We’ll slash ‘well-off’ OAPs' tax discounts (From Daily Echo)

Nice idea for a bit of headline grabbing from Labour, but ultimately this would make little difference to either the budget or the pensioners.

Cllr Hanides has said savings would be made, after he has just wasted millions on a Titanic Museum. He said they would not cut the Gyms and swimming Centres, but all he did was privatise them. Somebody is telling lies.

find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders.
How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go.
Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices.
I am sure there are savings to be made there.

What exactly, I can't help wondering, is meant by a "well off pensioner" ?

i think there needs to be more means testing for pensioners. Not all of them are sitting in a shed trying to keep warm around a two-bar heater. A lot of them, having enjoyed the benefits of a free education and a generous welfare state, are a lot better off than most young families I know. So I'd rather ask pensioners who can afford it to pay a little more if it means keeping things like Sure Start centres open.

More posturing from one of the richest men in the city. I sincerely hope he's distributing his own wealth to local causes has he plans to do with ours in May- if elected.

hulla baloo wrote:
Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders. How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go. Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices. I am sure there are savings to be made there.

Totally agree. all the wasters will enjoy the hand outs while all the people who worked and saved will hand it all back. So spend spend spen before retiring.

hulla baloo wrote:
Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders.
How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go.
Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices.
I am sure there are savings to be made there.

Its not penalising those who worked hard all their lives, its balancing fairness.

Is it fair whilst some pensioners are holding on to three bed houses despite being a loan occupant? Is it fair that some pensioners are classed as 'wealthy or well off' when others are suffering in substandard conditions at care homes which are now losing staff, facilities and funding. why should some pensioners suffer when their peers are living a life of luxury, getting discounts which they don't really need when we are 'in this together'?

I despise the workshy and freeloaders but sadly due to a change in the times, alot of people are losing jobs and are out of work.

The money needs to be sourced to fill the void. Services have been barbarised and will continue to be and standards will drop across the board unless the hole is plugged. An increase in council tax of 1% or anywhere between £10-50 (pending on grade) per year is not a big ask for residents especially when we are 'in it together' and the amount of money such an increase would provide.

its about time the rich started paying as well as the poor and working class!

Taskforce 141 wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders.
How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go.
Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices.
I am sure there are savings to be made there.

Its not penalising those who worked hard all their lives, its balancing fairness.

Is it fair whilst some pensioners are holding on to three bed houses despite being a loan occupant? Is it fair that some pensioners are classed as 'wealthy or well off' when others are suffering in substandard conditions at care homes which are now losing staff, facilities and funding. why should some pensioners suffer when their peers are living a life of luxury, getting discounts which they don't really need when we are 'in this together'?

I despise the workshy and freeloaders but sadly due to a change in the times, alot of people are losing jobs and are out of work.

The money needs to be sourced to fill the void. Services have been barbarised and will continue to be and standards will drop across the board unless the hole is plugged. An increase in council tax of 1% or anywhere between £10-50 (pending on grade) per year is not a big ask for residents especially when we are 'in it together' and the amount of money such an increase would provide.

its about time the rich started paying as well as the poor and working class!

Many of your so called "poor" and "working class" have earned money (some, very good money!) in their day but chose to spend it unwisely (e.g. Exotic holidays abroad, smoking, alcohol, gambling, Sky TV, Takeaway meals, pre-cooked meals, new furniture every two years, designer clothes, new car every two years, etc etc!
(Yes, I grant you there are genuine poor people because of circumstances. However, it is my fervent belief that our welfare state caters for these unfortunate people. Surveys have found that many people who can't manage have the wrong order of priorities)

>
And for that you want to punish those who spent wisely?

George4th wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders.
How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go.
Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices.
I am sure there are savings to be made there.

Its not penalising those who worked hard all their lives, its balancing fairness.

Is it fair whilst some pensioners are holding on to three bed houses despite being a loan occupant? Is it fair that some pensioners are classed as 'wealthy or well off' when others are suffering in substandard conditions at care homes which are now losing staff, facilities and funding. why should some pensioners suffer when their peers are living a life of luxury, getting discounts which they don't really need when we are 'in this together'?

I despise the workshy and freeloaders but sadly due to a change in the times, alot of people are losing jobs and are out of work.

The money needs to be sourced to fill the void. Services have been barbarised and will continue to be and standards will drop across the board unless the hole is plugged. An increase in council tax of 1% or anywhere between £10-50 (pending on grade) per year is not a big ask for residents especially when we are 'in it together' and the amount of money such an increase would provide.

its about time the rich started paying as well as the poor and working class!

Many of your so called "poor" and "working class" have earned money (some, very good money!) in their day but chose to spend it unwisely (e.g. Exotic holidays abroad, smoking, alcohol, gambling, Sky TV, Takeaway meals, pre-cooked meals, new furniture every two years, designer clothes, new car every two years, etc etc!
(Yes, I grant you there are genuine poor people because of circumstances. However, it is my fervent belief that our welfare state caters for these unfortunate people. Surveys have found that many people who can't manage have the wrong order of priorities)

>
And for that you want to punish those who spent wisely?

No you fool.

I didn't say I wanted to punish those who spent wisely, I said the rich need to start helping out and not leave it to the poor and working class!

You made a sweeping statement regarding exotic holidays etc, please i would like to see the evidence of all this, why not pop along to a local care home and speak with the residents their and find out how they are REALLY living!

Sadly our welfare state is terrible, those that need help don't qualify for it those who get help don't need it and those who abuse the system completely get away with it!

If you ask me, ALL benefits should be paid in Food Stamps which can only be exchanged for food, clothing, and paying utility bills.

I am fed up of seeing smelly scruffy kids being taken around the supermarket by their gobshite parents who get the most basic of food supplements only to then buy bottles of vodka beer and a box of 200 fags!

The bottom line is that these tax discounts should never have been given in the first place if people/OAP's can afford to pay the full rate.
.
People who cannot afford afford the Council tax do/can receive the discounted sum by claiming.
.
In addition the previous talk was the 100% concession that "Special Constables" would receive, which even the Chief Constable was against.
.
But i also agree that "as we are all in this together" then a small increase in Council tax should be carefully considered if it saves or protects proposed hikes in the cost of care and services for the disabled.

Taskforce 141 wrote:

George4th wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders.
How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go.
Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices.
I am sure there are savings to be made there.

Its not penalising those who worked hard all their lives, its balancing fairness.

Is it fair whilst some pensioners are holding on to three bed houses despite being a loan occupant? Is it fair that some pensioners are classed as 'wealthy or well off' when others are suffering in substandard conditions at care homes which are now losing staff, facilities and funding. why should some pensioners suffer when their peers are living a life of luxury, getting discounts which they don't really need when we are 'in this together'?

I despise the workshy and freeloaders but sadly due to a change in the times, alot of people are losing jobs and are out of work.

The money needs to be sourced to fill the void. Services have been barbarised and will continue to be and standards will drop across the board unless the hole is plugged. An increase in council tax of 1% or anywhere between £10-50 (pending on grade) per year is not a big ask for residents especially when we are 'in it together' and the amount of money such an increase would provide.

its about time the rich started paying as well as the poor and working class!

