Council Tax Reform

ashcarrot

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Those on lower incomes should work harder to earn more thereby reducing the %age.

In a block of 12 houses, my pensioner parents are the only ones paying CT. Yes, they earn enough to pay their way and have the self-respect to have done so all their lives, hence the pension.

It really grits when the benefit grabbing low life around them are the ones who cause the CT to be so high.

I earn more because I work harder/did better at school/got lucky. If earning less meant that I paid less for the things in life, what would be the incentive to earn just enough not to claim benefits?



GG

I agree and also if you do did a local tax wouldn't you leave things open to people want to pay less for other stuff because they can't afford it. someone in a big house uses a slight bit more services than someone in a smaller house obviously people sharing a house pay less but then that encourages people not to want a house each and to share that finite resource

Guy_Montag

macaque wrote: »

Fair comment. One has to do it on a like for like basis but here are some links.

http://press.iod.com/newsdetails.aspx?ref=238&m=2&mi=62&ms=


http://www.onrec.com/content2/news.asp?ID=12540


The harsh reality is that whilst tax has been ballooning, public sector workers have been filling their boots.

Surely there's a difference between public sector directors & the workers themselves.

macaque_2

Guy_Montag wrote: »

generally can we try to keep this on topic rather than disappearing up your own !!!!!! with rants about how awful/lucky public sector employees are. If they get such a good deal become one & stop whinging.

We would all like lower taxes, that's not the point of this discussion, the question was about alternatives to council tax.

This is a touchy subject amongst public sector employees, but it does need to be addressed. Huge quantities of public money are being wasted. If this can be addressed, the problem of high council taxes will resolve itself.

Guy_Montag

macaque wrote: »

This is a touchy subject amongst public sector employees, but it does need to be addressed. Huge quantities of public money are being wasted. If this can be addressed, the problem of high council taxes will resolve itself.

Then start your own thread :P

Andy_L

macaque wrote: »

Fair comment. One has to do it on a like for like basis but here are some links.

http://press.iod.com/newsdetails.aspx?ref=238&m=2&mi=62&ms=


http://www.onrec.com/content2/news.asp?ID=12540


The harsh reality is that whilst tax has been ballooning, public sector workers have been filling their boots.

So that's managing directors and graduate entry schemes. And the article says that engineering has a higher graduate starting salary, somewhat shooting itself in the foot

macaque_2

Andy_L wrote: »

So that's managing directors and graduate entry schemes. And the article says that engineering has a higher graduate starting salary, somewhat shooting itself in the foot

I think this is really quibbling. In one week last year, Isle of Wight council advertised for 11 full time posts with a total salary bill of over £1m. The massive rises in council tax over the past few years have not translated into better services. The money has been swallowed up by pensions and big salary rises for public servants. Here are some examples of public sector salaries for 2006:

Human resources director, Ofcom £210,191.
CE, Manchester City Council £160,000
CE, UK film Council £198,143
Commissioner, Transport for London, £1,146,425
CE, Network rail, £1,027,000
DG, BBC, £619,000
CE, Partnerships UK, £443,000

Tinkering with the tax method is not the solution. The problem is how it is spent.

moonrakerz

macaque wrote: »

Tinkering with the tax method is not the solution. The problem is how it is spent.

Spot on !

All Government, Central or Local is run by a bunch of amateurs. Not one person in the present Cabinet has any experience of running any sort of business whatsoever. Is it surprising that billions of taxpayers money goes down the pan ?

Take a look at the Health Secretary, who is in charge of the NHS which is the largest employer in the UK.
Have a look at her CV/Employment history - no one in industry/commerce would consider employing her to run anything more than a tea stall ! and yet she spends over 100 billion pounds of our money.

I'm not picking on her, just have a look at any Government minister.

It is terrifying - and we are paying for it !

guppy

macaque wrote: »

This is a touchy subject amongst public sector employees, but it does need to be addressed. Huge quantities of public money are being wasted. If this can be addressed, the problem of high council taxes will resolve itself.

Apparently around 40% of staff in the Office for National Statistics earn less than £15,000 a year in London (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3620837.stm) and more than 20,000 staff in the DWP have to claim the same benefits they administer.

So if anyone's bitter about public sector fatcats, its probably that lot. Moonrakerz is entirely right too...I think Michael O'Leary of Ryanair should be in charge of health. That should cut costs.

Anyway, the orginal question Guy posed was far more interesting...so lets not hijack the thread.

Guy_Montag

moonrakerz wrote: »

Spot on !

All Government, Central or Local is run by a bunch of amateurs. Not one person in the present Cabinet has any experience of running any sort of business whatsoever. Is it surprising that billions of taxpayers money goes down the pan ?

Take a look at the Health Secretary, who is in charge of the NHS which is the largest employer in the UK.
Have a look at her CV/Employment history - no one in industry/commerce would consider employing her to run anything more than a tea stall ! and yet she spends over 100 billion pounds of our money.

I'm not picking on her, just have a look at any Government minister.

It is terrifying - and we are paying for it !

Presumably this is the argument why you should pay your top civil servants salaries comparable to what a director of a similar sized company would earn - to attract the finest minds.

I'm not saying this is happening, merely that it's the idea.

To take an example close to me - until lecturers went on strike last year to get better pay after years of trailing against similar jobs*. However, the vice-chancellors of the universities have been getting annual 10+% pay rises for years. So up until that point you could look just at VCs' pay & say "how outrageous university staff have been getting 10+% pay rises for years", when in fact only a tiny minority have, most were getting 2-3%.

*I'm not justifying the strike or the pay settlement merely including it for completeness.

It seems that this govt. have been giving nurses/teachers/lecturers/prison officers a generous pay deal one year (or spread over seveal years), then giving sub-inflationary pay deals in future years.

Edit: err, yes, let's stick to the original question

pickles110564

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

We have income tax for that.

The services that are paid for by council tax should be listed and people should be able to opt in or out of those that can be made optional. then we would get rid of the 'services' that people do not want.

I think it should be based, in part, on the footprint of the property including gardens. For example, a 3 bedroomed bungalow would cost more than a 3 bedroomed town house.



GG

I would opt out of paying for the Police never there when you want them or they bottle out of making any decisions.
If you did it on footprints you would pick on people who from their own hard work/graft keep moving up the ladder and not have any more income than the normal working class citizen