feb 7, 2022 22:36:53 GMT
My house is Band G due to the street's unfortunate popularity back in 1991. Since then the street has steeply declined in value to the point that were my house to be built now it would fall into Band E. Current system is idiotic.
I'd personally favour a straight property tax - eg. 1% the value of your property annually. Fairest way to do it, none of this 1991 banding nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 7, 2022 23:33:20 GMT
Why should it be based on the value of one's property in the first place? Do residents of expensive homes utilise more council services? I think not. And after all, you've already paid tax on the income used to buy your house. Some people prefer to direct more towards their living arrangements and less towards expensive cars, entertainment and holidays. Why should they be penalised for that? Wouldn't it be fairer linked to one's ability to pay today, i.e. one's income (both earned and unearned)?
Compare with vehicle excise duty ("road tax"). Until quite recently, the vehicle's value never entered into it. The Jaguar driver paid the same as the Ford driver. There was an element of fairness about that and, by and large, people didn't feel too hard done by. Both were using the "services" of the road equally and both were therefore contributing equally.
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Feb 7, 2022 23:43:50 GMT
Income is too easy to fiddle for those with the means.
I think of council tax as more of a wealth tax, in which case house value is fair game.
No, rich households don't necessarily use more services but neither do they use the NHS more or invade other countries more. Unfortunately progressive taxation is generally the price for living in a not totally broken society.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 8, 2022 9:01:02 GMT
Why should it be based on the value of one's property in the first place? Do residents of expensive homes utilise more council services? I think not. And after all, you've already paid tax on the income used to buy your house. Some people prefer to direct more towards their living arrangements and less towards expensive cars, entertainment and holidays. Why should they be penalised for that? Wouldn't it be fairer linked to one's ability to pay today, i.e. one's income (both earned and unearned)? Does income? Number of people in the household does... I wonder if anybody ever considered trying that? But if you look just a LITTLE bit longer-term... Before 1999, all cars paid exactly the same. Rolls Royce or Mini, Jaguar or Ford. Then they introduced an engine-size split, 1100cc. Some Fords would have been cheaper than the Jaguar. Then, in 2001, they introduced CO2 banding for all new cars, and changed the engine size split to 1550cc for older ones. Most Jaguars would have been much more expensive than some Fords. Then, in 2006, they introduced two new higher bandings for all new cars. The highest of those bands is currently £600/year. Those Jags are getting very expensive... In 2016, the average new car was paying £30/year VED - a figure last seen in 1975. And that's why, in 2017, they went back to a flat rate for all new cars... £140, a figure last seen in the early 90s, now £155... Oh, yes, plus the £310/year (now £335) premium for 5yrs for cars with a list price of £40k+. The new Jag you're complaining about is cheaper to tax than a 16yo one now. A 5yo Jag will soon be a quarter of the price of the older one. And, honestly, if somebody is paying £40k+ for a new car, I have no issue in them paying that total of ~£1,600 extra VED... Battery EVs don't even pay a penny of that £40k+ hike, so the bloke whose Jag is a £65k+ iPace? £0... We have a 16yo 1,200cc car that does a genuine 45mpg and is clean enough to be exempt from the London ULEZ. It's £210/year tax. If it was a few years older, and less clean, it would be £40 cheaper. We have a 15mpg car with more or less no emission controls. It's free tax.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Feb 8, 2022 10:26:04 GMT
Go on I'll throw this out because I know I Will get a reaction on both sides.
As part of the waste service they weigh both black bags and recycling and record against the house, then a banded charge is applied depending on total weight of non recycleable waste produced, less an allowance for what is recycled, Yes I know you might get the odd scally dropping waste in neighbours bin or taking the recycling to weigh against theirs.
At the moment we have no financial incentive to recycle.
On my street I could show you 3 or 4 house in the 5 each side an across (so about 20 houses) that never recycle, but always put out 5-6 black bags, on the other hand we have 3 or 4 that put out recycling every week and 1 or 2 black bags.
Another issue is the charges for large items, my council charges £18 to remove a 3 piece suite, I know of councils that charge a lot more, this means when Billy Bob in his old transit van offers the same for £10 people take the lower price, but then it ends up dumped in a layby, up the local mountain track etc. This then costs all the residents as the council then have to clear it.
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Feb 8, 2022 13:17:21 GMT
Why should it be based on the value of one's property in the first place? Do residents of expensive homes utilise more council services? I think not. And after all, you've already paid tax on the income used to buy your house. Some people prefer to direct more towards their living arrangements and less towards expensive cars, entertainment and holidays. Why should they be penalised for that? Wouldn't it be fairer linked to one's ability to pay today, i.e. one's income (both earned and unearned)? Does income? Number of people in the household does... I wonder if anybody ever considered trying that? But if you look just a LITTLE bit longer-term... Before 1999, all cars paid exactly the same. Rolls Royce or Mini, Jaguar or Ford. Then they introduced an engine-size split, 1100cc. Some Fords would have been cheaper than the Jaguar. Then, in 2001, they introduced CO2 banding for all new cars, and changed the engine size split to 1550cc for older ones. Most Jaguars would have been much more expensive than some Fords. Then, in 2006, they introduced two new higher bandings for all new cars. The highest of those bands is currently £600/year. Those Jags are getting very expensive... In 2016, the average new car was paying £30/year VED - a figure last seen in 1975. And that's why, in 2017, they went back to a flat rate for all new cars... £140, a figure last seen in the early 90s, now £155... Oh, yes, plus the £310/year (now £335) premium for 5yrs for cars with a list price of £40k+. The new Jag you're complaining about is cheaper to tax than a 16yo one now. A 5yo Jag will soon be a quarter of the price of the older one. And, honestly, if somebody is paying £40k+ for a new car, I have no issue in them paying that total of ~£1,600 extra VED... Battery EVs don't even pay a penny of that £40k+ hike, so the bloke whose Jag is a £65k+ iPace? £0... We have a 16yo 1,200cc car that does a genuine 45mpg and is clean enough to be exempt from the London ULEZ. It's £210/year tax. If it was a few years older, and less clean, it would be £40 cheaper. We have a 15mpg car with more or less no emission controls. It's free tax. With all this complexity, the anomalies and unfairness inherent, it sounds like the original flat rate across the board was better after all.
|
|