You beat me to it Mal....
Shireen
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Old Steam Room stuff
Quote by Sexysteph
No Mal it isn't
Steve is advocating EVERYONE paying the same. To me this brings Carers well into his argument. Council Tax should be on ABILITY TO PAY not a Blanket Tax.
I am just pointing out that there are sectors in society who could not in all honesty pay a blanket tax and why. The Goverment seem to think Carers are irrelevant too.
Yes the allowances are crap but we live with them - what I hate is the BLANKET arguments by businessmen who do NOT see real life.
The thing is Steph tax is on your incame not your job being a carer has nothing to do with it, if your not working and are a full time carer for your family you get your council tax payed for you anyway, not unemployed carer (and by un emplyed i mean not in payed work i know caring is work i have done it for my mother) pays tax
NN some carers work part time just staying within the limit to keep the carers allowance they PAY Council Tax.
i know they do thats cause they work, all working people pay tax, but you put that you didn't work so you not pay tax anyway, the tax man does not care what else you do in your spare time all he see's in your income and you will get taxed on it
Quote by Sexysteph
Apologies Steve I was distracted at the time I was typing - I'll just hit Roger next time I see him
But I still say the argument is valid. It should not be a Blanket tax It should be on ability to pay and yes I do agree it should be not based on the scenic views it should be on the bricks and mortar value to that extent.
Right am going for a breath of air to cool down
Steph
Thats just as it is now...
I have no real problem with that.
What I am objecting to is the hikes proposed because of the improvements we have made to our properties or because of their locations..
Sorry Mal, but I am in total agreement here!
Why should I pay more for the same service than someone else? When I go to the pub or the shop, items aren’t means tested, I pay the same as everyone else and so I should.
I understand that there needs to be different levels of payment to compensate for those that need help and suppose that house value is as good a way as any.
In fact, considering that I never dump rubbish, park my car on the road, been involved in vandalism, drop litter or use any police resource and contribute positively through my taxes and receive no benefits, I think I am entitled to a rebate.
Why should I pay more for the same service than someone else? When I go to the pub or the shop, items aren’t means tested, I pay the same as everyone else and so I should.
I understand that there needs to be different levels of payment to compensate for those that need help and suppose that house value is as good a way as any.
In fact, considering that I never dump rubbish, park my car on the road, been involved in vandalism, drop litter or use any police resource and contribute positively through my taxes and receive no benefits, I think I am entitled to a rebate.
Good Day All 
A thought has just struck me and if my grey cells still function as they should
: the thought goes like this >>>
We have had a Window Tax in this country before. I seem to remember both houses and small shops with bricked-up windows to beat the tax law of the day. You paid a tax on how many windows you had.
I think it was before the 2nd WW, but not sure when and when the law was recinded.
If I am wrong I will gladly eat some humble pie.
phredd.
A thought has just struck me and if my grey cells still function as they should
: the thought goes like this >>>We have had a Window Tax in this country before. I seem to remember both houses and small shops with bricked-up windows to beat the tax law of the day. You paid a tax on how many windows you had.
I think it was before the 2nd WW, but not sure when and when the law was recinded.
If I am wrong I will gladly eat some humble pie.
phredd.
Quote by Shireen_Mids
Shireen knows just how I feel on a daily basis when YOU had your heart problems - the constant worry and the stress is very very real for the Carer. Add to that the financial burden and is it any suprise that 4 out of 5 carers become the cared for. Due to lack of support and adequate training (which would be given to anyone who works in the field)
I still have the constant stress Steph...... Following Steve's heart attack he was off work for 3 months with only a very basic pay..... That means that we now have an overdraft of 4 figures.....
Now just because we both work full time and normally have what would be considered a good wage coming into the house we should pay more that anyone else???..... Yeah right!!
Sorry but it is going back to the days of robbing the rich to pay the poor..... Maybe just maybe the rich have got their money by working very fucking hard for it, so why should they be penalised for it??
Shireen (Who is curently at home not getting paid because she is too ill to drive to work
)This has got my goat too!
