Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Politics => Topic started by: therealjr on November 07, 2012, 07:03:28 PM
-
so what's wrong with the 2013 Localism act?
-
Also, If a Labour Party member got the PPC job in his particular area, will he get the chance to stop the cuts, or just work with the resources he's got ?
-
So there's no reply from our elected representative.
Do I gather this is because he doesn't actually understand the aforementioned act and prefers to simply slavishly re-post to Facebook any post sent out by his political masters?
Or does it take him 2 days to ask someone what it really is all about?
-
I have not gone into it in great depth. Sounds ok in theory that local groups can get together and run certain things but in reality is it likely to be a back door in for businesses to take over buildings and services? Don't trust this government to increase local choice as they seem intent on weakening the position of those ELECTED to provide local services and amenities.
As for PCCs they will have a budget to work to but they will have say in how the budget is spent. People may say they are undemocratic if they are elected by a small portion of the electorate but blame that on the people that can't be bothered to vote.
-
So from all you've put I fail to see how it could be called a new Poll Tax as you headlined it in your scare mongering facebook post.
So what's the story there?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Wasn't me comparing me to poll tax if I remember rightly (without searching for it) the article was implying that it must be bad if even the architect of poll tax dislikes it
-
This is what you posted. I would assume seeing as you saw fit to re-post it that you would a) understand it and b) agree with it.
So why is it the new poll tax please?
-
Jenkin is referring to (supposedly) giving local authorities more decision making power but not more cash to do it with
http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2012/10/24/child-benefit-changes-could-mean-poll-tax-mark-ii (http://www.theinformationdaily.com/2012/10/24/child-benefit-changes-could-mean-poll-tax-mark-ii)
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
If it was done for the right reasons a good thing but it seems to me it's being done to coincide with cuts in financial support so local authorities get the blame.
Don't forget last year local authorities were given a bribe of (I think) 3% of council tax income not to put up council tax. When this is taken away the following year a 1% rise in council tax in effect means a 2% fall in money available to pay for jobs and services.
As for second homes, the only people who should get exemption from council tax are those who have inherited a house (probably due to a relative dying) and not had enough time to sell it.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
So should it worry me that a Labour Party councillor in charge of my local authority can't actually provide an answer to a question re reform of local government finance?
Despite the fact that he slavishly re-posts facebook quotes about it?
One that it is being claimed could have as big an impact as the Poll tax (which if you want to be melodramatic about it was one of the major causes of Mrs T's downfall?
An answer that I as a member of the public without access to a party machine and propoganda leaflets can find simply by googling 'why is the localism bill the new poll tax'?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/23/poll-tax-back-cameron-localism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/23/poll-tax-back-cameron-localism)
£3918.12 not well spent obviously
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Generally, I don't see why people should whinge if they have a second home in a country with such a high level of homeless people.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Yep
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
So are you suggesting that there should be no cuts?
Surely if there are cuts to be made, you would assume that the local authorities would be best placed to decide where they should fall within their own area.
If no council services are being used by a second home, what is your justification for charging full council tax?
-
>> And who's paying to clean up and repair said homes when they get trashed?
You assume that homeless people always trash houses?
I'm sure there are many homeless people who wouldn't. Why not address the problem of homelessness?
-
So are you suggesting that there should be no cuts?
It the cuts coinciding with passing the benefits responsibility to councils. Devolving the responsibility but with less budget is going to make them look less efficient.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
>> Would you give up your home to a homeless person when you are next on holiday to let them have a nice roof over their heads for a fortnight?
With due respect, that's a little naive - homeless people can't move into house and then move out after a week - they need a lot more permanent solution.
>> Second homes tend not to be low cost housing, so I would also assume the government would not be interested in buying detache bungalows in Cornwall.
I lived in Cornwall in the early seventies and the reason I couldn't afford to buy a house (and the kids of the locals couldn't afford to buy a house) was that rich people from up country bought them up as second homes.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
2 new posts after I typed this ::)
Here goes anyway
Joking apart, if you can afford a second home, then you should pay for it.
Someone cleans the street, light's it, maintains the roads around it and keeps the sewers clean.
If you can afford two houses, you can afford the tax on them.
If you can afford a posh car, you can afford the upkeep.
As regards Andy's comment about being left a house in a will to sell, I think the pro's outweigh the cons.
@Cchris, If I promise to cut the grass, and Our_Lass gives it a quick hoover, can we stop in your half a million quid bungalow in Cornwall next August for a couple of week ;)
My Uncle had a caravan in skeggy years ago, and I mean years ago, cutting the grass for a week was my families summer holiday. Cheers Uncle Alwyn RIP :)
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
>> The best way to solve the issue, or at least try to correct it, is to build new affordable housing - build cost on 2 bed flats in the right area could be as little as £30k per unit, fully fitted. Thes could either be built by the Government, and no doubt cost £60k per unit to build given their inability to obtain value for money.. or built privately and rented back to the government with suitable guarantees on income and repair costs if those placed in the blocks trash them.
Problem is the banks wont (in any attractive way) lend to smaller start up developers, and large developers want quick return on sale of properties not drip feed rental income.
That's what I meant about a permanent solution. But money dictates the ways of the world now and is on track to kill the planet with greed. You have mentioned in the past about moving to another country - if folks don't address the out-of-control capitalism and global warming there will be massive wars as the homeless and starving head to whatever countries are sunject to the least damage. Think about what life will be like when your kids grow up and have kids, it's quite a sobering thought.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Or is this just another "If you are rich then you can afford it" line?