Many of your so called "poor" and "working class" have earned money (some, very good money!) in their day but chose to spend it unwisely (e.g. Exotic holidays abroad, smoking, alcohol, gambling, Sky TV, Takeaway meals, pre-cooked meals, new furniture every two years, designer clothes, new car every two years, etc etc!
(Yes, I grant you there are genuine poor people because of circumstances. However, it is my fervent belief that our welfare state caters for these unfortunate people. Surveys have found that many people who can't manage have the wrong order of priorities)

>
And for that you want to punish those who spent wisely?

No you fool.

I didn't say I wanted to punish those who spent wisely, I said the rich need to start helping out and not leave it to the poor and working class!

You made a sweeping statement regarding exotic holidays etc, please i would like to see the evidence of all this, why not pop along to a local care home and speak with the residents their and find out how they are REALLY living!

Sadly our welfare state is terrible, those that need help don't qualify for it those who get help don't need it and those who abuse the system completely get away with it!

If you ask me, ALL benefits should be paid in Food Stamps which can only be exchanged for food, clothing, and paying utility bills.

I am fed up of seeing smelly scruffy kids being taken around the supermarket by their gobshite parents who get the most basic of food supplements only to then buy bottles of vodka beer and a box of 200 fags!

"If you ask me, ALL benefits should be paid in Food Stamps which can only be exchanged for food, clothing, and paying utility bills."

I so agree with you!

well as usual the comments are very interesting to read, if not also very frustrating.........
... Most people in Southampton, regardless of age live in the Private Sector, most are home owners and the others rent privately, it is only a small percentage who live in Social Housing. So you cannot expect someone who owns their own home to down-size etc etc. I have worked fulltime for 44 years and paid all my taxes and NI payments + all my pensions deductions from my wages and pay TAX on my pensions which I believe is a major contribution to helping those less able to help themselves..........
.. So how else are the 'rich pensioners' expected to pay more or are we supposed to wear sack cloth and ashes as a penance for being thrifty when we were working? I expect all politicians to act responsibly - of course they don't either locally or nationally however WE THE ELECTORATE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR VOTING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION INTO POWER........... So take heed and the appropriate action at the next election............
...

erica smith wrote:
well as usual the comments are very interesting to read, if not also very frustrating.........

... Most people in Southampton, regardless of age live in the Private Sector, most are home owners and the others rent privately, it is only a small percentage who live in Social Housing. So you cannot expect someone who owns their own home to down-size etc etc. I have worked fulltime for 44 years and paid all my taxes and NI payments + all my pensions deductions from my wages and pay TAX on my pensions which I believe is a major contribution to helping those less able to help themselves..........

.. So how else are the 'rich pensioners' expected to pay more or are we supposed to wear sack cloth and ashes as a penance for being thrifty when we were working? I expect all politicians to act responsibly - of course they don't either locally or nationally however WE THE ELECTORATE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR VOTING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION INTO POWER........... So take heed and the appropriate action at the next election............

...

Nationally we had 13 years of a Labour government who created a Credit Bubble and a Property Bubble, both of which burst! They massively overspent and even before the "banking" fiasco this country was in economic decline! Unemployment was already rising! The construction industry had stopped building! There was no Investment in our future!
The banking crisis did not cause our downfall, the incompetent Labour government caused our downfall. Of 500 Banks in London, we only had difficulty with 5!
>
Allied to that we in the City of Southampton had 25 years of a Labour council who sat around spending money like it was going out of fashion, including awarding themselves salaries! They did not invest in anything!! They left us with a run down wreck of a City!
>
Now if you want to go back to that, you go right ahead and vote them back in!!

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

If the joint income is anywhere near £60k then they should be thrown out!

Welfare and social housing should be there for those who need it! personally if the joint in come is over 40K perhaps they should not be in social housing! But then of course renting privately has its many pitfalls and Oh my god southampton has some dodgy landlords! And people can no longer afford to buy homes with minimium deposits required ranging from 20-40%!

What's the average turnout in Council Elections, 35% at best ?
Williams has just lost Labour any chance of winning in May as all the over 65's will turn out and vote Tory!
What a stupid idea!

I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

dave1958 wrote:
I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

Thank you for the Party Political Broadcast! I'm pleased that you are not my Accountant because you clearly cannot read and understand Accounts.
>
Misleading the Public on the Daily Echo Forum in the pursuit of your own misguided ideology should be a criminal offence punishable by 25 more years of inetia and ineptitude by a ruling Labour Council!

Labour = TAX and waste.
Lets hope people understand Labour/Unions work hand in hand.
Who do you want running Southampton the unions or the Tories ( who look after all our interests).
Labour keep going on about the rich,but the Labour leadership, Denham, Whitehead, Williams I believe are probably all millionaires.
The TORIES in Southampton have done very well in their 4/5 years in power, I hope the good people of Southampton vote them in again.

So Williams wants to protect vulnerable elderly people by making them pay 10% more in council tax? I can't be the only one questioning his misguided logic.
.
We can all remember what his misguided party did last time they ran the council - that's right, they doubled council tax for Southampton residents. That approach really helped the elderly and vulnerable.

Aldermoor Boy, the 3 mentioned above are a lot wealthier than any Tory or Lib Dem politician locally. It's easy for a man who lives in a massive house to expect OAPs who may get a small occupational pension or have prudently saved to cough up more so people who have contributed nothing can continue to get the brunt of the services the council provides. We should take a French attitude to language provision and make it the responsibility of incomers to learn English off their own backs.

George4th wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders.
How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go.
Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices.
I am sure there are savings to be made there.

Its not penalising those who worked hard all their lives, its balancing fairness.

Is it fair whilst some pensioners are holding on to three bed houses despite being a loan occupant? Is it fair that some pensioners are classed as 'wealthy or well off' when others are suffering in substandard conditions at care homes which are now losing staff, facilities and funding. why should some pensioners suffer when their peers are living a life of luxury, getting discounts which they don't really need when we are 'in this together'?

I despise the workshy and freeloaders but sadly due to a change in the times, alot of people are losing jobs and are out of work.

The money needs to be sourced to fill the void. Services have been barbarised and will continue to be and standards will drop across the board unless the hole is plugged. An increase in council tax of 1% or anywhere between £10-50 (pending on grade) per year is not a big ask for residents especially when we are 'in it together' and the amount of money such an increase would provide.

its about time the rich started paying as well as the poor and working class!

Many of your so called "poor" and "working class" have earned money (some, very good money!) in their day but chose to spend it unwisely (e.g. Exotic holidays abroad, smoking, alcohol, gambling, Sky TV, Takeaway meals, pre-cooked meals, new furniture every two years, designer clothes, new car every two years, etc etc!
(Yes, I grant you there are genuine poor people because of circumstances. However, it is my fervent belief that our welfare state caters for these unfortunate people. Surveys have found that many people who can't manage have the wrong order of priorities)

>
And for that you want to punish those who spent wisely?

