Council tax and new ways to make you wish you lived somewhere else
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...860008,00.html

;-(

-

Mark wrote:
Council tax and new ways to make you wish you lived somewhere else
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...860008,00.html

Rupert Murcoded I somehow think yessss my precious?

Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid
more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a
year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and
whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'.
And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

"Alan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have
now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have
now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps) and
stops far too low. The old rateable value was far fairer - and there should
not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10
times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have
now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It's not the poll tax.

What's not the poll tax? I was just asking WHY people say the complex and
archaic rates system is better than the idea of poll tax.

Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

*me confused *

The old rateable value was far fairer - and there should
not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10
times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.

Why? Does a single person living in a tiny house in the "right" area use 10
times as many amenities as a family of 5 in a council estate?
Again, no-one's been able to clearly explain that one to me either!

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have
now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It's not the poll tax.

What's not the poll tax? I was just asking WHY people say the complex and
archaic rates system is better than the idea of poll tax.

Because it's not the Poll Tax! Thatcher poisoned that option and anything is
better.

Why? Does a single person living in a tiny house in the "right" area use 10
times as many amenities as a family of 5 in a council estate?
Again, no-one's been able to clearly explain that one to me either!

It has always been based on an assumed ability to pay derived from the
property value rather than amenity use. Everyone has appreciated that those
using most amenties - eg elderly, sick & those with children - aren't the ones
who can afford most. property values are a good option and redress the balance
a bit for those not paying enough income tax (by fiddling their income) but
living in big houses.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps) and
stops far too low.

The problem is that it's too expensive in many ways, and divisive
withing the government system.


The old rateable value was far fairer

Rubbish. Council tax was far fairer, and ought to be brought back
as soon as possible.


- and there should
not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10
times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.

Pshaw.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have
now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option
again.

The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps)
and
stops far too low. The old rateable value was far fairer - and there
should
not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10
times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.

Sorry I don't agree. I believe you should pay only for the services you use,
it should not be related to the value of the house. For example if you have
a huge garden and want your garden waste collected then pay for this service
based on the size of the collection. Why should one person in a 10 million
pound house inherited from the family be forced out of it because they
cannot afford the council tax? In my view everything should be metered that
way you only get what you can afford and you can prioritise your spending.


--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:
It's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

The problem with the present system is that it is too 'lumpy' (big steps) and
stops far too low. The old rateable value was far fairer - and there should
not be a cut-off point; someone with a 10 million GBP house should pay 10
times what someone with a 1 million house should pay.


This sound to me like 60's Socialist dogma. Tax the people with big
houses, big cars, big incomes, until they are as poor as an unemployed
tenant. Poll tax was a much better system, with people paying for the
services they use, with income taxes taking up the slack. Yes, it
needed some refinement, but was much better than the previous and
presently abused by central government systems.

If you want property taxes, then they should be set locally and without
any central government imposed limits. Democracy is rarely practiced in
the UK however.

Regards
Capitol

In article ,
says...

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have
now is better than the poll tax.

It was immediately available when the poll tax was pulled. That doesn't
make it better

It's not the poll tax. Thatcher made sure no one could use that option again.

Id cards are a new variety of poll tax. And I predict that they are
doomed to fail just as catistropically (sp). Prisons will be full of non
payers like me

Anna

--
~~ Anna Kettle, Suffolk, England
|""""| ~ Lime plaster repairs
/ ^^ \ // Freehand modelling in lime: overmantels, pargeting etc
|____| www.kettlenet.co.uk 01359 230642

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:25:28 -0000, "Jonathan"
wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have
now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?


It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.




--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:25:28 -0000, "Jonathan"
wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?


It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That seems to
me to be the fairest way.

It depends whether you want a society or just individuals.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

In the main, people should pay for what they use. That seems to
me to be the fairest way.

It depends whether you want a society or just individuals.

Are we talking about a society that encourages individuals to smoke £150 of
fags a week so that they can claim extra benefits for their childrens poor
health?
(yes, I'm thinking about the Bardsley "Wife Swap", and if you really have
lived where you claim to, then you'll know that type of family is by no
means unique)

Individuals make a society - when those individuals become so dependent on
the state that they know no other way, then that state ensures it's own
survival...for a time.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:04:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:25:28 -0000, "Jonathan"
wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?


It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That seems to
me to be the fairest way.

It depends whether you want a society or just individuals.

"Society" is a nebulous thing. The idea of an individual is much more
tangible.

That is not to say that those individuals with need should not, in
some way be supported by those with the ability to pay. However, I
don't think that this needs to entail the massive involvement by
central and local government in the affairs of the individual that has
increasingly happened in recent years.

I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education
and other things that don't need to have state or local government
involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do
so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as
policing and security which probably do need to have central/local
government involvement, but really that's about it.

With public sector spending spiralling out of control, it is certainly
time for radical surgery.


--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be taken
away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be taken
away?

Why be assessed? Why not just charge for each bag, like many places do?
Pay at point of use - but if an idea is simple, it's probably not going to
work.
How much fairer could it be than to scrap the complex idea of banded road
tax discs, and just stick it on the price of petrol?
The more you use, the more you pay.

I've just realised something - how on earth did we get onto this in a DIY
group?!?

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be taken
away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

There would be no rubbish collection and no pavement. You need co-operation
for those and people willing to give their time freely for the benefit of
others.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:01:06 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be taken
away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

Well no... I was thinking more about the high ticket items like
education and those that can easily be handled individually.


--

..andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So you'd be assessed on the number of bags of rubbish that had to be taken
away? How often you walked and wore out the pavement? ;-)

It works very well in the US.

Regards
Capitol

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?

Mark.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:03:07 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?

Mark.


Fairest for people who pay for and use goods and services.


--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:03:07 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?


It works for food.

Or would you rather we had a "National Food Service", and a truck came
round twice a day, parked down the end of the street and doled out a
dipper full of "Mealie Pap" (Coarse maize porridge) to everybody.

You can't say fairer than that.

DG

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:25:28 -0000, "Jonathan"
wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have
now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?



IIRC, it was something to do with Crispin & Pamela St John Regis
living in the 3 bed penthouse in Belgravia Daddy bought them as a
wedding gift paying pretty much the same as Darran and Tracey Butcher
living in their 2 bed council penthouse in Tower Hamlets.

I could be wrong though - I often am.

--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

In article , Geoffrey
wrote:
IIRC, it was something to do with Crispin & Pamela St John Regis
living in the 3 bed penthouse in Belgravia Daddy bought them as a
wedding gift paying pretty much the same as Darran and Tracey Butcher
living in their 2 bed council penthouse in Tower Hamlets.

There was also the slightly more philosophical argument - not without
merit - that if you paid very little or nothing in rates then you would
be inclined to vote for a high spending Council as you wouldn't be
picking up the cost, whilst if everyone had to pay something everyone
would be interested in value for money and cutting out waste. Of course
in reality people see their councils (of all parties) wasting money and
shrug their shoulders.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

Geoffrey wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote:
no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we have
now is better than the poll tax.

IIRC, it was something to do with Crispin & Pamela St John Regis
living in the 3 bed penthouse in Belgravia Daddy bought them as a
wedding gift

They've already been subjected to huge tax bills....


paying pretty much the same as Darran and Tracey Butcher
living in their 2 bed council penthouse in Tower Hamlets.

....who didn't have to pay the full amount - possible anything
at all.

In article . com,
Alan wrote:
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates paid by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at the edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't change it
even if the coutry burnt.

My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid
more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a
year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and
whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'.
And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

Very unlikely. The rateable value took size and amenities into account but
hardly 'backing onto a park'. How much was the difference?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Alan wrote:
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates paid
by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this
anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into
the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at the
edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't change
it
even if the coutry burnt.


At the time, I was a single-working parent with wife and two
ankle-snappers to feed, clothe and most expensively shod.
One income, one Rates bill.
My next-door arriviste neighbours had two working parents plus three
adult children ... they had loadsamoney ... used to say 'Oh you must
go on holiday to Spain with us .... we love it there!'
Five Incomes, one {identical] Rates bill!

Don't regurgitate your 'millbank briefs' about widows and
'only effected the margins' ...
what about the working-man that the fat-cat, directorship-grabbing,
left-wing-spouting Labour politicians ignored.

The Labour party coordinated a 'Poll Tax' revolt -deliberately
forcing amendments into the Bill which ensured that non-payment
of 'Community Charge' would not affect delivery of Community
services. In fact a totally separate data-base of payers was required;
unconnected to electoral roll, library-membership, leisure-facility
membership. then fomenting the rent-a-mob of trots. students and
others they incited to riot in Parliament Square, until the Government
backed down and abolished the poll-tax, replacing a 'personal'
charge with a property charge.

Now that they are in power - inter alia;-
Labour has outlawed all (non-authorised) protest
outside Parliament [from Trafalgar Square to Lambeth
Bridge] and are introducing a mandatory ID - which
will assure(?) the delivery of Community services!
And the latest wheeze is to revalue all property
-anybody want to bet that a 'value code' won't be assigned
for 'number of adults resident'-? A poll-tax by stealth?

But; hey! 'I'm a pretty straight forward kind of guy,
trust me !"
It worked for Robinson, Mandelson, Blunkett, Fields,
Mowlam ... they trusted 'im!



--

Brian

In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Alan wrote:
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates paid
by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this
anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into
the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at the
edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't change
it
even if the coutry burnt.


At the time, I was a single-working parent with wife and two
ankle-snappers to feed, clothe and most expensively shod.
One income, one Rates bill.

Me too.

My next-door arriviste neighbours had two working parents plus three
adult children ... they had loadsamoney ... used to say 'Oh you must
go on holiday to Spain with us .... we love it there!'
Five Incomes, one {identical] Rates bill!

I hope they correctly got hit with Income Tax. Perhaps we should increase
Income tax rates?

Don't regurgitate your 'millbank briefs' about widows and
'only effected the margins' ...
what about the working-man that the fat-cat, directorship-grabbing,
left-wing-spouting Labour politicians ignored.

Did you get that from the Mail or the Telegraph?

[Snip]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Did you get that from the Mail or the Telegraph?

Interesting - so when someone holds a different opinion, it can't be their
own?

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Alan wrote:
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates
paid
by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this
anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element
into
the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as
this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that
ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at
the
edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't
change
it
even if the coutry burnt.


At the time, I was a single-working parent with wife and two
ankle-snappers to feed, clothe and most expensively shod.
One income, one Rates bill.

Me too.

My next-door arriviste neighbours had two working parents plus three
adult children ... they had loadsamoney ... used to say 'Oh you must
go on holiday to Spain with us .... we love it there!'
Five Incomes, one {identical] Rates bill!

I hope they correctly got hit with Income Tax. Perhaps we should increase
Income tax rates?


The topic under discussion is _Local Government funding_ .
Stick to the topic and don't try your usual diversion tactics.
Income tax rates are _not_ being addressed here.


Don't regurgitate your 'millbank briefs' about widows and
'only effected the margins' ...
what about the working-man that the fat-cat, directorship-grabbing,
left-wing-spouting Labour politicians ignored.

Did you get that from the Mail or the Telegraph?

No, but did you get your response of Millbank^WOld Queen St^S
or your pager ? How many directorships have Mandelson and
Blunkett grabbed?. Once again; Stick to the topic and don't try your
usual diversion tactics

--

Brian

Are you saying that I and my (now deceased) uncle are lying?

I'd ask you to either prove us wrong or retract that statement.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Alan" saying
something like:

Are you saying that I and my (now deceased) uncle are lying?

I'd ask you to either prove us wrong or retract that statement.

Here; want your rattle back?
--

Dave

In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair

How can it be unfair to pay for what you receive? Why should the dross of
society have a free ride on the rest of us, because they don't have a
mortgage? The community charge was by far the fairest way of all, but was
scuppered by the riots of the army of "Great unwashed" who didn't see why
their free ride should come to an end.

--
AJL

In article , Andy Luckman (AJL
Electronics) wrote:
In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

To put this anomaly right it was suggested that the government add a 'per
head' element into the rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it
entirely 'per head' as this would go down well with the Tory faithful.
When everyone realised that ths would be even more unfair

How can it be unfair to pay for what you receive? Why should the dross of
society have a free ride on the rest of us, because they don't have a
mortgage? The community charge was by far the fairest way of all, but was
scuppered by the riots of the army of "Great unwashed" who didn't see why
their free ride should come to an end.

Do think through the consequencies of your ideas. When you're incapable of
earning your own wherewithall can we take delight into dumping you into the
gutter?

Our would you prefer to belong to a society that cared raher than hated?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:


To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair

How can it be unfair to pay for what you receive?

Absolutely.


Why should the dross of
society have a free ride on the rest of us, because they don't have a
mortgage?

People on low incomes got *discounts*. I wouldn't class them as
"the dross of society"; however...


The community charge was by far the fairest way of all, but was
scuppered by the riots of the army of "Great unwashed" who didn't see why
their free ride should come to an end.

Yes, there were lots of "activists", and many arses involved
there. It would have been a *great* opportunity to round them
up, put them in a field and bomb the *******s.

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
Yes, there were lots of "activists", and many arses involved
there. It would have been a *great* opportunity to round them
up, put them in a field and bomb the *******s.

That's more or less how I felt about Thatcher and her repeated illegal use of
our money.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:56:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article . com,
Alan wrote:
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates paid by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful.

She was conned by somebody that if "everybody" paid it the charge
for "everybody" could be small. I've heard the figure of 50 quid per
annum mentioned !

From square one, the special pleading from the single interest groups
rolled in, and the cost for "everyone else" went higher and higher.

Then the local authorities (mostly Labour controlled) thought it was
their turn to start troughing in on the change, as they had done in
the LA re-organisation in the '70s, and indeed yet again sometime
later.

When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at the edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't change it
even if the coutry burnt.

She also made the big mistake of doing a trial run in Scotland. They
*hated* her for that, (we have relatives up there) . And IGWS there
being "winners and Losers" in these matters, those who lost in
Scotland were doubly indignant and vociferous.

Community charge started later in England by that time the "rent a
trots" were fully organised.

A fine kettle of fish.


My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid
more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a
year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and
whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'.
And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

Very unlikely. The rateable value took size and amenities into account but
hardly 'backing onto a park'.

An estate agent would regard it as a valuable amenity. If only because
it meant nobody would be building over your back fence, usually.

The number of toilets in the house used to affect your water rates.

How much was the difference?

DG