Basement Wars - be glad you live in Sheffield!

[*_ash_*]

Or perhaps they should be paying considerable more in tax so we can have better schools, hospitals, roads etc instead of simply building vanity projects?

 

Should the old couple who lived there for 25 years without a 'vanity project' pay more, or just the ones that apply for extensions?

[F. Sidebottom]

Or perhaps they should be paying considerable more in tax so we can have better schools, hospitals, roads etc instead of simply building vanity projects?

 

How do you know how much tax they've already paid in order to deem that they should pay considerably more?

 

What if they've already paid tax at 50% on what they've earned? Should they still pay more? Would you?

 

How do you know they are actually currently earning anything that is taxable?

 

Why is taking money off them to 'improve' what are generally a good standard anyway better than spending it on trades, employment and ultimately taxes?

 

Why are you so bitter and envious of anyone with more than you?

[sgtkate]

Should the old couple who lived there for 25 years without a 'vanity project' pay more, or just the ones that apply for extensions?

 

They probably both should really. Council tax is not reflective of the real value of homes as someone who owns a tiny flat in London would pay the same council tax as someone living in a multi-million pound house in Kensington. Make council tax a percentage of home value and then we'd see a better distribution of the wealth.

[F. Sidebottom]

They probably both should really. Council tax is not reflective of the real value of homes as someone who owns a tiny flat in London would pay the same council tax as someone living in a multi-million pound house in Kensington. Make council tax a percentage of home value and then we'd see a better distribution of the wealth.

 

How is that fair? Why should I pay twice as much Council Tax as my next door neighbour who receives exactly the same services as me but chose not to invest more of his money in a property for him and his family?

[sgtkate]

How is that fair? Why should I pay twice as much Council Tax as my next door neighbour who receives exactly the same services as me but chose not to invest more of his money in a property for him and his family?

 

Why should I pay more tax because I chose to take a job that pays twice as much as my neighbour when all I want to do is provide for my family?

[loraward]

They probably both should really. Council tax is not reflective of the real value of homes as someone who owns a tiny flat in London would pay the same council tax as someone living in a multi-million pound house in Kensington. Make council tax a percentage of home value and then we'd see a better distribution of the wealth.

 

Do people that live in tiny flats use less council services than people living in a multi-million pound houses, I have never really understood this idea of you have a big house so you should pay more for public services, and you don't have an house so you shouldn't contribute anything to the services you use. There are people with very large incomes living in small houses paying less than people on small incomes living in large houses, there are people that pay nothing for the council services they use, people that pay very little because a dozen adults share an house, and people that pay a lot just because they live alone. Surely council services are their for everyone so everyone should pay an equal share of the cost.

[F. Sidebottom]

Why should I pay more tax because I chose to take a job that pays twice as much as my neighbour when all I want to do is provide for my family?

 

So would you suggest that because I've got more money than my neighbour then I should also pay twice as much VAT on my gas and electric? Or on a pint of milk?

 

Or maybe twice as much duty on a pint of ale? Or a gallon of diesel?

[sgtkate]

So would you suggest that because I've got more money than my neighbour then I should also pay twice as much VAT on my gas and electric? Or on a pint of milk?

 

Or maybe twice as much duty on a pint of ale? Or a gallon of diesel?

 

But you almost certainly buy more things if you have more money. And for your earlier point of jealously and bitterness over people with more than me, not at all, I'm just one of those horrible socialists who would much rather anyone who had more than average gave more to support those with less than average. That's a horribly vague statement I accept but I can't think how to word it. And thinking people who have 16 bedroom houses, bowling alleys and cinema rooms in their houses perhaps could give up on some of that wealth to stop people starving doesn't seem bitter to me, it's seems fairly human.

