Council tax to stay the same this year

Council tax to stay the same this year

Council tax to stay the same this year

First published in News
Last updated
Swindon Advertiser: Photograph of the Author by , @Michael_Benke

COUNCIL tax in Swindon is set to remain at its current level for the fourth consecutive year following an alteration in government funding.

It was revealed in December that council leaders were considering raising the tax by 1.9 per cent but a proposal set to go before the cabinet, which will then need full council approval, will see the current level remain in place.

As a result, Swindon will be eligible for a grant equal to a one per cent rise from the government, which equates to £850,000 a year. This would always have been the case but a change from the Chancellor means the rise is included in the main budget giving it more long term security.

Therefore a decision has been made to abandon plans to raise the council tax by an average of £22 per household.

Council leader David Renard (Con, Haydon Wick) said: “We were looking at a rise of 1.9 per cent but there were a few changes since the draft budget was put together in December which means we will be recommending to cabinet that we do not increase the tax.

“The one per cent grant is now included in the base budget which means it is not likely to be taken away all of a sudden so there is less chance of us suddenly falling of a cliff.

“The grant has been in place for the last three years but there has always been the risk that it could have been taken away.

“This, combined with some prudent financial management has meant we are in a position to keep council tax at the same level.”

The difference between keeping council tax at its current level and raising it by 1.9 per cent, amounts to just over £1.2 million over two years.

Coun Renard said that despite the tight situation the council were in a position to offer the freeze and denied playing with the town’s finances for political gain.

He said: “The financial situation for everyone is very tough at the moment and we are fully aware of that.

“Of course if we put council tax up then there would be plenty of things we could use the money for and it would certainly come in very handy.

“We live in a democratic society and we have to listen to the needs of the people so we understand that keeping council tax down again will make a difference.”

The budget report is due to go before the cabinet on Wednesday next week and while the basic council charge will stay the same if approved, some residents could see a rise if parish precepts go up.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:39am Thu 30 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Is that good or bad news? With costs rising that just means more cuts (or the impossible dream of the council actually running itself in an efficient manner and saving a fortune), but I guess with an election coming up votes are more important than providing a good service. Just confirms what we always knew that Councillors are more interested in themselves than they are in us.
Is that good or bad news? With costs rising that just means more cuts (or the impossible dream of the council actually running itself in an efficient manner and saving a fortune), but I guess with an election coming up votes are more important than providing a good service. Just confirms what we always knew that Councillors are more interested in themselves than they are in us. house on the hill
  • Score: 7

7:52am Thu 30 Jan 14

Wildwestener says...

If only the Council was as committed to recycling as we residents. I recycle three boxes a week (house of four adults here). One extra box will be no good, even if I could get one which I haven't been able to yet. That means extra trips to the tip in the car, so extra traffic on roads, more fuel being used. Thanks SBC for helping us keep green.
Absolute joke of a policy and patronising the people of Swindon is not the way to make it better Cllr Renard. Your party has lost my vote over this in the local elections.
If only the Council was as committed to recycling as we residents. I recycle three boxes a week (house of four adults here). One extra box will be no good, even if I could get one which I haven't been able to yet. That means extra trips to the tip in the car, so extra traffic on roads, more fuel being used. Thanks SBC for helping us keep green. Absolute joke of a policy and patronising the people of Swindon is not the way to make it better Cllr Renard. Your party has lost my vote over this in the local elections. Wildwestener
  • Score: 9

8:08am Thu 30 Jan 14

semitonic says...

Wildwestener wrote:
If only the Council was as committed to recycling as we residents. I recycle three boxes a week (house of four adults here). One extra box will be no good, even if I could get one which I haven't been able to yet. That means extra trips to the tip in the car, so extra traffic on roads, more fuel being used. Thanks SBC for helping us keep green.
Absolute joke of a policy and patronising the people of Swindon is not the way to make it better Cllr Renard. Your party has lost my vote over this in the local elections.
Three boxes a week seems an awful lot of waste. Two adults here struggle to fill one box a week and I usually go four weeks before needing to put the wheelie bin out. Not that I'm in any way defending this useless council.

The wheelie bin may be big and ugly but it's an absolute godsend for getting rid of stuff I'd normally need to take to the dump. It's one thing the council did get right.