George4th are you for real?

How the hell do you know what people have spent their money on?

Show me your evidence on how people spend the money they earned.

Giving a 10% discount to those pensioners that can afford to pay the full amount whilst making cuts to services for those pensioners who cannot afford to pay flies in the face of the Prime Ministers motto: We're all in this together.

senseofsouthampton wrote:
So Williams wants to protect vulnerable elderly people by making them pay 10% more in council tax? I can't be the only one questioning his misguided logic. . We can all remember what his misguided party did last time they ran the council - that's right, they doubled council tax for Southampton residents. That approach really helped the elderly and vulnerable.

Pensioners who are hard up will qualify for Council Tax Benefit. The majority of pensioners who qualify for this discount are those living in leafy suburbs like Upper Shirley, Bassett and Portswood etc. who are not reliant upon benefits. This policy was simply brought in by the Tory administration to buy the grey vote. The average turnout in local elections is often around 20%. Those that do vote are often pensioners. Anyone who cannot see that this discount was a simple political stunt by the Conservatives is in denial.

George4th wrote:

erica smith wrote:
well as usual the comments are very interesting to read, if not also very frustrating.........


... Most people in Southampton, regardless of age live in the Private Sector, most are home owners and the others rent privately, it is only a small percentage who live in Social Housing. So you cannot expect someone who owns their own home to down-size etc etc. I have worked fulltime for 44 years and paid all my taxes and NI payments + all my pensions deductions from my wages and pay TAX on my pensions which I believe is a major contribution to helping those less able to help themselves..........


.. So how else are the 'rich pensioners' expected to pay more or are we supposed to wear sack cloth and ashes as a penance for being thrifty when we were working? I expect all politicians to act responsibly - of course they don't either locally or nationally however WE THE ELECTORATE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR VOTING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION INTO POWER........... So take heed and the appropriate action at the next election............


...

Nationally we had 13 years of a Labour government who created a Credit Bubble and a Property Bubble, both of which burst! They massively overspent and even before the "banking" fiasco this country was in economic decline! Unemployment was already rising! The construction industry had stopped building! There was no Investment in our future!
The banking crisis did not cause our downfall, the incompetent Labour government caused our downfall. Of 500 Banks in London, we only had difficulty with 5!
>
Allied to that we in the City of Southampton had 25 years of a Labour council who sat around spending money like it was going out of fashion, including awarding themselves salaries! They did not invest in anything!! They left us with a run down wreck of a City!
>
Now if you want to go back to that, you go right ahead and vote them back in!!

And 18 years of Torys that started all todays damage that we are seeing today, remember credit bubble of the 80's and the property bubble that both burst, and the banking errors of the 80's, the unemployment that went from about the 1 million mark to well over the 6 million mark that has never gone down again, and that same government of the 80's took away the right of councils building there own homes for people ect ect ect ect the kist of the 80's is a very long one and we are feeling the effects of the 80's and will continlly do so, till we get a government with the balls to undo every thing that happened in the 80's.

George4th wrote:

dave1958 wrote:
I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

Thank you for the Party Political Broadcast! I'm pleased that you are not my Accountant because you clearly cannot read and understand Accounts.
>
Misleading the Public on the Daily Echo Forum in the pursuit of your own misguided ideology should be a criminal offence punishable by 25 more years of inetia and ineptitude by a ruling Labour Council!

Its not misleading at all, what he has quoted from was from the SSC own news paper -"The City View"- that is delevered to most homes inside the Southampton City Limits, and the ruling party in control have a lot off input, if you have not read it your self or see it then it must be taken you live out side the SCC limits.

Condor Man wrote:
Aldermoor Boy, the 3 mentioned above are a lot wealthier than any Tory or Lib Dem politician locally. It's easy for a man who lives in a massive house to expect OAPs who may get a small occupational pension or have prudently saved to cough up more so people who have contributed nothing can continue to get the brunt of the services the council provides. We should take a French attitude to language provision and make it the responsibility of incomers to learn English off their own backs.

How your tune changes ........ You dislike Williams because he has wealth.
.
Only 4 weeks ago you were crying out for means testing.
.
You also boasted how your own parents dont need bus passes or their pensions due to their wealth ..... but still claim them .... In that case people in similar financial positions dont need 10% discounts from the like of a Tory council when there are hikes in the cost of care and services for the disabled.
.
If the elderly really need the discvount of 10% then its not a problem

Condor Man wrote:
Aldermoor Boy, the 3 mentioned above are a lot wealthier than any Tory or Lib Dem politician locally. It's easy for a man who lives in a massive house to expect OAPs who may get a small occupational pension or have prudently saved to cough up more so people who have contributed nothing can continue to get the brunt of the services the council provides. We should take a French attitude to language provision and make it the responsibility of incomers to learn English off their own backs.

How your tune changes ........ You dislike Williams because he has wealth.
.
Only 4 weeks ago you were crying out for means testing.
.
You also boasted how your own parents dont need bus passes or their pensions due to their wealth ..... but still claim them .... In that case people in similar financial positions dont need 10% discounts from the like of a Tory council when there are hikes in the cost of care and services for the disabled.
.
If the elderly really need the discvount of 10% then its not a problem

TEBOURBA wrote:
What's the average turnout in Council Elections, 35% at best ?
Williams has just lost Labour any chance of winning in May as all the over 65's will turn out and vote Tory!
What a stupid idea!

Redbridge I believe holds the lowest turn out in Southampton, last year elections 33%, but there was even a lower turn out 4 years ago which allowed the Torys to take control of the city, the Torys gain control by default of the people not voting, this year those Tory gains that was made 4 years ago, are up for election this time those council wards will be out to vote to remove the Torys that they allowed to be let in, and williams all ready knows this. the Labour party will win back the Council at the may elections.

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

dave1958 wrote:
I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

Thank you for the Party Political Broadcast! I'm pleased that you are not my Accountant because you clearly cannot read and understand Accounts.
>
Misleading the Public on the Daily Echo Forum in the pursuit of your own misguided ideology should be a criminal offence punishable by 25 more years of inetia and ineptitude by a ruling Labour Council!

Its not misleading at all, what he has quoted from was from the SSC own news paper -"The City View"- that is delevered to most homes inside the Southampton City Limits, and the ruling party in control have a lot off input, if you have not read it your self or see it then it must be taken you live out side the SCC limits.

Southy ....... he probably didnt get the City View as he probably doesnt live in the City Limits .....

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

dave1958 wrote:
I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

Thank you for the Party Political Broadcast! I'm pleased that you are not my Accountant because you clearly cannot read and understand Accounts.
>
Misleading the Public on the Daily Echo Forum in the pursuit of your own misguided ideology should be a criminal offence punishable by 25 more years of inetia and ineptitude by a ruling Labour Council!

Its not misleading at all, what he has quoted from was from the SSC own news paper -"The City View"- that is delevered to most homes inside the Southampton City Limits, and the ruling party in control have a lot off input, if you have not read it your self or see it then it must be taken you live out side the SCC limits.

