The Labour Government

Suella Braverman to Angela Rayner:

93jj8d.jpg
 
Really_here said:
How about doubling it if you have four working adults living there?
Click to expand...
It is interesting isn’t it, that when considering options for raising more revenue from council tax, the idea of a 25% (or more) surcharge on households with more than three adults doesn’t appear to have been considered?

I would think something like that would be a bit fairer actually.
 
mosssideblue said:
What extra services does a multi occupancy household use over a single? genuine question btw
Click to expand...
More people generate more rubbish so recycling costs more. Council Tax goes towards maintenance of roads, street lighting, libaries , parks etc so four people will benefit from these more than one person. below is a list from Manchester CIty council . Not all people will use them all but on average one person will use less than three or four people?
  • Youth services
  • Libraries
  • Parks, open spaces and galleries
  • Leisure facilities, including swimming pools and recreation centres
  • Social care for older people, children and other vulnerable members of the community
  • Support for the voluntary sector
  • Planning and building control
  • Refuse collection, street cleaning and other environmental issues
  • Maintenance of roads and bridges
  • Traffic management and road safety
  • Parking services and control
  • Elections, registrars of births, marriages and deaths
  • Cemeteries, crematoria and mortuary services
  • Consumer protection
  • Economic development and regeneration
  • Community development services
  • Housing, including the provision of social housing, housing strategy and advice and services for the homeless
  • Housing Benefits and Council Tax administration.
 
mosssideblue said:
What extra services does a multi occupancy household use over a single? genuine question btw
Click to expand...
You’re asking why would two, three or more people use more services than a single person?

Some services obviously have to be provided by the council if a house simply exists, regardless of how many people live in a household. Thats a sunk cost. But the actual expense of providing that service will still be proportionate to the number of people living there, even if it isn’t a 1 to 1 correlation. Waste and recycling is a good example, as is social care.

That’s why a single person discount of 25% seems about right.

Are you seriously suggesting that the cost of services provided to a household is completely irrelevant to the size of that household?
 
i kne albert davy said:
I would have thought more waste for a start, more use of the libraries you talk of in fact more use of everything you mentioned earlier. Maybe its time to increase council tax by number of residents in homes.
Click to expand...
It sounds far more reasonable to me rather than punishing single people.
 
Brewster's millions said:
You’re asking why would two, three or more people use more services than a single person?

Some services obviously have to be provided by the council if a house simply exists, regardless of how many people live in a household. Thats a sunk cost. But the actual expense of providing that service will still be proportionate to the number of people living there, even if it isn’t a 1 to 1 correlation. Waste and recycling is a good example, as is social care.

That’s why a single person discount of 25% seems about right.

Are you seriously suggesting that the cost of services provided to a household is completely irrelevant to the size of that household?
Click to expand...
First of all, thank you for a reasoned response. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but whether a bin is full or half full, it gets emptied. Parks cost the same to maintain whether one or a hundred visit daily. Street lighting, Libraries etc.

I appreciate its not an easy solution, as there are extremes examples, like our grandson who lives alone, has a great job, own house and new car v a widower who is struggling to get by. That's why I said removing it needs to be fairly done
 
mosssideblue said:
First of all, thank you for a reasoned response. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but whether a bin is full or half full, it gets emptied. Parks cost the same to maintain whether one or a hundred visit daily. Street lighting, Libraries etc.

I appreciate its not an easy solution, as there are extremes examples, like our grandson who lives alone, has a great job, own house and new car v a widower who is struggling to get by. That's why I said removing it needs to be fairly done
Click to expand...
A full bin generates more recycling when it is emptied. A park heavily used require more maitenance. Everybody benefits from street lighting why should only some pay? Everybody can use libraries why should some not contibute to the cost just because they live in a household of three or more. None of your examples bear scrutiny? I don't think your son or the widower should subsidise multi-adult households.
 
mosssideblue said:
What extra services does a multi occupancy household use over a single? genuine question btw
Click to expand...
Apart from your bin collections, isn’t it pretty much everything?

Libraries, roads and street lights etc, social welfare spending, education services, housing.

All of these things should be charged on a per person basis, if we were to be fair about it.

Edit: But look what happened when we tried to introduce such a scheme, I.e. a poll tax!
 
mosssideblue said:
First of all, thank you for a reasoned response. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but whether a bin is full or half full, it gets emptied. Parks cost the same to maintain whether one or a hundred visit daily. Street lighting, Libraries etc.

I appreciate its not an easy solution, as there are extremes examples, like our grandson who lives alone, has a great job, own house and new car v a widower who is struggling to get by. That's why I said removing it needs to be fairly done
Click to expand...
If you don’t put the bin out until its full it doesn’t get emptied, waste is paid for by weight/volume. The fair way if there is a fair way would be on council tax band of house as with the winter fuel allowance but the higher the band the more you pay anyway.
 
Last edited:
mosssideblue said:
First of all, thank you for a reasoned response. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but whether a bin is full or half full, it gets emptied. Parks cost the same to maintain whether one or a hundred visit daily. Street lighting, Libraries etc.

I appreciate its not an easy solution, as there are extremes examples, like our grandson who lives alone, has a great job, own house and new car v a widower who is struggling to get by. That's why I said removing it needs to be fairly done
Click to expand...
I agree that it isn’t an easy thing.

The fundamental difficulty is that the vast majority of services provided by the council will still need to be provided whether every house is occupied by a single person or multiple people. But it’s still the case that households with a single person will be cheaper to service than a house with multiple people. For example the cost of refuge collection includes processing so the volume does matter, although two people won’t create twice the volume of waste of a single person.

Personally I don’t feel any great desire among people to change the current system, but if they are going to change it then it’s only reasonable that surcharges for larger households should be considered alongside removing the single person discount.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Are you ignoring the point that it isn't the job of politicians to select people for early release? It's the job of the probation service?

It also isn't necessarily a failure unless the individual showed evidence that he was likely to commit that sort of crime and this was known or should have been known by the probation service.

I'm not at all surprised that some men who are career criminals (e.g. those who dont have qualms about robbing people they met through gumtree) locked up for many years on might go on to become sex offenders and assault strangers after their involvement with the criminal justice system.

The recidivism rate is 25%. It was bound to happen that one released prisoner would get sent straight back.
Click to expand...

These sentences were political imho, it was Naive to think they weren't. Now that doesn't mean I don't agree with any of them because life is too short for me to go through everyone.

Like the wfa there was always going to be consequences. So far that has been a sexual assault on a woman and soon it will be deaths of pensioners.

Starmer seems content with this, if you and VicTory wish to defend it is up to you . I have a,feeling you.two aren't really happy with it but maybe I have it wrong
 
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