Yup thats me lol! But seriously, i had nowhere to go due to losing my job and flat and my dad had no room so we just built a shed and put a bed and electric in it. I have to use the house for everything but sleeping so i cant see how that could be deemed as illegal if it is!
Beds in Sheds
- Thread starter borich_planner
- Start date
I agree.
[TW]Fox;19099071 said:
TBH it's not Dolph-argument-bingo most of the time it's SC-argument-bingo...
If a thread doesn't have strawmen, loaded questions and argumentum ad infinitums then it's not an SC thread...
He did mention earlier that as long as it wasn't like that then he was fine with it and TBH I agree with that, no difference to an annex and it's an issue with the way council tax works rather than anything else (I think poll tax is a far fairer system as well, doesn't penalise familys like council tax for a start.)
Poll tax is a worse tax for families as each member of majority would have to pay, besides I doubt we will see Poll Tax again for a long,long time, if ever.
[TW]Fox;19098559 said:To be fair why should they escape paying council tax when you have to pay it?
If council tax is based on the value of the property they live in then the value of the shed would mean that very little council tax would be due by the tennant of the shed.
But they are in essence a separate property, some of them have their own access.
- Joined
- 3 May 2004
- Posts
- 17,722
- Location
- Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
Wow, the first two pages of this thread are like reading Mr Logic argue with Mr Logic 
I haven't watched this programme but a similar one was on a few years ago. It depicted these sheds full of families who should have had their own properties, who were being exploited by individuals, who were vulnerable and who were illegal immigrants. The conditions were fairly squalid and cramped and the families living there were quite evidently doing so to avoid the authorities.
I haven't watched this programme but a similar one was on a few years ago. It depicted these sheds full of families who should have had their own properties, who were being exploited by individuals, who were vulnerable and who were illegal immigrants. The conditions were fairly squalid and cramped and the families living there were quite evidently doing so to avoid the authorities.
Wow, the first two pages of this thread are like reading Mr Logic argue with Mr Logic
I haven't watched this programme but a similar one was on a few years ago. It depicted these sheds full of families who should have had their own properties, who were being exploited by individuals, who were vulnerable and who were illegal immigrants. The conditions were fairly squalid and cramped and the families living there were quite evidently doing so to avoid the authorities.
That is fine as long as the two parties have an amicable agreement, tax and rates don't apply do they Dolph.
Are we talking about what should happen (eg a moral argument and the way all questions have been put in this thread) or appealing to law again (as happened when the answer to the morality question wasn't one you agreed with)?
You haven't explained yet how 8 people should be taxed differently for living on the same land depending on how they do it?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
If you built a fully fledged house at the back, the property would be changed and probably get a new level of council tax to be paid.
Yes, you wouldn't pay more if 5 more people moved into the same house. But council tax is rather based on the sensible occupancy of a house, it doesn't cater for all outliers and the fact that 15 people in a 4 bedroom house would pay less council tax than average per person yet use local facilities.
Its not a perfect system at all, but its not a terrible one either. The one major problem we have in this country is wanting too many services provided by the council but not want to pay for them, council tax is one of the few things I don't have a problem with. We're in debt because we borrow money to pay for services tax can't afford to cover.
Its pretty simple, people are building cheap crap flats out of "sheds" and failing to tell the government they essentially have changed the usage of their land and have an extra income.
Its dodgey, theres no two ways about it, theres a guy living there that essentially no one knows about, the most likely occupants of dodgey back house sheds will be people who don't want to be easily found and can't easily get a flat/house rented themselves for whatever reason.
Don't forget that also neighbours could have paid, I dunno, 500k for a nice house on a quiet street and a nice quiet garden only to have their neighbour install a new tennant at the bottom of the garden who makes their nice garden in their expensive house a smelly noisey tip.
People buy houses knowing whats around them(to the best of their ability) and don't expect to have random shanti town sheds thrown up and occupied.
Its unfair to neighbours, its unfair to those actually paying to live in the area, and depending on the quality/safety/facilities it could be dangerous and hazardous on top.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 3,030
I have the solution to this; they should only let students rent them, as they are exempt from paying council tax everything is fine, no need to debate the merits of a tax if it doesn't apply 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
For someone like myself whose against needless bureaucracy and excessive rules and large council, we need council tax to be based on averages, not actual occupancy. Otherwise we'd have to employ another 30 people in every district whose sole job it is to go around and check how many people live in every house every month to make sure its completely fair.
Its not feasable, your argument is based on a perfect system yet you freely admit we don't have one, in our current system to have the perfectly fair taxation you want we'd have to employ hugely more people to keep track of it all, something you're against. You can't have it EVERY way you want.
The best method is a house based on its size/bedrooms/location gets a rough average occupancy assigned to it, this will be great for some people and a little unfair to others, but as said the alternatives just aren't feasable.
You take a 4 bedroom house, and assume an average occupancy of 4, then add a single "flat" made out of a shed and that average goes up to 5.
I'm absolutely anti big governemnt, too many rules and I don't think much of anything is fair these days, but the ultra detailed fairness of keeping track of exactly how many people live in every house is completely unsustainable, a rough idea of how many people live in a building based on averages right now is the most feasable solution, and adding another building with a tennant will increase that average.
Thats ignoring the fact that most likely the income from rent would end up off the books and untaxed, yet another guy who makes his living renting flats/houses does get taxed, how is that fair?
And what about people who can't afford anything else? I guess they just slipped your mind. Quite simply, council tax should be payed by the number of people living in a property, not the size or value of the property itself. Why should one person living in a palace pay more than fifteen people living in a two bedroom house? One person living alone doesn't create as big a burden, obviously.
Last edited:
By member of majority do you mean adult?
In which case I see no issue here. Max two adults and depending on the structure large mumbers of families may end up paying less.
Considering families generally have bigger houses, which will generally cost more in council tax anyway. Why "should" a rich older couple pay less to live in flat than a family struggling to make ends meet living in a 3-4 bedroomed house with 2-3 children?
I'm paying devils advocate here a little because I don't think either group should have to pay more per person and I can acutally see the argument for the family having to pay more due to an increased use of service.