The Postman Came Today

[wymberley]

if they are index linked is'nt rpi running at @ 2.6%? from when do your pension companies take rpi/cpi? As nil increase and 1% seems a bit off the mark?

It depends on what the index is at the fixed time of year when they set the figure - somewhere round about the previous Sept' for the following April I believe, My pension company is the government (armed forces) except one which is the civil service (MoD) which is the 1%.

[Twistedsanity]

The scaremongerers told us that our co2 output is destroying the planet so the government's all agreed to reduce co2 output and the energy companies all fell into line and people got free insulation, free energy saving lightbulbs, solar panels, cheap boilers etc which worked and actually reduced people's energy consumption, as our consumption reduced the energy companies and shareholders profits dropped, the result is the energy companies are now charging more money for less energy in order to balance the books, who though they would be happy to make less money eh? Pet insurance like all insurance policies is something you need to shop around for every year as your loyalty is seen as laziness and stupidity

[JohnfromUK]

Why would the "Poll Tax" have made us better off or get better Local Authority service?......the Government (of whichever colour) would still restrict/cut the SSA....so they could spend more of our money on themselves and/or their pet projects!

 

 

The idea behind Poll Tax was that every adult in a household paid a share.

 

Currently the Council Tax is based on the property value (in a strange and rather arbitrary way that is based on historic valuations done in bulk not individually) that can result in odd valuations - for example my house which in fact has only 2 bedrooms qualifies as band G because it is a large listed building in substantial grounds and in an 'expensive' area - but with a huge central hall - and few upstairs rooms, the wing with more bedrooms having been demolished 50 or 60 years ago before it was listed.

 

Poll tax was supposed to be a flat 'per person' charge reflecting that the expenses covered by the council are largely related to the number of people living there rather than the property size. There was also the issue that all adults get to vote for the Council (Red, Blue or Wishy washy) - bit only the nominated house occupier has responsibility for paying ........

 

Therefore single people, widows and widowers living alone would pay one 'Poll tax', couples (including those with children or offspring in full time education) would pay two 'Poll taxes' - whereas houses with living in adults (children of working age, relatives, lodgers, sublets etc.) would pay many Poll taxes on a 'per adult person' basis. This seems a very fair system.

 

Overall the revenue gathered was to be the same - but it would come from all 'working age' adults, not just nominated 'occupiers. The intention was that single people, couples would pay a little less overall - and houses with multiple occupancy rather more. Hence the older people who might live alone - or a couple with no other adults in a larger property would be a little better off, whereas houses with working children/relatives/lodgers would pay a little more.

Edited August 8, 2017 by JohnfromUK

[wymberley]

Well, he came again today. I can only think that the poor girl at Churchill was so put out when I told her that I don't do Dutch auctions and that she should have given me their lowest price to start with that she told her mate at my house insurance company. This has gone down.

[Vince Green]

The problem with the poll tax was that thousands of people just dropped off the Electoral Register to avoid paying it. Labour realised that potentially all the people dropping off were likely to be Labour voters and the trickle would turn into a flood.

 

So the Poll Tax Riots were 'orchestrated' by Labour and some very heavy trouble makers were encouraged to attend to make sure the riots were violent enough to shock the public and get the poll tax reversed.

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Vince Green

[JohnfromUK]

The problem with the poll tax was that thousands of people just dropped off the Electoral Register to avoid paying it. Labour realised that potentially all the people dropping off were likely to be Labour voters and the trickle would turn into a flood.

 

So the Poll Tax Riots were 'orchestrated' by Labour and some very heavy trouble makers were encouraged to attend to make sure the riots were violent enough to shock the public and get the poll tax reversed.

 

I'm sure that is probably basically correct.

[oowee]

Well, he came again today. I can only think that the poor girl at Churchill was so put out when I told her that I don't do Dutch auctions and that she should have given me their lowest price to start with that she told her mate at my house insurance company. This has gone down.

[panoma1]

The idea behind Poll Tax was that every adult in a household paid a share.