 

And actually, yes I'd happily accept an increase in the amount of tax I pay. I'd fully support going back to our tax model prior to Thatcher of 83% for top earners.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 16:10 ----------

 

Do people that live in tiny flats use less council services than people living in a multi-million pound houses, I have never really understood this idea of you have a big house so you should pay more for public services, and you don't have an house so you shouldn't contribute anything to the services you use. There are people with very large incomes living in small houses paying less than people on small incomes living in large houses, there are people that pay nothing for the council services they use, people that pay very little because a dozen adults share an house, and people that pay a lot just because they live alone. Surely council services are their for everyone so everyone should pay an equal share of the cost.

 

Possibly, but there has to be a 'fair' way of doing it, based on people who can afford more paying more, and those how use more pay more.

 

Perhaps sort the bandings out would be better? Currently the top band of council tax is too low and far too many houses all fall into the top bracket. Re-value the homes (properly this time!) and make the v top rate over a million pounds then have bandings below that.

 

Or some ratio of number of people in the property to house price matrix but that could get overly complicated. I don't think everyone should just pay more at all, but lots of people can and should be paying more and others should almost certainly be more heavily subsidised.

 

Or finally, scrap it all together and increase income tax with a percentage of that going to the councils. Potential issue here is how would that money get distributed fairly to all councils and not become a political tool like it is now. Also, people who don't have an income per se but are v rich through investments etc wouldn't contribute at all unless this was also taken in account.

Edited April 16, 2015 by sgtkate

[F. Sidebottom]

But you almost certainly buy more things if you have more money. And for your earlier point of jealously and bitterness over people with more than me, not at all, I'm just one of those horrible socialists who would much rather anyone who had more than average gave more to support those with less than average. That's a horribly vague statement I accept but I can't think how to word it. And thinking people who have 16 bedroom houses, bowling alleys and cinema rooms in their houses perhaps could give up on some of that wealth to stop people starving doesn't seem bitter to me, it's seems fairly human.

 

And actually, yes I'd happily accept an increase in the amount of tax I pay. I'd fully support going back to our tax model prior to Thatcher of 83% for top earners.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 16:10 ----------

 

 

Possibly, but there has to be a 'fair' way of doing it, based on people who can afford more paying more, and those how use more pay more.

 

Perhaps sort the bandings out would be better? Currently the top band of council tax is too low and far too many houses all fall into the top bracket. Re-value the homes (properly this time!) and make the v top rate over a million pounds then have bandings below that.

 

Or some ratio of number of people in the property to house price matrix but that could get overly complicated. I don't think everyone should just pay more at all, but lots of people can and should be paying more and others should almost certainly be more heavily subsidised.

 

Or finally, scrap it all together and increase income tax with a percentage of that going to the councils. Potential issue here is how would that money get distributed fairly to all councils and not become a political tool like it is now. Also, people who don't have an income per se but are v rich through investments etc wouldn't contribute at all unless this was also taken in account.

 

And so we already pay more taxes. Both on what we earn and what we buy.

 

But why stop there hey? Tax us on the air we breathe 'because we can afford it'.

 

The net result being you simply want more taxes on those that earn more, and the reason is:

 

Because. Just because.

[loraward]

 

Possibly, but there has to be a 'fair' way of doing it, based on people who can afford more paying more, and those how use more pay more.

 

Perhaps sort the bandings out would be better? Currently the top band of council tax is too low and far too many houses all fall into the top bracket. Re-value the homes (properly this time!) and make the v top rate over a million pounds then have bandings below that.

 

Or some ratio of number of people in the property to house price matrix but that could get overly complicated. I don't think everyone should just pay more at all, but lots of people can and should be paying more and others should almost certainly be more heavily subsidised.

 

Or finally, scrap it all together and increase income tax with a percentage of that going to the councils. Potential issue here is how would that money get distributed fairly to all councils and not become a political tool like it is now. Also, people who don't have an income per se but are v rich through investments etc wouldn't contribute at all unless this was also taken in account.

 

A fair way of doing it is for everyone to pay an equal share of the cost to provide the services. If it must be an unfair system then it should be based on income not house size, and everyone should contribute something, so if ten adults live in one house and earn £15K each, they should each pay the same amount as one person living in an house and earning £15K.