The dreaded Council Tax

margaretclare

jennifernil wrote:

Hi there Margaret, I agree with a lot of what you are saying but.............I just feel that the wishes of a lot of us "wrinklies" are counted as nothing. Why should we feel obliged to move out of our homes that we love?

No reason at all. I simply said that it might be a choice. I didn't say that anyone 'should'.

Why (we are young pensioners with a caravan) should we be made to feel we should drive a little car?

There are those who would say that we - DH and I - shouldn't drive and shouldn't keep our car because some pensioners cannot drive and some cannot afford a car. We can drive, we can afford to keep our car and - as long as we can do both - we intend to carry on as we are.

*** it all! We are going to do as we please, spend our money as we please, and hopefully have enough to last us for as long as we live!!!!!!!!

But you'd prefer not to pay so much council tax, is that right?

Margaret

Mike_S_8

CIS wrote:

- look at it this way - three people share a house and owe £1000 in council Tax: 2 move away without a forwarding address, 1 stays in the area - who are the Council going to chase after ?

So - it's fair and equitable, is it - to hammer the remaining sole resident for all the tax - rather than the one third of the tax for which that person is really liable?

CIS

So - it's fair and equitable, is it - to hammer the remaining sole resident for all the tax - rather than the one third of the tax for which that person is really liable?

Using the rules of joint and severable liability it is

CIS

Quite simply, if council tax was split multiple ways, the amount collected would drop and the costs of recovering it would rocket - net result= higher council tax bill & stronger enforcement or taxes rises elsewhere.

seven-day-weekend

My son and two lodgers share my house in the UK. They are jointly and severally liable for the CT.

This means that they are ALL liable for paying all the tax. It doesn't mean that they are liable for 1/3 each.

So if two disappear, the other one has to pay all the tax. They are not being 'hammered' - they are resposible for paying the tax.

That's the rules.

hodgester

Mike_S wrote:

So - it's fair and equitable, is it - to hammer the remaining sole resident for all the tax - rather than the one third of the tax for which that person is really liable?

if three people live in ahouse and two people leave without paying the gas bill, are the gas company going to say to the one left in the lurch "it's okay, you pay for the 3rd you used, don't worry about the rest" ?

stroll on......:D

EdInvestor

Oh dear.

Big improvement to council pensions

The rate at which pension builds up as a proportion of final salary will increase from 1/80 a year to 1/60.

Most people's pensions are going the other way.
This won't help keep council tax down.

seven-day-weekend

It also says in the article that employees will have to contribute more and therefore will not be a greater burden on the taxpayer.

Mike_S_8

seven-day-weekend wrote:

That's the rules.

Exactly! The rules are written to the disadvantage of the one who is left carrying the can. I don't see how that can be considered to be fair.

seven-day-weekend

Mike_S wrote:

Exactly! The rules are written to the disadvantage of the one who is left carrying the can. I don't see how that can be considered to be fair.

I refer you to the example hodgester gave about the gas bill, a few posts ago. It's the same thing.

Would you rather the 2/3 of unpaid CT (if it was done the way you wanted it) was written off? That would be worse for everybody.