Council tax robbers

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Council tax remains high in relation to the poor and declining levels of service it's meant to pay for, nothing you or I can post will change that.

I don't need to change it, it's an opinion, not a fact. What exactly do I need to change? Your opinion?

[Tartan Pixie]

Devil2575 said:

Yes, really living the dream
Cheap TVs and Argos leather furniture

+1

I can't help feeling that people complaining about feckless dole scroungers living in mansions have never spent any time on a council estate, it's like a faux veneer of middle class provided by second hand goods, aldi and hire purchase. Not a great lifestyle either.

Countdown said:

As I mentioned before there are plenty of examples of societies with no tax collection and no public expenditure. In theory these should be the fairest systems; you would get exactly what you pay for via private expenditure and consumption. If you listen to some on PH you would think these would be ideal societies to live in

I believe Nigeria has such a system, perhaps turbobloke would he happier if he moved there

That said I do understand turbobloke's point of view and think he's made some good points, it's just that I disagree about how to improve the value for money. Multiple service providers means multiple versions of the same system, all engaged in a race to the bottom. The provider who offers the cheapest service will be preferred by most people but they'll be cheap because they're cutting corners.

A year or two down the line anyone offering a good service will be out of business and all that's left is the providers who got to the bottom first, at this point they raise prices so you're now paying loads for piss poor service. This is the point where you realize that councils are in fact good value.

Edited by Tartan Pixie on Monday 19th March 12:52

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Council tax remains high in relation to the poor and declining levels of service it's meant to pay for, nothing you or I can post will change that.

Given that it's difficult to split out what CT pays for and what general taxation pays for, on what basis do you state that "CT remains high in relation to the poor/declining levels of service"?

An earlier poster gave the example of refuse collection; He and his neighbours paid 500 for a weekly bin collection, a service which his Council charged 150 for. I currently work for a Social Housing provider. Our rents are roughly 80% of the market rate and our houses are in better condition than most at this end of the market.

I'm not suggesting there isn't room for improvement, but I wouldn't take all the rubbish printed in the tabloids at face value.

[fido]

^ I think it might have been me. But as i said before, we lived in an arboreum. IMO the council services are only good value because of economies of scale. Someone who runs a large private estate (E.g. Canary Wharf) might have a better idea of the savings!

Devil2575 said:

How about you address my points?

Do you consider 15k a year, accomodation aside, to be a lifestyle taxpayers can only dream of?

Do you consider buying cheap TVs and Argos furniture something that taxpayers can only dream of?

You're missing the point. Whether their lifestyle is below standard, whatever that means, is quite irrelevant. It's being paid for by the poor taxpayer. TV and Argos furniture - they should be so lucky - it should be from Community Furniture Donations. And before you check out my garage, i have lived in, or at least next to a council estate. Nothing wrong inherently with estates, it's the scum that reside in it. They are sh8te because the people who live in them make them sh8te. Conversely, there are some decent people who make nice homes out of them.

Edited by fido on Monday 19th March 13:05

[convert]

I have to say I agree with the OP. We are being robbed by our local council.

They are stopping green (garden waste) bin collections, and moving to a 2 week schedule for collecting the black (general waste)bins.

[Russ T Bolt]

My council tax remained the same as last year.

Water rates however, increased by more than the twice the rate of inflation.

[turbobloke]

convert said:

I have to say I agree with the OP. We are being robbed by our local council.

They are stopping green (garden waste) bin collections, and moving to a 2 week schedule for collecting the black (general waste)bins.

That's bin in place here for a year, maybe two.

Potholes worse, paving damage worse, street lights turned off more, plod as invisible as ever, plastic police hovering over parked cars, etc. And then there's the thought that a quarter of the bill goes to pay for Town Hall pensions so only about 75% can be spent directly on services such as they are.

So as you may have guessed by now I also agree with the OP.

[mph1977]

Tartan Pixie said:

dcb said:

I could choose on value, I could choose on quality or any other attribute I care about.

So you want to spend your Sundays perusing whatbinman.com? Well good on you I suppose but it sounds like hell to me.

Caring about these things isn't worth a few quid each month, that's what we pay politicians for. I'd rather vote every few years and if they're doing a bad job then kick them out.

Every time the government privatize something they make a complete balls up of it. If I can buy a rail ticket without having to remove an arm and a leg for the privilege of sitting in a dumpster on rails, that's the point I'll believe the UK can do privatization without shooting itself in the foot.

Privatization = Paying double for half the service, a ton of hassle trying to find the right deal, nobody taking responsibility for anything and at the end of it all finding that the government hasn't lowered taxes anyway.

rail privatisation is a joke - because the franchsise system is a joke

nowt to do with infrastructure / TOC split - road, sea and air travel have had that from the beginning track access charges = pay as you go VED but actually hypothicated / berthing / navaids fees ...

the freight side of it all is booming because everyone on the freight side is the equivalent of 'open access ' - they ask for slots from the controllers and get them if they are willing to pay the price for that time / location / day of the week ... it doesn't matter if DBS / stobart / GBRF/ DRS have a similar service , if there's track access available you can run that service too ... none of this ORCATS raiding bollix either

[Devil2575]

fido said:

Devil2575 said:

How about you address my points?

