Surrey to hold a referendum...

would be over £350 a year more for me :( I wouldn't be prepared to pay that unless I genuinely thought that money was being spent wisely

especially since the banding on houses is a joke anyway - especially when it comes to "improvements" - ie bedroom adding etc - never beining factored in until house is sold - why not make it part of the planning permission approval process (ie house band re-evaluated - would make much more sense)
 
It is a bit ridiculous. Most of the money now seems to be going to contractors who do the jobs council workers used to do, but at 2x the cost (yet the government still bangs on about outsourcing being a cut-cutting measure) :/

I wonder how long it will be before we see mass non-payments of council tax, since we don't get much of a say in it.
 
Last edited:
seems my council has taken a more cowardly approach of increasing by the max they can without a referendum ie <4%

ie approx 2% for adult social care
2% general rise

3.99 in total
 
seems councils are allowed under the new rules to add the 2% adult social care "Precept" - every year until 2019/2020

so looks like a minimum of 4% every-year for most of us - at a guess :(

16% give or take over 4 years ....
 
Last edited:
Everyone wants things to improve, no on wants to pay...same old story.

So you might have to buy one less useless gadget or have one less night in the pub. Boohoo.

what cracked me up (and triggered my reply) wss the guy with 3k+ worth of gpu power in one machine crying about a mere extra few hundred per year. Just LOL.
 
I will be voting no. I pay a huge amount of council tax yet my son has no place in any local school after he leaves. We had the same issue with my daughter. I don't object to a slight increase but 15% when my kids don't even get a place in a local school is not acceptable to me. My local authority also just spent a vast amount of money on making a cycle lane on a road that was wide enough not to need one (it was about 3 cars wide). The council should make efficiency cuts first.
 
Stupid idea.

Government should just apply another 1p on income tax and ring-fence it for health and social care. Be completely transparent about it. People are killing themselves because they can't get the care they need ffs.

If we want nice things then we have to pay for it. The flip side is that spending needs to be accounted for and to be efficient. IMO of course.
 
Hades said:
^^ I'd be OK with a 1p or 2p rise in income tax if it were ring fenced.
Click to expand...

Local authorities are bloody awful with budgets so yeah, my opinion is that it should come centrally. :)

I honestly don't think most people have an issue with a little higher taxation if there's no other option as long as it's transparent and has a tangible benefit. Problem is there's too much waste and questionable use of funds as it stands.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why people are saying they would be happy for this to come out of central taxation. The councils are woefully wasteful. Numerous example have been cited. That needs fixing first no matter what. Otherwise we are just handing them the lube.
 
BDEE said:
I would rather see council tax abolished and everything brought into general taxation with an increase in the rate of income tax.

That would likely raise more money anyway as higher earners would pay a higher percentage of the increase. Would also mean a better distribution of funds across the country. Council tax is crazy given you have large properties in parts of central London on bandings the same as 2 bed terraces in Manchester because of the valuation system. General taxation is the fairest way to ensure the funding comes from those who can most afford it. This way of funding social care will lead to a postcode lottery.

Find it strange taking this stance as I am a top 20% earner and usually lean to the right in my political views.
Click to expand...


What socialist nonsense. Just because the rich can afford it doesn't mean they are a well to be tapped. They are already paying an unfair percentage of tax because we don't have flat tax.
 
Lucifurr said:
Damn, I must lower the average age a bit.
Click to expand...

There are most definitely a lot of old people here. I can see Chertsey from across the river right now and see nothing but bungalos and elderly people with Scottish terriers:p


George Hincapie said:
What socialist nonsense. Just because the rich can afford it doesn't mean they are a well to be tapped. They are already paying an unfair percentage of tax because we don't have flat tax.
Click to expand...

Lol nonsense?

What do you think the flat rate would be to allow everything to be paid? The fact that expenses are not based on a percentage of income would mean anyone earning under 20k would not be able to afford to live.

Income tax is far more fair than council tax.
 
Last edited:
George Hincapie said:
What socialist nonsense. Just because the rich can afford it doesn't mean they are a well to be tapped. They are already paying an unfair percentage of tax because we don't have flat tax.
Click to expand...

It means exactly that.

The Rich can afford it, they are the only people who can.

It is not unfair for those who are better paid, better educated to help for everyone else. Its called social responsibility.
 
Pay is disproportionately unfair anyway. I know people who left university a business management graduate after 3 years of a 7 hour a week course and ended up in a glorified telesales job for 27k a year and plenty of Physics PHD graduates end up at the forefront of science research at less after putting in almost a decade of costly higher education between 35 and 45 hours a week.

I have heard of 'you get paid what your worth' but lets not kid ourselves that there are plenty of slackers and position fillers at the upper end and and many hard workers on the lower end. From my experience, pay has rarely correlated with an individuals ability and reflects what the position is worth rather than the worth of the person in that position.
 
Last edited:
If you took the amount made in income and NI, divide it by the number of taxpaying workers in the UK you get around £12,100 depending on figure used as the average paid amount (not what we require which is much more). The average income is 26,500, so if it was a flat rate like you foolishly suggest, then everyone would need to pay a flat rate of 46% of their income in tax.

http://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/

This is forgetting that council-tax is not included and neither is it included that we require MUCH more money for our budgets, as i have just calculated what we have paid rather than what we need to pay to fulfil budgets.

So before you even get to pay your rent or mortgage you lose that much money. People who are not big earners wouldn't survive the flat rate you suggest. Not even the average earner would. Society would crumble.

The reason why there are the rich and successful is because they are propped up by others. You want to say if you cant afford it dont live there? pfft, how would Surrey and London fair without anyone under the 26k mark because after the flat rate of tax and cost of living, there isnt a penny to spend on the transport to get to these jobs. It is not the rich paying for the poor, it is the poor paying for the rich at the expense of the rich believing they pay more.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
If you took the amount made in income and NI, divide it by the number of taxpaying workers in the UK you get around £12,100 depending on figure used as the average paid amount (not what we require which is much more). The average income is 26,500, so if it was a flat rate like you foolishly suggest, then everyone would need to pay a flat rate of 46% of their income in tax.

http://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk/

This is forgetting that council-tax is not included and neither is it included that we require MUCH more money for our budgets, as i have just calculated what we have paid rather than what we need to pay to fulfil budgets.

So before you even get to pay your rent or mortgage you lose that much money. People who are not big earners wouldn't survive the flat rate you suggest. Not even the average earner would. Society would crumble.

The reason why there are the rich and successful is because they are propped up by others. You want to say if you cant afford it dont live there? pfft, how would Surrey and London fair without anyone under the 26k mark because after the flat rate of tax and cost of living, there isnt a penny to spend on the transport to get to these jobs. It is not the rich paying for the poor, it is the poor paying for the rich at the expense of the rich believing they pay more.
Click to expand...

Increasing income tax would be a disincentive to work. How would you feel about those higher rates tax payer's; doctors, senior police officers, head teachers all retiring early at 55 in order to avoid paying punitive rates of tax?

In fact, lots of doctors are predicted to retire in the next few years due to tax changes in the pension system: http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/your-pr...-yet-official-figures-reveal/20032301.article
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom