The ArgusRevised Brighton and Hove budget revealed (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Revised Brighton and Hove budget revealed

The Argus: Revised Brighton and Hove budget revealed Revised Brighton and Hove budget revealed

Disabled workers and residents reliant on care are set for a reprieve under the revised terms of Brighton and Hove City Council’s proposed budget.

Members of the city’s Green administration say they have listened to residents, unions and volunteer groups and have pulled proposals to cut £280,000 from Home Care services and subsidies to disability employer Able and Willing.

But the revised budget plans published yesterday have been criticised by opposition groups for sticking with a proposed 4.75% council tax increase, with councillors pointing out that a no vote in the referendum will cost the city more than £1 million.

Meanwhile unions have called on the two opposition parties to stand aside and let the public decide.

The revised budget follows initial plans for a 2% council increase announced in November, which included dire warnings that care homes could close, support to people with learning disabilities could be cut and dozens of members of staff laid off.

The Green administration say a 4.75% council tax increase would raise £2.75 million to support adult social care services and grants to third sector organisations.

The new budget proposals also resolves a £2.5 million budget black hole identified in December with extra income from the council tax increase, a reduction in pensions contributions and £500,000 of new savings identified.

The revised budget also retains other measures previously set out in December 2013, which include a freeze on citywide parking charges, a freeze on councillors’ allowances, funding for a £7.65/hr living wage for council staff and the continuation of the £1 million fund for homelessness.

In the bid to find £24 million worth of savings up to 150 council posts may be lost.

While some of these positions are already vacant or will become vacant through staff turnover the council report states it is likely at least half may have to come through redundancies.

Leader of the council Jason Kitcat said: “Over the last two months we’ve listened to the feedback from residents, unions, the community and voluntary sector and others to improve the budget.

“85% of residents have said they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care or at least maintain it at current levels.

“The council is in a more difficult financial position than ever thanks to mounting Coalition Government cuts and rising demand for social care.

"With both Labour and the Tories committed to cutting national funding for councils to zero by 2020 it’s crucial we as a city debate what we are willing to do to support our grandparents, parents and siblings, who need care now and in the future.”

The prospect of a referendum remains slim with both Conservative and Labour groups indicating they will not support such a move.

Conservative group leader Geoffrey Theobald has criticised the cost of a no vote in the referendum, which council officials indicate will cost £213,000 to hold and £350,000 in extra staffing and rebilling costs.

He said: “We know from The Argus polling and from what we are experiencing from knocking on people’s doors that very few people are in favour of this, I think it is running about three-to-one against.

"On the first of April people aren’t going to pay it and the council will be left with a reduction in income because people are not paying or only paying a proportion.

“Added to the costs is the extra worry that people are going to experience when they get these bills.”

Coun Theobald said the 4.75% increase was proposed “very late in the day” in a bid to unite the Green party, claiming party members refused to support the initial budget cuts to adult social care.

He said: “We have always said that we wouldn’t support a referendum, which we see as a very, very costly exercise, which would not succeed.

“Officers have been working all along on a 2% rise so presumably that will be dusted off the shelves.

“That won’t be the problem, the problem will be opposition parties have very little to amend what is presented to us.”

Labour leader Warren Morgan said the proposals showed the Greens know they have “failed the city, its residents and the services they rely on”.

Coun Morgan said the administration had failed to make savings of £2 million, which were identified in the last two budgets, failed to get better value from council social care contracts and failed to give consultants enough time or enough scope to make savings to offset cuts.

He added: “Now the Greens want to pass on responsibility for their failure to residents in a referendum costing £300,000.

“They want to pass on the costs of their failure to the most vulnerable in our society.

“They want to pass on the cost of £23 million in Tory cuts to those who can least afford it and who are struggling to pay their bills.

“They are using vulnerable people as an excuse to make a political gesture.”

GMB branch secretary Mark Turner called on the other two parties to stand aside and let the public decide on the proposed 4.75% increase.

He said: “Clearly the other two parties aren’t going to support the referendum and I think that’s a shame and a missed political opportunity.

“I understand what the other political groups are saying about people’s ability to pay but that’s for the public to decide and that’s why the Government brought this in.

“The people of Brighton and Hove are very intelligent and are perfectly capable of making up their own minds.

“If they decide they don’t want to protect these services it would be very difficult for the public to then turn around and criticise the politicians in 2015.”

He added he was “pleased” the revisions in the budget were moving in the “right direction” but raised concerns about the impact on reducing overtime for city parks staff would have on the clearing away of litter, glass and hypodermic needles from children’s playgrounds and cuts of £200,000 to the council’s “under-staffed” planning department, which will impact on workers health and future developments in the city.

He said there were also concerns about plans to reduce five posts from problem-hit rubbish collection company City Clean.

He said: “That is five less people cleaning the streets.

“The statement in the budget says they plan to increase mechanisation but they are not doing that, all they are doing is replacing existing vehicles that have come to the end of their lives.”

Comments (57)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:40am Sat 8 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 48

11:34am Sat 8 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

What's going on with the range of costs being quoted in this article?

The established estimate for referendum to date has been £230,000

'Councillors' say a 'no' vote will cost more than £1 million

'Council officials' say the referendum will cost £563,000

Warren Morgan is saying the referendum will cost £300,000

The Argus says the government cuts will be £24 million

Warren Morgan says they will be £23 million

???
What's going on with the range of costs being quoted in this article? The established estimate for referendum to date has been £230,000 'Councillors' say a 'no' vote will cost more than £1 million 'Council officials' say the referendum will cost £563,000 Warren Morgan is saying the referendum will cost £300,000 The Argus says the government cuts will be £24 million Warren Morgan says they will be £23 million ??? Gribbet
  • Score: 8

11:57am Sat 8 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Perhaps the budget wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't allowed the traveller community budget to overspend by £200,000.
Perhaps the budget wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't allowed the traveller community budget to overspend by £200,000. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 34

1:09pm Sat 8 Feb 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.[/p][/quote]Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP. VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: 3

1:19pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

The council has a licensing charge for HMOs which costs landlords a few hundred quid. It could easily be raised. It would be called council tax, it would purely be a services charge.
The council has a licensing charge for HMOs which costs landlords a few hundred quid. It could easily be raised. It would be called council tax, it would purely be a services charge. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 16

1:51pm Sat 8 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.
You should be asking why, in 13 years of government, Labour did nothing about this and when in power locally for years they did nothing.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.[/p][/quote]Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.[/p][/quote]You should be asking why, in 13 years of government, Labour did nothing about this and when in power locally for years they did nothing. HJarrs
  • Score: 5

1:53pm Sat 8 Feb 14

KarenT says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.
Yeah but aren't the owners of the properties they rent liable for Council Tax??? If not, then WHY not?
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.[/p][/quote]Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.[/p][/quote]Yeah but aren't the owners of the properties they rent liable for Council Tax??? If not, then WHY not? KarenT
  • Score: 16

1:55pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Andy R says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.
True, but actually MG's idea of levying a charge on landlords sounds like a good one - only it sounds a bit...well....Marxis
t.....

I won't tell him if you don't.....
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.[/p][/quote]Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.[/p][/quote]True, but actually MG's idea of levying a charge on landlords sounds like a good one - only it sounds a bit...well....Marxis t..... I won't tell him if you don't..... Andy R
  • Score: 4

2:27pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax.
Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools.
Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities?
If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax. Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools. Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities? Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 18

4:08pm Sat 8 Feb 14

KarenT says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax.
Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools.
Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities?
So are you saying the landlords are under no obligation to pay council tax???
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax. Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools. Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities?[/p][/quote]So are you saying the landlords are under no obligation to pay council tax??? KarenT
  • Score: 12

5:34pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Zeta Function says...

Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students. Zeta Function
  • Score: 3

6:37pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Thay Qon U says...

KarenT wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax.
Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools.
Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities?
So are you saying the landlords are under no obligation to pay council tax???
Karen a copy about Student Council Tax discounts from the BHCC web-site:-

"Council Tax bills are charged to households or 'dwellings', not individuals. If your household has some full-time students, the household may be eligible for a Council Tax discount. If everyone in your household is a full-time student, the household may be eligible for complete exemption from Council Tax. (Full time = at least 21 hours per week for 24 weeks in any single academic or calendar year.) "

So it seems that if a property is occupied solely by Students no Council Tax is payable.

In effect they get the services provided by BHCC, Sussex Police & East Sussex Fire & Rescue Services free of any charge to them or their landlord.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax. Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools. Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities?[/p][/quote]So are you saying the landlords are under no obligation to pay council tax???[/p][/quote]Karen a copy about Student Council Tax discounts from the BHCC web-site:- "Council Tax bills are charged to households or 'dwellings', not individuals. If your household has some full-time students, the household may be eligible for a Council Tax discount. If everyone in your household is a full-time student, the household may be eligible for complete exemption from Council Tax. (Full time = at least 21 hours per week for 24 weeks in any single academic or calendar year.) " So it seems that if a property is occupied solely by Students no Council Tax is payable. In effect they get the services provided by BHCC, Sussex Police & East Sussex Fire & Rescue Services free of any charge to them or their landlord. Thay Qon U
  • Score: 10

6:52pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Seventh Circle says...

If students have to repay their tuition fees then the same should apply to council tax.
Landlords are benefitting hugely from the income they receive for students so they also should be liable for paying for services to be provided to properties they own.
If students have to repay their tuition fees then the same should apply to council tax. Landlords are benefitting hugely from the income they receive for students so they also should be liable for paying for services to be provided to properties they own. Seventh Circle
  • Score: 10

8:56pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Hove Actually says...

I dont care if the students don't pay.......just as long as they don't get a say
I dont care if the students don't pay.......just as long as they don't get a say Hove Actually
  • Score: 14

9:12pm Sat 8 Feb 14

s&k says...

How much does B&HCC spend on PR and communications? Perhaps the argus needs to ask some FOIs about how much sussex councils spend on this!
How much does B&HCC spend on PR and communications? Perhaps the argus needs to ask some FOIs about how much sussex councils spend on this! s&k
  • Score: 4

9:17pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Tallywhacker says...

HJarrs wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.
You should be asking why, in 13 years of government, Labour did nothing about this and when in power locally for years they did nothing.
No Maxwell is right. The question isn't what did or didn't happen in the past but why you don't do it now. Passing the buck doesn't work when you are in charge.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.[/p][/quote]Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.[/p][/quote]You should be asking why, in 13 years of government, Labour did nothing about this and when in power locally for years they did nothing.[/p][/quote]No Maxwell is right. The question isn't what did or didn't happen in the past but why you don't do it now. Passing the buck doesn't work when you are in charge. Tallywhacker
  • Score: 13

6:14am Sun 9 Feb 14

Out There says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
Perhaps the budget wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't allowed the traveller community budget to overspend by £200,000.
Perhaps the budget wouldn't be so bad if there was closer monitoring of support services and organisations which offer supported housing. Are these organisations fit for purpose? Do support workers actually find residents jobs? Who is monitoring supported housing( and I don't mean monitoring reports) is there a limit on number of support workers a person can have? There are people in society who need support. I'm just wondering how much the bill is and whether some of these organisations are fit for purpose
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: Perhaps the budget wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't allowed the traveller community budget to overspend by £200,000.[/p][/quote]Perhaps the budget wouldn't be so bad if there was closer monitoring of support services and organisations which offer supported housing. Are these organisations fit for purpose? Do support workers actually find residents jobs? Who is monitoring supported housing( and I don't mean monitoring reports) is there a limit on number of support workers a person can have? There are people in society who need support. I'm just wondering how much the bill is and whether some of these organisations are fit for purpose Out There
  • Score: 3

8:10am Sun 9 Feb 14

Sussex jim says...

