Increasing borrowing to reduce borrowing.

[Cyclone]

Why do you think the poll tax was unfair, I consider it unfair that a couple living in the same house have to pay the same council tax has 3, 4, 5, 6 adults living in the same house. Houses don’t use council services, people use them, so everyone should pay for them.

 

Why should one person pay £1000 council tax whilst someone earning more money as nothing to pay?

 

Households use council services more than individuals in a lot of cases.

A house with 5 people in it gets it's bins emptied no more often than a house with 1 person in it, for example.

What's the largest single council expenditure, isn't it social services? The households and individuals that are actually paying for that service are the ones least likely to use it I'd have thought.

[Jim Graham]

No. I remember her destroying vast swathes of industrial heartlands

 

You mean you choose to misremember.

[Jim Graham]

Like anything else, the HMRC is a public service and therefore is being run into the ground. It can't manage the workload as it is and that's even without the forthcoming Civil Service cuts.

 

The government would just love to sell off the entire public services but knows it will struggle to do so. It's unlikely any private contractor will buy into to it because private comapnies have to make profit and public services are not run for profit, they are there because of the need. Privatisation would be subsidised from the UK purse just to make profit for a few people. The customer would see a much poorer service than at present, having to wait longer for the SLA, pay more in fees and receive shoddy work with lots of errors.

 

You really have to stop being an apologist for the country's pitifully incompetent and outrageously expensive public services. HMRC make the rules so complicated even they don't know them and can't administer them. How dysfunctional an organisation do you have to be to create a system that even your own managers can't understand? Even HMRC admit they aren't fit for purpose.

 

Public services are not run for profit. They are run for the benefit of the people who work in them. By being inefficient, workshy and incompetent they are as good as robbing the tax payer. Better that money goes into the pockets of pension funds via profits than it goes into the pockets of self serving bureauprats.

[Cyclone]

HMRC don't really make the rules, they're just charged with administering them.

[Mecky]

You really have to stop being an apologist for the country's pitifully incompetent and outrageously expensive public services. HMRC make the rules so complicated even they don't know them and can't administer them. How dysfunctional an organisation do you have to be to create a system that even your own managers can't understand? Even HMRC admit they aren't fit for purpose.

 

Public services are not run for profit. They are run for the benefit of the people who work in them. By being inefficient, workshy and incompetent they are as good as robbing the tax payer. Better that money goes into the pockets of pension funds via profits than it goes into the pockets of self serving bureauprats.

 

Services cost less under the public services which is why the salaries are probably the lowest in the UK compaired to similar jobs in the private sector and are far below the national average which is around £27,000. Why are they inefficient, workshy and incompetent, can you provide examples?

[MrSmith]

Households use council services more than individuals in a lot of cases.

A house with 5 people in it gets it's bins emptied no more often than a house with 1 person in it, for example.

What's the largest single council expenditure, isn't it social services? The households and individuals that are actually paying for that service are the ones least likely to use it I'd have thought.

 

Well that’s one example of what household’s use, more rubbish means more land fill charges, 5 people produce more rubbish that one person on average.

Here are a few examples how individuals benefit.

Grass cutting,

Street cleaning,

Street rubbish bins emptied,

Fire service,

Schools,

Street lighting,

Parks,

Libraries,

Social services,

Licensing,

Sports,

Leisure centres,

Consumer advice,

Transport, planning,

Parking,

Youth services,

Funeral services,

Cemeteries,

Crematoria,

Museum,

Roads and paths maintenance.

[Cyclone]

Surely households benefit from the fire service, unless individual rooms burn down at a time instead of entire houses...

 

Social services I already specifically mentioned, most households that pay don't benefit from them at all.

 

There certainly are services which benefit individuals, but then again they don't benefit every individual, I guess the question is about the fairest way to pay for it. The lib dems favour a local income tax system...

[MrSmith]

Surely households benefit from the fire service, unless individual rooms burn down at a time instead of entire houses...

 

Social services I already specifically mentioned, most households that pay don't benefit from them at all.

 

There certainly are services which benefit individuals, but then again they don't benefit every individual, I guess the question is about the fairest way to pay for it. The lib dems favour a local income tax system...

 

Individuals drive cars and the fire service responds to road accidents.

 

I imagine that would be paid by every working adult, sounds like poll tax.

 

My point is that some individual benefit from council services put don’t contribute under the current system, the poll tax was a farer way to make everyone pay their fare share.

[Cyclone]

The poll tax was a fixed amount, not a % of your income... (I've said that without checking, I'm not old enough that it was an issue for me at the time).

[MrSmith]

The poll tax was a fixed amount, not a % of your income... (I've said that without checking, I'm not old enough that it was an issue for me at the time).

 

Yes it was, I guess then that the libdem want a local tax to be a percentage of income.