Well, at last they've given up with the lies...

Your sister in law choosing to remain in a house that's beyond her
financial means doesn't mean my earlier post was rubbish.

You'll need to explain to me how me saying you paid lower rates on
cheaper houses, higher rates on more expensive houses was rubbish or
was it that I implied that you shouldn't live in a house if you can't
afford the bills that accompany it?

Living beyond your means doesn't always mean having expensive holidays
or a new car every year.

 

It obviously made sense to Phil.

 

Large house equals equity which could be used to buy a smaller
property and pay for a better standard of living.

 

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 14:58:13 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel

snip>

So because I pay the maximum possible in NI contributions I should get
preferential treatment to a teacher, nurse, policeman, fireman,
council worker, road mender, shop worker or any other person who's
occupation is essential to my well being?

For sure.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

Since that would mean that I didn't either, clearly not.

He already has.

Somewhat predictably, I don't view them as nasty. I've just reached the
stage where I'm tired of subsidising him and many like him. He's just
had double glazing installed, paid for by a grant (he apparently feels
no compunction in telling everyone this). He owns his house (God knows
how it's been paid for). I had to buy my own double glazing, now I've
had to buy his too.

I'm tired of it.

 

heh. What an objectionable ****, eh?

 

Oi!

Oh, I see what you mean.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Andy Bonwick

Better / more prompt medical treatment? No, that should be decided on
clinical necessity. More comfortable surroundings when you're being
treated? Why not? You've paid for them.

 

She might have got an inkling from her son Mark who along with one
Argentinian 'commodity broker' Leonardis Walger, later convicted cocaine
trafficer and arms dealer, was actively involved in selling arms illegally
to Argentina, ostensibly for the Peruvian military, the Peruvians say they
never received anything. The dummy front company based in Peru was
infiltrated and blown wide open by the US Customs, CIA and DIA. Thatcher
juniors business partner Walger was presented with a certificate by
General Galtieri, 'thanking him for his offer of help to recover the
islands'.

 

Really? Ours was re-assessed not long ago (couple of years? I can't
remember - it's 5pm at the end of a very stressful week..)

Phil

 

It's a particular point that proves that CC doesn't take into account a
persons disposable income.

I agree - you can't disprove a generality with a *single* example but
it is an indication that the generality may not be as general as
supposed.

Phil

 

It means that disposable income is not necessarily related to size of
house. Your statement was that a persons disposable income is tied to
the value of the house that they were living in. That is *not* true and
never has been - otherwise why would rates have been abolished?

Of course that isn't rubbish - thats how the Council Tax works.

No - see my 1st point.

Phil.

 

Sure. "Fair" is one of the most subjective adjectives I can think of.

Workwise, you can argue that it is unfair for different abilities
(largely an accident of birth) to be rewarded differently. You can
also argue that it is unfair for jobs of varying degrees of difficulty
to be be recompensed equally.

You can argue that it is unfair for some people to be born richer than
others. You can also argue that it is unfair to take (by taxation)
possibly hard-earned cash from parents rather than let them leave it
to their children.

See what I mean? To say that you regard something as either fair or
unfair adds little to the debate.

 

No I haven't. I've paid towards a national health service which should
mean that everyone gets equal treatment when they need it.

 

<Grits teeth>

That wasn't my point. My point is that the size of the house you live
in is not necessarily related to disposable income. I gave *1* example
of where this doesn't apply with the knowledge that it applies in
multiple other situations (old people living in a house that they
bought and paid for during employment and where the Council Tax is now
being assessed at a point far above their disposable income.

So I suggest you take the words "You idiot" and shove them up your
smug, graying arse.

Phil

 

Sure so was mine, but the banding is related to the value in 1991 or
it's mythical value then if the house is not old enough. Hang <FX
google> unless you live in Wales where it's 2003
http://www.voa.gov.uk/council_tax/cti_home.htm AFAIK the only reason
they can currently reband is when a property changes hands. So if you
make loads of improvements and then sell the house the chances are the
next owner will get stiffed with a rise in the council tax band.

 

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:42:08 +0000 in uk.rec.motorcycles, Champ says:

[council tax]

And for those who've retired, should they be forced to move from their
homes by a poorly designed tax?

 

Once the Falklands had been invaded the government of the day had no
option but to attempt to get them back because failure to do so would
have led to them being toppled. This would have been the case whoever
was in power.

I firmly believe that we should protect British territory and the
people that live there (1) but I would prefer it if we could prevent
an invasion in the first place rather than have to see people losing
their lives fighting after the invasion had taken place.

You can call that jingoism if you like but I'd disagree with you.

(1) The people living in the Falklands are the ones who should decide
if they want to be British or Argentinian and as long as they choose
British we have a moral obligation to protect them.

 

Rates were abolished because thatcher wanted to bring in the poll tax.

If someone lives in a house where they can't afford the local taxes
then they should sell up and move. Maybe I shouldn't have described
the ability to pay bills as disposable income but once tax and NIC are
paid then it's up to the individual to decide how to spend their
money. If that individual wants to live in a more expensive house then
they need to be sure they can pay the bills associated with living
there.

 

The rest of us are subsidising him too. It irks us less because we don't
have to live next door to him. Anyway, he has problems of his own - look
who he has to live next door to.