So on a bad new day of ruth kelly and her balls ups, they slip out the fact that lard belly prescott hasnt paid his council tax for years due to an "oversight" Since he is the head of the dept that deals with poll tax, should he not have been whiter than white from the outset and lead by example, or is that another example of labours sleeze?
Council Tax
- Thread starter Thermo
- Start date
Sponsored Links
This is the real story of the day! Bet Prescott loves Galloway at moment, taking the heat off him! And where is this story exactly in the news 
When pensioners have been jailed for non-payment and the deputy prime minister uses tax payers money to pay for his "MP's home" in London which he already gets an allowance for and still has a large amount outstanding! Sickening!
Found it here, with difficulty:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1208903,00.html
but why is it not the top story!
When pensioners have been jailed for non-payment and the deputy prime minister uses tax payers money to pay for his "MP's home" in London which he already gets an allowance for and still has a large amount outstanding! Sickening! Found it here, with difficulty:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1208903,00.html
but why is it not the top story!
Hmmm..I must remember that before my accounts go in!
And if the deputy prime minister hasn't worked out that income tax & council tax are mutually exclusive, then the words the country would dread to hear are....
'John, I don't feel too good'...
The recent one about the sex-offender-list teacher was actually nothing to do with her. She may carry the can for it, voluntarily or not, because of the stupid idea we have in this country that decisions and responsibility cannot be delegated, but she did not create the system which allowed him to get the job - it was in place long before she took office.Thermo said:
No - just incompetence. The property in question is the flat in Admiralty Arch provided to him as a "grace and favour" residence. He doesn't own the place, and what happened was that the Government (i.e. some Civil Service department) carried on paying the tax to Westminster Council as they had been doing beforehand when Michael Portillo lived there, and they didn't tell him they were doing it.
Sponsored Links
BAS, you appear to gloss over Mr Presott's responsibility in this.
It is true Mr Prescott does not own the property, but was paying 10% of his salary in tax, about 12K as subsidised rent. He thought of it as his primary residence and thought the amount of money for rent covered the council tax payment. He should have known better, especially as the deputy prime minister and the man responsible for council tax policy!
Mr Portillo's position was different as he was a London MP and this was his secondary residence thus entitling him to have the council tax paid at a discounted rate of 50% by government officials.
Officials presumed this was also Mr Prescott's secondary residence and wrongly continued the practice. The Prime Minister has confirmed that this was used as his primary residence.
As you put it BAS I wouldn't want to suggest that this is anything more sinister than "just incompetence", but if the man is this incompetent what faith should we have in his leadership? Sad thing is a lot of people say, oh its just John! Lunatics are truly running the asylum!
It is true Mr Prescott does not own the property, but was paying 10% of his salary in tax, about 12K as subsidised rent. He thought of it as his primary residence and thought the amount of money for rent covered the council tax payment. He should have known better, especially as the deputy prime minister and the man responsible for council tax policy!
Mr Portillo's position was different as he was a London MP and this was his secondary residence thus entitling him to have the council tax paid at a discounted rate of 50% by government officials.
Officials presumed this was also Mr Prescott's secondary residence and wrongly continued the practice. The Prime Minister has confirmed that this was used as his primary residence.
As you put it BAS I wouldn't want to suggest that this is anything more sinister than "just incompetence", but if the man is this incompetent what faith should we have in his leadership? Sad thing is a lot of people say, oh its just John! Lunatics are truly running the asylum!
Not intentionally - I am no fan of him, his department or the whole New Tory party.noodlz said:
I always thought it was the property owner who was responsible for council tax? I know that Thatchers Community Charge was a personal one, but what's the general situation with rented property? If I lived in a rented flat, who would pay the council tax - me or the landlord?
Another Q - don't know if anybody knows - if you were a high-flying executive, and your employer provided you with a flat to live in during the week, and you paid tax on it as a benefit in kind, who would pay the council tax - you or the company?
God knows what the rules are - you'd have thought that if he was a London MP he wouldn't need a secondary residence..
Absolutely none, but I didn't need this incident to convince me of that.
Fair enough...me neither when it comes to being fan of New Tories...Prescott would have had it so much differently if he had his way though.