Southy ....... he probably didnt get the City View as he probably doesnt live in the City Limits .....

More than likely your right there Lone which put him well out of his deepth of knowing what he talking about.

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

sorry what has that got to do with what I posted?

The budget is huge because there is an acute shortage of council housing because cough cough the tories brought in legislation enabling them to be sold off at dirt cheap prices and not be replaced.

My ex is in that situation you describe and I often think that they should be made to get out of council housing but to do such an adult would cost a huge amount of money and how would you enforce it in law? if you suddenly desposed families it would put a strain on private renting which is already at breaking point. We have one of the highest housing lists in the country.....

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

dave1958 wrote:
I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

Thank you for the Party Political Broadcast! I'm pleased that you are not my Accountant because you clearly cannot read and understand Accounts.
>
Misleading the Public on the Daily Echo Forum in the pursuit of your own misguided ideology should be a criminal offence punishable by 25 more years of inetia and ineptitude by a ruling Labour Council!

Its not misleading at all, what he has quoted from was from the SSC own news paper -"The City View"- that is delevered to most homes inside the Southampton City Limits, and the ruling party in control have a lot off input, if you have not read it your self or see it then it must be taken you live out side the SCC limits.

I read it - his interpretation was somewhat flakey to say the least!

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

erica smith wrote:
well as usual the comments are very interesting to read, if not also very frustrating.........



... Most people in Southampton, regardless of age live in the Private Sector, most are home owners and the others rent privately, it is only a small percentage who live in Social Housing. So you cannot expect someone who owns their own home to down-size etc etc. I have worked fulltime for 44 years and paid all my taxes and NI payments + all my pensions deductions from my wages and pay TAX on my pensions which I believe is a major contribution to helping those less able to help themselves..........



.. So how else are the 'rich pensioners' expected to pay more or are we supposed to wear sack cloth and ashes as a penance for being thrifty when we were working? I expect all politicians to act responsibly - of course they don't either locally or nationally however WE THE ELECTORATE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR VOTING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION INTO POWER........... So take heed and the appropriate action at the next election............



...

Nationally we had 13 years of a Labour government who created a Credit Bubble and a Property Bubble, both of which burst! They massively overspent and even before the "banking" fiasco this country was in economic decline! Unemployment was already rising! The construction industry had stopped building! There was no Investment in our future!
The banking crisis did not cause our downfall, the incompetent Labour government caused our downfall. Of 500 Banks in London, we only had difficulty with 5!
>
Allied to that we in the City of Southampton had 25 years of a Labour council who sat around spending money like it was going out of fashion, including awarding themselves salaries! They did not invest in anything!! They left us with a run down wreck of a City!
>
Now if you want to go back to that, you go right ahead and vote them back in!!

And 18 years of Torys that started all todays damage that we are seeing today, remember credit bubble of the 80's and the property bubble that both burst, and the banking errors of the 80's, the unemployment that went from about the 1 million mark to well over the 6 million mark that has never gone down again, and that same government of the 80's took away the right of councils building there own homes for people ect ect ect ect the kist of the 80's is a very long one and we are feeling the effects of the 80's and will continlly do so, till we get a government with the balls to undo every thing that happened in the 80's.

Yes, and in 1066................
..........
>
Labour had more money to spend than any government ever had. What did they achieve? They managed to widen the gap between the have and the have nots. Who else could have manage that?! In modern society, that was a crime.

Taskforce 141 wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

If the joint income is anywhere near £60k then they should be thrown out!

Welfare and social housing should be there for those who need it! personally if the joint in come is over 40K perhaps they should not be in social housing! But then of course renting privately has its many pitfalls and Oh my god southampton has some dodgy landlords! And people can no longer afford to buy homes with minimium deposits required ranging from 20-40%!

"If the joint income is anywhere near £60k then they should be thrown out! Welfare and social housing should be there for those who need it! personally if the joint in come is over 40K perhaps they should not be in social housing!"

I agree!

"And people can no longer afford to buy homes with minimium deposits required ranging from 20-40%!"

I disagree!

Look at any major website offering homes and start at the lowest price - homes are affordable in this area.
And to buy them, what is wrong with saving for a deposit and going without the luxuries of life and/or getting an extra job?) The immigrants manage it so why can't the home grown? It all boils down to those who aspire and those who do not............

George4th wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

erica smith wrote:
well as usual the comments are very interesting to read, if not also very frustrating.........




... Most people in Southampton, regardless of age live in the Private Sector, most are home owners and the others rent privately, it is only a small percentage who live in Social Housing. So you cannot expect someone who owns their own home to down-size etc etc. I have worked fulltime for 44 years and paid all my taxes and NI payments + all my pensions deductions from my wages and pay TAX on my pensions which I believe is a major contribution to helping those less able to help themselves..........




.. So how else are the 'rich pensioners' expected to pay more or are we supposed to wear sack cloth and ashes as a penance for being thrifty when we were working? I expect all politicians to act responsibly - of course they don't either locally or nationally however WE THE ELECTORATE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR VOTING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION INTO POWER........... So take heed and the appropriate action at the next election............




...

Nationally we had 13 years of a Labour government who created a Credit Bubble and a Property Bubble, both of which burst! They massively overspent and even before the "banking" fiasco this country was in economic decline! Unemployment was already rising! The construction industry had stopped building! There was no Investment in our future!
The banking crisis did not cause our downfall, the incompetent Labour government caused our downfall. Of 500 Banks in London, we only had difficulty with 5!
>
Allied to that we in the City of Southampton had 25 years of a Labour council who sat around spending money like it was going out of fashion, including awarding themselves salaries! They did not invest in anything!! They left us with a run down wreck of a City!
>
Now if you want to go back to that, you go right ahead and vote them back in!!

And 18 years of Torys that started all todays damage that we are seeing today, remember credit bubble of the 80's and the property bubble that both burst, and the banking errors of the 80's, the unemployment that went from about the 1 million mark to well over the 6 million mark that has never gone down again, and that same government of the 80's took away the right of councils building there own homes for people ect ect ect ect the kist of the 80's is a very long one and we are feeling the effects of the 80's and will continlly do so, till we get a government with the balls to undo every thing that happened in the 80's.

Yes, and in 1066................

..........
>
Labour had more money to spend than any government ever had. What did they achieve? They managed to widen the gap between the have and the have nots. Who else could have manage that?! In modern society, that was a crime.

Labour did not have more money the Torys of the 80's squander it all away, and just rised the debt more, the country was bankrupt when Labour came to power, and sticking to Thatcher policy just made thing worse/deeper, I am surprise that they managed to pay off the 2 World War debts and a chunk of the Torys debts from the 1920's and 1930's

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

I know and you would get this sort of fairness only with the TUSC in control

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

sorry what has that got to do with what I posted?

The budget is huge because there is an acute shortage of council housing because cough cough the tories brought in legislation enabling them to be sold off at dirt cheap prices and not be replaced.

My ex is in that situation you describe and I often think that they should be made to get out of council housing but to do such an adult would cost a huge amount of money and how would you enforce it in law? if you suddenly desposed families it would put a strain on private renting which is already at breaking point. We have one of the highest housing lists in the country.....

audit* bluddy predictive text!

George4th wrote:

Taskforce 141 wrote:

hulla baloo wrote:
Here we go again. penalise those that have worked hard all their lives, built up a nest egg for their retirement, and having to further subsidise the workshy and freeloaders.
How about a review on where the grants are given, who gets the discounts and where all the benefits go.
Then look at the councillors expenses, and running costs for the council offices.
I am sure there are savings to be made there.

Its not penalising those who worked hard all their lives, its balancing fairness.

Is it fair whilst some pensioners are holding on to three bed houses despite being a loan occupant? Is it fair that some pensioners are classed as 'wealthy or well off' when others are suffering in substandard conditions at care homes which are now losing staff, facilities and funding. why should some pensioners suffer when their peers are living a life of luxury, getting discounts which they don't really need when we are 'in this together'?

I despise the workshy and freeloaders but sadly due to a change in the times, alot of people are losing jobs and are out of work.

The money needs to be sourced to fill the void. Services have been barbarised and will continue to be and standards will drop across the board unless the hole is plugged. An increase in council tax of 1% or anywhere between £10-50 (pending on grade) per year is not a big ask for residents especially when we are 'in it together' and the amount of money such an increase would provide.

its about time the rich started paying as well as the poor and working class!

Many of your so called "poor" and "working class" have earned money (some, very good money!) in their day but chose to spend it unwisely (e.g. Exotic holidays abroad, smoking, alcohol, gambling, Sky TV, Takeaway meals, pre-cooked meals, new furniture every two years, designer clothes, new car every two years, etc etc!
(Yes, I grant you there are genuine poor people because of circumstances. However, it is my fervent belief that our welfare state caters for these unfortunate people. Surveys have found that many people who can't manage have the wrong order of priorities)

>
And for that you want to punish those who spent wisely?

George4th

Show me your evidence on how pensioners spent the money they earned when they were working.

Or

Is like I suspect, you don't have any?

Put up or shut up George4th

dave1958 wrote:
I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

In answer to your question,,,,

First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone?

Royston Smith is a director of a detective agency,,,,maybe he could tell you where its gone,,,assuming he knows that is

Over the Edge wrote:

dave1958 wrote:
I will lay odds that all the biggest wingers on this thread are not even people who pay Council tax in Southampton, but have a postal address of Southampton, but actually pay their council tax to either Eastleigh Borough Council or Test Valley BC.
A few facts for all you wingers, which were recently published in the City View, and went to ever household in Southampton. The following figures are taken straight from the publication and relate to the accounts published for the years 2009/10 2010/11.
First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone. Money owed to the council has gone up from £94m to £139m. The council liabilities have also gone up, money owed by it from £99m to £124m, money set aside to meet future costs has stayed the same at £9m. Borrowing has gone up from £227m to £294m.
With regards to the council housing, according to the accounts again the council only made a surplus of £0.3m on that last year.
To answer the question who are the wealth pensioners they are the pensioners who do not get any assistance with the council tax or claim anyother benefits. Using a FOI request a couple of years ago these pensioners tended to come from Bassett, Highfield and surrounding areas. In other words the Tory wards in the City Boundaries.
So how long is it going to take the council to repay the money owed, and I will lay odds most of that went on the Titanic museum. So has Royston and his henchmen really done a good job of looking after the city, how long is it going to take for the city to pay back the £294m, and will we ever see any of the £124m owed to us, or will some of that get written off as bad debts and not worth chasing. Capitalism at work, and remember "We are all in this together", Royston and his kind are defintely not in it that is for sure. Roll on the local elections in May, and perhaps we will then see a new leader of the Tory party in Southampton when the night of the long knives comes out for Royston.

In answer to your question,,,,

First of all in those two years £200m of assets were sold, wheres the money gone?

Royston Smith is a director of a detective agency,,,,maybe he could tell you where its gone,,,assuming he knows that is

Well that would expain the deceit about smithy

I would rather pay more than take anything away from any pensioner.
Stop being so disrespectful to our elders and stop giving benefits to people who have never worked or lived in this country for at least 5 years, simples !!!

Williams has shot himself in the foot with this proposal -- he may as well add to it by discontinuing the bus passes for OAP's --- that should save a few million.
While we're at it, re -open the Workhouse in St Mary's Street and send all those OAP's living in more than one bed and one bath to it!
No thought given to reducing Councillors' inflated remuneration and expenses?
Here's one vote that he could normally have banked on which his Party won't be getting!
Labour the caring Party? -- well it may have been -- but obviously not now!!--- lions led by donkeys springs to mind!!

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

I know and you would get this sort of fairness only with the TUSC in control

Ermmmmmmm hang on a minute!! Whatever happened to encouraging people to do better for themselves?

It sounds like if TUSC were in control the entire country would want the lowest paid jobs and no-one would have any aspiration to better themselves or they'd have most of their hard earned money taken away to pay for those who have no career ambition!

Leave my Council Tax alone, it's gone up enough over the years and all I have got from it is greedy workers!

I walked through the City park today and was confronted with a Council truck sitting on the entrance where 4 workers were standing around chatting, none of them moved until I said excuse me.

As for hunting my bin down this week, don't start me on that! 6 houses down they left my bin and this is what I get for my Tax money??? Yet I pay more than the lowest bands but still get the same crap service!

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

I know and you would get this sort of fairness only with the TUSC in control

Ermmmmmmm hang on a minute!! Whatever happened to encouraging people to do better for themselves?

It sounds like if TUSC were in control the entire country would want the lowest paid jobs and no-one would have any aspiration to better themselves or they'd have most of their hard earned money taken away to pay for those who have no career ambition!

Leave my Council Tax alone, it's gone up enough over the years and all I have got from it is greedy workers!

I walked through the City park today and was confronted with a Council truck sitting on the entrance where 4 workers were standing around chatting, none of them moved until I said excuse me.

As for hunting my bin down this week, don't start me on that! 6 houses down they left my bin and this is what I get for my Tax money??? Yet I pay more than the lowest bands but still get the same crap service!

Simple if your greed is to want more, then pay according to the amount off space you personally want to take up for your self.
It cost more to empty bins the higher you go up the bands. and stop expecting the less well off to pay for your greed in wanting more.

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

I know and you would get this sort of fairness only with the TUSC in control

Ermmmmmmm hang on a minute!! Whatever happened to encouraging people to do better for themselves?

It sounds like if TUSC were in control the entire country would want the lowest paid jobs and no-one would have any aspiration to better themselves or they'd have most of their hard earned money taken away to pay for those who have no career ambition!

Leave my Council Tax alone, it's gone up enough over the years and all I have got from it is greedy workers!

I walked through the City park today and was confronted with a Council truck sitting on the entrance where 4 workers were standing around chatting, none of them moved until I said excuse me.

As for hunting my bin down this week, don't start me on that! 6 houses down they left my bin and this is what I get for my Tax money??? Yet I pay more than the lowest bands but still get the same crap service!