I don't do, 'lines' Cchris. I post, I fcuk up now and then, and sometimes post daft questions without thinking.
;)
Why not ban the rich from ebay, as they are rich they can afford to buy new, so the bargains should be left for the poor to grab?.
I never said or implied that :(
Haven't people always paid to the country for land they own properties on. Rateable Value ?
The 'Poll Tax' in my memory was the biggest Tory rip-off ever introduced.
Mum and dad paid their rates.
Thatcher and the like decided the other 3, over 18 year olds, still living at home, should pay the same, EACH !!!! WTF
-
The 'Poll Tax' in my memory was the biggest Tory rip-off ever introduced.
Mum and dad paid their rates.
Thatcher and the like decided the other 3, over 18 year olds, still living at home, should pay the same, EACH !!!! WTF
The little old dear next door paid the same amount of rates.
She didn't create 5 times the rubbish to be collected.
She probably stayed in at night so didn't use the street lights
She only damaged the roads with one car not 2 or 3
So why shouldn't she pay less? or at least 1 share to your 5.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Bit of a red herring there.
Biggest spenders are Education followed by Social Services. Sewers are paid for from your water charges.
2 big problems with Poll Tax. Firstly the poor paid as much as the rich, second imposing an addition tax on teenagers made it even harder for them to save up and get themselves on to the property ladder.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
As with income tax it's related to what you can afford. Social Sevices uses take up a large part of the income from this tax and probably the least able go pay. I certainly wouldnt want a system of compulsory fee paying schools so that only vhildren of the wealthy get a decent education.
Bins are most visible expenditure but not that dear by comparison. Only about 10% goes to the borough council.
Property is a good guide to someon's wealth and there is the 25% reduction for sole occupancy as a cushion
-
At one point there were 5 of us in one house all paying full council rax. still only had 1 wheelie bin. Shouldn't at home teenagers at least only paid a %. That was my point.
-
Property is a good guide to someon's wealth
and it always helps if you can take advantage of a tory party policy and buy your house for a knock down price.
Or would that be hypocracy?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
and it always helps if you can take advantage of a tory party policy and buy your house for a knock down price.
Or would that be hypocracy?
Good deal for tenant, not good for council's housing stock. Bought mine a long time before I joined the Labour party
-
So in short, we want everyone to pay their way - unless they can't, and then someone else can pay. :))
You may have had five people living in the house and only one bin, but Ill bet it was a darn sight heavier than the little old couples bin next door paying just as much..
Little old dear living on a pension thats been eroded may be in a house she has bought and paid for over the decades she has contributed, and now has to fork out a ridiculous sum on council services she doesn't use just because her house is large.
Then you could have a millionaire living in a smaller home paying less than the struggling granny in her larger house next door. Using a house value as a marker on how much the residents of that property use the council services is just wrong. Its the same as taxing larger engined vehicles based on the ir CO2 emissions. A large engine sports car that does 500 miles a year will pollute much less than a Ford Fiesta driven daily - but because tax is based on CO2, the larger car pays more.
People in council houses are being encouraged to downsize when their families move on so what's wrong with giving homeowners an incentive to downsize?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
More a carrot than a stick I would say.
People who are on benefits in rental accommodation are going to get rent paid for the size of house appropriate to their needs not ones with spare bedrooms because families need more rooms.
My parents downsized to a bungalow (owned not rented) after my sister & myself left. Better than rattling round in a larger house and also potentially saves Social Services the cost of a stair-lift as they get older.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
But that answers none of the questions.
of course it doesn't, he IS a politician you know!!!
-
Let's use the term £1000 as a standard Council Tax amount.
You may have had five people living in the house and only one bin, but Ill bet it was a darn sight heavier than the little old couples bin next door paying just as much.
They'd pay £2000, we were paying, as a family £5000, for the same 1 bin, albeit a bit heavier ;)
I've said before and will say again, if 'we' on here, could solve the country's problems, we'd all be rich 8)
In the mean time, let's keep debating it ;-)
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Is this the same five people benefiting from street lighting. It's the same light. We share it ;)
The crap we part with is dealt by the water companies. Agreed we might use more water or waste services.
Don't we already pay for that, water rates are still based on the old Rates system. Correct me, I'm probably wrong.
Water meters should have sorted this out. We've still not got one :-)
Is it not reasonable to think that five people would use five times the level of council resources as two people?
And therefore pay 5 times the price !!
Just for the record, who's idea was that, I honestly don't know.
-
It's a tax not a payment for services. The alternative is to charge for individual things.
People without school age children could argue that they are supporting families with kids at school. People without elderly relatives could argue they are subsiding care homes that they themselves don't need.
Regarding benefits, more is paid subsidising people on low wages than those unemployed. Therefore the tax payer is in effect subsidising employers who choose not to pay a living wage.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
I am not HAPPY with any cuts, but these are being forced on us by central government so they should be open about it.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
If the choice was truly local an option would be to raise council tax. Some may prefer that to losing services.
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Doesn't efficiency savings assume things weren't already efficient?
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST
-
Is that the "planned" / "leaked" increase that the LibDems put on their leaflets?
-
if they are procuring efficiently.
Makes no odds how they are procuring.
I know I have been out of the game for 5 years but back then I ran the budgeting for a department whose budget was £1.5m per year.
Staffing budget £850k (inc all overheads)
Central costs (paying for staff in other departments) £250k
Buidling costs (you're not allowed to move out of the Town Hall) £200k
central IT costs £150k
Actual purchases £50k
-
POST DELETED AT USER'S REQUEST