Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News3 mins ago
No best answer has yet been selected by ICEMANSAV. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Gordon Browns done well, hasn't he, after all, he inherited a strong economy, sold half our gold reserves to get extra cash, plundered our pensions, raised taxes, created new taxes, so after his boss has spent all that, about all thats left is the council tax, won't be too long before we all walk round with an air meter, and we'll pay tax on how many breaths we take.
Sorry for the tone of that, but its how I feel.
Chessman you forgot the 30 billion he earned on the mobile phone licenses.
Yes i am worried about the council tax reformation. It is going to increase my monthly payment by about a �100 pounds within the next 2 years and its worse than income tax. I like the way the council says it pays for poilcemen and the central govt says exactly the same with income tax.
Chessman i am going to take a very deep breath, atleast they cannot tax that.
Yes people living in huge houses that are worth a lot DO have the ability to pay. Just because the assets are tied up in the house does not mean they are any less rich. Basing council (or any form of) tax payments on one's ready cash assets would only encourage more and more people to set up off-shore accounts or to invest in expensive houses with swimming pools, and a Jag or 3 just so they can turn round and say "but I've only got �5000 in my current account, how can you expect me to pay so much tax!?
If things are going to be means tested, ALL assets should be taken into account. Houses, cars, and actualy cash (in accounts or under the matress) or not. Otherwise it's just inviting cloak and dagger behaviour.
I'm not saying to tax all assets, perhaps I explained myself poorly. I'm just saying that if you're going to call for means testing, then the means to pay should be judged on everything you have.
After all, in my opinion, the Grand-mother mentioned above, COULD sell up and move to smaller house (harsh I know, as the house has been in the family for generations, but that is a separate argument) and thus free up more money AND have a smaller council tax bill. It's not as if she's being FORCED to live in such a grand house. I'm not necessarily saying she SHOULD move, just that she COULD do so.
My feeling is that the people who can afford to live in the nice houses, are more likely to be those who can afford the higher rates. People might be shocked to note that this is actually RIGHT of centre, and I'm saying it.
Whilst perhaps people should not be punished for investing in a house, you could look at it the other way round and say that if homeowners are not going to pay more, then renters (who are already in an unenviable position) MUST pay more. That means they get doubly punished. SOMEONE has to pay, if we are to keep demanding such high levels of public service.
To be honest Icemansav, I was only floating some ideas. I'm very wary of posting what I feel to be my conclusive "policy suggestions" (well, you know what I mean) without giving the matter full thought. That's something I ought not to be doing now as the boss is around! lol
I'll read into it all properly and try to reach some conclusions, but I can't promise anything, and I'm sure you won't mind that! :-)
something else to bear in mind.
with these new valuations coming, gordon brown will rake in billions from all the homes that will as a result of the higher valuation incur inheritance tax, a tax so high as to make sure that the vast majority of people will not be able to keep the properties willed to them by their parents
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.