Simple if your greed is to want more, then pay according to the amount off space you personally want to take up for your self.
It cost more to empty bins the higher you go up the bands. and stop expecting the less well off to pay for your greed in wanting more.

My darling Southy, how is wanting a better education and a better career being greedy?

You have just spelt out TUSC policy...... do nothing and have everyone else pay for you.

My house takes up less space than a Council house, yet I pay more in Council Tax, just because I chose a different route.

Just because the value of my house is high doesn't mean I use more resources, so why should I pay more Tax?

Your suggestion would mean no-one has any incentive to better themselves, so we'd all prefer to be a bin man so we can keep more of our earned money?

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

I know and you would get this sort of fairness only with the TUSC in control

Ermmmmmmm hang on a minute!! Whatever happened to encouraging people to do better for themselves?

It sounds like if TUSC were in control the entire country would want the lowest paid jobs and no-one would have any aspiration to better themselves or they'd have most of their hard earned money taken away to pay for those who have no career ambition!

Leave my Council Tax alone, it's gone up enough over the years and all I have got from it is greedy workers!

I walked through the City park today and was confronted with a Council truck sitting on the entrance where 4 workers were standing around chatting, none of them moved until I said excuse me.

As for hunting my bin down this week, don't start me on that! 6 houses down they left my bin and this is what I get for my Tax money??? Yet I pay more than the lowest bands but still get the same crap service!

Simple if your greed is to want more, then pay according to the amount off space you personally want to take up for your self.
It cost more to empty bins the higher you go up the bands. and stop expecting the less well off to pay for your greed in wanting more.

My darling Southy, how is wanting a better education and a better career being greedy?

You have just spelt out TUSC policy...... do nothing and have everyone else pay for you.

My house takes up less space than a Council house, yet I pay more in Council Tax, just because I chose a different route.

Just because the value of my house is high doesn't mean I use more resources, so why should I pay more Tax?

Your suggestion would mean no-one has any incentive to better themselves, so we'd all prefer to be a bin man so we can keep more of our earned money?

I have not spelled any thing, only fairness if your better off or wealthly don't expect the less well off do the paying for you simple as that, the only way you could be paying more than a Council house and that is if your over crowded with young ones above the working age where you got to pay a extra % in council tax on top, and its not just the house that taken into account its also the land around it.
What is really needed is to return back to the Rates system which was the fairest system we had, where the value off the house is not taken into account, only the space that you take up.
Incentive will never go, it will still be there, it was there before the 80's and will carry on being there, so please leave that card where it belongs in the pack with the others.

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

I know and you would get this sort of fairness only with the TUSC in control

Ermmmmmmm hang on a minute!! Whatever happened to encouraging people to do better for themselves?

It sounds like if TUSC were in control the entire country would want the lowest paid jobs and no-one would have any aspiration to better themselves or they'd have most of their hard earned money taken away to pay for those who have no career ambition!

Leave my Council Tax alone, it's gone up enough over the years and all I have got from it is greedy workers!

I walked through the City park today and was confronted with a Council truck sitting on the entrance where 4 workers were standing around chatting, none of them moved until I said excuse me.

As for hunting my bin down this week, don't start me on that! 6 houses down they left my bin and this is what I get for my Tax money??? Yet I pay more than the lowest bands but still get the same crap service!

Simple if your greed is to want more, then pay according to the amount off space you personally want to take up for your self.
It cost more to empty bins the higher you go up the bands. and stop expecting the less well off to pay for your greed in wanting more.

My darling Southy, how is wanting a better education and a better career being greedy?

You have just spelt out TUSC policy...... do nothing and have everyone else pay for you.

My house takes up less space than a Council house, yet I pay more in Council Tax, just because I chose a different route.

Just because the value of my house is high doesn't mean I use more resources, so why should I pay more Tax?

Your suggestion would mean no-one has any incentive to better themselves, so we'd all prefer to be a bin man so we can keep more of our earned money?

I have not spelled any thing, only fairness if your better off or wealthly don't expect the less well off do the paying for you simple as that, the only way you could be paying more than a Council house and that is if your over crowded with young ones above the working age where you got to pay a extra % in council tax on top, and its not just the house that taken into account its also the land around it.
What is really needed is to return back to the Rates system which was the fairest system we had, where the value off the house is not taken into account, only the space that you take up.
Incentive will never go, it will still be there, it was there before the 80's and will carry on being there, so please leave that card where it belongs in the pack with the others.

Are you being real????? It goes on property value, I fall into the higher band, yet only two of us living here, a tiny garden etc.

Are you still stuck in the 70's?

Also, my neighbour who is in her 80's, has worked hard all her life as did her husband until he passed away.

She has 20k+ savings which is earning very little interest due to interest rates.

She has saved hard all her life to ensure she can leave money for her children when she's gone, yet we are suggesting we rob her of what she's entitled to because she has thought ahead and planned for her children.

Let's look after those who don't plan ahead and have never had any ambition in life. It pays to be on the dole!

Where does it state that if you have £20k in savings you dont get the 10%

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

southy wrote:

George4th wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
find some b*lls Labour and LibDems and put a 'small' rise on council tax! Even an extra £10 a year for the lowest Band, and £50 for the highest would generate money. I don't mind a small rise IF services are maintained but I appreciate some may be subject to reduction - to slash things completely will increase costs elsewhere it's a false economy....

The Budget for SCC Council Houses is HUGE!
How about having a forensic examination of council houses/flats
>
Firstly establish if it is indeed the occupant/s who are the official council allocated tenant.
Secondly, check total household income. If the total amount is over £60,000 give them the option of moving out or accepting a tax of 40% on any income over £60,000. (That should be an incentive for them to move!)

FM2 it would be a good idea to increase Council Tax, the lowest band you cound keep the same and for each band just add 1% in to it from the band below.
Band A 0%
Band B 1%
Band C 3%
Band D 4%
Band E 5%
Band F 6%
ect ect ect.
This would be the fairest way.

Yes Southy ..... that is fairer than a blanket few % on everyone.
.

I know and you would get this sort of fairness only with the TUSC in control

Ermmmmmmm hang on a minute!! Whatever happened to encouraging people to do better for themselves?

It sounds like if TUSC were in control the entire country would want the lowest paid jobs and no-one would have any aspiration to better themselves or they'd have most of their hard earned money taken away to pay for those who have no career ambition!

Leave my Council Tax alone, it's gone up enough over the years and all I have got from it is greedy workers!

I walked through the City park today and was confronted with a Council truck sitting on the entrance where 4 workers were standing around chatting, none of them moved until I said excuse me.

As for hunting my bin down this week, don't start me on that! 6 houses down they left my bin and this is what I get for my Tax money??? Yet I pay more than the lowest bands but still get the same crap service!

Simple if your greed is to want more, then pay according to the amount off space you personally want to take up for your self.
It cost more to empty bins the higher you go up the bands. and stop expecting the less well off to pay for your greed in wanting more.

My darling Southy, how is wanting a better education and a better career being greedy?

You have just spelt out TUSC policy...... do nothing and have everyone else pay for you.

My house takes up less space than a Council house, yet I pay more in Council Tax, just because I chose a different route.

Just because the value of my house is high doesn't mean I use more resources, so why should I pay more Tax?

Your suggestion would mean no-one has any incentive to better themselves, so we'd all prefer to be a bin man so we can keep more of our earned money?

I have not spelled any thing, only fairness if your better off or wealthly don't expect the less well off do the paying for you simple as that, the only way you could be paying more than a Council house and that is if your over crowded with young ones above the working age where you got to pay a extra % in council tax on top, and its not just the house that taken into account its also the land around it.
What is really needed is to return back to the Rates system which was the fairest system we had, where the value off the house is not taken into account, only the space that you take up.
Incentive will never go, it will still be there, it was there before the 80's and will carry on being there, so please leave that card where it belongs in the pack with the others.

Are you being real????? It goes on property value, I fall into the higher band, yet only two of us living here, a tiny garden etc.

Are you still stuck in the 70's?

You do realise that the Council tax is just another Poll Tax System.

The old Rates System never took into account of House/property Value, it was done by the amount of space you took up, it just that the more space you had the value of your property was worth more. in those days Water rates was included in the total of the old rates system.

IronLady2010 wrote:
Also, my neighbour who is in her 80's, has worked hard all her life as did her husband until he passed away.

She has 20k+ savings which is earning very little interest due to interest rates.

She has saved hard all her life to ensure she can leave money for her children when she's gone, yet we are suggesting we rob her of what she's entitled to because she has thought ahead and planned for her children.

Let's look after those who don't plan ahead and have never had any ambition in life. It pays to be on the dole!

She got 20K she should think her self lucky, 99% of OAP's that I know don't even have £5k and many are living from mth to mth on there pensions.

Look wasn't it the same Labour leader who said I wouldn't give free entry to the sea city museum I'd give it to the pensioners?
I might agree that this discount should either be for all pensioners or none I think mister Wiliams ought to make up his mind.
Also when Unite tell him to use this money to restore council workers pay & not on the old or Handicapped is he going to change his policies as he has done before?
Can't wait a Unite run council it's going to be great! don't think so & I hope to Christ we're not mug enough to vote for this man

And people on the dole are not there by choice, the Economics and Political System that Thatcher interduce have put there and its still wants to put more on the dole.

Southy Darling, This is what you said above....

"I have not spelled any thing, only fairness if your better off or wealthly don't expect the less well off do the paying for you simple as that, the only way you could be paying more than a Council house and that is if your over crowded with young ones above the working age where you got to pay a extra % in council tax on top, and its not just the house that taken into account its also the land around it."

NOW you come back saying the Council Tax is another Poll Tax.

Do you actually understand how Council Tax works?

Let's vote TUSC and watch the mess that follows.............
..

loosehead wrote:
Look wasn't it the same Labour leader who said I wouldn't give free entry to the sea city museum I'd give it to the pensioners?
I might agree that this discount should either be for all pensioners or none I think mister Wiliams ought to make up his mind.
Also when Unite tell him to use this money to restore council workers pay & not on the old or Handicapped is he going to change his policies as he has done before?
Can't wait a Unite run council it's going to be great! don't think so & I hope to Christ we're not mug enough to vote for this man

He will be leader of the Council come may election, we know that all ready, people who never voted 4 years ago in that protest none voting will be back to vote for Labour removing the Tory councillors that they let in.

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Also, my neighbour who is in her 80's, has worked hard all her life as did her husband until he passed away.

She has 20k+ savings which is earning very little interest due to interest rates.

She has saved hard all her life to ensure she can leave money for her children when she's gone, yet we are suggesting we rob her of what she's entitled to because she has thought ahead and planned for her children.

Let's look after those who don't plan ahead and have never had any ambition in life. It pays to be on the dole!

She got 20K she should think her self lucky, 99% of OAP's that I know don't even have £5k and many are living from mth to mth on there pensions.

Rubbish!!!! Where do you get 99% from?

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Also, my neighbour who is in her 80's, has worked hard all her life as did her husband until he passed away.

She has 20k+ savings which is earning very little interest due to interest rates.

She has saved hard all her life to ensure she can leave money for her children when she's gone, yet we are suggesting we rob her of what she's entitled to because she has thought ahead and planned for her children.

Let's look after those who don't plan ahead and have never had any ambition in life. It pays to be on the dole!

She got 20K she should think her self lucky, 99% of OAP's that I know don't even have £5k and many are living from mth to mth on there pensions.

Rubbish!!!! Where do you get 99% from?

If this were true Labour wouldn't be bothered about the tax discounts!!!!!

IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy Darling, This is what you said above....

"I have not spelled any thing, only fairness if your better off or wealthly don't expect the less well off do the paying for you simple as that, the only way you could be paying more than a Council house and that is if your over crowded with young ones above the working age where you got to pay a extra % in council tax on top, and its not just the house that taken into account its also the land around it."

NOW you come back saying the Council Tax is another Poll Tax.

Do you actually understand how Council Tax works?

Let's vote TUSC and watch the mess that follows.............

..

Don't forget discounts that you be able to get.
Yes I do and in my life time I have seen 3 different types of taxing, and its only the rates system that was the fairest off the 3.
Council tax is base on your home I know that, but if you have any Children living at home that are over the age of 16 if left full time education, and/or 18 and above weather in education or not you are charge % on top for each child that quadifields on your council tax.
This last part about Children living at home is the poll tax part.

IronLady2010 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Also, my neighbour who is in her 80's, has worked hard all her life as did her husband until he passed away.

She has 20k+ savings which is earning very little interest due to interest rates.

She has saved hard all her life to ensure she can leave money for her children when she's gone, yet we are suggesting we rob her of what she's entitled to because she has thought ahead and planned for her children.

Let's look after those who don't plan ahead and have never had any ambition in life. It pays to be on the dole!

She got 20K she should think her self lucky, 99% of OAP's that I know don't even have £5k and many are living from mth to mth on there pensions.

Rubbish!!!! Where do you get 99% from?

If this were true Labour wouldn't be bothered about the tax discounts!!!!!

Come around here and let me interduce you to them. and its not rubbish its just where you been living a sheltered life and not realise it.

They are not its just sound biting off from Labour, Labour is just as right wing as the Torys and make no mistakes about that.

Southy darling, I can't get any discount as two of us live here.

I can't find any evidence of people paying a higher Council Tax due to having children living at home? Can you please point me to this evidence? Not your secret evidence, but the Government one will do ta x

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Also, my neighbour who is in her 80's, has worked hard all her life as did her husband until he passed away.

She has 20k+ savings which is earning very little interest due to interest rates.

She has saved hard all her life to ensure she can leave money for her children when she's gone, yet we are suggesting we rob her of what she's entitled to because she has thought ahead and planned for her children.

Let's look after those who don't plan ahead and have never had any ambition in life. It pays to be on the dole!

She got 20K she should think her self lucky, 99% of OAP's that I know don't even have £5k and many are living from mth to mth on there pensions.

Rubbish!!!! Where do you get 99% from?

If this were true Labour wouldn't be bothered about the tax discounts!!!!!

Come around here and let me interduce you to them. and its not rubbish its just where you been living a sheltered life and not realise it.

They are not its just sound biting off from Labour, Labour is just as right wing as the Torys and make no mistakes about that.

Thanks for the kind offer, but I feel safer this end :-) x

IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy darling, I can't get any discount as two of us live here.

I can't find any evidence of people paying a higher Council Tax due to having children living at home? Can you please point me to this evidence? Not your secret evidence, but the Government one will do ta x

ll I can find on the .gov website is.....

A ‘full’ Council Tax bill is based on two or more adults living in a household.

Maybe TUSC have a different idea and that's why they are so wrong?

IronLady2010 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy darling, I can't get any discount as two of us live here.

I can't find any evidence of people paying a higher Council Tax due to having children living at home? Can you please point me to this evidence? Not your secret evidence, but the Government one will do ta x

ll I can find on the .gov website is.....

A ‘full’ Council Tax bill is based on two or more adults living in a household.

Maybe TUSC have a different idea and that's why they are so wrong?

No its base on 2 Adults with children that don't Qualified, but for each child that do then there is a extra % on top.
Go back to main government when the Majors government came up with the idea to replace Community Charge Tax. its all in there.

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Southy darling, I can't get any discount as two of us live here.

I can't find any evidence of people paying a higher Council Tax due to having children living at home? Can you please point me to this evidence? Not your secret evidence, but the Government one will do ta x

ll I can find on the .gov website is.....

A ‘full’ Council Tax bill is based on two or more adults living in a household.

Maybe TUSC have a different idea and that's why they are so wrong?

No its base on 2 Adults with children that don't Qualified, but for each child that do then there is a extra % on top.
Go back to main government when the Majors government came up with the idea to replace Community Charge Tax. its all in there.

Can you link me?

I assume we are talking about 2012 and you're not still talking about Thatcher?

To work out the Council Tax for your home, you need to know three things. First, which ‘valuation band’ your property is in. Second, how much your local council charges for that band. Third, whether you are entitled to any discounts or exemptions on the full bill.

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/HomeAndCommu
nity/Yourlocalcounci
landCouncilTax/Counc
ilTax/DG_10037383

Or am I also in Cuckoo land?

IronLady2010 wrote:
To work out the Council Tax for your home, you need to know three things. First, which ‘valuation band’ your property is in. Second, how much your local council charges for that band. Third, whether you are entitled to any discounts or exemptions on the full bill.

http://www.direct.go

v.uk/en/HomeAndCommu

nity/Yourlocalcounci

landCouncilTax/Counc

ilTax/DG_10037383

Or am I also in Cuckoo land?

Read the wording carefully, its says base on 2 living adults, no more than 2, less and there is a 20% discount, any more than 2 and there is 20% increase for first child.
You need to look at that the Government papers of 1992 when Council tax was first interduce.

Some thing else for you to look for, People living in band H pay about 3 times as much as those living in band A. ( so you could live in a mansion as big as the grand hotel and only pay 3 times as much as some one living in a Band A home.)

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
To work out the Council Tax for your home, you need to know three things. First, which ‘valuation band’ your property is in. Second, how much your local council charges for that band. Third, whether you are entitled to any discounts or exemptions on the full bill.

http://www.direct.go


v.uk/en/HomeAndCommu


nity/Yourlocalcounci


landCouncilTax/Counc


ilTax/DG_10037383

Or am I also in Cuckoo land?

Read the wording carefully, its says base on 2 living adults, no more than 2, less and there is a 20% discount, any more than 2 and there is 20% increase for first child.
You need to look at that the Government papers of 1992 when Council tax was first interduce.

Some thing else for you to look for, People living in band H pay about 3 times as much as those living in band A. ( so you could live in a mansion as big as the grand hotel and only pay 3 times as much as some one living in a Band A home.)

The single person discount is 25% of the full rate not 20% and the Council Tax is based on two adults living in a dwelling. No extra is payable based on the number of occupants even though that would be fair as you can accept that ten people in one house use a lot more services than two. Unfortunately this fairer system known as the Poll Tax wasn't acceptable to people who wanted the services but didn't want to pay for them.

Finally a policy that makes some sense, no reason at all why mad rich old biddies in their large detached properties should be subsidised by hard working families on poverty pay.

If you want to make a difference to poor OAPS then take them out of the council tax entirely through council tax benefit but do it fairly on a means tested basis. The current policy is unfair age discrimination.

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
To work out the Council Tax for your home, you need to know three things. First, which ‘valuation band’ your property is in. Second, how much your local council charges for that band. Third, whether you are entitled to any discounts or exemptions on the full bill.

http://www.direct.go



v.uk/en/HomeAndCommu



nity/Yourlocalcounci



landCouncilTax/Counc



ilTax/DG_10037383

Or am I also in Cuckoo land?

Read the wording carefully, its says base on 2 living adults, no more than 2, less and there is a 20% discount, any more than 2 and there is 20% increase for first child.
You need to look at that the Government papers of 1992 when Council tax was first interduce.

Some thing else for you to look for, People living in band H pay about 3 times as much as those living in band A. ( so you could live in a mansion as big as the grand hotel and only pay 3 times as much as some one living in a Band A home.)

The single person discount is 25% of the full rate not 20% and the Council Tax is based on two adults living in a dwelling. No extra is payable based on the number of occupants even though that would be fair as you can accept that ten people in one house use a lot more services than two. Unfortunately this fairer system known as the Poll Tax wasn't acceptable to people who wanted the services but didn't want to pay for them.

Yes sorry it is 25% discount if only one Adult living there, and I all ready said it is base on 2 Living Adults only and is set in D band, and yes your right in away not base on the number off Occupants, but there is a 20% charge for each child that is deamed as an Adult, when it go,s above 2 living Adults living in that dewlling, 3 doors away from me has to pay 20% on top off there Council Tax because there is 3 working Adults in that home.

The only fair way is to do a system where the amount of space you occupy should be charge and not the number of people in that space, the poll tax was and evil thing designed to make the poor poorer, and it was a good thing that the Socialist party done and unite 18 million people to fight it, it was a good campaign one that put the final nail in Thatcher coffin.

southy wrote:
The only fair way is to do a system where the amount of space you occupy should be charge and not the number of people in that space, the poll tax was and evil thing designed to make the poor poorer, and it was a good thing that the Socialist party done and unite 18 million people to fight it, it was a good campaign one that put the final nail in Thatcher coffin.

Totally agree!!! Tax on space taken then my Council Tax will be reduced and Council houses increased as the old council house have huge gardens unlike my tiny patch. Maybe I'll vote TUSC afterall LOL

I guess from Southy's posts he doesn't get this discount then?
Is it just a case of the green eyed monster?
Mr Williams wants to do good really? he's a millionaire so could you tell me exactly what has he invested into this city to bring jobs?
does he run well paying companies? would he be willing to invest some of his money into bringing jobs to this city if he doesn't win power?
Maybe he can talk the talk but can he walk the walk?