As the law currently stands and as I understand it, the tenant is responsible for paying for the council tax of a rented property if they rent it as one unit. However, if they only rent a room, whether in the landlord's premises or sharing with other tenants not on a joint contract, the landlord is responsible for the charge. I don't know about the executive situation, but would presume that the responsibility would lie with the person living there, if it was not lived in by anyone else at other times, eg. weekends, and if no other agreement with the company, but if someone else knows for sure...
Agreed about the second London residences' allowance...definite conflict of interest when MPs make up the rules govening MPS, as seen whenever they vote on their wages!
As the law currently stands and as I understand it, the tenant is responsible for paying for the council tax of a rented property if they rent it as one unit. However, if they only rent a room, whether in the landlord's premises or sharing with other tenants not on a joint contract, the landlord is responsible for the charge. I don't know about the executive situation, but would presume that the responsibility would lie with the person living there, if it was not lived in by anyone else at other times, eg. weekends, and if no other agreement with the company, but if someone else knows for sure...
Agreed about the second London residences' allowance...definite conflict of interest when MPs make up the rules govening MPS, as seen whenever they vote on their wages!
I am probably going to get to flack for this ,but here goes.
Bring back the poll tax. Why should one household with 5 wage earners pay the same as a house of the same size with one old age pensioner.Yes I know there are various allowances but it is inherently unfair. Even after taking these into account the household with 5 wage earners will use far more of the council facilities than the single oap.
All income should include a local tax.
I would suggest that the demonstrations against the poll tax were in the main fuelled by that element who would have had to pay a proportion of there earnings ie students.single persons.
Anybody in agreement or am I completely out of step ?
Bring back the poll tax. Why should one household with 5 wage earners pay the same as a house of the same size with one old age pensioner.Yes I know there are various allowances but it is inherently unfair. Even after taking these into account the household with 5 wage earners will use far more of the council facilities than the single oap.
All income should include a local tax.
I would suggest that the demonstrations against the poll tax were in the main fuelled by that element who would have had to pay a proportion of there earnings ie students.single persons.
Anybody in agreement or am I completely out of step ?
Poll tax does make quite a bit of sense in theory.
People don't like change though, its difficult to enforce and its so badly viewed now it'd never fly.
Like you said...you'd probably get flack for just bringing the suggestion up!
With some modifications it might well be a fairer way as your example of the five wage earners illustrates. But then you could have the other example of someone living in a Millionaire's mansion paying the same as someone living in a bedsit. Or if it was also wage related how many ways would you then modify it to try to make it fairer? There's always going to be someone not happy with the change. Its a tricky one.
People don't like change though, its difficult to enforce and its so badly viewed now it'd never fly.
Like you said...you'd probably get flack for just bringing the suggestion up!
With some modifications it might well be a fairer way as your example of the five wage earners illustrates. But then you could have the other example of someone living in a Millionaire's mansion paying the same as someone living in a bedsit. Or if it was also wage related how many ways would you then modify it to try to make it fairer? There's always going to be someone not happy with the change. Its a tricky one.
There was an interesting idea in novel (I think by Robert Heinlein) I once read, for a system of property taxes.
Taxes, i.e. funding for the local government, were payable on the value of the property. Owners could decide for themselves what the value of their property was, and pay the tax accordingly.
At any point in time, anybody could come along and compulsorily purchase the property for its declared taxable value + 10%, unless the owner increased its declared value and paid back taxes on the new value for the whole period that they had owned the property.
Taxes, i.e. funding for the local government, were payable on the value of the property. Owners could decide for themselves what the value of their property was, and pay the tax accordingly.
At any point in time, anybody could come along and compulsorily purchase the property for its declared taxable value + 10%, unless the owner increased its declared value and paid back taxes on the new value for the whole period that they had owned the property.
bas it is to me, i don't whant to see your testicals
Don't worry - I wouldn't want to show them to you.
Especially not if you wanted to see them...
Especially not if you wanted to see them...
1st thank fu*K 2nd no thanks,
Well, without wishing to seem offensive, if he was my cancer specialist I'd move to another health authority.notb665 said:
Not that I have testicular cancer - and I check several times a day to make sure...
And just think - once the moro^H^H^H^Hmoderators or admins change my sig, none of this will make any sense...
Sponsored Links
