Council tax is a c**t

Strange, this is what I found 'passive wealth' means (what I'd said in other words)

Passive wealth, often referred to as passive income, is unearned income generated from assets, investments, or ventures in which an individual is not actively or materially involved on an ongoing basis

Why are so many people retiring early, as in before the age of 67?

Because who wants any elderly fuckers when you have AI ? What with their ludicrous expectations, myriad health issues and rather contemptuous regard of modern work culture. And that is before you factor in the %age that have caring responsibilities.

I am guessing there is an unspoken sentiment that pensioners should earn their pension in the same way the young unemployed should earn their support.

But in reality the majority of taxpayers DO object to paying for things they don’t see a benefit in. Why do you think politicians bow to social pressure?
Why are so many people retiring early, as in before the age of 67? They absolutely know that they are no longer paying income tax and NI but are they upset about the consequences of that? No, not at all. I could write pages about how people are selfish and think of themselves. Dropping litter, graffiti, arson, fly tipping, tax avoidance, letting their dogs shit everywhere, throwing cigarettes in the floor, throwing rubbish out of car windows, living apart from their oh so that they can screw the tax payer, putting property in trust, refusing to pay for relatives funerals, not turning up for specialist appointments for their DCs at school, not adhering to advice about children/health, using passenger transport when they get a car on mobility, abusing blue badges, not paying child maintenance, not paying VAT, not declaring earnings, yet when anyone challenges this they are the unreasonable one ok………

If you don’t pay for something you don’t respect it.

Is about the only part of that prose I could agree with.

A former boss used to get regularly exasperated by a salesperson who used to call things "free" in negotiations. (Usually training). Because "free=of no value" (see also: NHS and education).

There is world of difference between:

Widgets: 2000
Training: 2000
Negotiated discount: -2000
Total: 2000

and

Widgets: 2000
Training: 0
Total 2000

I am so glad this is just something in your head and not a reality.

Absolutely this.
I believe that every single household should pay council tax unless they are a ft student. If you don’t pay for something you don’t respect it. Therein lies the crux. you should receive less in benefits if you don’t work to pay ct. By that I mean a smaller house for example.
If neither parent works then you should not be given a big house, your DCs should share bedrooms regardless of how many DCs you have. You should be allocated the smallest house possible and told that as soon as your eldest dc turns 18, you will be downsized and benefits cut. If one parent claims they don’t live with their partner then they should not be eligible for any reduction in ct. other than the single person reduction. They should also not be housed in anything other than a homo unless they are paying 100% of the rent.
Someone living in a house valued at say £450,000 should not be paying the same ct as someone who lives in a house valued at 6 million.

You posted misinformation

You may not have realised it was false, but misinformation needs to be challenged

Please tell me which local authority this is because they are operating outside of the law.

The precise requirements are set out in the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (applicable in England and Wales).

in detail,here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/contents

@InlandTaipan Not what I am saying and pretending it is just a convenient way to dodge the real issues. Society already values work irrationally. Society pays footballers, influencers, celebrities and financiers and others obscene sums, while nurses, carers and cleaners are paid far less. That peculiarity is not caused by ordinary working households buying a bigger house, and it will not be fixed by squeezing them harder through council tax or some other random or wealth based tax. Oh and middle earners still have the same issues with elderly parents, children etc.

@SerendipityJane I am not arguing that nurses or carers should earn less, or that people should stop doing those jobs. Pay is also not the only reason that people leave this jobs. Middle earners don't set the rates that those people are paid. It's therefore ridiculous keep punishing people who currently earn more than them, while large corporations and those earning millions from passive wealth remain largely untouched, as they always do.

Its also just lazy to jump straight to nurses and carers v bankers. They are not the only socially useful jobs, nor even the lowest or highest paid joba (see above). There is a vast middle of ordinary workers teachers, engineers, technicians, admin people, tradies who are neither rich nor influential, yet somehow always end up footing the bill.

If people want to fix pay injustice, they should take it up with politicians, the markets, employers, media etc and change the system, not hammer families who worked hard to move from a small house to a slightly bigger one. But they won't because middle earners are far too convenient. What happens when the cash cow runs out?

@Lifestooshort71 Interest on ordinary savings is already taxed and no one is pretending otherwise. That is not what anyone means by passive wealth. It is about middle earners continually being squeezed and targeted because they are visible and easy to tax.