Zeta Function wrote:
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property.
However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.[/p][/quote]An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property. However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise. Sussex jim
  • Score: 2

9:02am Sun 9 Feb 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

HJ

Do you remember when you had the outburst and said that benefits should be withdrawn from all elderly and vulnerable people for 2 clear years and instead the funds would be spent on infrastructure for the younger population?

I thing you called it Brighton-ageddon?

Do you still think that's the right thing to do?
HJ Do you remember when you had the outburst and said that benefits should be withdrawn from all elderly and vulnerable people for 2 clear years and instead the funds would be spent on infrastructure for the younger population? I thing you called it Brighton-ageddon? Do you still think that's the right thing to do? I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!
  • Score: 2

9:08am Sun 9 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

I dare say it is in the lease agreements that tenants are responsible for all (non-maintenance) bills to be levied against the property. It would be difficult to alter that by law as that would presumably impact on local authority and other social housing as well.

Mind you, I am not saying it is impossible. It is just that our government is so bloomin' lousy at writing laws.
I dare say it is in the lease agreements that tenants are responsible for all (non-maintenance) bills to be levied against the property. It would be difficult to alter that by law as that would presumably impact on local authority and other social housing as well. Mind you, I am not saying it is impossible. It is just that our government is so bloomin' lousy at writing laws. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

10:21am Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

Andy R wrote:
VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.
True, but actually MG's idea of levying a charge on landlords sounds like a good one - only it sounds a bit...well....Marxis

t.....

I won't tell him if you don't.....
Actually it sounds more like the poll tax - i.e if you receive services you pay for them. And rightly as well.

The way council tax works, like all tax, is that the more successful you are, or the bigger your house, the more you are penalised, which of course is very socialist. It's noticeable however that socialist MP's still send their kids to private schools, are more likely to seriously fiddle their expenses if the past couple of years are to be believed, and maximise tax avoidance schemes (Miliband/Hodge are documented examples).
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.[/p][/quote]Students are exempt from Council Tax by law, nothing any party in this Council can do about that. Complain to your MP.[/p][/quote]True, but actually MG's idea of levying a charge on landlords sounds like a good one - only it sounds a bit...well....Marxis t..... I won't tell him if you don't.....[/p][/quote]Actually it sounds more like the poll tax - i.e if you receive services you pay for them. And rightly as well. The way council tax works, like all tax, is that the more successful you are, or the bigger your house, the more you are penalised, which of course is very socialist. It's noticeable however that socialist MP's still send their kids to private schools, are more likely to seriously fiddle their expenses if the past couple of years are to be believed, and maximise tax avoidance schemes (Miliband/Hodge are documented examples). Plantpot
  • Score: 2

10:24am Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax.
Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools.
Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities?
The influx of students will tilt the balance of the political landscpe as well. These people can do a lot of damage to the city at election time and then just waltz off having paid nothing for council services. I wonder how many vote Green after their student days? The national polls suggest 1% of all those that cast their votes, therefore about 0.3% of the vote eleigible population.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: If a property receives services it should pay. Who pays is a matter for debate, but what is wrong is thousands of properties being subsidised by families who are already paying council tax. Bringing in another 5,000 non payers into the city means the burden will be added to those already paying and it just isn't right at a time when we can't find enough money for core services. We are being treated like absolute fools. Perhaps we should seek some payment from the universities?[/p][/quote]The influx of students will tilt the balance of the political landscpe as well. These people can do a lot of damage to the city at election time and then just waltz off having paid nothing for council services. I wonder how many vote Green after their student days? The national polls suggest 1% of all those that cast their votes, therefore about 0.3% of the vote eleigible population. Plantpot
  • Score: 5

10:24am Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Sussex jim wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property.
However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.
You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it.

What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.[/p][/quote]An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property. However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.[/p][/quote]You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it. What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

10:26am Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

mimseycal wrote:
I dare say it is in the lease agreements that tenants are responsible for all (non-maintenance) bills to be levied against the property. It would be difficult to alter that by law as that would presumably impact on local authority and other social housing as well.

Mind you, I am not saying it is impossible. It is just that our government is so bloomin' lousy at writing laws.
Student dwellings generally have contracts that include maintenance as part of the annual rent IME. The utility billsm may or may not be separate.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: I dare say it is in the lease agreements that tenants are responsible for all (non-maintenance) bills to be levied against the property. It would be difficult to alter that by law as that would presumably impact on local authority and other social housing as well. Mind you, I am not saying it is impossible. It is just that our government is so bloomin' lousy at writing laws.[/p][/quote]Student dwellings generally have contracts that include maintenance as part of the annual rent IME. The utility billsm may or may not be separate. Plantpot
  • Score: 0

10:27am Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! wrote:
HJ

Do you remember when you had the outburst and said that benefits should be withdrawn from all elderly and vulnerable people for 2 clear years and instead the funds would be spent on infrastructure for the younger population?

I thing you called it Brighton-ageddon?

Do you still think that's the right thing to do?
What a poor attempt at a troll. When are you coming down from London to visit me in Brighton? Don't forget your bike!
[quote][p][bold]I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars![/bold] wrote: HJ Do you remember when you had the outburst and said that benefits should be withdrawn from all elderly and vulnerable people for 2 clear years and instead the funds would be spent on infrastructure for the younger population? I thing you called it Brighton-ageddon? Do you still think that's the right thing to do?[/p][/quote]What a poor attempt at a troll. When are you coming down from London to visit me in Brighton? Don't forget your bike! HJarrs
  • Score: -9

10:31am Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

HJarrs wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property.
However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.
You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it.

What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.
The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride.

What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.[/p][/quote]An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property. However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.[/p][/quote]You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it. What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.[/p][/quote]The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride. What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered. Plantpot
  • Score: 6

11:02am Sun 9 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive.

Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive. Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

11:14am Sun 9 Feb 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

Just playing Devil's advocate here, but there is another large group of people in this city who receive services, get a vote, but pay little or no Council Tax - Old Age Pensioners. Should they be scapegoated like students as well?
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but there is another large group of people in this city who receive services, get a vote, but pay little or no Council Tax - Old Age Pensioners. Should they be scapegoated like students as well? VoxUnpopuli
  • Score: -9

11:16am Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

VoxUnpopuli wrote:
Just playing Devil's advocate here, but there is another large group of people in this city who receive services, get a vote, but pay little or no Council Tax - Old Age Pensioners. Should they be scapegoated like students as well?
Many of them will have contributed taxes all their lives.
[quote][p][bold]VoxUnpopuli[/bold] wrote: Just playing Devil's advocate here, but there is another large group of people in this city who receive services, get a vote, but pay little or no Council Tax - Old Age Pensioners. Should they be scapegoated like students as well?[/p][/quote]Many of them will have contributed taxes all their lives. Plantpot
  • Score: 9

11:20am Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

mimseycal wrote:
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive.

Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.
Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive.

Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive. Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.[/p][/quote]Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive. Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste. Plantpot
  • Score: 1

11:59am Sun 9 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive.

Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.
Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive.

Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.
Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive. Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.[/p][/quote]Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive. Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.[/p][/quote]Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ... mimseycal
  • Score: -9

12:48pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

mimseycal wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive.

Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.
Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive.

Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.
Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...
The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt?

If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive. Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.[/p][/quote]Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive. Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.[/p][/quote]Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...[/p][/quote]The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt? If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....? Plantpot
  • Score: 3

12:56pm Sun 9 Feb 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

When are councillors going to get a pay cut? They are massively over paid and in the current times it is they that should have cuts not the most vulnerable in our society.
When are councillors going to get a pay cut? They are massively over paid and in the current times it is they that should have cuts not the most vulnerable in our society. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 9

2:03pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
When are councillors going to get a pay cut? They are massively over paid and in the current times it is they that should have cuts not the most vulnerable in our society.
Whatever the party political persuasion, it is simply rubbish to claim that councillors are massively overpaid. They don't get paid at all, they get an allowance of somewhere around £11000 in B&H. For many councillors, this is equivalent of below minimum wage for the number of hours they put in and small return for often sacrificing family life and dealing with an ungrateful public. We are lucky to have the calibre of councillor that we already have. I truly hope we do not get into a bidding war of who will be a councillor for less, it will not encourage participation in the long run. We must accept that democracy costs money, as I for one do not want councils to be run just by the retired as a bit of something to do.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: When are councillors going to get a pay cut? They are massively over paid and in the current times it is they that should have cuts not the most vulnerable in our society.[/p][/quote]Whatever the party political persuasion, it is simply rubbish to claim that councillors are massively overpaid. They don't get paid at all, they get an allowance of somewhere around £11000 in B&H. For many councillors, this is equivalent of below minimum wage for the number of hours they put in and small return for often sacrificing family life and dealing with an ungrateful public. We are lucky to have the calibre of councillor that we already have. I truly hope we do not get into a bidding war of who will be a councillor for less, it will not encourage participation in the long run. We must accept that democracy costs money, as I for one do not want councils to be run just by the retired as a bit of something to do. HJarrs
  • Score: -8

2:27pm Sun 9 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...
I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma... rayellerton
  • Score: 7

2:35pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive.

Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.
Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive.

Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.
Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...
The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt?

If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....?
I didn't realise that you were a time traveller! The 45% rate was only brought in in April 2013. We will not truly know the amount of tax paid until at least February 2015, once the tax year of 2013-14 has been assessed.

The 1% pay so much tax proportionately because they pay their employees so little (and we even end up subsidising millions of employees and their companies through the benefits system! Double bubble!). The 1% game the system, they are disproportionately rewarded (they reward themselves!), afterall, we all work hard and few work harder than care workers, for example, who are paid a pitance. They also evade or avoid tax and seldom pay the headline rates, they largely own the media and have Westminster and the Tories in particular in their pockets; woe betide anyone really taking on the tax loopholes.

The 1% recieve tax benefits and breaks, much of their wealth is unearned being inherited or returns from investments, they make use and depend upon the infrastructure paid for over generations (the ministry of defence are not protecting my assests!) and the stability of society, we underwrite their saving to the tune of tens of thousands per bank account and we underwrite the financial system from which they benefit the most and that has cost us hundreds of billions to bail out, the bankers even suggest we should be grateful to them and that we should pay them more so that they can pay a little more tax. The 1% are a tax on us all, we pay for them through inflated product prices and through their anti-competitive monopolisation of business and media. The should not pay 45% or 50%, but a lot more! They are more wealth monopolisers than wealth creators.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive. Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.[/p][/quote]Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive. Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.[/p][/quote]Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...[/p][/quote]The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt? If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....?[/p][/quote]I didn't realise that you were a time traveller! The 45% rate was only brought in in April 2013. We will not truly know the amount of tax paid until at least February 2015, once the tax year of 2013-14 has been assessed. The 1% pay so much tax proportionately because they pay their employees so little (and we even end up subsidising millions of employees and their companies through the benefits system! Double bubble!). The 1% game the system, they are disproportionately rewarded (they reward themselves!), afterall, we all work hard and few work harder than care workers, for example, who are paid a pitance. They also evade or avoid tax and seldom pay the headline rates, they largely own the media and have Westminster and the Tories in particular in their pockets; woe betide anyone really taking on the tax loopholes. The 1% recieve tax benefits and breaks, much of their wealth is unearned being inherited or returns from investments, they make use and depend upon the infrastructure paid for over generations (the ministry of defence are not protecting my assests!) and the stability of society, we underwrite their saving to the tune of tens of thousands per bank account and we underwrite the financial system from which they benefit the most and that has cost us hundreds of billions to bail out, the bankers even suggest we should be grateful to them and that we should pay them more so that they can pay a little more tax. The 1% are a tax on us all, we pay for them through inflated product prices and through their anti-competitive monopolisation of business and media. The should not pay 45% or 50%, but a lot more! They are more wealth monopolisers than wealth creators. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

2:38pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

rayellerton wrote:
I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...
Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin.
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...[/p][/quote]Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

2:57pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

HJarrs wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive.

Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.
Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive.

Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.
Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...
The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt?

If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....?
I didn't realise that you were a time traveller! The 45% rate was only brought in in April 2013. We will not truly know the amount of tax paid until at least February 2015, once the tax year of 2013-14 has been assessed.

The 1% pay so much tax proportionately because they pay their employees so little (and we even end up subsidising millions of employees and their companies through the benefits system! Double bubble!). The 1% game the system, they are disproportionately rewarded (they reward themselves!), afterall, we all work hard and few work harder than care workers, for example, who are paid a pitance. They also evade or avoid tax and seldom pay the headline rates, they largely own the media and have Westminster and the Tories in particular in their pockets; woe betide anyone really taking on the tax loopholes.

The 1% recieve tax benefits and breaks, much of their wealth is unearned being inherited or returns from investments, they make use and depend upon the infrastructure paid for over generations (the ministry of defence are not protecting my assests!) and the stability of society, we underwrite their saving to the tune of tens of thousands per bank account and we underwrite the financial system from which they benefit the most and that has cost us hundreds of billions to bail out, the bankers even suggest we should be grateful to them and that we should pay them more so that they can pay a little more tax. The 1% are a tax on us all, we pay for them through inflated product prices and through their anti-competitive monopolisation of business and media. The should not pay 45% or 50%, but a lot more! They are more wealth monopolisers than wealth creators.
Lol. I can't comment in any other way - you are priceless. You must post over at the Guardian as well?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive. Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.[/p][/quote]Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive. Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.[/p][/quote]Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...[/p][/quote]The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt? If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....?[/p][/quote]I didn't realise that you were a time traveller! The 45% rate was only brought in in April 2013. We will not truly know the amount of tax paid until at least February 2015, once the tax year of 2013-14 has been assessed. The 1% pay so much tax proportionately because they pay their employees so little (and we even end up subsidising millions of employees and their companies through the benefits system! Double bubble!). The 1% game the system, they are disproportionately rewarded (they reward themselves!), afterall, we all work hard and few work harder than care workers, for example, who are paid a pitance. They also evade or avoid tax and seldom pay the headline rates, they largely own the media and have Westminster and the Tories in particular in their pockets; woe betide anyone really taking on the tax loopholes. The 1% recieve tax benefits and breaks, much of their wealth is unearned being inherited or returns from investments, they make use and depend upon the infrastructure paid for over generations (the ministry of defence are not protecting my assests!) and the stability of society, we underwrite their saving to the tune of tens of thousands per bank account and we underwrite the financial system from which they benefit the most and that has cost us hundreds of billions to bail out, the bankers even suggest we should be grateful to them and that we should pay them more so that they can pay a little more tax. The 1% are a tax on us all, we pay for them through inflated product prices and through their anti-competitive monopolisation of business and media. The should not pay 45% or 50%, but a lot more! They are more wealth monopolisers than wealth creators.[/p][/quote]Lol. I can't comment in any other way - you are priceless. You must post over at the Guardian as well? Plantpot
  • Score: 5

3:18pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Plantpot wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive.

Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.
Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive.

Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.
Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...
The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt?

If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....?
I didn't realise that you were a time traveller! The 45% rate was only brought in in April 2013. We will not truly know the amount of tax paid until at least February 2015, once the tax year of 2013-14 has been assessed.

The 1% pay so much tax proportionately because they pay their employees so little (and we even end up subsidising millions of employees and their companies through the benefits system! Double bubble!). The 1% game the system, they are disproportionately rewarded (they reward themselves!), afterall, we all work hard and few work harder than care workers, for example, who are paid a pitance. They also evade or avoid tax and seldom pay the headline rates, they largely own the media and have Westminster and the Tories in particular in their pockets; woe betide anyone really taking on the tax loopholes.

The 1% recieve tax benefits and breaks, much of their wealth is unearned being inherited or returns from investments, they make use and depend upon the infrastructure paid for over generations (the ministry of defence are not protecting my assests!) and the stability of society, we underwrite their saving to the tune of tens of thousands per bank account and we underwrite the financial system from which they benefit the most and that has cost us hundreds of billions to bail out, the bankers even suggest we should be grateful to them and that we should pay them more so that they can pay a little more tax. The 1% are a tax on us all, we pay for them through inflated product prices and through their anti-competitive monopolisation of business and media. The should not pay 45% or 50%, but a lot more! They are more wealth monopolisers than wealth creators.
Lol. I can't comment in any other way - you are priceless. You must post over at the Guardian as well?
Maybe the Guardian is right!
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no Plantpot ... not everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. What you actually mean is that everyone has the same right to be successful. There is a whole chasm of difference between an opportunity and a right. Further, the type of success you refer to, namely fiscal success, has little to do with aspiration and drive. Personally though I think that this over-dependency on fiscal success is over rated. It essentially dehumanises everyone by evaluating the worth of an individual on the amount of money they manage to accumulate. People are so much more then a bank balance. Not to forget that as a species our existence and the continuation thereof, is not a matter that a bank balance can ensure.[/p][/quote]Whilst not everyone has the same opportunity, there are plenty of people that have the drive from any walk of life to be successful, financially or otherwise. Unless you inherit wealth, you need aspiration and drive, it rarely just falls into your lap. The vast majority of people don't have this drive. Without wealth creators, there would be much less tax for socialists to waste.[/p][/quote]Except that it is exactly these 'wealth creators' that are utilising all the tax loopholes they can get ...[/p][/quote]The top 1% of earners pay 30% of income tax. I certainly want to pay the least amount of tax possible. You may have noticed that the govt. is receiving more income tax at the 45p rate than it did at the 50p rate. I wonder why? Because the 45p rate is fairer? Why should someone work hard to hand over half their earnings to the govt? If tax loopholes are such a problem, or make so much difference to an economy, why don't governments close them? They are used by such as Miliband and Hodge apparently - just Google. So if they are good enough for Labour, they must be good enough for everyone else, surely.....?[/p][/quote]I didn't realise that you were a time traveller! The 45% rate was only brought in in April 2013. We will not truly know the amount of tax paid until at least February 2015, once the tax year of 2013-14 has been assessed. The 1% pay so much tax proportionately because they pay their employees so little (and we even end up subsidising millions of employees and their companies through the benefits system! Double bubble!). The 1% game the system, they are disproportionately rewarded (they reward themselves!), afterall, we all work hard and few work harder than care workers, for example, who are paid a pitance. They also evade or avoid tax and seldom pay the headline rates, they largely own the media and have Westminster and the Tories in particular in their pockets; woe betide anyone really taking on the tax loopholes. The 1% recieve tax benefits and breaks, much of their wealth is unearned being inherited or returns from investments, they make use and depend upon the infrastructure paid for over generations (the ministry of defence are not protecting my assests!) and the stability of society, we underwrite their saving to the tune of tens of thousands per bank account and we underwrite the financial system from which they benefit the most and that has cost us hundreds of billions to bail out, the bankers even suggest we should be grateful to them and that we should pay them more so that they can pay a little more tax. The 1% are a tax on us all, we pay for them through inflated product prices and through their anti-competitive monopolisation of business and media. The should not pay 45% or 50%, but a lot more! They are more wealth monopolisers than wealth creators.[/p][/quote]Lol. I can't comment in any other way - you are priceless. You must post over at the Guardian as well?[/p][/quote]Maybe the Guardian is right! HJarrs
  • Score: -7

