Council Tax Support 500% increase in Council Tax - not so supportive

mysterywoman10

pipkin71 wrote: »

Isn't it down to individual councils though?

I mean you could argue that some people are being penalised by having to pay 30% when others are being charge 20.

Some people are being penalised because their council won't reclassify rooms, etc.

Our council also had consultations with regards CTS and this is what was decided.

Yes it is down to individual councils but they are still subject to the law of the land. So they may have to amend their rules!!

Do you really believe they take any notice of "consultations"?! :eek:

pipkin71

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Yes it is down to individual councils but they are still subject to the law of the land. So they may have to amend their rules!!

Do you really believe they take any notice of "consultations"?! :eek:

Yes, I do, particularly as they have [here, to a point].

The law of the land is to leave councils to decide how much they are going to charge and who is exempt, so if one council chooses to exempt x and the other x and y, they are exercising that right as determined by the powers given them via central Government. How then, will one council be legally challenged if they only exempt x but another council exempt x and y?

p00hsticks

Pont wrote: »

Me too!

Cost per use (I use this theory when buying handbags too - have to justify it somehow!). For example 5 adults living in a house are probably going to create 5 times the rubbish, tread the pavements 5 times more, use available facilities 5 times more etc.

At the time (remember the demos well) I thought I was the only one in favour of the Poll Tax - felt rather alone

As I recall it, I think many people were in favour of the Community Charge (poll tax) in principle - it was only when they saw exactly how much they would be expected to pay as individuals that the protests started.

Remember that before that, only those owning property paid rates (obviously landlords would have adjusted rents to allow for rates, but it wasn't obvious in the way that the Counci lTax charges now are), so many weren't used to paying anything at all. And in my area at least, my memory is that the poll tax amount proposed was way higher for two adults that the rates previously charged for a modest terraced house.

So there were very few winners from the change - just those owning mansions who had previously been paying a fortune in rates - as one would expect from a Tory policy - it was designed to shift taxes from the rich to the poor.

mysterywoman10

pipkin71 wrote: »

Yes, I do, particularly as they have [here, to a point].

The law of the land is to leave councils to decide how much they are going to charge and who is exempt, so if one council chooses to exempt x and the other x and y, they are exercising that right as determined by the powers given them via central Government. How then, will one council be legally challenged if they only exempt x but another council exempt x and y?

Because if the Government make a law that is discrimatory then it can be challenged The ruling is clear statutory benefits for disability are not for the purpose of housing costs.

Dunroamin

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Because if the Government make a law that is discrimatory then it can be challenged The ruling is clear statutory benefits for disability are not for the purpose of housing costs.

I can't see how taking more power away from local authorities and centralising it can be a good thing for anyone.

nannytone_2

got the letter yesterday confirming that they are charging 20%, and received the actuak vbill today with a payment schedule.

they want just under £26 a month by 1st october ... so in 7 payments.i thought council tax was paid over 10 months?

mysterywoman10

Dunroamin wrote: »

I can't see how taking more power away from local authorities and centralising it can be a good thing for anyone.

It was already centralised and this doesn't really give them the power to raise Council Tax generally locally all it does is to bring in a complicated local system to do with a statutory benefit. That LA's now have the nightmare of having to administer. I'm not against local power to raise taxes as such but this doesn't do that really.

Which will fail because once again they have not thought through the full implications of it. Council tax is the only debt that you can get to sent to prison for, for starters. The system is very well set up and it kicks in very quickly on non payment. Are they going to sent them all to prison?! It will cost more than it saves.

It's a ridiculous idea that someone on one side of the street with a severe disability or children aged under 6 would not pay and on the other they might have to pay. If the border came down the street like that which it does in many Metropolitan boroughs.

mysterywoman10

nannytone wrote: »

got the letter yesterday confirming that they are charging 20%, and received the actuak vbill today with a payment schedule.

they want just under £26 a month by 1st october ... so in 7 payments.i thought council tax was paid over 10 months?

I thought it could be paid over 10 months Nanny if it is by DD?

Maybe give them a ring and ask them why it is only over 7 payments and not 10 ? Also I think someone said somewhere you could opt for 12 months now?

sammyjammy

I was unemployed for a short time in 1990, I got £32 something a week in unemployment benefit. My mum took £15 and I had to pay my poll tax from it. The rest was for bus fares to and from towns (rural area)

nannytone_2

i'd really rather not pay it over 7 months if possible.
it would mean having to find an extra £82 a month with the reduction in housing benefit.
thats a large anount to find out of £400