We get a job we get taxed, we save money we get taxed, we buy a house we get taxed, we imporve our house we get taxed (vat etc) we pay council tax, Gordo decides he wants more money from us so he sends round someone to take pictures and we get taxed more. Then we die and what we leave our loved ones get taxed.
Not sure what incentive there is anymore to actually do anything to improve our lives.
Without the war to pay for I suppose they might be bleeding us a little less?
The thing that always upsets me is when people refer to 'tax payers' to distinguish one group of people from another; usually tax payers and 'the unemplyed' or tax payers and 'homeless people'
But VAT makes us all tax payers whether or not it's income tax. VAT is more expensive to most people when tallied up than their income tax. And unemployed people pay council tax as well.
We all pay tax, as you say, even after death. You can't take it with you but they can still keep taking it from you.
I don't think they will get in though. Labour are really unpopular, but mostly among die hard labour voters who would rather scratch their own eyes out than vote tory! And Bliar is popular in the USA (that will change of course as Bush gets burned).
But he is right wing enough for them to back and I think it suits the shaodwy powers of he world stage fine to let us have labour in name but not in nature.
It is so hard to oppose new labour per se when you don't want the tories and they are the only possible alternative in the two party system we have.
I would never even have tried to post this on the other forum
It would be interesting to see what they do if they ever get in.
But don't you think we are more likely to get labour back with a reduced majority?
I am sure your prediction is accurate though, leave it if it is already in place.
They would probably reduce one bit and increasd another just to look as if they are doing something!
But that war is costing millions. Every explosion we pay for decreases what they have to spend on roads, prisons, schools, libraries, hospitals. (and subconciously I think I put them in their order of precedence!)
To be honest no I'm not conviced they will get back in. My Dad has said that he'll never vote for them again. He feels let down in a major way. Like a lot of people do.
I think when this goes ahead a lot more people will get angry. People dont tend to take notice till it happens and then I think thats when all the hassle will start.
If I could inject a small technical point here. When money is spent within the country it adds to the muliplier effect but when government (for instance) pays one million pounds for a missile and some do cost that much, and then it is exploded it cannot get added to the GDP, it's the end of the line, of course the poor smile you have bombed may have lost a million too but that is another story.
Looks to me that the only justification for arms is to enable private arms companies to get their hands on taxpayers money, quite clever really 'cos once you have used a bomb you have to buy another, even if it does not go off.
Essex Gurl,
Guess what rabbit hutches could count towards your rates....
from The Indy on Sunday
By Marie Woolf
POLITICAL EDITOR
Homeowners who have parking spaces on the road outside their home face higher council tax bills -even if they don't have a car. Ministers have admitted that the availability of parking outside people's properties will be considered by inspectors assessing how much council tax
households should pay. The "parking tax"- which will come on top of the cost of residents' parking permits - has been condemned as unfair by the Tories.
The Independent on Sunday has learnt that, in addition to the size of a property and its location, the availability of on-road parking, is being considered as a contributor to its value. Properties on wide roads
could pay hundreds of pounds more than similar-sized homes nearby.
"There seems to be no lengths to which the Government will go to tax another attribute of your home," said the MP Caroline Spelman. Ministers have already admitted that a fish pond, animal hutch or an "attractive flower arrangement" could count in home valuations.
Essex Gurl,
Guess what rabbit hutches could count towards your rates....
from The Indy on Sunday
By Marie Woolf
POLITICAL EDITOR
Homeowners who have parking spaces on the road outside their home face higher council tax bills -even if they don't have a car. Ministers have admitted that the availability of parking outside people's properties will be considered by inspectors assessing how much council tax
households should pay. The "parking tax"- which will come on top of the cost of residents' parking permits - has been condemned as unfair by the Tories.
The Independent on Sunday has learnt that, in addition to the size of a property and its location, the availability of on-road parking, is being considered as a contributor to its value. Properties on wide roads
could pay hundreds of pounds more than similar-sized homes nearby.
"There seems to be no lengths to which the Government will go to tax another attribute of your home," said the MP Caroline Spelman. Ministers have already admitted that a fish pond, animal hutch or an "attractive flower arrangement" could count in home valuations.
The council tax Parking space idea is silly if you do not have a car. Perhaps renting the space to one of your neighbours that have three or four cars to one house might be possible, but they would probably rather clutter up the road.