I put an offcut of kitchen worktop in it one week and managed to jam the collection lorry.. oops.
[quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: If only the Council was as committed to recycling as we residents. I recycle three boxes a week (house of four adults here). One extra box will be no good, even if I could get one which I haven't been able to yet. That means extra trips to the tip in the car, so extra traffic on roads, more fuel being used. Thanks SBC for helping us keep green. Absolute joke of a policy and patronising the people of Swindon is not the way to make it better Cllr Renard. Your party has lost my vote over this in the local elections.[/p][/quote]Three boxes a week seems an awful lot of waste. Two adults here struggle to fill one box a week and I usually go four weeks before needing to put the wheelie bin out. Not that I'm in any way defending this useless council. The wheelie bin may be big and ugly but it's an absolute godsend for getting rid of stuff I'd normally need to take to the dump. It's one thing the council did get right. I put an offcut of kitchen worktop in it one week and managed to jam the collection lorry.. oops. semitonic
  • Score: 0

8:17am Thu 30 Jan 14

Localboy86 says...

If I have the boys round for the footy we can fill three boxes in one night with all the beer can / bottles etc. this is a stupid idea and I won't be voting for a Tory councillor again
If I have the boys round for the footy we can fill three boxes in one night with all the beer can / bottles etc. this is a stupid idea and I won't be voting for a Tory councillor again Localboy86
  • Score: 0

8:58am Thu 30 Jan 14

Phantom Poster says...

Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much.
Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 7

9:27am Thu 30 Jan 14

Morsey says...

You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one?? Morsey
  • Score: 1

9:43am Thu 30 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Freeze in tax coupled with cuts to services. Its nothing to celebrate.
Freeze in tax coupled with cuts to services. Its nothing to celebrate. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 2

10:08am Thu 30 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

As long as my council tax is frozen, I will vote for the party in charge.
As long as my council tax is frozen, I will vote for the party in charge. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -5

11:20am Thu 30 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
[quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!? A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -5

11:25am Thu 30 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!?
Your logic, not mine!!!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!? Your logic, not mine!!! Always Grumpy
  • Score: 8

11:30am Thu 30 Jan 14

benzss says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!?
Your logic, not mine!!!
Why should people who don't have children have to shoulder the burden for those that do?
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!? Your logic, not mine!!![/p][/quote]Why should people who don't have children have to shoulder the burden for those that do? benzss
  • Score: -2

11:57am Thu 30 Jan 14

adsinibiza says...

I would imagine there are an awful lot of people quite relieved to hear this - particularly those struggling to get by on limited incomes who because they are not layabout scroungers still have to pay Council Tax. In the current economic climate non essential services are a luxury that cannot be afforded and should therefore be cut along with waste and inefficiency.
I would imagine there are an awful lot of people quite relieved to hear this - particularly those struggling to get by on limited incomes who because they are not layabout scroungers still have to pay Council Tax. In the current economic climate non essential services are a luxury that cannot be afforded and should therefore be cut along with waste and inefficiency. adsinibiza
  • Score: -3

12:25pm Thu 30 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

benzss wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!?
Your logic, not mine!!!
Why should people who don't have children have to shoulder the burden for those that do?
It's the other way around actually. Those with children are actually long term subsidising those that haven't had children - my children's taxes will pay the pensions of these childless people.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!? Your logic, not mine!!![/p][/quote]Why should people who don't have children have to shoulder the burden for those that do?[/p][/quote]It's the other way around actually. Those with children are actually long term subsidising those that haven't had children - my children's taxes will pay the pensions of these childless people. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 3

12:44pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Morsey says...

AG ... With Council Tax applied to properties on a Banding level, then presumably a resident in a flat is discounted for not using a green waste service anyway as they probably don't have use of their own garden?

But, I expect they have a 'dirt-box on legs' as people cannot breathe without having a dog it seems, and I am expected to pay towards their animal's muck clearance via my Council tax? The argument does not 'hold water', but a 'garden' covered with block paving , concrete and stone most likely does ... causing flooding. Better to have greenery than solid mass everywhere!
AG ... With Council Tax applied to properties on a Banding level, then presumably a resident in a flat is discounted for not using a green waste service anyway as they probably don't have use of their own garden? But, I expect they have a 'dirt-box on legs' as people cannot breathe without having a dog it seems, and I am expected to pay towards their animal's muck clearance via my Council tax? The argument does not 'hold water', but a 'garden' covered with block paving , concrete and stone most likely does ... causing flooding. Better to have greenery than solid mass everywhere! Morsey
  • Score: 2

1:40pm Thu 30 Jan 14

back_to_reality says...