When this happens,i.e somebody that has consistently contributed to society, needs a helping hand, it should be there.
I pay loads of tax on my income, on my food, on my booze, on my fags, on my holidays on my home etc. Me and people like me are the cash cows for this country, the government needs money, its people like me it squeezes a bit harder. However, should i need a bit of temporary assistance, I get no more than the person that has contributed nothing. In fact as has been highlighted above I would probably get less than the person that has contributed nothing.
I agree people need help for all sorts of different reasons, the above highlights how its not given fairly
Off for a lie down!
Quote by Fred aka Medic 1
Good Day All
A thought has just struck me and if my grey cells still function as they should
We have had a Window Tax in this country before. I seem to remember both houses and small shops with bricked-up windows to beat the tax law of the day. You paid a tax on how many windows you had.
I think it was before the 2nd WW, but not sure when and when the law was recinded.
If I am wrong I will gladly eat some humble pie.
phredd.
You are correct phredd
IIRC it was waaaaaay before the second world war when it origionated but may have been re-implemented later in time as well..
Sex God
Ah tis a minefield isnt it, I do hope that folk can debate it wihout getting over heated.
As one of those well off business men, that Steph seems to despise so much, but who through various other means is a fairly hefty contributor to various government and local authority purses , my first thoughts are, why should I pay more for services that I probably use less. All said and done I don't use the local library because I can afford to buy my books. I don't use any of the public transport systems because I drive a car. Any medical needs that my family have are catered for through the private sector. If I want to remove rubbish I dont use the local dump I hire a skip, the list goes on, you all know it so I wont bore you with it, but the fact of the matter is that I use the services that these taxes pay for far less than lower income families. So is there a fairer way? well yes there is.
A fairer way is that we pay for each and every service as and when we use it. Now there are a number of services that cant be divied up like that, but a lot of em can, what could be fairer than paying for something as you use it, nothing really. but then we get a problem because all of a sudden the money that I'm currently paying for services I don't use is no longer there, with the net effect being that those that do need to use them, generally those on lower income, suddenly find that the lost revenue from this little excercise means that the cost to them goes up. So in reality although the prinicipal is fairer, you pay for what you use, its flawed to fuck, the money needed to run each of the services would dry up cos its still in my pocket until I decide to spend it and the services that people need dissapears due to lack of funds.
I find it more than a little irritating when people insist that I pay more because I'm lucky, I can afford to, I will give you three guesses where my luck come from and it wasn't from sitting on my arse, but there is the harsh reality that a lot of people cant afford to pay and need subsidising from somewhere.
All ready we have seen extremes being bandied about with comparissons made between home careers and proffesional footballers, which kinda takes us into silly land, cos it misses out the thick chunk of people that slot in the middle and at which changes are normally aimed.
There isnt an easy answer is there, I definately dont want to pay for services that I do not use and that ironically, because of means testing in some areas, would be deemed as being unintitled to, but am realistic enough to realise that you cant pull the rug from under the feet of those that cant afford it. I suspect if it hasnt happened already whilst I write this, that someone will come on and bellow about the workshy, the layabouts etc and why should I pay for them blah blah blah, they do exist, but there is a larger lump of people that through bad fortune have found themselves in a position where they need a safety net under them and that safety net, however wide the holes , is people like me.
I offer no solutions, its to big, just comment in a nut shell on how I see it.
...davej who is a business man doing very very well thankyou, but still refrains from telling people...fuck you!
As one of those well off business men, that Steph seems to despise so much, but who through various other means is a fairly hefty contributor to various government and local authority purses , my first thoughts are, why should I pay more for services that I probably use less. All said and done I don't use the local library because I can afford to buy my books. I don't use any of the public transport systems because I drive a car. Any medical needs that my family have are catered for through the private sector. If I want to remove rubbish I dont use the local dump I hire a skip, the list goes on, you all know it so I wont bore you with it, but the fact of the matter is that I use the services that these taxes pay for far less than lower income families. So is there a fairer way? well yes there is.