Essex Gurl,
Guess what rabbit hutches could count towards your rates....
Seems to me that soon having unbroken windows, a door that opens and a bell that works will be all thats needed for the inspectors to put up the council tax.
If the state of my garden means that it'll end up costing me more money (than it already has in getting it nice) then I am more than willing to turn it into something that looks like the new town tip.
Are we going to be taxed more if we have a nice view? We do have a sea view so I am guessing we should pay more for that. Though it does mean we get the awful wind in the winter - though I guess with it being fresh air (of sorts) we ought to pay more for that.
It has just occurred to me (as the owner of an unoccupied rabbit hutch) that the council will probably take it over and put homeless bunnies in it. After it has been unoccupied for a period of six months that is.
The good news is they will repair it if need be, the bad news is they will make me pay for the repair.
Perhaps the government will insist on all owners of hutches to be licensed at the Land Registery Office.
Will we have to pay a higher rate of tax on second and third hutches?
I noticed that one of our cllrs has bought a new beach hut recently. Two things spring to mind, first it was not made by local craftsmen, Mr D was pushing for things in this area to be made and constructed by local craftsmen untill a few months back.
Would a beach hut, being much bigger than a hutch, carry a proportionately bigger tax compared to a hutch?
BUILDING in excess of 1,700 new homes in Felixstowe could generate more than £21million for roads, health services, education and leisure, it has been revealed.
The money will come from a new “roof tax” which the government is currently introducing through new laws to make developers pay towards infrastructure when they create new homes.
In addition, Felixstowe is hoping to get many more millions to regenerate the resort from government and European funding projects after being given “growth area” status.
Planning officers said the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would generate at least £21m - it could be higher, possibly £20,000 per house, but the bill was still on its way through Parliament.
The money would pay for the impact of the new houses and their residents' needs - including ensuring there were enough school places, doctors, dentists, play areas, recreation facilities, road improvements - but not for a wish-list of projects to improve a much wider area.
Councillors are demanding developers lead the way in paying for a whole host of projects when new homes are built in the Felixstowe area.
The list includes:
Significant improvements to the A14 dock spur roundabout;
Improved and new access to the port from Felixstowe, Walton and Trimley;
Good road access from any homes sites to the town centre;
Rail improvements - including a passenger service for portworkers into the dock;
Ensuring enough primary and high school education places;
Recreation projects - including play, sport and leisure provision;
Adequate health care;
Enough allotments.
Andy Smith, chairman of the local development framework task group, said other projects were also needed, including improvements to Seven Hills junction and a rail halt at Warren Heath.
He said: “The whole of this area is now part of a growth area and for the first time in many years we have the potential for significant government funding for infrastructure.
“If we are having to take the pain of new housing at the government's behest, then we should be going to the government to get some help to ameliorate that pain.
“It is unrealistic to expect developers to provide everything on our shopping list because we need to get housing in a range which people can afford so we need to be mature in what we demand from developers but we have the right to ask more from government.”
Should developers pay towards a community's needs? Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN, or e-mail EveningStarLetters@eveningstar.co.uk
DEVELOPERS fear the new levy will be an extra burden adding to their costs as a time when the housing market is in a serious downturn.
Ian Reid, of Citygates Developments, owners of the Great White Horse Hotel in Ipswich and also involved with other projects in the town, said developers accepted they should contribute to community needs, such as schools and roads, through legal agreements but he thought the new tax could be a step too far.
He said: “Developers already have to bear the costs of social housing within projects, legal agreements for infrastructure, eco-homes - what is not needed is another tax at a time when the industry is facing a difficult time and finances are much tighter.
“Developers are seen as easy targets. It is true there have been a good few years and people have been making good money but now people are losing money - it's cyclical.
“Government is expecting the industry to meet targets for house building, but this will just act an as a disincentive.
“People will say should I sell that land, should I borrow the money, will I be able to sell that housing - I think it will put people off.”
Tim Collins, a partner in Bidwells, who represent Trinity College, Cambridge, the major landowners in the Felixstowe area, said: “I just don't know what the implications of the new levy will be at the moment - there has been so much debate and people are now waiting for the dust to settle.
“I think the aim is to find a more obvious and open way to deal with contributions - a lot of current legal agreements are done confidentially and there needs to be a more straight-forward and accountable process for all parties.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