3:49pm Sun 9 Feb 14

KarenT says...

Plantpot wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property.
However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.
You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it.

What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.
The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride.

What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.
There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.[/p][/quote]An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property. However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.[/p][/quote]You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it. What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.[/p][/quote]The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride. What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.[/p][/quote]There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere. KarenT
  • Score: 5

4:01pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property.
However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.
You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it.

What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.
The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride.

What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.
There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere.
You are entirely wrong. We fund them; the wealthiest do not exist in some sort of bubble, we are their customers, their designers, their producers. The wealthy are one thing the biggest recipients of benefits, be it privatisation and lucrative public sector contracts or the insurance that we provide should the financial sector go bust (that will never happen will it!). They are wealthy primarily because they are able to be disproportionately rewarded either by design or peculiarity of the system.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.[/p][/quote]An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property. However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.[/p][/quote]You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it. What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.[/p][/quote]The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride. What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.[/p][/quote]There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere.[/p][/quote]You are entirely wrong. We fund them; the wealthiest do not exist in some sort of bubble, we are their customers, their designers, their producers. The wealthy are one thing the biggest recipients of benefits, be it privatisation and lucrative public sector contracts or the insurance that we provide should the financial sector go bust (that will never happen will it!). They are wealthy primarily because they are able to be disproportionately rewarded either by design or peculiarity of the system. HJarrs
  • Score: -4

4:23pm Sun 9 Feb 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property.
However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.
You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it.

What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.
The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride.

What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.
There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere.
You are entirely wrong. We fund them; the wealthiest do not exist in some sort of bubble, we are their customers, their designers, their producers. The wealthy are one thing the biggest recipients of benefits, be it privatisation and lucrative public sector contracts or the insurance that we provide should the financial sector go bust (that will never happen will it!). They are wealthy primarily because they are able to be disproportionately rewarded either by design or peculiarity of the system.
Let's not start with "pillorying the wealthy" - it's so bloody boring. What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner? Hmmm......
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.[/p][/quote]An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property. However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.[/p][/quote]You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it. What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.[/p][/quote]The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride. What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.[/p][/quote]There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere.[/p][/quote]You are entirely wrong. We fund them; the wealthiest do not exist in some sort of bubble, we are their customers, their designers, their producers. The wealthy are one thing the biggest recipients of benefits, be it privatisation and lucrative public sector contracts or the insurance that we provide should the financial sector go bust (that will never happen will it!). They are wealthy primarily because they are able to be disproportionately rewarded either by design or peculiarity of the system.[/p][/quote]Let's not start with "pillorying the wealthy" - it's so bloody boring. What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner? Hmmm...... KarenT
  • Score: 3

4:36pm Sun 9 Feb 14

KarenT says...

Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this! KarenT
  • Score: 6

5:43pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
Zeta Function wrote:
Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000.

It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.
An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property.
However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.
You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it.

What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.
The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride.