Do you consider 15k a year, accomodation aside, to be a lifestyle taxpayers can only dream of?

Do you consider buying cheap TVs and Argos furniture something that taxpayers can only dream of?

You're missing the point. Whether their lifestyle is below standard, whatever that means, is quite irrelevant. It's being paid for by the poor taxpayer. TV and Argos furniture - they should be so lucky - it should be from Community Furniture Donations. And before you check out my garage, i have lived in, or at least next to a council estate. Nothing wrong inherently with estates, it's the scum that reside in it. They are sh8te because the people who live in them make them sh8te. Conversely, there are some decent people who make nice homes out of them.

I don't think I am missing the point. My point was that the original post I commented on stated that tax payers where paying for the unemployed to live in a lifestyle that they could only dream of. This is rubbish in my experience.

It's the kind of stuff trotted out by those with an agenda all the time and it clouds the actual debate.

The issue here is whether the council should be paying for someone to live in such an affluent area. That is what 90% of the benefits are going on. The £15k above this to live on is neither here nor there IMHO and if she chooses to buy a flat screen TV and argos Furniture then so be it.

Like I said earlier , most of that £15k will go on feeding her and her kids. I can't imagine she gets much change from £200 a week with 6 kids.

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

My point was that the original post I commented on stated that tax payers where paying for the unemployed to live in a lifestyle that they could only dream of.

Then your point is in error. The article mentioned that taxpayers were paying for benefits recipients to live in a lifestyle that the benefits recipients could only dream of...until they met up with PushoverUK plc.

As to CT it's still too high and the service level is still too poor and deteriorating.

[mph1977]

elster said:

<snip>
Local government definitely pay out for current retired staff. Where else do you think the money comes from for the shortfall in the gold plated pension?

LGPS is funded

NHS scheme is recieving more than it pays out at present, the 'crisis' is a hypothetical one based potential future liabilities...

[turbobloke]

mph1977 said:

elster said:

<snip>
Local government definitely pay out for current retired staff. Where else do you think the money comes from for the shortfall in the gold plated pension?

LGPS is funded

NHS scheme is recieving more than it pays out at present, the 'crisis' is a hypothetical one based potential future liabilities...

It says here that "most public servants, with the exception of local government staff and university lecturers, are members of unfunded pension schemes in which the pensions are paid for out of general taxation".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14134847

So the unfunded approximation is closer to reality it seems.

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

My point was that the original post I commented on stated that tax payers where paying for the unemployed to live in a lifestyle that they could only dream of.

Then your point is in error. The article mentioned that taxpayers were paying for benefits recipients to live in a lifestyle that the benefits recipients could only dream of...until they met up with PushoverUK plc.

As to CT it's still too high and the service level is still too poor and deteriorating.

No my post is not in error.

This is the original comment I was disagreeing with:

Steffan said:

You are the mug who works his nuts off to ensue the unemployed can live in a lifestyle you can only dream of. That is your role in life.

Do not pass go do not collect any money. Unless you are and idle scrounger.

That, I fear, is life as a taxpayer in the UK. I wish this was a rant.

I think its factual. Taxpayers are mugs today. Scroungers have rights.

Not a quote from a paper, a quote from a forum post.

The second part is an opinion as I stated earlier.

[turbobloke]

On that basis my post was also OK as I was referring to a comment from the benefit folks in a £12000 per month London mansion.

Meanwhile CT is still extortionate in terms of the mediocre and declining levels of service received in return.

[Mobile Chicane]

I've just written cheques to the value of £1,012.40 to cover the forthcoming year's Council Tax and Road Fund licence, from which I perceive almost no benefit.

By contrast my winter gas bill was only £387 since I'm miserly with the heating.

My property is Band A so I'm 'only' paying £752.40 CT with single-occupier discount, but some of my neighbours are paying £2,900 a year.

They're retired and no doubt on good pensions, but that is still a fk of a lot of money.

[crankedup]

Migsy said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

5pen said:

crankedup said:

Miguel Alvarez said:

crankedup said:

Admit that I didn't bother to investigate our tax banding when I moved into our house ten years back. This year for some reason (I blame P.H.) decided to compare tax bands with my neighbours houses. One of those houses is a new build of about 2007, a detached 4 bed en-suite whereas my house is a 2 bed 17th century detached cottage, very basic by today's modern homes, my choice! However, I was gob-smacked to see that the 4 bedder has a lower banding than my place! Worse still I cannot appeal. In fact all other 7 houses in our Hamlet are banded lower or the same and ours is the smallest home!

Why can't you appeal?

Had a read through the paperwork and they say you can only appeal within 6 months of moving in or due to any changes that may affect the value of your property, any substantial change to your property. The one area where I may be able to 'have a go' is a change of tax payer. At the moment I am the tax payer so I may switch it to my wife as tax payer! Should be interesting.

I'm pretty sure you can ask for a reassesment at any time (though this means you could be given a higher band as well as a lower one). I managed to get my down 1 band and I certainly did that more than 6 months after moving in. This page on MoneySavingExpert gives some good tips... http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/council-t...

I thought that too. I did some rates work for an old company years ago and I'm sure every year they revisited them with the councils.

Got my parents place down a band recently (they've lived in their property since 1969) - based on several neighbours' houses being a lower band and some being the higher band - but all the same design/size of property. In the last week, they've just received a letter and a large refund cheque and gone down a band, so it is worth challenging.

In contrast, I challenged mine and the response was no, you're in the right band. Even though similar situation - different bands for the same houses, so it is a bit hit and miss.

I think it's all now dealt with by a central Valuation Office in Nottingham (judging by their letter).

A booklet about council tax came with the demand, a section says :
Council tax payers may appeal to the valuation office against the banding of their property

• when a property is demolished
• when physical changes in the area affect the value of the property
• when a property is converted into flats.

You can appeal within six months of :

• A valuation change to your property made by the listing officer
• A valuation band change to a similar property to yours as a result of a valuation tribunal decision
• becoming a new tax payer

It was reading this stuff that I thought I couldn't appeal, but your experience says otherwise it seems. What am I missing here?
ps thanks for your advise and info'.

[oyster]

Dixie68 said:

vonuber said:

So surely then the answer is to scrap their pension schemes, but then pay the more so they can fund a pension?

Anyway, I assume the same people moaning about paying Council Tax here are the same who moan about the state of the roads, lack of police, rubbish in parks, un-emptied bins etc.

I think the only thing that would make people happy on this website is if everything was run by the private sector. But cheer up, CMD is doing his best to do exactly that

But surely if the money was being spent correctly there would be no potholes, lack of Police, rubbish in parks, etc, so nobody would be moaning about that or the council tax?
I have no problem paying taxes IF I see a result.

Where I live, potholes get repaired, we've had lots of resurfaced roads lately. I get my food waste and recycling taken weekly (and that accounts for about 90% of my rubbish anyway). The parks are awesomely clean. See plenty of police patrols.

And on top of that, Boris has cut his part of our council tax this year.

[Chrisgr31]

Old Merc said:

I`m interested to see how council tax bills compare around the country? I`m Wokingham Berks,(lots of PH`s in Twyford),Band F,2073.82. and that is LOWER than last year, by 0000.06!!! yes 6p.The only extra is this opt-in garden waste @ 60 per brown bin per year,and we can share a bin with neighbours.Normal free weekly waste and recycling and once a month a bin lorry sits in a local spot on a Saturday morning and you can dump what ever you want in the back for free,even all your scrap classic car parts.I`m not going to get into a debate on the cost of Police,Fire Engines,etc etc as there is no point.We have to pay this Tax and when your retired it hurts.Lets see the best place to live,Council Tax wise that is.

Band F herein Crowborough Sussex is ££2,797.18 so you have a bargain! and D here is £1,678.31 which I think is the one you are meant to compare.

[fido]

oyster said:

Where I live, potholes get repaired, we've had lots of resurfaced roads lately. I get my food waste and recycling taken weekly (and that accounts for about 90% of my rubbish anyway). The parks are awesomely clean. See plenty of police patrols.

I'm guessing we don't live in the same borough.

[Tartan Pixie]

mph1977 said:

rail privatisation is a joke - because the franchsise system is a joke

nowt to do with infrastructure / TOC split - road, sea and air travel have had that from the beginning track access charges = pay as you go VED but actually hypothicated / berthing / navaids fees ...

the freight side of it all is booming because everyone on the freight side is the equivalent of 'open access ' - they ask for slots from the controllers and get them if they are willing to pay the price for that time / location / day of the week ... it doesn't matter if DBS / stobart / GBRF/ DRS have a similar service , if there's track access available you can run that service too ... none of this ORCATS raiding bollix either

Bad comparison, freight transport is a business service where there's room for multiple providers, it has to be good or stobart will take it. Similarly it was right to privatize BT because the private sector handles a competitive market much better.

What the private sector is really bad at though is anything where multiple providers mean an overall increase in costs. Like bin collection. At the moment there is one set of bin lorries, workers and associated management, if we are to have 2 providers then there must be 2 sets of lorries, workers and associated management, all of which need paid for.

It's simple maths, you can't have twice the infrastructure for a lower cost.

ETA - I know councils could tender for a contract to run their refuse services but in practice there's not many providers to chose from, plus the contract will go to whoever bribes lobbies councilors best and/or is a member of the correct masonic lodge. Value for the user will be no better and the system will be considerably more opaque.

Edited by Tartan Pixie on Monday 19th March 23:26