Pensioner Jailed for not paying council tax

[paul@]

But how would you stop people simply leaving their rubbish in the back garden, for example?

How would you *force* people to pay the money for street lighting? (Or would you allow people to claim that they didnt need it, so wouldnt pay?)

It seems that most of the charges you've listed would be mandatory anyway.

The rubbish example was quite interesting however people obviously dodging the rubbish bin charge and causing a health and safety issue would be dealt with. Its only common sense that you don't leave rubbish in your garden, obviously people will have a choice to use the rubbish collection service or take the rubbish to the tip.

Most people would be happier to pay for a service that they use.

Street lighting would be regulated by the council. Remember not all streets have lights so it down to the council to decide if you have this facility.

For example, every time you use a public park you would be charged by a card issued from the council. A bit like a facility card which can be purchased or your account can be debited.

 

[Visage]

Most people would be happier to pay for a service that they use.

Street lighting would be regulated by the council. Remember not all streets have lights so it down to the council to decide if you have this facility.

For example, every time you use a public park you would be charged by a card issued from the council. A bit like a facility card which can be purchased or your account can be debited.

And all of this would be monitored and controlled by a highly efficient, cheap, government IT system, yes?

 

[Sequoia]

For example:

1) Each time the fire brigade came out it would be £50
2) Each time the police came out it would be £25
3) Each time the rubbish man comes around £2.50, obviously you can take the rubbish to the tip for free, the rubbish collection team will scan your bin using a hand held device and charge you for each collection made.
4) Community care, pay per use
5) Highways and transportation, For example: £10 a month if you have 1 car.
6) Street lighting example: £1.50 a month

I know it does sound a little over the top but this would a much more fairer scheme.

Fairer? You're kidding, right?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love it. It'll save me a fortune. If you can get the government to adopt the same logic for all taxes, it'll be even better. I might even buy another Ferrari with the savings.

But you can't set arbitrary charges like that, at levels you think are "fair". If it's going to be on a "pay as you use" basis, you have to look at the cost of providing the service, and allocate that cost among users, and that means that the cost will escalate for those that use a given service, and you'd need an accounting analysis to work out by how much. My guess would be huge increases.

And, if everything is going onto a "pay as you use" basis, what do we need council provision of services for? Let's farm everything out to private contractors. That way, we get efficient services for those that can pay, and as for everybody else ..... well, if your street winds up as an impromptu rubbish dump, it's hardly my problem, as I don't live there.

At the moment, those not using a given service are subsidising those that do. Take away that 'insurance' cross-subsidisation and those on low incomes won't be able to afford basic services, while those that can afford to pay will be grinning, because their bills just dropped as they aren't subsidising others.


So, it comes down to how you define "fair". Is it fair when we pay for what we each use, or is it fair when what you pay bears some relation to ability to pay? I would suggest the latter. And that is my gripe with council tax. It relates to property value, not ability to pay, and property value doesn't necessarily have any relation to income levels .... especially for those on fixed incomes like pensioners, who may just be living in the property they've been in for many years, and it happens to be in an area of aggressive property value inflation.

To my mind, a local income tax where charges relate to ability to pay would be fairer, not a pay-as-you-use scheme.

 

[Sequoia]

........

For example, every time you use a public park you would be charged by a card issued from the council. A bit like a facility card which can be purchased or your account can be debited.

So access to everything, including a walk in the park, is limited to those that can pay? I'm sorry, but even as a very wealthy man, I regard that as a horrible, grey, self-centred world. I pray it never happens.

 

[paul@]

And all of this would be monitored and controlled by a highly efficient, cheap, government IT system, yes?

Of course IT systems won't be cheap to setup and maintain and have the occasional breakdowns. Naturally on the long term this would bring down the cost of the council tax and homeowners would be treated more fairly.

 

[Sputnik II]

If its a crime then perhaps you could quote the relevant act of parliament that makes it so?

Unfortunately, most if not all government run things cannot be taken to task for gross mis management, If they could Blair would be on trial everyday.

look at it this way, If I came knocking at your door saying my company wants you to pay us £100 a month for something that isnt going to benefit you in anyway and if you refuse you'll have to do a three months prison sentence would be be ok with that ?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

tis obvious, when you dial 999 you have to give your credit card details first

"Hello, Emergency Services, how can we help?"
"I've just witnessed a really bad car crash"
"Can I have your credit card details please?"
"No, I'll let em die first".


However, the last time I went in a library was at least 32 years ago but I pay for them.
The last time I went into a park was about 6 years ago and I paid to do it but other than that I haven't been in a park for 30 years but my council tax pays for it.
Some of my council tax goes on paying for 'The Arts' so that we can watch classical music and operas in our cultural quarter - guess what? - I've never been there but still I pay for it.
I'd actually be willing to take my own rubbish to the incinerator since I live 3/4 of a mile from it.

 

[squiffy]

Of course IT systems won't be cheap to setup and maintain and have the occasional breakdowns. Naturally on the long term this would bring down the cost of the council tax and homeowners would be treated more fairly.

A form for you to agree or not agree to pay for services would be probably 100,000 items.

The country wouldn't be like it is now if people only paid for what they want. We'll still be in medievil times.

 

[Sputnik II]

Council TAX should be abolished.

It should be a pay as you need service.

Personally, I think small villages or areas of towns etc. should be able to run there own amenity services. That way they could shop around for what they wanted rather than just have to 'put up and shut up' with the services they receive.

 

[dirtydog]

To my mind, a local income tax where charges relate to ability to pay would be fairer, not a pay-as-you-use scheme.

Or my preferred system, scrap local taxation altogether and fund local services entirely from central government, by means of general taxation

 

[peter_hutson]

Unfortunately, most if not all government run things cannot be taken to task for gross mis management, If they could Blair would be on trial everyday.

look at it this way, If I came knocking at your door saying my company wants you to pay us £100 a month for something that isnt going to benefit you in anyway and if you refuse you'll have to do a three months prison sentence would be be ok with that ?

I think you have to expand the concept of benefit. Refuse collection is a good example, you may not benefit directly that much from having your bins collected by the council, as opposed to a independant company. But you can bet that you benefit indirectly. If this element of the council tax was option, thousands would opt out. A significant minority would then just dump their rubbish in the streets. You would either then have to live with this, or the council would clean it up. And guess what, someone would have to pay for it!

 

[paul@]

A form for you to agree or not agree to pay for services would be probably 100,000 items.

The country wouldn't be like it is now if people only paid for what they want. We'll still be in medievil times.

Council tax was introduced in 1993.
Poll tax in 1990

Since these tax systems were introduced the country is starting to go down the drain. I remember once upon time when the bin man came around every week. Now despite paying huge amounts of council tax I might get my bin cleaned out once EVERY 2 weeks!!!

This is why I suggested the council should encourage a pay as you use scheme.

 

[Sequoia]

Or my preferred system, scrap local taxation altogether and fund local services entirely from central government, by means of general taxation

I see no problem with that in principle, perhaps other than that I prefer to see local services provided (and funded) locally, where practical. After all, I'm not sure I want to see any more power centralised than we've already got, and both problems in service provision, and the extent and detail of local needs, vary with location.

I see no problem with revenue collection centrally, maybe via existing Inland Reveue systems, but .... I'm not sure it would effectively allocate resources according to need. I mean, the needs of the City of Westminster, or Knightsbridge, are likely to be rather different to those of a rural Welsh ex-mining village or a run-down district of Humberside.

I certainly feel funds should be allocated by need, not just an amount per capita. Could that be fairly done centrally? I rather doubt it.

 

[Borris]

I might even buy another Ferrari with the savings.

Sequoia is no longer Hank Scorpio. He is Robin Masters.

 

[dirtydog]

I certainly feel funds should be allocated by need, not just an amount per capita. Could that be fairly done centrally? I rather doubt it.

I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect but then nor is the current system And I think I'm right in saying that central government already funds a portion of local services. I would just extend this to 100%. I'm sure some system could be worked out whereby funds were allocated on the basis of need. I bet billions could be saved by not having councils pay and employ people to collect council tax.

 

[Sequoia]

Sequoia is no longer Hank Scorpio. He is Robin Masters.

LOL.

Owning a Ferrari is not necessarily as impressive as it sounds. I have a 70s classic, and it cost me less than my last new Beemer.

 

[Sequoia]

I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect but then nor is the current system And I think I'm right in saying that central government already funds a portion of local services. I would just extend this to 100%. I'm sure some system could be worked out whereby funds were allocated on the basis of need. I bet billions could be saved by not having councils pay and employ people to collect council tax.

I agree 100% that the current system is not "perfect" (and that's ....erm .... something of an understatement ), and I agree that central funding currently provides a large percentage of local government finance (about 80%, IIRC). I also agree with the logic of not paying the huge cost of having multiple collection (and enforcement) systems.

As I said, I agree in principle, but I have concerns about the implementation.

 

[Trojan]

I don't see why people who refuse to pay council tax end up in prison, whilst far more lenient punishments are given out to far more serious offences? I mean honestly, 3 months? That's the same sentence given to a hit and run driver earlier this year who killed a 3 year old whilst driving both unqualified and uninsured. Pathetic.

 

[Borris]

Owning a Ferrari is not necessarily as impressive as it sounds.

Slightly more impressive than a Nissan Micra, however.

Perhaps unwittingly, you have fuelled the speculation - the Ferrari that Magnum drives is indeed a 1970's classic (the 308 GTS).

Spill the beans then - Is Higgins the real Robin Masters?

 

[Visage]

I don't see why people who refuse to pay council tax end up in prison, whilst far more lenient punishments are given out to far more serious offences? I mean honestly, 3 months? That's the same sentence given to a hit and run driver earlier this year who killed a 3 year old whilst driving both unqualified and uninsured. Pathetic.

That case was discussed at the time, and the point people miss is that the sentence handed down wasnt for the killing (of which he was aquitted), it was for being unqualified and unisured.

SO basically you cant compare the two.....