A fairer way is that we pay for each and every service as and when we use it. Now there are a number of services that cant be divied up like that, but a lot of em can, what could be fairer than paying for something as you use it, nothing really. but then we get a problem because all of a sudden the money that I'm currently paying for services I don't use is no longer there, with the net effect being that those that do need to use them, generally those on lower income, suddenly find that the lost revenue from this little excercise means that the cost to them goes up. So in reality although the prinicipal is fairer, you pay for what you use, its flawed to fuck, the money needed to run each of the services would dry up cos its still in my pocket until I decide to spend it and the services that people need dissapears due to lack of funds.
I find it more than a little irritating when people insist that I pay more because I'm lucky, I can afford to, I will give you three guesses where my luck come from and it wasn't from sitting on my arse, but there is the harsh reality that a lot of people cant afford to pay and need subsidising from somewhere.
All ready we have seen extremes being bandied about with comparissons made between home careers and proffesional footballers, which kinda takes us into silly land, cos it misses out the thick chunk of people that slot in the middle and at which changes are normally aimed.
There isnt an easy answer is there, I definately dont want to pay for services that I do not use and that ironically, because of means testing in some areas, would be deemed as being unintitled to, but am realistic enough to realise that you cant pull the rug from under the feet of those that cant afford it. I suspect if it hasnt happened already whilst I write this, that someone will come on and bellow about the workshy, the layabouts etc and why should I pay for them blah blah blah, they do exist, but there is a larger lump of people that through bad fortune have found themselves in a position where they need a safety net under them and that safety net, however wide the holes , is people like me.
I offer no solutions, its to big, just comment in a nut shell on how I see it.
...davej who is a business man doing very very well thankyou, but still refrains from telling people...fuck you!
No change there then ya tight git 
Quote by davej
Ah tis a minefield isnt it, I do hope that folk can debate it wihout getting over heated.
As one of those well off business men, that Steph seems to despise so much, but who through various other means is a fairly hefty contributor to various government and local authority purses , my first thoughts are, why should I pay more for services that I probably use less. All said and done I don't use the local library because I can afford to buy my books. I don't use any of the public transport systems because I drive a car. Any medical needs that my family have are catered for through the private sector. If I want to remove rubbish I dont use the local dump I hire a skip, the list goes on, you all know it so I wont bore you with it, but the fact of the matter is that I use the services that these taxes pay for far less than lower income families. So is there a fairer way? well yes there is.
A fairer way is that we pay for each and every service as and when we use it. Now there are a number of services that cant be divied up like that, but a lot of em can, what could be fairer than paying for something as you use it, nothing really. but then we get a problem because all of a sudden the money that I'm currently paying for services I don't use is no longer there, with the net effect being that those that do need to use them, generally those on lower income, suddenly find that the lost revenue from this little excercise means that the cost to them goes up. So in reality although the prinicipal is fairer, you pay for what you use, its flawed to fuck, the money needed to run each of the services would dry up cos its still in my pocket until I decide to spend it and the services that people need dissapears due to lack of funds.
I find it more than a little irritating when people insist that I pay more because I'm lucky, I can afford to, I will give you three guesses where my luck come from and it wasn't from sitting on my arse, but there is the harsh reality that a lot of people cant afford to pay and need subsidising from somewhere.
All ready we have seen extremes being bandied about with comparissons made between home careers and proffesional footballers, which kinda takes us into silly land, cos it misses out the thick chunk of people that slot in the middle and at which changes are normally aimed.
There isnt an easy answer is there, I definately dont want to pay for services that I do not use and that ironically, because of means testing in some areas, would be deemed as being unintitled to, but am realistic enough to realise that you cant pull the rug from under the feet of those that cant afford it. I suspect if it hasnt happened already whilst I write this, that someone will come on and bellow about the workshy, the layabouts etc and why should I pay for them blah blah blah, they do exist, but there is a larger lump of people that through bad fortune have found themselves in a position where they need a safety net under them and that safety net, however wide the holes , is people like me.
