How is someone supposed to live off £72 per week?

[Huevos]

Yep.

The Flip-Side is "Miss Marple Syndrome" whereby a house of substantial value (when sold) is occupied by an elderly widowed person with a small income. The House" is wealthy, but not the Resident.

It's a question of resources. If a single person choose to live in a family house it is a waste of resources and forces up the cost of accomodation for families. So the only fair thing is that person pays the full price for the resources they are wasting.

 

[skomedal]

It's a question of resources. If a single person choose to live in a family house it is a waste of resources and forces up the cost of accomodation for families. So the only fair thing is that person pays the full price for the resources they are wasting.

Your not referring to the unfair "" bedroom tax "" as a wasted resource amongst other things?

Regards

 

[Vipersan]

It's a question of resources. If a single person choose to live in a family house it is a waste of resources and forces up the cost of accomodation for families. So the only fair thing is that person pays the full price for the resources they are wasting.

I'm sorry but on this I cannot hold my tongue..
and if this gets me into an arguement ..so be it.
Are you suggesting that me living in my own house alone ..that I worked hard for and paid for thus leaving my meagre wealth such as it is... tied up in bricks and mortar..are by definition wasting resources..
Granted I am now having to subsist ..
through no fault of my own.
a) due to my state of health..and
b) due to my skills being surplus to requirements in this throw away world..
..and as such should go live in a hole in the ground because I don't have a family ???
I don't see myself as a waste of resources ..
You may disagree..but I believe I have earned the right to exist...
I've paid my dues ..and don't think I should have to pay AGAIN to subsidise those who haven't.

 

[Lazarus]

A great many people live in a house that truly becomes a home. The emotional issues that sit alongside that are hard to discount. Whatever the reasons that property value became the key factor in determining Domestic Rates (and regardless of the way the structure has been tinkered with to no particular lasting avail) it is still a fact that Local Authority Services are consumed in proportion to the number of consumers. A radical change is needed to sever the link to bricks and mortar.

Local Income Tax is about the only good idea the LibDems have espoused but I cannot see it ever being implemented unless Mad Vince becomes PM (And that has so many downsides ...............)

 

[bim]

Years ago I used to tell everyone the UK economy is based entirely on house prices. They keep increasing, people think they are wealthy until it comes to the crunch. You only have to look at prices of houses across europe to see how inflated they are in the UK.
We remember when Maggie introduced the poll tax. As we only had one child and neighbouring houses had four children all working before the poll tax we paid the same as them. I used to say to them you put out four times as much rubbish to be collected and use four times more amenities; why shouldn't you pay more as we are all paying for a service. If you see three sat dishes for sale at different shops, same product, three different prices - which would you choose?

 

[Huevos]

Are you suggesting that me living in my own house alone ..that I worked hard for and paid for thus leaving my meagre wealth such as it is... tied up in bricks and mortar..are by definition wasting resources..

Not going to comment on anyone's personal situation. The way I see it benefits are an emergency last resort for people that are living hand to mouth. As far as I see it if a person has assets they shouldn't be able to claim any benefits in any form including council tax reductions, especially automatically without any means testing. The whole idea is plain wrong. The extreme case is a multimillionaire living in a 10 million pound house, but single. Should this person really be paying less towards the collective than his neighbours?

 

[Vipersan]

The extreme case is a multimillionaire living in a 10 million pound house, but single. Should this person really be paying less towards the collective than his neighbours?

At last ...something we can agree on ...but in a case such as the one you outlined ...the SYSTEM is clearly at fault .
We don't make the rules ...our _so called_elected representatives do.
..and more often than not ..the very guys who can afford 10 million pound houses.

But then you have the other ridiculous extreme whereby a family moves into a mansion on benefits and all paid for by the tax payer..
where's the balance..?

..and since you brought it up I might also ask a similar question..
where you are the more children you have (your choice) ...the less you pay in council tax ..
So I ask 'Should these people really be paying less towards the collective than their single neighbours?'

 

[Huevos]

where you are the more children you have (your choice) ...the less you pay in council tax ..

Should these people really be paying less towards the collective than their single neighbours?

Having a child is a huge contribution to the collective and a very expensive one, far bigger than any petty council tax offset.

 

[2cvbloke]

Ah discussions of state benefits, they're always concise and logical...

I'm 28, almost 29, I'm on ESA, I live with my mother cos I can't afford to even think of living alone again (I did when I was working, before my sleep disorder coupled with chronic depression took over my life), plus any housing I look at is often tailored for multi-occupancy, and therefore more expensive to run from my point of view, I'm single and don't have (or plan to have) kids of my own, therefore I'm not allowed to have a decent, private and personal home of my own cos I don't live up to everyone else's standards of having a partner and kids, at least that's the impression I get from reading some of these comments...

If people want to live alone and/or choose not to have children, they should not be persecuted because of it financially, as it makes it feel very much like discrimination, and last time I checked, discrimination is wrong...

Having a child is a huge contribution to the collective and a very expensive one, far bigger than any petty council tax offset.

Does that include children in "breeder families"? You know the sort, the ones who get knocked up just so they have children to claim child benefit and a big council house to boot and never even work a day in their life, and those kids end up having so many more kids of their own that do the same and therefore create a bigger drain on the taxpayer, and thus those of us who don't want to have kids end up suffering because of those greedy people who leech off the state...

Though I do recall hearing about changes to child benefit to try and curb these breeders, something along the lines of paying full CB to the first child, half to the 2nd, and feck all to the third and subsequent children, so making it financially unappealing to have so many unnecessary children...

 

[Huevos]

If people want to live alone and/or choose not to have children, they should not be persecuted because of it financially, as it makes it feel very much like discrimination, and last time I checked, discrimination is wrong...

The discrimination card.

Does that include children in "breeder families"? You know the sort, the ones who get knocked up just so they have children to claim child benefit and a big council house to boot and never even work a day in their life, and those kids end up having so many more kids of their own that do the same and therefore create a bigger drain on the taxpayer, and thus those of us who don't want to have kids end up suffering because of those greedy people who leech off the state...

Though I do recall hearing about changes to child benefit to try and curb these breeders, something along the lines of paying full CB to the first child, half to the 2nd, and feck all to the third and subsequent children, so making it financially unappealing to have so many unnecessary children...

That is a factor of a badly thought out and implemented benefit system, and nothing to do with larger families. Larger families are just as affected by these parasitic people as non-parents are. Anyway there are plenty of non-parents on benefits too, sucking up resources.

 

[Vipersan]

Anyway there are plenty of non-parents on benefits too, sucking up resources.

..But sucking up less resources..

anyway

To bring this full circle and back to my original gripe..
My neighbour and friend Deb ..is married and sterilised ...her husband has had the snip also..their choice ..
Obviously they don't want children ...not everyone does.
but both of them work ....thus 2 wages coming in..
They live in the same sized house as me ...as do the singletons sharing accommodation at my other neighbours house..
4 wages coming in ..
So ..in house A the council tax is split between 2
in house B split between 4 ..
In house C ..that's me ...All of it with a 25% subsidy ...soon to be 20% ..and you think this is fair..??

No kids in this equation at all ..House A B or C

as 2CV has said already ..
I see that as discrimination...
and that's my last word on it ..as I've hijacked this thread long enough

The ONLY fair way is as Tivu suggested the whole amount divided up Per Capita between all working age individuals ..
and I include pensioners in that calc as well as those receiving benefits..

VS

..just thought of one more relevant point..
I own my home outright ...but have no children and have no intention of starting a family at 57 years old..
I have not made out a will and do not intend to ..
I wont live forever _sadly_ ..and when I die the state will claim my house ..and they can do what the hell they like with it ..
I wont care ..cos I'll be dead..
Doesn't that count as giving back to the collective ???

 

[Huevos]

None of these arguments hold water because it is the asset that the tax is due on, not the individual. Tax on the individual is income tax.

 

[Vipersan]

None of these arguments hold water because it is the asset that the tax is due on, not the individual. Tax on the individual is income tax.

...and therin lies the problem ...council tax SHOULD be levied on the individual NOT the asset ..
My house doesn't use council services ..I DO..
My house doesn't care if the street is lit ..or the bins emptied ..
but I DO..
I vote for the local councillors ..
Strangely my House cannot vote..but I CAN.

I paid tax on the house when I bought it ..why then should I keep on paying tax on it ..
Taken to the extreme ..
That sandwich you had for lunch ..that you bought and paid tax on ..?
perhaps you should pay tax on it every year as constituents of it remain in your system as you grow older.

 

[Huevos]

Any form of fixed rate capitation tax is just a way for rich people to pay a much smaller proportion of their income than low earners. They've tried to introduce them into Britain 3 times in the last 1000 years and each time was a complete failure.

 

[sonnetpete]

Any form of fixed rate capitation tax

Seem to remember the French bringing in a de-capitation tax.........

 

[Vipersan]

Any form of fixed rate capitation tax is just a way for rich people to pay a much smaller proportion of their income than low earners. They've tried to introduce them into Britain 3 times in the last 1000 years and each time was a complete failure.

...and yet I too suffer ...
I am NOT RICH ..
I AM a low earner..
The current system is crap and unfair ..and hurts me more than a capita system would.
..and I suspect I'm not alone in this .
I agree the current system may suit the rich (often the ones making the rules) ..but that doesn't make it fair. does it. ?

 

[Huevos]

I am NOT RICH ..
I AM a low earner..

You may not realize it but if you own your own home outright you are the rich. Your argument is a bit like Bill gates saying he is poor because he doesn't have his billions to hand in cash. If you chose to you could soon convert your assets to currency.

 

[Vipersan]

You may not realize it but if you own your own home outright you are the rich. Your argument is a bit like Bill gates saying he is poor because he doesn't have his billions to hand in cash. If you chose to you could soon convert your assets to currency.

Absolutely Pathetic..!!
Owning bricks and mortar isn't money in the bank ..
Maybe if you owned more than one ..your arguement would hold water.
The prices are grossly inflated well above what they are actually worth ..and short of selling it and living in a cardboard box ..I will NEVER realise it's value..
Everyone gotta live somewhere..

..it is exactly that 'mindset' that played the biggest part in the collapse of the global economy ...


..and with that I will enter into no further discourse on this subject with you ..
It was only a matter of time before you played that most stupid of cards..

 

[Huevos]

Owning bricks and mortar isn't money in the bank ..

No, it's money in bricks and mortar, but it is still money.

..it is exactly that 'mindset' that played the biggest part in the collapse of the global economy ...

No, that was caused by people borrowing more money than they had any hope of paying back.

 

[Mickha]

Time to close this thread as it's gone way off subject, as it always does