 

Currently the Council Tax is based on the property value (in a strange and rather arbitrary way that is based on historic valuations done in bulk not individually) that can result in odd valuations - for example my house which in fact has only 2 bedrooms qualifies as band G because it is a large listed building in substantial grounds and in an 'expensive' area - but with a huge central hall - and few upstairs rooms, the wing with more bedrooms having been demolished 50 or 60 years ago before it was listed.

 

Poll tax was supposed to be a flat 'per person' charge reflecting that the expenses covered by the council are largely related to the number of people living there rather than the property size. There was also the issue that all adults get to vote for the Council (Red, Blue or Wishy washy) - bit only the nominated house occupier has responsibility for paying ........

 

Therefore single people, widows and widowers living alone would pay one 'Poll tax', couples (including those with children or offspring in full time education) would pay two 'Poll taxes' - whereas houses with living in adults (children of working age, relatives, lodgers, sublets etc.) would pay many Poll taxes on a 'per adult person' basis. This seems a very fair system.

 

Overall the revenue gathered was to be the same - but it would come from all 'working age' adults, not just nominated 'occupiers. The intention was that single people, couples would pay a little less overall - and houses with multiple occupancy rather more. Hence the older people who might live alone - or a couple with no other adults in a larger property would be a little better off, whereas houses with working children/relatives/lodgers would pay a little more.

 

I wasn't commenting on the fairness of any particular system of taxation against another, what I was suggesting is that whatever the system central government decide to employ, we would be no better off, because the way it is collected from and then redistributed to local government is controlled by central government via the "local government finance settlement" which is basically the amount of tax money they decide to give back out of the money the individual local authorities collect, in order for the local authority to run our services!

If central government wanted money to finance some pet project or other, they would just have to reduce the local government finance settlement...and 'bobs yer uncle' they have it.....and all the time the taxpayer is kept in the dark as to who is really responsible for many local authority cuts in services!

[krugerandsmith]

The idea behind Poll Tax was that every adult in a household paid a share.

 

Currently the Council Tax is based on the property value (in a strange and rather arbitrary way that is based on historic valuations done in bulk not individually) that can result in odd valuations - for example my house which in fact has only 2 bedrooms qualifies as band G because it is a large listed building in substantial grounds and in an 'expensive' area - but with a huge central hall - and few upstairs rooms, the wing with more bedrooms having been demolished 50 or 60 years ago before it was listed.

 

Poll tax was supposed to be a flat 'per person' charge reflecting that the expenses covered by the council are largely related to the number of people living there rather than the property size. There was also the issue that all adults get to vote for the Council (Red, Blue or Wishy washy) - bit only the nominated house occupier has responsibility for paying ........

 

Therefore single people, widows and widowers living alone would pay one 'Poll tax', couples (including those with children or offspring in full time education) would pay two 'Poll taxes' - whereas houses with living in adults (children of working age, relatives, lodgers, sublets etc.) would pay many Poll taxes on a 'per adult person' basis. This seems a very fair system.

 

Overall the revenue gathered was to be the same - but it would come from all 'working age' adults, not just nominated 'occupiers. The intention was that single people, couples would pay a little less overall - and houses with multiple occupancy rather more. Hence the older people who might live alone - or a couple with no other adults in a larger property would be a little better off, whereas houses with working children/relatives/lodgers would pay a little more.

 

 

Very true in fact the Duke of Westminster was so embarrassed because he was paying less than his workers he paid theirs for them.

[JohnfromUK]

 

I wasn't commenting on the fairness of any particular system of taxation against another, what I was suggesting is that whatever the system central government decide to employ, we would be no better off, because the way it is collected from and then redistributed to local government is controlled by central government via the "local government finance settlement" which is basically the amount of tax money they decide to give back out of the money the individual local authorities collect, in order for the local authority to run our services!

If central government wanted money to finance some pet project or other, they would just have to reduce the local government finance settlement...and 'bobs yer uncle' they have it.....and all the time the taxpayer is kept in the dark as to who is really responsible for many local authority cuts in services!

I don't know exactly how it all works internally between local and central governments, but don't doubt you are correct; I do think however that the present system, which penalises single and couple occupiers, particularly those with larger properties and 'rewards' large households/families with many people earning is a poor and unfair system.

Everyone should contribute towards local government, not just the 'occupier'.

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, on a lighter note THE POSTMAN DID COME TODAY and delivered my new acquisition a 1980s sharp innova in 22

[rbrowning2]

Unable to remember the exact figure but a very large part (60%?) of the council tax we pay goes to pay for the pensions of the retired council works (there were a lot once before the days of sub contracting) or so a local councillor told me. Hence why they have no money for things like libraries.

[oldypigeonpopper]

Unable to remember the exact figure but a very large part (60%?) of the council tax we pay goes to pay for the pensions of the retired council works (there were a lot once before the days of sub contracting) or so a local councillor told me. Hence why they have no money for things like libraries.

hello, i have also heard about this, not sure it is the % you mentioned but a heck of a lot of OUR !!!!!! money,

Edited August 8, 2017 by oldypigeonpopper

[Ollieollie]

My bins have not been collected for a month now, when i had £3000 worth of scaffolding pinched a few months ago the police were not at all interested, ive never burnt anything down, my local area is generally in poor condition, the council tax phone line seems to be manned by the invisible man working p/t. What else do i get for my money?

[JohnfromUK]

All state pensions are funded from current taxes (Both local government, armed forces and central government/civil service etc). Note that this is the UK position, but other countries save through the working life in a 'sovereign wealth fund' to provide for future pensions - (Google Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund)

 

Private and most private industry pensions are usually (always?) funded from savings made through the course of the time they were accrued. Some are defined benefit (increasingly rare and also known as 'final salary') where you get a stated amount in retirement (i.e. xxx pounds per month). Some are defined contribution, where you pay a defined amount into the fund monthly building up a 'pension pot' held in a pension fund that is typically used to buy an annuity on retirement and thus give an income for life.

[JohnfromUK]

What else do i get for my money?

You are funding;

Previous council employees pensions

Education

Social services

Subsidised housing for those on benefits and low incomes

Public transport in some areas

Councillors expenses

Local roads

Planning control

Care for the elderly and disabled

....... the list goes on, but the BIG ones are the top three in the list above

[Whitebridges]

I feel for folk with pensions in payment (annuitants) with all these massive price increases it must be a nightmare where the pension(s) isn't linked to RPI. Standard of living has to drop.

 

Due to a recent change in the rules a lot of companies are now offering a cash equivalent. I.E you can take the cash and for example put it in a SIPP. whereby you can take responsibility as to how you spend it, where you invest it and how you might draw it down.

 

I've spent all morning looking at the options. Pension Scheme trustees want to offload the liability, therefore the cash options are attractive in a lot of cases.

[panoma1]

Unable to remember the exact figure but a very large part (60%?) of the council tax we pay goes to pay for the pensions of the retired council works (there were a lot once before the days of sub contracting) or so a local councillor told me. Hence why they have no money for things like libraries.

Both the local authority and the employee contribute an amount equal to a percentage of the employees wage/salary into the LA pension scheme............that is no different from other employees and employers in the private sector!

For your councillor to bring this up is probably just a red herring to deflect from the ever decreasing amount of financial settlement given to the council by central government, the ever diminishing council services we receive, and the actual things (other than services) the local council spends this financial settlement on.....

 

I was once told that if you want to hide expenditure you don't want scrutinised....dramatically inflate the expenditure on tea, coffee and biscuits provided for meetings on the balance sheet...............and that's all people will pick up on!

 

And as I've said before, if you ask a politician to fund something and they reply they haven't got the money........they are lying!....

They have the money....they just choose to spend it on something else!

[panoma1]

You are funding;

Previous council employees pensions

Education

Social services

Subsidised housing for those on benefits and low incomes

Public transport in some areas

Councillors expenses

Local roads

Planning control

Care for the elderly and disabled

....... the list goes on, but the BIG ones are the top three in the list above

 

 

You are also funding grants to 'deserving' causes/organisations, occasionally where a powerful councillor has a hidden 'interest'

Senior officer lease cars, councillor 'fact finding' and other foreign travel jollies, the Police commissioner, his deputy, office costs and staff...the list goes on and on and on......when the need to fund these things becomes difficult due to finanancial constraints the councillors don't want to give up their perks etc so look at the council wage bill for savings...and guess where they find em?......hence the Birmingham refuse collectors current industrial action!