Good news and makes me glad we are no longer in a Labour controlled town.
However, as the council will no longer be collecting green waste I would expect a corresponding reduction in CT, so this is in effect a rise. I will not vote for any councillor who approved this back door tax rise.
Good news and makes me glad we are no longer in a Labour controlled town. However, as the council will no longer be collecting green waste I would expect a corresponding reduction in CT, so this is in effect a rise. I will not vote for any councillor who approved this back door tax rise. back_to_reality
  • Score: 2

1:58pm Thu 30 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Localboy86 wrote:
If I have the boys round for the footy we can fill three boxes in one night with all the beer can / bottles etc. this is a stupid idea and I won't be voting for a Tory councillor again
Oooh he's so ard! I bet your dad is so proud! "If I have the boys round" what are you 12? And deciding your vote on such a miniscule issue doesn't make any sense at all......
[quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: If I have the boys round for the footy we can fill three boxes in one night with all the beer can / bottles etc. this is a stupid idea and I won't be voting for a Tory councillor again[/p][/quote]Oooh he's so ard! I bet your dad is so proud! "If I have the boys round" what are you 12? And deciding your vote on such a miniscule issue doesn't make any sense at all...... house on the hill
  • Score: -1

2:21pm Thu 30 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!?
Your logic, not mine!!!
Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!? Your logic, not mine!!![/p][/quote]Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -3

3:03pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Wildwestener says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If you live in a flat, you will pay less COuncil tax usually than if you live in a house. So we already do pay for these services.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If you live in a flat, you will pay less COuncil tax usually than if you live in a house. So we already do pay for these services. Wildwestener
  • Score: 4

4:26pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!?
Your logic, not mine!!!
Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers.
Does that apply to benefits as well? Only those that receive benefits have to pay for them? I don't receive any benefits, so not a penny of any of my taxes should go towards them? Only people who use the libraries have to pay for them? That's good then because I do not use the library service. I could go on and on with services I don't use/benefit from.
This all sounds great - I'm going to save a fortune here.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!? Your logic, not mine!!![/p][/quote]Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers.[/p][/quote]Does that apply to benefits as well? Only those that receive benefits have to pay for them? I don't receive any benefits, so not a penny of any of my taxes should go towards them? Only people who use the libraries have to pay for them? That's good then because I do not use the library service. I could go on and on with services I don't use/benefit from. This all sounds great - I'm going to save a fortune here. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 6

7:29pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Phantom Poster says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much.
Thanks for posting on my behalf (I didn't post that message). It prompted me to look at how someone might do so. Looks like it's just a matter of modifying the web sites "nql" cookie value.

Not to worry, I've been getting fairly bored with the comments section recently anyway. It''s not what it used to be - bring back BobFM and threads which stayed permanently available!
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much.[/p][/quote]Thanks for posting on my behalf (I didn't post that message). It prompted me to look at how someone might do so. Looks like it's just a matter of modifying the web sites "nql" cookie value. Not to worry, I've been getting fairly bored with the comments section recently anyway. It''s not what it used to be - bring back BobFM and threads which stayed permanently available! Phantom Poster
  • Score: -1

11:00pm Thu 30 Jan 14

semitonic says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much.
Thanks for posting on my behalf (I didn't post that message). It prompted me to look at how someone might do so. Looks like it's just a matter of modifying the web sites "nql" cookie value.

Not to worry, I've been getting fairly bored with the comments section recently anyway. It''s not what it used to be - bring back BobFM and threads which stayed permanently available!
Agree Phantom - those days when old Robbo would continually ridicule himself (and forget it was on permanent lookup) are sadly gone. Fun times.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much.[/p][/quote]Thanks for posting on my behalf (I didn't post that message). It prompted me to look at how someone might do so. Looks like it's just a matter of modifying the web sites "nql" cookie value. Not to worry, I've been getting fairly bored with the comments section recently anyway. It''s not what it used to be - bring back BobFM and threads which stayed permanently available![/p][/quote]Agree Phantom - those days when old Robbo would continually ridicule himself (and forget it was on permanent lookup) are sadly gone. Fun times. semitonic
  • Score: 0

8:29am Fri 31 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!?
Your logic, not mine!!!
Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers.
Does that apply to benefits as well? Only those that receive benefits have to pay for them? I don't receive any benefits, so not a penny of any of my taxes should go towards them? Only people who use the libraries have to pay for them? That's good then because I do not use the library service. I could go on and on with services I don't use/benefit from.
This all sounds great - I'm going to save a fortune here.
That is very much the idea, people must pay for what they use, yes we need to provide minimal social and healthcare nets but whatever people are using they must pay for it: police, schools, motorways, NHS, universities, prison,pensions, adult care etc,,, and pay for it directly rather than offload the charges onto the good Community via general taxation.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!? Your logic, not mine!!![/p][/quote]Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers.[/p][/quote]Does that apply to benefits as well? Only those that receive benefits have to pay for them? I don't receive any benefits, so not a penny of any of my taxes should go towards them? Only people who use the libraries have to pay for them? That's good then because I do not use the library service. I could go on and on with services I don't use/benefit from. This all sounds great - I'm going to save a fortune here.[/p][/quote]That is very much the idea, people must pay for what they use, yes we need to provide minimal social and healthcare nets but whatever people are using they must pay for it: police, schools, motorways, NHS, universities, prison,pensions, adult care etc,,, and pay for it directly rather than offload the charges onto the good Community via general taxation. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -1

8:39am Fri 31 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Morsey wrote:
You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped.

