Council Tax Help

irnbru_2

steve_cov wrote:

Older Money Savers will remember there was an attempt to reform local taxation: it was called the Community Charge but rapidly became known as the Poll Tax.

That's what it was - a poll tax.

steve_cov

mac123 wrote:

So when you do have kids and they go to school, you'll probably be the first to moan that the school's not up to scratch

Seeing as I'm gay, unlikely.

mac123 wrote:

Oh yeah, and i suppose if you get burgled or your house catches fire, you obviously won't want a response from the emergency services?? Thought so.

The fire and police precepts are listed quite separately from the local authority element. It is well known that burglary and fire risks are not spread evenly across all areas - so in fact, there's an element of subsidy here too. That said, I don't object to paying more than an actuary would require me to pay for the actual level of risk involved, as it saves people's lives.

Gorgeous_George

Poll tax was awful and Council Tax is much better.

The problem isn't so much how the tax is collected but the amount that's collected. Local councils spend far too much far too easily.

Instead of beating up the methods, vote out the wasters. Make the first question you ask the canvassers 'How will Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms X reduce my Council Tax bill?' If the answer is to rip somebody else off, that's the wrong answer.



GG

I'mcomingbackasaman

Gorgeous_George wrote:

.
Instead of beating up the methods, vote out the wasters. Make the first question you ask the canvassers 'How will Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms X reduce my Council Tax bill?' If the answer is to rip somebody else off, that's the wrong answer.:) GG

Easier said than done voting out the wasters. What they say and what they do are 2 different things and we very often find out the truth once they're elected.

robindunne1

mishkanorman wrote:

I think the reason for the discount is because if only one person is making use of the facilities the council have to maintain, ie rubbish collection, its in theory costing less and the saving is passed on.

Being a stay at home mum is a matter of choice and not the same as being a student who cannot work due to study.

im sure a lot of people feel they shouldnt have to pay for council tax but if things like street lighting and verges, (things we make use of everyday without even thinking about it ) arent paid for by means of council tax how should they be covered ?? There really isnt a simpler way to make sure we all live in a maintained 'communal' space.

please feel free to correct me if ive missed the point of this tax,


mishka

Surely being a student is a matter of choice too - as also many (not all) of the other exemptions. When I was a student I worked 20 hours a week too and managed to get a good degree. If we had no kids and my wife decided to sign on then we'd get the discount, if she robbed a bank and went in prison we'd get the discount.

If this is a tax not based on income why do so many people get the discount becuase they fit into a catergory with a low income. Absurd to me.

Should be simple and factored into the PAYE system. The council get most of their money from government grants anyway, why not scrap the tax and then get all their money from central government.

robindunne1

steve_cov wrote:

As a single, childless person in my own home, I use the following services paid for out of council tax:

• Bin collection (but only once per fortnight: I don't produce enough rubbish to bother every week!)
• Recycling collection (sorted by me, also fortnightly)
• Roads (when actually maintained)
• Streetlighting
• Polling station

The ludicrous local income tax suggested by the Lib Dems would cost me nearly £1600 a year for these meagre services, more than double their current cost to me. Over £130 a month for two bin collections and some potholed roads seems a bit steep to me.

I am quite happy to pay at present, even though I never use the libraries, schools, leisure centres, golf courses and so on. I see their social benefit, but I would baulk at being asked to double my contribution for no additional use.

There is no redistributive aspect to local taxation - and neither should there be - and I always wonder at the motives of people who think local services should be funded "according to ability to pay". Perversely, I would be happy to pay more income tax - but only for social security, health and transport services, not to subsidise local services I never use.

Older Money Savers will remember there was an attempt to reform local taxation: it was called the Community Charge but rapidly became known as the Poll Tax.

Either you earn a lot or the Lib Dem plan was ill thought out. The vast majority of council spend goes on a minority of people - so pay as you use would suit the majority of us, but probably leave a lot of vulnerable people on the street.

