Labour isn't Working - Thread 37

[NoWordForFluffy]

In Nuthatch's absence, I've been asked to start the new thread!

A chat thread for those of us who don't like this Labour government.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Previous thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5548208-labour-isnt-working-thread-36?page=1

Thanks for taking one for the team. Burnham's voice is more palatable than Starmer's.
I'm not paying much attention to the plans he's dishing out atm. They seem very low on detail rn, so best taken with a large pinch of salt. It's all carrot, but he's avoiding any talk of sticks.

@DancingFerret the spectator article referenced on him ages ago that I also quoted from ,here on the thread,. I feel perferftly sums him up. He is very dangerous.

I was listening to a victim speak earlier that her abuser was given concurrent sentences so for different crimes it's rolled into one and then it's always reduced so somerhng about 30 years actually being 6 ?

It's all terrible isn't it. This is why I can't understand why we let more criminals in so easily we have literally no capacity those we have !

I went to the Spectator to go digging for the article you referenced and found today's essay on Burnham. It sets out my misgivings after watching him smoothly evade Kuenssberg's very blunt questions far more succinctly than I could have done.

https://spectator.com/article/the-burnham-bounce-surely-wont-last/

@DancingFerret a packet of scampi fries in a pub is a different league to a handful of gravel
😂

I think this man wrote the last article also
" Suffused with fuzzy flow I wouldn't be confrronted with starmer on a regular basis "

Gareth Roberts is great, never fails to make me laugh.

Why has no one suggested council tax based on the square footage of a home, rather than it's value? Much, much easier to implement, and also genuinely fairer, in an 'if you have more, you pay more' way.

AB complains that households in the North pay more council tax than bigger houses in the South - but with any kind of house-value based taxation, people in the South will pay more tax than someone with a much bigger house in the North. How is that fair?!

We already have to pay a much higher proportion of our salary for smaller/worse housing, and then because we've paid more money for a smaller house, we have to pay way more tax too?!?

And we've already paid tens of thousands more stamp duty (my MIL - not in the SE - couldn't get her head around how much we'd had to pay).

And then because all that money is tied up in the house we live in, we can't pass that money to our kids so easily, and we get hit again with IHT.

Whereas a household in the North can put the difference in mortgage payments into an ISA, and pay no tax on that, then give their kids a house deposit for a (much more affordable, lower stamp duty) home.

Sure, we southerners end up with a more expensive housing asset - but that's because we've paid more for it. Every month, for years. Instead of being able to invest that money in any other way.

It was hidden during the 2000s house price asset bubble, but London house prices are now static/decreasing. In real terms, they currently match 2015 prices. Anyone who has bought a house in the last 10 years has made nothing - we really are just paying much more (and much, much more tax) for less.

I don't think London is an OK place to be a young professional any more. Which is a huge problem given that 45% of the UKs income comes from London and the SE (from 26% of the population)

This also comes back to the point made above about the number of millionaires leaving. I don't think it's just the millionaires - although the bigger picture isn't being measured.

And I suspect AB is going to make it even worse...

This is a much better idea, and I agree with everything you say. I don't know why no-one's come up with it before.

I think the reason no one has suggested it is that no one is genuinely asking the question 'how do we make this fairer?'

Instead, they've jumped straight to the answer 'make southerners pay more'.

Whats sq meterage got to do with it though
Surely
council tax is about the people it serves
One person in a bedroom 10m2 will use the same council services as one person in a bedroom 20m2

Personally
I’d base it on bedrooms

Absolutely.

Why is the size of the property in proportion to the services used?

It should be how many people live there.

Thanks !!
I love your username aswell !

Margaret Thatcher tried that with the poll tax, and it was incredibly unpopular. It was fair, you see - whereas everyone had already got far too used to soaking the rich. (even worse now, of course)

It's been a long time since council tax had anything to do with the provision of actual council services.

In my own council, 38% of spending is on adult social care, and 25% on children's social care. Only 1/3 of the spending is on actual services like the fire brigade or transport. The other 2/3 is yet more hidden redistribution.

That's why councils with low levels of deprivation - and hence far lower social costs - charge less council tax than councils with high levels of expensive social deprivation. Hence AB complaining about Westminster council tax being low: he's cherrypicking the councils, and not being at all honest about the reason for the discrepancy.

I'd actually be fine with that funding being centralised, making councils only responsible for actual services. At least then redistribution would be a bit less hidden. I get really, really fed up of the layers and layers of government theft.

Agree
although part ( a small part ) of the poll tax issue was some areas had zero poll tax bills because they were marginal seats and Thatcher was playing the system
I lived in one and technically, according to the bill I was sent, the council owed me money 😵‍💫

I'd be very happy with a poll tax. But given that will never be accepted, I think square footage is the fairest in our country with such huge discrepancies in housing cost.

Someone who is paying 50% of their salary on housing in the SE isn't more able to pay high council tax than someone paying 25% of the same salary for a bigger house in the Midlands.

Why on earth should the person already squeezed on housing pay more tax? More tax: because their life is already harder. It's ludicrous.

That's pretty crazy! Politicians will politician...

But why wouldn’t number of bedrooms be fairer
4 bed in London pays the same as a four bed everywhere else
with the calculation based on ( somehow) research on salaries etc etc to ensure affordability across the country

Sq meterage is tricky because a 2 bed in the country for max 3 people might be a lot larger ( current availability in terms of size of property etc )
than 2 bed in a city
They both only have the capacity to accommodate 3 people though

So Londoners and city dwellers will end up paying far less than those in the country
That isn’t a fairer system
and I can’t see Burnham going for that

This is why
I would be happy with a poll tax
it would also be cheaper to run rather than councils working out who has put in extensions and when and
how big or how many bedrooms a property has

And of course, the same logic applies whether you call it council tax, mansion tax or land value tax...

Fast-rising stamp duty bands with thresholds which in no way reflect reality in the SE are also unfair for the same reason.

Sure, number of bedrooms works too. You're right - that's even simpler.

No calculation on salaries by area though.

We already have income tax which taxes exactly that - accurately and progressively.

Why add the extra complexity and distortion of trying to hide extra income tax in council tax as well?

Just increase income tax, if you want to tax income more

We need to stop these ridiculous layers of taxation: they are intended to obfuscate and hide taxation, but what they actually do is add distortion and reduce fairness.

I agree

I threw calc on salaries based on area because I wondered that mumsnetters would think the same ££ for all, irrespective of where you live, is unfair due to salary differences

I was avoiding an onslaught
but I don’t believe it cost effective or workable

I think square footage is a less game-able, more objective metric.

Would having a sofa bed in your living room then count as a bedroom? An unused box room dedicated to crafts? Should it be usable bedrooms?

Why not carry on with house prices. Dedicated online estate agents have already got a measure of existing and past house prices. That's the cheapest and easiest way.