I offer no solutions, its to big, just comment in a nut shell on how I see it.
...davej who is a business man doing very very well thankyou, but still refrains from telling people...fuck you!
And I dont mean that in a sarcastic manner either dave...
Quote by Happy Cats
Council Tax – a part solution
Every household that is not paying its full contribution towards its council tax bill and has a Sky subscription should have the direct debit redirected to the local authority or the package reduced to make up the shortfall.
very good point that :thumbup:
Sex God
Quote by Happy Cats
Council Tax – a part solution
Every household that is not paying its full contribution towards its council tax bill and has a Sky subscription should have the direct debit redirected to the local authority or the package reduced to make up the shortfall.
I may be wrong but sky television, especially the 'chat' type programmes, provides a resource for positive stimulation and is therefore seen as positive therapy for people stuck indoors all day alongside keeping an element of society off the streets and therefore the argument goes, instead of having subscriptions redirected should in fact, have their subscriptions subsidised by me, so that I can feel safer on the streets and sleep with an easier concience that I have made yet another contribution to the well being of a large number of the populas by enabling them to watch Trisha..
Quote by Clare and Steve
Council Tax – a part solution
Every household that is not paying its full contribution towards its council tax bill and has a Sky subscription should have the direct debit redirected to the local authority or the package reduced to make up the shortfall.
very good point that :thumbup:
I pay my council tax in full. I think it is unfair because my income is low and council tax payments affect what food I put on my table and my lfestyle generally.
I have a satellite dish on the back of my house and I do receive Sky transmissions. I can't afford a Sky subscription so I have something called "Freesat" for which I made a one-off payment of £23.
All taxes, except for three are voluntary. You can't (legally) avoid income tax. You can't avoid your TV licence and you can't avoid council tax. All other taxes are voluntary.
The TV Licence and Council Tax can't be defended. The way they are implemented is wrong.
Mollie
Quote by maidinheaven
Council Tax – a part solution
Every household that is not paying its full contribution towards its council tax bill and has a Sky subscription should have the direct debit redirected to the local authority or the package reduced to make up the shortfall.
very good point that :thumbup:
I pay my council tax in full. I think it is unfair because my income is low and council tax payments affect what food I put on my table and my lfestyle generally.
I have a satellite dish on the back of my house and I do receive Sky transmissions. I can't afford a Sky subscription so I have something called "Freesat" for which I made a one-off payment of £23.
All taxes, except for three are voluntary. You can't (legally) avoid income tax. You can't avoid your TV licence and you can't avoid council tax. All other taxes are voluntary.
The TV Licence and Council Tax can't be defended. The way they are implemented is wrong.
Mollie
Dont worry, you would be ok.
Ok, I’ve been pondering this and I am beginning to come round to selected means testing.
Ok, I’ll pay according to my view and where I park my car etc, fair enough.
But………….
Anyone, able to work, not a carer or a pensioner whose income is made up of 75% or more in benefits, has to pay CAT (council added tax) on selected items. This could be an extra £1 a pint, a short for fags, 50p for crisps, a 25% levy on holidays, £12 a tattoo, £5 per chunky chain ………..you get the idea!
Think about it!
Ok, I’ll pay according to my view and where I park my car etc, fair enough.
But………….
Anyone, able to work, not a carer or a pensioner whose income is made up of 75% or more in benefits, has to pay CAT (council added tax) on selected items. This could be an extra £1 a pint, a short for fags, 50p for crisps, a 25% levy on holidays, £12 a tattoo, £5 per chunky chain ………..you get the idea!
Think about it!
Sex God
Quote by maidinheaven
Council Tax – a part solution
Every household that is not paying its full contribution towards its council tax bill and has a Sky subscription should have the direct debit redirected to the local authority or the package reduced to make up the shortfall.
very good point that :thumbup:
I pay my council tax in full. I think it is unfair because my income is low and council tax payments affect what food I put on my table and my lfestyle generally.
I have a satellite dish on the back of my house and I do receive Sky transmissions. I can't afford a Sky subscription so I have something called "Freesat" for which I made a one-off payment of £23.
All taxes, except for three are voluntary. You can't (legally) avoid income tax. You can't avoid your TV licence and you can't avoid council tax. All other taxes are voluntary.
The TV Licence and Council Tax can't be defended. The way they are implemented is wrong.
Mollie
Sorry Mollie I disagree with you, the T.V. licence is just that, it's a licence that the user pays to the BBC for the privalege of recieving its broadcasts in all its various formats it isnt a tax.
There are no taxes levied on us that are optional that I am aware of, they are all obligatory with perhaps the biggests being VAT. which is the only one that you could make a concious effort to reduce if you were of a mind.
Sex God
well said that pineapple.
suppose you run a company that makes £1million a year, very nice you say, can afford to pay more tax.
first thing that happens is the tax man arrives and takes a big fat wedge of it, then his mate from the VAT office reminds you that almost 20% of it is his, just behind him is another govt bod pointing out that you employ several staff so need to contribute to their NI payments, add to this the general costs of running and promoting your buisness and suddenly that big fat £1million is much smaller in your bank account, which gets taxed and has charges applied to it (which also get taxed). at this point you havn't actually got paid yourself and as you need to pay for your home, utilitiy bills and everything else- all taxable- you pay yourself a wage, which is taxed and has national insurance deducted.
As your doing so well with your £1million income you realise that your health is vital to the companies future, so you get private medical cover (thus reducing the burden on the NHS) and guess what, its taxed.
so, by this point, you've probably lost a substantial portion of the money you've worked so hard to make and the last thing you need is someone trying to take more of that.
penalising success will fail in the long term, people will either develop a what's the point attitude, move to a different country to become prosperous or simply work round the tax system to remove as much of their income to off-shore locations as they can (the online betting industry have already found this loop all because of the tax benefits)
This country is entering a dangerous area with the constant increase in taxes and charges for services that continue to deteriate, france is currently subject to riots and unrest by people who have just had enough of being pushed and pushed, it will happen here (and is another reason for the introduction of the forthcoming terrorism laws) if things don't change, i know this is going of topic a little but there is a relationship to the increase in the constant increase and introduction of taxes.
could soon be time to emigrate.
(and if you ever want to invest some of your wealth in a corporate video dave, i'm your man :thumbup: )
suppose you run a company that makes £1million a year, very nice you say, can afford to pay more tax.
first thing that happens is the tax man arrives and takes a big fat wedge of it, then his mate from the VAT office reminds you that almost 20% of it is his, just behind him is another govt bod pointing out that you employ several staff so need to contribute to their NI payments, add to this the general costs of running and promoting your buisness and suddenly that big fat £1million is much smaller in your bank account, which gets taxed and has charges applied to it (which also get taxed). at this point you havn't actually got paid yourself and as you need to pay for your home, utilitiy bills and everything else- all taxable- you pay yourself a wage, which is taxed and has national insurance deducted.
As your doing so well with your £1million income you realise that your health is vital to the companies future, so you get private medical cover (thus reducing the burden on the NHS) and guess what, its taxed.
so, by this point, you've probably lost a substantial portion of the money you've worked so hard to make and the last thing you need is someone trying to take more of that.
penalising success will fail in the long term, people will either develop a what's the point attitude, move to a different country to become prosperous or simply work round the tax system to remove as much of their income to off-shore locations as they can (the online betting industry have already found this loop all because of the tax benefits)
This country is entering a dangerous area with the constant increase in taxes and charges for services that continue to deteriate, france is currently subject to riots and unrest by people who have just had enough of being pushed and pushed, it will happen here (and is another reason for the introduction of the forthcoming terrorism laws) if things don't change, i know this is going of topic a little but there is a relationship to the increase in the constant increase and introduction of taxes.
could soon be time to emigrate.
(and if you ever want to invest some of your wealth in a corporate video dave, i'm your man :thumbup: )