Council tax is flawed, but taxing people based on what they earn rather than what they use just punishes working households. Those earning millions from passive wealth won’t be touched; they never are.
Do you mean the unearned income from savings? Mine is definitely taxed once over the £1k savings allowance - not millions so not in a sheltered scheme (if that's what you mean?).

No, of course not. Don't be silly. You'd hire staff to do that. Like they do.

What whilst looking after our young children and elderly parents because nursery workers and care staff are so badly paid they're not jobs worth doing? That would actually be fun to watch.

They mean we should all be stockbrokers and investment bankers and work in finance.

If you want to earn more, change your choices and dont make others subsidise them

Do you mean that we should pay nurses, midwives, carers, hospital cleaners, porters, teaching assistants, the police, delivery drivers, shop workers etc more, or are you suggesting that people stop doing those roles? Seriously?

My council gave a loan to a certain other council, who then went bankrupt.

I may be making it up, but I vaguely recall that there is a legal requirement for councils to achieve the best value for taxpayers. Which sounds great on paper. However in reality it means they can feel obliged to invest in more risky ventures that claim to have better returns. In a country where "due diligence" is a failed country music artist this leads to things like loosing money in bankrupt Icelandic banks.

So that's another black hole that was never filled.

YABVU and a freeloader

Council tax is flawed, but taxing people based on what they earn rather than what they use just punishes working households. Those earning millions from passive wealth won’t be touched; they never are.

It will hit ordinary people who retrained, took risks and made sacrifices to buy bigger homes. Life is not fair and not all work pays the same. If you want to earn more, change your choices, don’t demand that others subsidise them.

Only c**ts feel they are entitled to even more from ordinary people who already pay large sums of tax.

My council gave a loan to a certain other council, who then went bankrupt.

Now they have increased our council tax to recover lost money. It’s not right, nor fair.

I live in what you would call a deprived area, yet our council tax is extortionate. The rapid increase of those claiming CT support increases yearly, and it’s those who pay it outright are they ones left counting the pennies.

The vast amount of SEND children has also increased, from what we have gathered it because rentals are cheaper here so surrounding LAs often house families with SEND here. Which puts even more burden on the already overstretched services. IMO money for SEN children should come from central government and it needs to be fair. These kids shouldn’t be let down because the council is skint

Sparklesandspandexgallore well said you speak common sense.

Those opposing the practicalities probably do not pay tax but claim they do because they pay VAT!!! They believe money is infinite. Their naivety will hasten the collapse of the system to the detriment of everyone.

Well some people gain more than others. Some people pay more than others.
Should it be a pay per use system, in so much as it can be, that’s the question.
Should those who cost tax payers more pay more, and if so how?

I don't mind paying council tax for services in general. There has to be some method of raising that money. However, it becomes an issue for me, and lots of others I know, when the service provided by the local authority isn't good.

We all use services, they have been listed a few times on this thread. We all benefit from those services and it is right that we all contribute. There is no system that everyone will be happy with.

There are other issues that I think are much more pressing to be honest. Cost of living, wage stagnation, lack of secure jobs, loss of industry. I think it is generally much more palatable for everyone to pay their way in the country if there is a feeling that the country is succeeding and they have opportunity.

I don't mind paying it. I do mind my LA who, if an instalment is late, go straight to a summons (they actually have their own office at the County Court). And the single person discount should be 50%.

Oh and yes my mum saved hard for her funeral. She did without other things.
Read the actual lived experience of people on this thread, those who have worked and paid taxes. Many are worse off in retirement than the ones who have not paid into the system.

Xenovitch so you are presumably happy to work until you are very old to pay for all of this. You must also be happy for any children you have to pay tax and NI and not receive any state pension. What happens to the next generation? How do they survive in retirement?
People are moaning about how much this is costing them.
The facts are this: you either accept higher taxes. Including council tax, or you reduce services. You cannot have both.
Would you prefer a reduced emergency service? Or all libraries to close. Or a reduced bus and train service? Or the council to stop providing lighting on the streets. Or to stop collecting your bins, or to sell if every single green space it owns.
Many counties operate on the basis of citizens doing more for themselves. Not all countries allow the feckless to receive as many free benefits as the UK does.
You can’t have it both ways.
Do you really think that most people want to live for years on end as a virtual cabbage? Would they still choose to spend years in a care home knowing that they or their family would have to pay for it?
If men knew from the start that every child they fathered would cost them money then I do think it would reduce the number of DCs these men had.