Surely the debate is not how it is spent, but how it is collected.

The state does look after those less well off, but to such an extent that the quality of life for those on benefits can out stretch those not on benefits. The council tax system (and other benefits) does not promote a husband and wife living together and supporting their own family totally out of their own pocket. Instead allowances and tax breaks are given to the extent that it would be beneficial for us to get divorced, live apart and move into a council house - whilst living the high life spending the equity we earned on the house.

My mother in law did that and lives an easy life. Husband is a full time student and gets 12k bursary as well as all the other bits and pieces that go along with it (including the 25% discount) and full tax cresdits for 3 kids. This leaves them with more disposable income than me and I work hard for a living.

It does anger me when I think how I was nearly killing myself to look after my young family simply because I work for a living and have to pay a mortgage.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Surely the point about council tax, poll tax as was, rates in the distant past, is that the money makes services available for those who need them when they need them? We all need our bins emptied, streets lit etc but won't using older peoples services until we need them - but we'll be damn glad they are there the second we do need them. The same applies to libraries, swimming pools, football pitches - the list is endless.
The state does helps those on low income with council tax benefits - a great improvement on no available help for anyone for the rates.
Perhaps tax of any description is inherently unfair, there will always be winners and losers. I think that's called democracy.

steve_cov wrote:

As a single, childless person in my own home, I use the following services paid for out of council tax:

• Bin collection (but only once per fortnight: I don't produce enough rubbish to bother every week!)
• Recycling collection (sorted by me, also fortnightly)
• Roads (when actually maintained)
• Streetlighting
• Polling station

The ludicrous local income tax suggested by the Lib Dems would cost me nearly £1600 a year for these meagre services, more than double their current cost to me. Over £130 a month for two bin collections and some potholed roads seems a bit steep to me.

I am quite happy to pay at present, even though I never use the libraries, schools, leisure centres, golf courses and so on. I see their social benefit, but I would baulk at being asked to double my contribution for no additional use.

There is no redistributive aspect to local taxation - and neither should there be - and I always wonder at the motives of people who think local services should be funded "according to ability to pay". Perversely, I would be happy to pay more income tax - but only for social security, health and transport services, not to subsidise local services I never use.

Older Money Savers will remember there was an attempt to reform local taxation: it was called the Community Charge but rapidly became known as the Poll Tax.

I'mcomingbackasaman

Dora_the_Explorer wrote:

Surely the point about council tax, poll tax as was, rates in the distant past, is that the money makes services available for those who need them when they need them? We all need our bins emptied, streets lit etc but won't using older peoples services until we need them - but we'll be damn glad they are there the second we do need them. The same applies to libraries, swimming pools, football pitches - the list is endless.
The state does helps those on low income with council tax benefits - a great improvement on no available help for anyone for the rates.
Perhaps tax of any description is inherently unfair, there will always be winners and losers. I think that's called democracy.

---

sa

I resisted paying the Community Charge in 1993, I was unemployed at the time and could hardly afford to pay the essentials ie. roof over my head, gas/electricity, food. I made an arrangement to pay but ended up in arrears,they gave me a payment card and I was paying £10 a fortnight out of my Income Support which I couldn't afford but had to. A year later I ended up working for the Council yes, in the Council Tax dept. building. I had to pay it an awful lot quicker when they found out I was paying a couple of pounds a week on a payment card for the old Community Charge. My point is not all unemployed people are getting theirs paid for them

littlejaffa

Council tax is based on the value of your property, It's been around long enough that most of us would have known the cost of council tax before buying/renting so your incomes not really the issue, if you can't afford live in the house, don't.

I say all this and i'm paying the highest council tax in scotland.

Also the reason stay at home mums (when living with partner) should have to pay council tax is they benifit from all the goodies it pays for. Two people benifiting (and their children) should not be charged the same as their single next door neighbour.