What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.
There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere.
You are entirely wrong. We fund them; the wealthiest do not exist in some sort of bubble, we are their customers, their designers, their producers. The wealthy are one thing the biggest recipients of benefits, be it privatisation and lucrative public sector contracts or the insurance that we provide should the financial sector go bust (that will never happen will it!). They are wealthy primarily because they are able to be disproportionately rewarded either by design or peculiarity of the system.
Let's not start with "pillorying the wealthy" - it's so bloody boring. What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner? Hmmm......
Not half as boring as pillorying the poorest!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Brighton & Hove's population is increasing. Between 2001and 2011 there was an increase from 247,817 to 273,400 (see Census figures) a rise of 25,583 over 10%. If this rate continues by 2020 the population will be over 300,000. It is myopic to say the least for the council not to plan for this increase. The choice for voters will be between voting for worsening public squalor: skeleton refuse services, no care at all for the vulnerable, unrepaired infrastructure, etc, and voting for a budget that recognises with proper investment and planning the city will thrive and not sink below the waves. That means reform of the council tax system. A site value tax should be introduced, and, a separate annual resident's charge for everyone including students.[/p][/quote]An annual residents' charge was introduced in the 1980s' (the Community charge) to replace the property tax (the rates) that was based on the rental value of a property. However, it meant that those previously having a free ride, like young working adults still living with their parents had to suddenly start paying their way. Despite being the fairest system there were objections and riots: and unfortunately the government caved in and introduced the current system of Council Tax- the worst and lest fair compromise.[/p][/quote]You are bonkers! Poll tax most fair? Is that why there were riots and mass non- payment? I think people quite clearly thought it unfair that someone on a low wage renting a room in a poky house should pay the same as a billionaire in their sprawling mansion. If ever there was a tax to benefit the 1%, that was it. What is currently unfair about council tax is that there should be a revaluation and more bands to tax more fairly the most expensive properties. Council tax is the one tax the wealthy find difficult to evade.[/p][/quote]The more you earn the less likely you are to use council services.The riots were down to people not wanting to pay their way, and nothing to do with fairness. it was the socialist need for a free ride. What is fair about penalising wealth? Everyone has the same opportunity to be successful. Unfortunately, 95% can't be bothered.[/p][/quote]There's a lot of truth there. The wealthy don't use the NHS, they all have private medical insurance. The wealthy often send their children to public school, which they pay for. There's just a couple of examples. Why should they be funding life for everyone else, aside from 'altruism' of course... I agree that there are far too many ways for the wealthy to tax dodge perhaps, but still they will be the biggest contributors to income tax in the country, which is why you can't come down too hard on them or they'll all just go elsewhere and take their money with them! I would, if I was rich and it became significantly beneficial to live elsewhere.[/p][/quote]You are entirely wrong. We fund them; the wealthiest do not exist in some sort of bubble, we are their customers, their designers, their producers. The wealthy are one thing the biggest recipients of benefits, be it privatisation and lucrative public sector contracts or the insurance that we provide should the financial sector go bust (that will never happen will it!). They are wealthy primarily because they are able to be disproportionately rewarded either by design or peculiarity of the system.[/p][/quote]Let's not start with "pillorying the wealthy" - it's so bloody boring. What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner? Hmmm......[/p][/quote]Not half as boring as pillorying the poorest! HJarrs
  • Score: -4

5:46pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery! HJarrs
  • Score: -8

6:53pm Sun 9 Feb 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
Who said it was a "small number"? And Bill Gates has set up a foundation which has donated billions to fight Aids, enhance healthcare and education for the poor, reduce extreme poverty, and loads more.... Hardly what you'd call "pet causes"! God you say some dumb things - I'm beginning to find out why YOU are so often pilloried here!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery![/p][/quote]Who said it was a "small number"? And Bill Gates has set up a foundation which has donated billions to fight Aids, enhance healthcare and education for the poor, reduce extreme poverty, and loads more.... Hardly what you'd call "pet causes"! God you say some dumb things - I'm beginning to find out why YOU are so often pilloried here! KarenT
  • Score: 3

6:55pm Sun 9 Feb 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen:

What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery![/p][/quote]Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen: What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner? KarenT
  • Score: 7

9:11pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen:

What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?
We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!).

Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner.

The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery![/p][/quote]Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen: What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?[/p][/quote]We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!). Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner. The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:26pm Sun 9 Feb 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen:

What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?
We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!).

Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner.

The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.
I wish I was one of those 100,000.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery![/p][/quote]Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen: What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?[/p][/quote]We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!). Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner. The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.[/p][/quote]I wish I was one of those 100,000. KarenT
  • Score: 4

9:40pm Sun 9 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen:

What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?
We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!).

Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner.

The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.
I wish I was one of those 100,000.
Who doesn't!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery![/p][/quote]Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen: What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?[/p][/quote]We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!). Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner. The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.[/p][/quote]I wish I was one of those 100,000.[/p][/quote]Who doesn't! HJarrs
  • Score: -2

10:10pm Sun 9 Feb 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen:

What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?
We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!).

Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner.

The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.
I wish I was one of those 100,000.
Who doesn't!
And if I did I would evade paying tax as much as poss so I could donate most of it to my pet cause, The Royal Society for the Protection of Fat Birds.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery![/p][/quote]Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen: What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?[/p][/quote]We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!). Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner. The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.[/p][/quote]I wish I was one of those 100,000.[/p][/quote]Who doesn't![/p][/quote]And if I did I would evade paying tax as much as poss so I could donate most of it to my pet cause, The Royal Society for the Protection of Fat Birds. KarenT
  • Score: -1

10:19pm Sun 9 Feb 14

rayellerton says...

HJarrs wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...
Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin.
Gravy Train...Westminster and Brussels. I lived here when we had mostly decent councillors...local people of all political colours who worked for the good of the town. How many of the greens are or have local roots? Mine go back to 1801...
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...[/p][/quote]Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin.[/p][/quote]Gravy Train...Westminster and Brussels. I lived here when we had mostly decent councillors...local people of all political colours who worked for the good of the town. How many of the greens are or have local roots? Mine go back to 1801... rayellerton
  • Score: 4

6:31am Mon 10 Feb 14

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

rayellerton wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...
Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin.
Gravy Train...Westminster and Brussels. I lived here when we had mostly decent councillors...local people of all political colours who worked for the good of the town. How many of the greens are or have local roots? Mine go back to 1801...
Very few of the green supporters on here have actually lived in Brighton, never mind having their roots here. Probably the occasional day trip linked to some unwelcome protest, like HJarrs !
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...[/p][/quote]Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin.[/p][/quote]Gravy Train...Westminster and Brussels. I lived here when we had mostly decent councillors...local people of all political colours who worked for the good of the town. How many of the greens are or have local roots? Mine go back to 1801...[/p][/quote]Very few of the green supporters on here have actually lived in Brighton, never mind having their roots here. Probably the occasional day trip linked to some unwelcome protest, like HJarrs ! Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 3

6:57am Mon 10 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this!
Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery!
Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen:

What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?
We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!).

Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner.

The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.
I wish I was one of those 100,000.
Who doesn't!
And if I did I would evade paying tax as much as poss so I could donate most of it to my pet cause, The Royal Society for the Protection of Fat Birds.
Hee, hee. Good cause. In your case I think a blind eye should be turned to the evasion!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Also, I buy lottery tickets because I too would like to be wealthy, and I suspect most people on here do or at some point have bought a lottery ticket for that same reason! And if they ever win THEY will want to decide precisely how to redistribute their wealth, rather than being told what it is they HAVE TO fund. Being rich and avoiding tax needn't necessarily equate with greed. Some of the greatest philanthropists the world has ever seen were very wealthy indeed, and THEY decided to whom or what they wanted to be charitable towards, beyond their legal tax liablity. Bill Gates is a classic example of this![/p][/quote]Being rich and avoiding tax equates to greed. That a very small number decide to give to pet causes does not change this. Good luck with lottery![/p][/quote]Also, still waiting for you to answer this question, which I suspect just ain't gonna happen: What IS wealthy anyway? Someone earning £50K+ a year? Someone earning £100K+ a year? Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all? A successful self-made entrepreneur? A lottery winner?[/p][/quote]We are getting well off piste for the subject of the article (I admit my part in this!). Wealthy? Yes to; Someone born into wealth and not having to work at all. A successful self-made entrepreneur (if they made oodles of money). A lottery winner. The top 1% in the UK earn more than £100K per annum. Would I consider £100K wealthy? Not necessarily, it depends upon circumstances and how long you earned that type of cash. You could be on that money but only be able to buy a decent but modest house in this city. Where is the dividing line between wealthy and well off? I don't know, but I would class those on 10 times the average UK income in the former bracket. There are probably around 100000 who are paid this much or more annually.[/p][/quote]I wish I was one of those 100,000.[/p][/quote]Who doesn't![/p][/quote]And if I did I would evade paying tax as much as poss so I could donate most of it to my pet cause, The Royal Society for the Protection of Fat Birds.[/p][/quote]Hee, hee. Good cause. In your case I think a blind eye should be turned to the evasion! HJarrs
  • Score: 0

7:04am Mon 10 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

rayellerton wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...
Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin.
Gravy Train...Westminster and Brussels. I lived here when we had mostly decent councillors...local people of all political colours who worked for the good of the town. How many of the greens are or have local roots? Mine go back to 1801...
The small number of councillors I know work very hard for their constituents and care passionately for the city and it's people. I doubt any of them want to progress further. Sad that you consider the democratic system a gravy train.
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: I seem to remember when Councillors just got expenses, and when they wanted to serve the town not use it as a stepping stone to the gravy train. It meant that we got representatives who looked after our interests, had quite a lot of life and business experience and were not stifled by party dogma...[/p][/quote]Take off the rose tinted glasses. I have read about some of the corrupt practices that have happened in the past. Often the business experience was put to the benefit of their own businesses! If people become councillors to get on the "Gravy train" then they have made a big mistake, for the gravy is very, very thin.[/p][/quote]Gravy Train...Westminster and Brussels. I lived here when we had mostly decent councillors...local people of all political colours who worked for the good of the town. How many of the greens are or have local roots? Mine go back to 1801...[/p][/quote]The small number of councillors I know work very hard for their constituents and care passionately for the city and it's people. I doubt any of them want to progress further. Sad that you consider the democratic system a gravy train. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

9:12pm Mon 10 Feb 14

wippasnapper says...

Strange the greens coming up with a 85% of residents saying they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care but when and if the green council do hold a city wide referendum I’m shore the marguerite will be a NO% to an increase in council tax duo manly to the hike in energy bills, transport getting to work and back costs on top of low wages…
I think it’s about time this green party rename themselves “the conservative green party” because like the Tories they are squeezing the pockets of the less well off… how much more can the less well off take in hiked prices across the board.
Strange the greens coming up with a 85% of residents saying they wanted to increase funding for Adult Social Care but when and if the green council do hold a city wide referendum I’m shore the marguerite will be a NO% to an increase in council tax duo manly to the hike in energy bills, transport getting to work and back costs on top of low wages… I think it’s about time this green party rename themselves “the conservative green party” because like the Tories they are squeezing the pockets of the less well off… how much more can the less well off take in hiked prices across the board. wippasnapper
  • Score: 1

7:50pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Green_Girl_1990 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service.
It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market.
That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street.
Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city.
It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else.
Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income.
If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.
How DARE you have a go at us students; do you not realise that students are your furtur?

No doubt you vote Labour, are unemployed and sit at home all day smoking and eating pies.

Us Greens have shown you the way that Brighton Council can be run successful and efficiently, and you don't like it...
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: There are about 30 student properties in Coombe Road all receiving council services, none paying council tax yet the landlords, many who are from other parts of the UK and even overseas, take a profit from renting the properties and their tenants get free services from all council departments, the most obvious being the refuse service. It's ironic that the properties at the end of Coombe Road which are small, independent businesses have to pay for private refuse services when really they are no different from the rental market. That's an estimated £40,000 per year shortfall in council tax revenue for a start from one single street. Warren get the council to increase student let licensing to £1,500 per annum per property and whatever the equivalent is in each street across the city. It's not fair that families living next to a student let pay £1,500 a year for the same services and it has to stop and we cannot bring another 5,000 into this town when we are already scraping around for cash. We are now funding a group of non vulnerable people. And for those of you who think these kids are skint think again. Chat to them, they have cars, foreign holidays, just like everyone else. Stop treating this group as a needy and vulnerable group. They are young, time rich, fit and can work and pay like the rest of us. It's time to support the vulnerable and stop pandering to higher education which is now an industry. Colleges were happy to increase fees Warren to £30,000 so take a stand and charge a much higher licensing fee to generate income. If this group is allowed to consult on cycle lanes and other schemes tax payers are paying for, they need to actually put their money where their mouths are or the council should consult only via the council tax database.[/p][/quote]How DARE you have a go at us students; do you not realise that students are your furtur? No doubt you vote Labour, are unemployed and sit at home all day smoking and eating pies. Us Greens have shown you the way that Brighton Council can be run successful and efficiently, and you don't like it... Green_Girl_1990
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree