Council tax banding

Mick,
I take it you, as well as some other contributors to this thread, are prepared to pay for everything as 'you' need to use it then?

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
This is meant to be a UNITED Kingdom.

So why didn't Jabba give us an English Assembly?

Was it asked for ?

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Was it asked for ?

!!!Who knows???

Did Scotland ask for theirs?

Jesting aside - these assemblies strike me as yet another, and very expensive, layer of government and for what real purpose?

quote:

Mick,
I take it you, as well as some other contributors to this thread, are prepared to pay for everything as 'you' need to use it then?

andy c!

Andy

The answer to that is yes.

If I use it I expect to pay but I do not expect non users to subsidise it.

I think Libraries are a good case in point. If you want information, you can use the internet. If you want to read fiction go to WH Smith. There is no longer a need to subsidise the things. However if the choice is to retain them, make a charge every time a book is borrowed.

Regards

Mick

Interesting topic. For the record, we're band E and our all-in bill (inc. water) is £1700+ for 05/06. Scandalous. And they don't even supply us with black bin bags no more...

John

quote:

Andy

The answer to that is yes.

Mick,

I respect your point of view, but I don't agree with it.

Not everyone can afford to pay what things would actually cost if that system was put in place...

That does not necessarily make them bad people, does it?

Provided I get VFM for what I actually contribute towards, then I don't mind paying for it. I guess thats what comes from working in the public sector...

And it's very easy to adopt the situ whereby 'I'm not going to need it so I won't pay for it'...

If i have misunderstood what you are getting at then I'm sorry...

andy c!

PS i can Just see it: " hello, police, I have been burgled - sir, for a full investigation which will comply with the requirement of your ins co that will be **** pounds - "er, i can't afford that" - ah, sorry, we won't be attending then, we'll be going to the one that can afford to pay!. phone line goes dead...

Whatever happened to concepts like "for the commong good" and "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs"?

I have no children and no prospect of any either - but I don't mind paying taxes to educate the children of others. After all, other people paid via their taxes for me to be educated.

Services such as leisure centres and libraries are provided for the benefit of all - subsidised in the hope of providing a means of cheap(er) exercise and knowledge for everyone. With the increasing lardification and chavvification of society, we should be pushing public facilities like these more and more. Not everyone can afford to pay £30/40/50 per month to private sports clubs, nor would they necessarily want to.

If everyone pays for services as they use them, then don't we just risk creating an even poorer, less healthy and underprivelidged sub-class of society who can't afford to use these services? And won't society as a whole become worse off as a result?

I accept the means of determining "from each according to his means" is always going to be a difficult one - a per capita payment such as the poll tax had its downside, and linking council tax to property value is a crude way off assessing wealth and income. Perhaps a local income tax is a fairer way of paying - though no doubt with an added admin cost.

Food for though before pulling up the drawbridge and announcing "I'm alright Jack" perhaps?

Steve.

Steve,
good points well put...

e.g. how much of the car tax we pay actually goes on road development etc?

andy c!

Chaps

I am not for one minute suggesting police or ambulance or education services should be made available on a pay as you go basis.

What I am saying is that local taxation is increasing far too high and the expenditure made locally needs to be reviewed.

Every local authority pays for too many liesure activities which are avaliable privately.

Swimming pools are a good example, nearly every gymnasium and hotel has one so if you want to use a big municipal one, expect to pay for the privelage. The rate payer should not need to fund it.

I would estimate that 25% of the jobs in the local newspapers are for town hall staff. We should be sacking not employing.

How many daft committees catering for the 3 legged black lesbian brigade are propped up by the local authorities,..... hundreds.

It you are not prepared to make the cuts, you have to be prepared to pay the taxes. It is your choice.

Regards

Mick

OK Mick,
The Easter Holiday period is now over,
you've had your fun, now stop trying to wind [nearly] everbody up.Or first thing tomorrow morning I'll be phoning Saga to get you on one of their Grey Pound awayday cruises
oldie.

quote:

It you are not prepared to make the cuts, you have to be prepared to pay the taxes. It is your choice.

Good point, Mick.

If I thought that by paying an extra percentage per month I'd get a better health service/more police etc then I would do it readily.

You can streamline a company/local service only so much before things have to give, and compromises have to be made. Provided it can be indipendantly verified that a local service is as efficent as possible, then I for one would pay more council tax to get a better quality of life.

Am I naive, nope. I have seen the cuts from the other side and you would do well to speak to some of your friends who police areas that have a high crime rate etc before passing judgement.

It's usually the ones who are well off that say stuff the system, not those that either fortunatly or unfortunatly have to use it.

andy c!

I would estimate that 25% of the jobs in the local newspapers are for town hall staff. We should be sacking not employing.
Really? Perhaps the town hall is having trouble recruiting staff, after all - there are a lot of other employment opportunities in your area and no-one ever went to work for the public sector purely for the salary. Though I understand the pension benefits help to make up for that.

How many daft committees catering for the 3 legged black lesbian brigade are propped up by the local authorities,..... hundreds.

Outside the fantasy paranoia world of the Daily Malice... probably very few.

Mick - why not stand for the local council yourself? There are plenty of people out there with similar views to your own - you'd probably get a good turn-out in the polls. Then you could put your proposals into action. Of course, you'd ultimately end up sacking yourself as a drain on the public purse but all good things must come to an end.

Steve.

quote:

How many daft committees catering for the 3 legged black lesbian brigade are propped up by the local authorities,..... hundreds.

... and someone within the diverse community in which we live has to ensure that such minorities are catered for, because judging by the tone of this comment, you wouldn't, would you?

andy c!

quote:

quote:
How many daft committees catering for the 3 legged black lesbian brigade are propped up by the local authorities,..... hundreds.


... and someone within the diverse community in which we live has to ensure that such minorities are catered for, because judging by the tone of this comment, you wouldn't, would you?

andy c!

Andy you're not accusing Mick of being a bigot! are you??

Regards
Clive

Clive,
a bigot, possibly not.

Insular, probably (based on the posts on this thread)

andy c!

Maybe it is time to remind Mick that his fat pension (as we are all reminded from time to time) was funded by an organisation that was drawing huge sums of publicly raised cash to keep it day-to-day operation.

I have no doubt that Mick's job was a good one but sometimes he forgets that we have all paid towards his future life of fun in the sun.

I am sure the biggest majority of us on the forum are above-average earners and enjoy a good lifestyle but we don't gloat or decry others of their very existence.

Go back a while and re-apply Mick's rules in the wonderful world of dog eat dog and un-necessary state funding of things that are a cash burden.

No Post Office (it would be bust) = no pension or long term high salary.

Mmm, suddenly the free resources, bus passes and social care system seems quite inviting...

quote:

Maybe it is time to remind Mick that his fat pension (as we are all reminded from time to time) was funded by an organisation that was drawing huge sums of publicly raised cash to keep it day-to-day operation.

I have no doubt that Mick's job was a good one but sometimes he forgets that we have all paid towards his future life of fun in the sun.

I am sure the biggest majority of us on the forum are above-average earners and enjoy a good lifestyle but we don't gloat or decry others of their very existence.

Go back a while and re-apply Mick's rules in the wonderful world of dog eat dog and un-necessary state funding of things that are a cash burden.

No Post Office (it would be bust) = no pension or long term high salary.

Mmm, suddenly the free resources, bus passes and social care system seems quite inviting...

LTD respect man!

Regards
Clive

LTD

The Post Office has only lost money for a few years since the war. The reality is that it is a massive provider of funds into to the public chequers and not out of it as you suggest.

It was losing over £1.5m per day for a short while, a couple of years ago, but it is now making nearly £3m profit per day. Even when it made a loss, it drew from its reserves, so the tax payer never suffered.

Having said that, it is expected to lose a £1 bn per year from 2007, but then it will be fragmented and sold off in bits and will be pure history.

Also my pension fund is in good condition, it has enough reserves to pay all pensions for 400 years. So I am safe and incidentally, not one penny came from the tax payer as it is 100% self funding.

Also I think although I appear to be in a minority here, both the Tory party and New Labour are reflecting my views. There is more questioning of public subsidies now than ever before, so in fact, I am going with the flow.

Dog eat dog is tough but it drives men to their limits and that is to societies benefit.

The grey vote which is gaining power at a momentous rate is also in line with my views, so like it or not, you are going to see a lot more of it.

Regards

Mick

Mick, I'll defer to your knowledge on the question of PO finances and profitability. But would it be fair to say that this position of strength has been helped (if not totally enabled) by the PO remaining a publically-owned monopoly?

If a previous administration had taken the decision to privatise PO (something I personally think would have been a grave error), would its financial status have been so healthy? Would you have had to sacrifice your (presumably) years-based, index-linked pension for a more vulnerable money-purchase/annuity scheme like those of us in the private sector? Would you have retained your job all those years? Or would you have been culled in short-term management "right-sizing" drives to maximise shareholder value?

You've been extremely fortunate and I'm not knocking the position you now find yourself in. You are a member of probably the last generation to be able to reach retirement with that level of income and security. Spare a thought for those in rather more vulnerable situations and perhaps less fortunate than yourself?

Also I think although I appear to be in a minority here, both the Tory party and New Labour are reflecting my views.
No argument from me on that either - though I think it's a real shame that the two main parties seem to be trying to out-do each other to head further and further to the right. Looks like the Lib Dems are the only choice left for those of a true left-wing orientation.

Oops, we do seem to have come a way from the subject of council tax!

Steve.

Steve

If the PO has been as uncertain as you theorised, I would have gone somewhere else.

All generations have it easy in some areas and hard in others.

My level of mortgage repayments (1972-2004) averaged about 10% and during the seventies we had to contend with high inflation and unemployment.

Today the over 30's should by now be on the property ladder and they have the advantage of low unemploment, low interest rates and the abilty to move themselves and their money around within the EU.

The under 30's are buggered propertywise but they have the opportunity of long term investments and again they can move around withing the EU.

The inescapable fact is that people do become more right wing as they get older and the electorate is aging, so my policies are really only mainstream.

Good innit.

Regards

Mick

[The inescapable fact is that people do become more right wing as they get older and the electorate is aging, so my policies are really only mainstream.

Good innit.

Regards

Mick[/QUOTE]


Mick,
Although I have "generally" managed to restrain myself from participating in this thread, mainly because I have been down this very road with you time and time again,and to see the same old rhetoric rolled out yet again, is to say,at the very least boring, but please do not include the rest of us in your un substantiated quotes. Most of the people that I know of, that have been fortunate enough to reach a retirment age,and unfortunatly a great number of working people never do,do not become more right wing as they get older quite the reverse in fact, most people become more compassionate and tolerant with age!! I don't think that even with your blinkered out look on life that even you could call me right wing, or for that matter, yourself mainstream
oldie.

quote:

The inescapable fact is that people do become more right wing as they get older and the electorate is aging, so my policies are really only mainstream.

Mick,
Your opinion is your own, but I dare bet not everyone is going to be in the same position as you pension wise etc. As such, they have paid into the state, and expect the states assistance and benefit re health and welfare.

Another thing is that I was taught at a very young age not to argue politics with anyone unless you could see em face to face, because the written word can get misenterpreted.

But, I also be that when you get ill you seek to use the nhs 1st, and when you get your bin emptied you use the local council, and you are happy to use the roads they grit in winter. Therefore your argument is selective at best.

andy c!

Not being a regular reader and subscriber of the Economist Magazine anymore as I was previously for some years, I'm a little rusty on some financial principals, though I feel I can still grasp some basics and they are these. Investment of one's own money requires careful attention as well as TRUST, investment using other peoples money doesn't need as much seemingly ? Council Tax banding across all of UK after budgeting goes; as has been previously mentioned in large chunks to Health & Education locally. For some years now many schools and hospitals etc that have been either newly built or renovated to the 21st Century have been funded by PFI schemes (Gordon Brown's master stroke ?). Individual Councils are resonsible for many of these, and quite a few of these arrangements are now alreday costing millions per year to the firms involved just in interest repayments alone, as well as much needed repair work, etc, never being carrried out (as Brighton for instance well knows to its cost 'Jarvis'). These interest payments are almost as endless as Africa repaying its debts, ie, it never can, and likewise many of these Councils will eventually have to be bailed out in the future (by some government) or go bust, not to mention band taxes reaching such an intolerable high before the people go ballistic.
The 'monopoly' of the Royal Mail, GPO, or whatever one wants to call it, is by definition 'Competition Free', and had always been a fat cow to milk for the greedy. As I've said recently, and as our Mick said earlier it will soon in 2007 be sold off into profitable chunks (govenment creaming the fee so to speak), and these losses and profits mentioned are purely ficticious ballderdash, and in reality are slowly getting milked away (as per always and as history not so distant shows, and taypayer picking up the tab, telekom comes to mind) wether to share holders (no doubt you are one our Mick ?) and to pension funds etc, and if you seriously in this day and age believe (TRUST) that your fund will cover the next 40, let alone 400 years you're living a very stoned dream my handsome, innit. It's always good to bring certain debate into the open, especially if it's fresh and original, and I really wonder if by some querk of Maxwellian fate 'hopefully not' you'll be demonstrating in Trafalgar Square for your lost pension rights, when someone does the runner in the not too distant future with the kitty, or does that maybe apply only to the curiously labelled 'non Civil Service' branch of the Post Office ?



Fritz Von Letters getting stolen or chucked here by Deutsche Post 'staff?' is unheard of

Oldie

Opinion polls have shown time and time again that the older electorate tends to become more right wing. MORI have also confirmed this in the past.

Whether you are right or left wing is irrelevant, what is relevant are demigraphics that predict a shift to the right as the population ages. This is why New Labour is almost a carbon copy of what I preach, ranging from Iraq to local authority expenditure.

If New Labour practiced what you preach, Howard would get in. Howard and Blair are out "right winging" each other at every opportunity for one reason only.....to be elected by an aging population.

A few month ago I would have confidently predicted that Blair would walk the election, now I am not so sure. Howard is really swinging to the right and picking up new votes.

This is the reality.

Regards

Mick