I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??
If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?
If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!?
Your logic, not mine!!!
Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers.
Does that apply to benefits as well? Only those that receive benefits have to pay for them? I don't receive any benefits, so not a penny of any of my taxes should go towards them? Only people who use the libraries have to pay for them? That's good then because I do not use the library service. I could go on and on with services I don't use/benefit from.
This all sounds great - I'm going to save a fortune here.
That is very much the idea, people must pay for what they use, yes we need to provide minimal social and healthcare nets but whatever people are using they must pay for it: police, schools, motorways, NHS, universities, prison,pensions, adult care etc,,, and pay for it directly rather than offload the charges onto the good Community via general taxation.
Ah, good, then I won't have to pay a penny towards overseas aid, immigrants benefits, the EU as well?
Never going to happen!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Morsey[/bold] wrote: You get what you pay for ... this is purely to try and hold on to a few votes ... Tory con artists ain't got a clue ... they have no money and still persist in this cutting policy to avoid necessary increases to run services. They are still borrowing for development to leave a legacy for the next administration, I hope the electorate are not duped. I guess no-ones noticed the extra payments for green waste services then ... a backdoor CT increase if ever there was one??[/p][/quote]If people have gardens, why would they expect flat owners to share the burden of green waste collection charges, the users must be the payers surely?!?[/p][/quote]If people have school age children, why would they expect home owners without school age children to share the burden of taxes to pay for education? The users must be the payers surely?!? Your logic, not mine!!![/p][/quote]Parents to pay for their children's education, I am all for that too, the users must be the payers.[/p][/quote]Does that apply to benefits as well? Only those that receive benefits have to pay for them? I don't receive any benefits, so not a penny of any of my taxes should go towards them? Only people who use the libraries have to pay for them? That's good then because I do not use the library service. I could go on and on with services I don't use/benefit from. This all sounds great - I'm going to save a fortune here.[/p][/quote]That is very much the idea, people must pay for what they use, yes we need to provide minimal social and healthcare nets but whatever people are using they must pay for it: police, schools, motorways, NHS, universities, prison,pensions, adult care etc,,, and pay for it directly rather than offload the charges onto the good Community via general taxation.[/p][/quote]Ah, good, then I won't have to pay a penny towards overseas aid, immigrants benefits, the EU as well? Never going to happen! Always Grumpy
  • Score: 2

9:33am Fri 31 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Freeze in tax coupled with cuts to services. Its nothing to celebrate.
The freeze in tax is something to celebrate.

As for 'cuts', they've made no difference. In fact, most reliable surveys show that the majority of people haven't noticed any changes or, in fact, believe services have improved.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Freeze in tax coupled with cuts to services. Its nothing to celebrate.[/p][/quote]The freeze in tax is something to celebrate. As for 'cuts', they've made no difference. In fact, most reliable surveys show that the majority of people haven't noticed any changes or, in fact, believe services have improved. ChannelX
  • Score: -2

9:35am Fri 31 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much.
Thanks for posting on my behalf (I didn't post that message). It prompted me to look at how someone might do so. Looks like it's just a matter of modifying the web sites "nql" cookie value.

Not to worry, I've been getting fairly bored with the comments section recently anyway. It''s not what it used to be - bring back BobFM and threads which stayed permanently available!
That's odd. You specifically stated that accounts can't be cloned and that anyone who claims they have are 'attention seekers'.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: Great news. Taxes should always be held, or lowered, wherever possible. We already pay far too much.[/p][/quote]Thanks for posting on my behalf (I didn't post that message). It prompted me to look at how someone might do so. Looks like it's just a matter of modifying the web sites "nql" cookie value. Not to worry, I've been getting fairly bored with the comments section recently anyway. It''s not what it used to be - bring back BobFM and threads which stayed permanently available![/p][/quote]That's odd. You specifically stated that accounts can't be cloned and that anyone who claims they have are 'attention seekers'. ChannelX
  • Score: -1

5:22pm Fri 31 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

I know he is a little crazy but he does have a point. I bet you wouldn't be happy paying for your gas and electric based on the size of your house rather that what you actually use?
I know he is a little crazy but he does have a point. I bet you wouldn't be happy paying for your gas and electric based on the size of your house rather that what you actually use? house on the hill
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree