The Conservative Party

BlueMoonday said:
I feel your pain. Ridiculously unfair for a single occupant to be charged so much when you barely use any of the services.
Click to expand...
Until you have a horrendous accident and need not £1,000 a year on social care but £100,000 a month.

And it's not inflation that's made council tax so high. It's Tory policy to withdraw government grants to councils and still expect them to do more.

But I suspect you know that. It's typical Tory - cut the funding then blame the service for being inefficient.
 
Last edited:
Cricket Blue said:
I get your summary, but I don't think it's very fair that I have to pay this amount, its a fucking joke to be honest
The system should be structured on affordability, my own opinion is the singles reduction should be 50% but it won't happen as single people get fucked every which way with everything
Click to expand...
Don't forget it's a Tory tax. Thatcher abolished the rates where essentially you were charged for occupying land. Rich people have saved billions with that scam.
 
BlueMoonday said:
Where did I say education isn't important exactly or are you putting words in to my mouth? You suggested Cricket Blue is paying for his own education which is false as his parents and other tax payers paid for it at the time which is decade's a go. I have no issue in my tax covering the education for others despite being childless because it ensures we have future talent to cover all forms of professions.

I agree on your last point, council tax should be implemented in a different way. 75% isn't a bargain though lol, it is quite crippling for single folk.
Click to expand...
You surely don't think married people with children are better off financially than single people.
 
Vic said:
Until you have a horrendous accident and need not £1,000 a month on social care but £100,000 a month.

And it's not inflation that's made council tax so high. It's Tory policy to withdraw government grants to councils and still expect them to do more.

But I suspect you know that. It's typical Tory - cut the funding then blame the service for being inefficient.
Click to expand...
I read that council funding has been cut by 40% under the Tories, forcing them to up the rates of CT.
 
Vic said:
You surely don't think married people with children are better off financially than single people.
Click to expand...
Where have I said this exactly? Stop putting words in my mouth and misquoting.

My point is about it being unfair that single occupants pay more than other, what is so hard to understand about that? Not sure if you are in that situation but if you were then the penny might drop.
 
Vic said:
Until you have a horrendous accident and need not £1,000 a year on social care but £100,000 a month.

And it's not inflation that's made council tax so high. It's Tory policy to withdraw government grants to councils and still expect them to do more.

But I suspect you know that. It's typical Tory - cut the funding then blame the service for being inefficient.
Click to expand...
My point obviously isn't hitting home with you so I shall put it in to context.

A single person (could be a retired widower/ divorcee / young lad or lass) lives in a property. The council tax for that band of property is £200 a month. Thanks to the single occupancy allowance they pay £150 for council tax.

In a similar property where 3 occupants live, assuming they split the bills 3 ways they're only paying £66.6 each.

Tell me, why should the single occupant have to pay over double what an individual is paying in a house share given we are all entitled to the same services?
 
Inflation dropped like a stone last month from 10.5 to 10.1% - yay, go Richie!
If we can just avoid giving anyone a pay rise or tax cut for another couple of years we'll be back on track thanks to the party of economic competence :-)
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
I read that council funding has been cut by 40% under the Tories, forcing them to up the rates of CT.
Click to expand...
I think the issue here is that anyone can read that, including Tory voters moaning about the rate of CT.

And deprived areas suffer more cuts because they have fewer big houses paying the 5% increase.

inews.co.uk

Council tax 'scandal' sees deprived areas pay higher rates than London's wealthiest streets

Residents of towns such as Burnley and Hartlepool pay around two per cent of the value of their property each year in council tax while people living in Kensington and Westminster pay just 0.1 per cent.
inews.co.uk inews.co.uk

All the Tory "levelling up" budget is coming out of money that used to go to all councils as grants and now goes to whoever wins contests for the best bids - and even if there were no political bias in the "judging" the best bids tend to be put together by the councils who can spare the most officer time on the bids (the wealthier councils). But recruitment of council officers is harder because the private sector pays better.
 
BlueMoonday said:
My point obviously isn't hitting home with you so I shall put it in to context.

A single person (could be a retired widower/ divorcee / young lad or lass) lives in a property. The council tax for that band of property is £200 a month. Thanks to the single occupancy allowance they pay £150 for council tax.

In a similar property where 3 occupants live, assuming they split the bills 3 ways they're only paying £66.6 each.

Tell me, why should the single occupant have to pay over double what an individual is paying in a house share given we are all entitled to the same services?
Click to expand...
Then in a housing shortage move to a smaller property rather than under-occupying a large one.
 
mosssideblue said:
Enlighten me as to what the naval vanity projects were and why we don't need a nuclear deterrent
Click to expand...
Two aircraft carriers. Why? We have more Admirals than type 45 destroyers. What do we defend the Carriers with? Admirals in rowing boats?

Nuclear weapons, weapons we spend billions on and can never use. It is like City buying peak Messi and never playing him. Then why does the UK need them, the vast majority of countries do not have them, therefore rather than acting as a deterrent does it not make us a target for countries who do have them. After all why vapourize Portugal if you could beat them with a land army.
 
Vic said:
Then in a housing shortage move to a smaller property rather than under-occupying a large one.
Click to expand...

Your opinion absolutely stinks.

Why should a bachelor/ widow move to a smaller property because their spouse has died? Especially in a property they've paid the mortgage off for and now may be retired.

Equally why should a single person who's saved up and bought property downsize to achieve a cheaper rate of council tax?

Use some other format to base council tax on, that would be fairer.
 
BlueMoonday said:
Your opinion absolutely stinks.

Why should a bachelor/ widow move to a smaller property because their spouse has died? Especially in a property they've paid the mortgage off for and now may be retired.

Equally why should a single person who's saved up and bought property downsize to achieve a cheaper rate of council tax?

Use some other format to base council tax on, that would be fairer.
Click to expand...
The whole point is that CT is not fair and is there to take even more money out of your pocket while the government syphon off the centrally paid tax and give it to their wealthy backers.
 
Rascal said:
Two aircraft carriers. Why? We have more Admirals than type 45 destroyers. What do we defend the Carriers with? Admirals in rowing boats?

Nuclear weapons, weapons we spend billions on and can never use. It is like City buying peak Messi and never playing him. Then why does the UK need them, the vast majority of countries do not have them, therefore rather than acting as a deterrent does it not make us a target for countries who do have them. After all why vapourize Portugal if you could beat them with a land army.
Click to expand...
I respect your stance but I do disagree with it.

Our Navy today is not a standalone navy but forms part of a larger coalition, so carriers would be protected by several nations navies.

The carrier is seen as a flagship and why UK has invested heavily in having them .

As for nuc weapons. They are there as a deterrent, not as a first strike offensive weapon and, I would say we have been much safer for having them.

The US lease the weapon and its launching system to us as a trusted ally. Not every Country needs them, and it is unlikely, those within the NATO umbrella, would readily lease them to others within the pact.
 
Rascal said:
Two aircraft carriers. Why? We have more Admirals than type 45 destroyers. What do we defend the Carriers with? Admirals in rowing boats?

Nuclear weapons, weapons we spend billions on and can never use. It is like City buying peak Messi and never playing him. Then why does the UK need them, the vast majority of countries do not have them, therefore rather than acting as a deterrent does it not make us a target for countries who do have them. After all why vapourize Portugal if you could beat them with a land army.
Click to expand...
The point of carriers is they provide a mobile aircraft attack platform, it's the aircraft that are key and as already mentioned they usually move as part of a carrier group with ships of other NATO countries. The aircraft on our carriers cost not far off as much as the carrier itself.

The reason they cost so much is because they're stealth aircraft and cannot be seen which is completely game changing in carrier attack capability terms. Two carriers with this capability are infinitely more effective than 10 containing conventional aircraft.

I'd highly suggest watching the documentary Warship Tour of Duty on the BBC at the moment, it's really interesting and gives an idea of how they're being used.

I don't think it's really worth commenting on the nuclear weapons stuff, especially at the moment when we have someone literally threatening us with nuclear attack but who won't attack because we'll fire back. UK nuclear doctrine is defensively based with no first strike unless absolutely necessary. This all falls apart if you don't have nuclear weapons.

Russia are in range of nuclear attack from anywhere on the planet but that coverage only extends to whether you're in NATO and unfortunately Ukraine aren't. Putin has repeatedly said if Ukraine attempts to join NATO then they'll invade and they have invaded.

Had Ukraine been in NATO and been defacto protected by our nukes and obviously with the NATO rule to protect other NATO countries then would Putin have invaded? Of course he wouldn't have. Nukes are indeed pointless in the Ukraine conflict itself but with nukes on both sides it wouldn't of happened in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueMoonday said:
My point obviously isn't hitting home with you so I shall put it in to context.

A single person (could be a retired widower/ divorcee / young lad or lass) lives in a property. The council tax for that band of property is £200 a month. Thanks to the single occupancy allowance they pay £150 for council tax.

In a similar property where 3 occupants live, assuming they split the bills 3 ways they're only paying £66.6 each.

Tell me, why should the single occupant have to pay over double what an individual is paying in a house share given we are all entitled to the same services?
Click to expand...

Entitled. Yes, you certainly are.
 
BlueMoonday said:
Your opinion absolutely stinks.

Why should a bachelor/ widow move to a smaller property because their spouse has died? Especially in a property they've paid the mortgage off for and now may be retired.

Equally why should a single person who's saved up and bought property downsize to achieve a cheaper rate of council tax?

Use some other format to base council tax on, that would be fairer.
Click to expand...

Get a lodger?
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Entitled. Yes, you certainly are.
Click to expand...
If somebody has saved up and bought their own place, they shouldn't be punished and charged more for Council Tax given they receive the same value as anybody else.

Equally if somebody has lost their spouse, they shouldn't be expected to pay more either just because they live alone.

Just charge single occupants 50% and you have a fair system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top