Woking Council - latest ****take

[Kermit power]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-68249...

Not content with having pissed £2Bn of Woking taxpayers' cash down the drain, cutting pretty much every service they provide and proposing a 10% increase in council tax, they've now announced a volunteer fund for residents who want to throw even more good money after bad!?!?

Presumably it's also put a pretty hefty dent in house prices? Why would you buy a house somewhere you're going to be taxed the maximum possible for years to come with nothing in return for it?

[Bathroom_Security]

It's got so bad we are going to sell up and leave.

[fido]

I had an hour long chat on my doorstep with the Lib Dem councillor about CT amongst other topics. This was after telling him I didn't vote Lib Dem anyway! I suggested that they should charge based on the number of adults in a household and he said that sounded like a really good idea! Currently it's 75% for 1 person (75% per person) and 100% for 2 or more - so an HMO with 4 [elligible] adults sharing would only pay 25% each.

Edited by fido on Monday 12th February 12:12

[munroman]

I'd imagine that would lead to even more racism whines from adherents of a certain religion!

[fido]

Well perhaps, i'm not entirely au fait with the demographics of Woking, but in London I think house-sharing hipsters would probably cough up without a visit from enforcement agents. There's a family of Range Rovers near me (their cars are strewn everywhere due to building works) and they can easily afford to cough up more - maybe 150% for 4 people and lower it for singles?

Edited by fido on Monday 12th February 12:15

[Earthdweller]

fido said:

I had an hour long chat on my doorstep with the Lib Dem councillor about CT amongst other topics. This was after telling him I didn't vote Lib Dem anyway! I suggested that they should charge based on the number of adults in a household and he said that sounded like a really good idea! Currently it's 75% for 1 person (75% per person) and 100% for 2 or more - so an HMO with 4 [elligible] adults sharing would only pay 25% each.

Edited by fido on Monday 12th February 12:12

They could call it a poll tax

[No ideas for a name]

fido said:

I had an hour long chat on my doorstep with the Lib Dem councillor about CT amongst other topics. This was after telling him I didn't vote Lib Dem anyway! I suggested that they should charge based on the number of adults in a household and he said that sounded like a really good idea! Currently it's 75% for 1 person (75% per person) and 100% for 2 or more - so an HMO with 4 [elligible] adults sharing would only pay 25% each.

Edited by fido on Monday 12th February 12:12

Isn't that exactly how 'Community Charge' AKA Poll Tax worked?
Seemed fine to me - even though it meant I had to pay out for the first time as I was living at home at that point.

But it wasn't liked - mainly by those who just didn't want to pay anything at all.

ETA: Beaten to it bt Earthdweller.

[Rusty Old-Banger]

Woking. My sister used to live there. Bland, anonymous, middle England, the standard "keeping up with the Jones's" territory. Let it implode.

[Tankrizzo]

How the fk does a council looking after a smidge over 100k people run up £2 billion worth of debt? I see stories about failed investments in hotels and skyscrapers....what on earth goes on at these councils?

[Silvanus]

Rusty Old-Banger said:

Woking. My sister used to live there. Bland, anonymous, middle England, the standard "keeping up with the Jones's" territory. Let it implode.

Yeah, fk all the kids and key workers that live there

[Sheets Tabuer]

Tankrizzo said:

How the fk does a council looking after a smidge over 100k people run up £2 billion worth of debt? I see stories about failed investments in hotels and skyscrapers....what on earth goes on at these councils?

Don't worry they are going to close the toilets, that'll sort it out.

[Countdown]

No ideas for a name said:

fido said:

I had an hour long chat on my doorstep with the Lib Dem councillor about CT amongst other topics. This was after telling him I didn't vote Lib Dem anyway! I suggested that they should charge based on the number of adults in a household and he said that sounded like a really good idea! Currently it's 75% for 1 person (75% per person) and 100% for 2 or more - so an HMO with 4 [elligible] adults sharing would only pay 25% each.

Edited by fido on Monday 12th February 12:12

Isn't that exactly how 'Community Charge' AKA Poll Tax worked?
Seemed fine to me - even though it meant I had to pay out for the first time as I was living at home at that point.

But it wasn't liked - mainly by those who just didn't want to pay anything at all.

ETA: Beaten to it bt Earthdweller.

Why not just add x% to income tax and HMRC can redistribute to Councils? It would save a fortune on collection, it would be based on ability to pay, you wouldn't ned to have to jump through hoops to prove you were on benefits.......

[Gecko1978]

Countdown said:

No ideas for a name said:

fido said:

I had an hour long chat on my doorstep with the Lib Dem councillor about CT amongst other topics. This was after telling him I didn't vote Lib Dem anyway! I suggested that they should charge based on the number of adults in a household and he said that sounded like a really good idea! Currently it's 75% for 1 person (75% per person) and 100% for 2 or more - so an HMO with 4 [elligible] adults sharing would only pay 25% each.

Edited by fido on Monday 12th February 12:12

Isn't that exactly how 'Community Charge' AKA Poll Tax worked?
Seemed fine to me - even though it meant I had to pay out for the first time as I was living at home at that point.

But it wasn't liked - mainly by those who just didn't want to pay anything at all.

ETA: Beaten to it bt Earthdweller.

Why not just add x% to income tax and HMRC can redistribute to Councils? It would save a fortune on collection, it would be based on ability to pay, you wouldn't ned to have to jump through hoops to prove you were on benefits.......

If we get better services for it sure

[fido]

No ideas for a name said:

Isn't that exactly how 'Community Charge' AKA Poll Tax worked?
Seemed fine to me - even though it meant I had to pay out for the first time as I was living at home at that point.

Not quite because that was per person and this is still based on your home. I'm guessing you were a student or not working, but it can't be fair that 2 families living in one house (with several working adults) are paying f8ck all whilst a single person pays 75%?

[fido]

Countdown said:

Why not just add x% to income tax and HMRC can redistribute to Councils? It would save a fortune on collection, it would be based on ability to pay, you wouldn't ned to have to jump through hoops to prove you were on benefits.......

Taking Adult Social Care out of the Council's budget and spreading that across taxpayers would be a good start,

[bstb3]

fido said:

Not quite because that was per person and this is still based on your home. I'm guessing you were a student or not working, but it can't be fair that 2 families living in one house (with several working adults) are paying f8ck all whilst a single person pays 75%?

I guess the argument would be to downsize into something in a lower band more suited to one person, thus freeing up larger dwellings for those who need them. Devils advocate, not saying you should have to.

[skwdenyer]

Gecko1978 said:

Countdown said:

No ideas for a name said:

fido said:

I had an hour long chat on my doorstep with the Lib Dem councillor about CT amongst other topics. This was after telling him I didn't vote Lib Dem anyway! I suggested that they should charge based on the number of adults in a household and he said that sounded like a really good idea! Currently it's 75% for 1 person (75% per person) and 100% for 2 or more - so an HMO with 4 [elligible] adults sharing would only pay 25% each.

Edited by fido on Monday 12th February 12:12

Isn't that exactly how 'Community Charge' AKA Poll Tax worked?
Seemed fine to me - even though it meant I had to pay out for the first time as I was living at home at that point.

But it wasn't liked - mainly by those who just didn't want to pay anything at all.

ETA: Beaten to it bt Earthdweller.

Why not just add x% to income tax and HMRC can redistribute to Councils? It would save a fortune on collection, it would be based on ability to pay, you wouldn't ned to have to jump through hoops to prove you were on benefits.......

If we get better services for it sure

Overall funding for councils has collapsed since 2010. Govt encouraged councils to dabble in private investments to make up the shortfall. And here we are.

The entire system is a mess. Just taxing all properties by value centrally and settling it to Councils would be far better - and fairer - than we have now.

[Ed.]

fido said:

Countdown said:

Why not just add x% to income tax and HMRC can redistribute to Councils? It would save a fortune on collection, it would be based on ability to pay, you wouldn't ned to have to jump through hoops to prove you were on benefits.......

Taking Adult Social Care out of the Council's budget and spreading that across taxpayers would be a good start,

A policy adding burden to relatively poorer working age tax payers that has less impact on the tax efficient home owning retirees' that will shortly be needing these services may be unpopular.

[skwdenyer]

Ed. said:

fido said:

Countdown said:

Why not just add x% to income tax and HMRC can redistribute to Councils? It would save a fortune on collection, it would be based on ability to pay, you wouldn't ned to have to jump through hoops to prove you were on benefits.......

Taking Adult Social Care out of the Council's budget and spreading that across taxpayers would be a good start,

A policy adding burden to relatively poorer working age tax payers that has less impact on the tax efficient home owning retirees' that will shortly be needing these services may be unpopular.

The country having focussed on building up mostly-untaxed asset wealth for the last few decades, there is unlikely to be any substitute for taxing that asset wealth in order to move us forward. Because, as you identify, the alternative is to tax a subset of the population ever-more, which is wholly unsustainable.

[fido]

bstb3 said:

I guess the argument would be to downsize into something in a lower band more suited to one person, thus freeing up larger dwellings for those who need them. Devils advocate, not saying you should have to.

It doesn't help them because they couldn't afford the house anyway - like the Mansion Tax (£2m+) that was once proposed by the Lib Dems - all it does is make those properties even less affordable and exclusive.