Its the story of the old fella who refused to pay his council tax when it went up to about an eigth of his yearly income, and went to prison for a month. His wife aint too happy though...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2452540,00.html

Hope he's ok in prison.

I agree with his wife.

I agree with his wife.


So do I I'm afraid.

Good on him. Council tax is most unfair and should be replaced with local income tax.

I feel a bit sorry for his missus though.

Yeah I do feel sorry for his missus but im sure she will cope. Its good that this case has generated so much publicity, if he had caved in and paid up the extortionate amount nothing would have been said. At least now people are aware of the situation.

I think he's right! Good on him :thumbsup: Council Tax is another goverment evil.

Hope he's ok in prison.

I wouldnt worry.Im sure a pretty little thing like him will do just fine......

I wouldnt worry.Im sure a pretty little thing like him will do just fine......

PMSL!:hihi: ... as long as he doesn't pick up the soap!

i think its disgraceful that a pensioner has been sent to prison over this.
i agree that this man has a right to live a comfortable life and the state should appreciate what he has done for his country within his lifetime.
its disgusting that there are many younger fellas/women that have lived their life on the dole, never payed anything to the state and get off in court with a slap on the wrist for many worse crimes.
council tax should be payable depending on financial income rather than the price of the house you live in.

Will he still have to pay that when he gets out?

council tax should be payable depending on financial income rather than the price of the house you live in.

So pensioners in £300,000 bungalows (who already get a discount on just about everything) should pay less than single working mums on minimum wage living in a £50,000 council flat trying to raise 2 kids ?

Sounds fair to me.

Right or wrong, the guys getting a message out there, and being a OAP it brought more attention to the problem, also the wife's complaints drew all the more attention to the story.:thumbsup:

Right or wrong, the guys getting a message out there, and being a OAP it brought more attention to the problem, also the wife's complaints drew all the more attention to the story.:thumbsup:

What message?

That it's ok not to pay something that you don't want to pay, even if you can afford it, and even if you use the services provided, and even if everyone else is paying it?

Or the message that if you have a gripe about something it's ok to drag it through the courts in order to be stubborn, wasting taxpayers money, to end up in a cell for a month, again at taxpayers expense?

I think good on him, he is willing to stand up against something he thinks is wrong and pay the price for it at a old age, It is people like himself that change situations by sacrifice which is what has give people the freedom lbertys, fairnes and choice they have now.

So pensioners in £300,000 bungalows (who already get a discount on just about everything) should pay less than single working mums on minimum wage living in a £50,000 council flat trying to raise 2 kids ?

Sounds fair to me.

The issue isn't whether or not he should pay more than a single mum with 2 kids etc etc (who will get tax credits anyway) but whether he should pay over a grand when he only gets 8k a year on his pension. Whats the alternative, sell his house and move somewhere cheaper?

What message?

That it's ok not to pay something that you don't want to pay, even if you can afford it, and even if you use the services provided, and even if everyone else is paying it?

Or the message that if you have a gripe about something it's ok to drag it through the courts in order to be stubborn, wasting taxpayers money, to end up in a cell for a month, again at taxpayers expense?

so how do you suggest he (or others) protest about unfair and extortionate council taxes ?

So pensioners in £300,000 bungalows (who already get a discount on just about everything) should pay less than single working mums on minimum wage living in a £50,000 council flat trying to raise 2 kids ?

Sounds fair to me.

if youve worked hard all your life why shouldnt you live in a nice house??

a single parent should get discount anyway as a single adult occupant.

i did say i personally think it should depend on income and if a single parent is on a low income a low rate of council tax would be payable.

so yes i stand by my opinion.

lisa x :)

I think good on him, he is willing to stand up against something he thinks is wrong and pay the price for it at a old age, It is people like himself that change situations by sacrifice which is what has give people the freedom lbertys, fairnes and choice they have now.

I disagree. There are democratic processes to change the law.

If everyone took the same stand as this guy then can you imagine what turmoil we'd be in.

So pensioners in £300,000 bungalows (who already get a discount on just about everything) should pay less than single working mums on minimum wage living in a £50,000 council flat trying to raise 2 kids ?

Sounds fair to me.

It's about income, not the value of the home.

My neigbours who are are pensioners bought their house for £16,000 in cash many years ago. Their income is a fraction of ours, so why should they pay the same amount of council tax as us. We can easily afford it, they can't.

Also the arguement about working, single mothers is a bit crap too. I was borought up by a single working mother on minimum wage. She got a 25% discount on council tax, so still paid more than her neighbours who were a couple who were both unemployed.

so how do you suggest he (or others) protest about unfair and extortionate council taxes ?

Democratically

It's about income, not the value of the home.

My neigbours who are are pensioners bought their house for £16,000 in cash many years ago. Their income is a fraction of ours, so why should they pay the same amount of council tax as us. We can easily afford it, they can't.

Can you afford to pay more for a loaf of bread?

Would you pay more for a loaf of bread?

I disagree. There are democratic processes to change the law.

If everyone took the same stand as this guy then can you imagine what turmoil we'd be in.

Can you imagine it ever been brought to the publics attention?

Can you imagine it ever been brought to the publics attention?

Why does it need to be brought to the public attention?

It's about income, not the value of the home.

My neigbours who are are pensioners bought their house for £16,000 in cash many years ago. Their income is a fraction of ours, so why should they pay the same amount of council tax as us. We can easily afford it, they can't.

So you are happy to pay, say, double what they pay, for the same services ?

Perhaps we should apply the same rules to everything, if people can't afford it they should get it cheaper, or free even. Then when all the people who claim they can't pay the bill don't have to and we have to pick-up the shortfall we'll see who starts moaning.

Why does it need to be brought to the public attention?

How else do things change? Supposing he had just sent a letter to the local council how would that change something someone believes in?

So you are happy to pay, say, double what they pay, for the same services ?

Perhaps we should apply the same rules to everything, if people can't afford it they should get it cheaper, or free even. Then when all the people who claim they can't pay the bill don't have to and we have to pick-up the shortfall we'll see starts moaning.

I'd be perfectly happy to pay a local income tax, yes.

You're being a bit mean if you think pensioners should pay the same amount of council tax as a professional working couple just because they hapen to live in the same sort of house.

Can you afford to pay more for a loaf of bread?

Would you pay more for a loaf of bread?

Well I do in some way's, my neighbours are very careful about where they do their shopping and how much they pay for a loaf of bread, I don't have to be so careful.

We have a choice about how much we spend on things like loaves of bread, but not about council tax.

How else do things change? Supposing he had just sent a letter to the local council how would that change something someone believes in?

So if I wanted a bus shelter at the end of my street instead of a bus stop, what should I do?

Lobby the council in a democratic process, or get myself locked up in order to draw attention to my plight?

This is a democratic nation. Change comes about democratically.

I'd be perfectly happy to pay a local income tax, yes.


So you'd be happy to pay double (or perhaps tripple) what they do, for exactly the same services ?

I think another issue is not just the fact that they are pensioners, but the fact that the council tax rise has been vastly above that of the rate of inflation, and you can guarantee that the services received won't have got much better for it. Theyre on about charging seperatly for bin collection as well now, (under the guise of "recycling") and here I was thinking thats where my council tax went.

Well I do in some way's, my neighbours are very careful about where they do their shopping and how much they pay for a loaf of bread, I don't have to be so careful.

We have a choice about how much we spend on things like loaves of bread, but not about council tax.

But if they bought the same loaf in the same shop they'd pay the same price.

So why should some pay less for council services?

So if I wanted a bus shelter at the end of my street instead of a bus stop, what should I do?

Lobby the council in a democratic process, or get myself locked up in order to draw attention to my plight?

This is a democratic nation. Change comes about democratically.

The old man was just simply standing up for something he beleived was wrong, and was willing to sacrifice his freedom for it, from what I gather a lot of other people agreed with his stance but not willing to sacrafice their freedom. The same as all sufferjets, until someone does something which gains publicity nothing much really
changes.

The old man was just simply standing up for something he beleived was wrong, and was willing to sacrifice his freedom for it, from what I gather a lot of other people agreed with his stance but not willing to sacrafice their freedom. The same as all sufferjets, until someone does something which gains publicity nothing much really
changes.

The next step on from this is threatening to bomb his council offices in order to force attention to his issues. And that would be terrorism.

Breaking the law in order to force your opinions on others is wrong. It's antisocial and immoral.

PMSL!:hihi: ... as long as he doesn't pick up the soap!
That is why soap on a rope was invented.

The next step on from this is threatening to bomb his council offices in order to force attention to his issues. And that would be terrorism.

Breaking the law in order to force your opinions on others is wrong. It's antisocial and immoral.

OK I do feel for his wife and it may cost a bit to the taxpayer for his court case and prison sentence and so on.......but who has this guy actually hurt? He has just simply stood for something he beleives is wrong, and no one forced his opinion on anybody as far as I know either.

OK I do feel for his wife and it may cost a bit to the taxpayer for his court case and prison sentence and so on.......but who has this guy actually hurt? He has just simply stood for something he beleives is wrong, and no one forced his opinion on anybody as far as I know either.

But what if everybody took that stance.

If we all decided we were paying too much council tax/income tax/National Insurance, and we all refused to pay?

He is one man. But there are thousands of others like him, refusing to pay their taxes, rents and rates etc.

Put all these together and we have a big problem - this is why council's are always short of funds.

Democratically

Well how are his actions not democrat ?????

He's protested and refused to pay his council tax and he's accepted the prison sentence.:huh:

But what if everybody took that stance.

If we all decided we were paying too much council tax/income tax/National Insurance, and we all refused to pay?

He is one man. But there are thousands of others like him, refusing to pay their taxes, rents and rates etc.

Put all these together and we have a big problem - this is why council's are always short of funds.

The councils are short of funds because they're run by inept idiots.
If everyone took the stance then the govt would be forced to address the problem rather than the current situation.

The next step on from this is threatening to bomb his council offices in order to force attention to his issues. And that would be terrorism.

Breaking the law in order to force your opinions on others is wrong. It's antisocial and immoral.

and taking an eighth of a pensioners income is somehow moral ?! :huh:

Well how are his actions not democrat ?????

He's protested and refused to pay his council tax and he's accepted the prison sentence.:huh:

He's protested - which is his right, and is democratic.

However, in refusing to pay, he is breaking the law. The laws were defined by a government voted in by a democratic process.

Not abiding by these laws is not democratic.

The councils are short of funds because they're run by inept idiots.
If everyone took the stance then the govt would be forced to address the problem rather than the current situation.

:thumbsup: Which is how things change! letters and apathy get people no were.

He's protested - which is his right, and is democratic.

However, in refusing to pay, he is breaking the law. The laws were defined by a government voted in by a democratic process.

Not abiding by these laws is not democratic.

Rubbish.

Living in a free democratic country we are privilaged enough (at the moment) to protest about that which we don't feel is fair, as long as that protest is peaceful and doesn't harm anyone. He is harming no-one, he is making a stand against what he thought was injust.
History is littered with people who broke the law to make a stand against what they thought was wrong - Ghandi?
This is how we have a democratic society.

Rubbish.

Living in a free democratic country we are privilaged enough (at the moment) to protest about that which we don't feel is fair, as long as that protest is peaceful and doesn't harm anyone. He is harming no-one, he is making a stand against what he thought was injust.
History is littered with people who broke the law to make a stand against what they thought was wrong - Ghandi?
This is how we have a democratic society.


Couldnt agree more!! :thumbsup: And its people like this who we should be thanking for the priveledges we have now, not condeming

and taking an eighth of a pensioners income is somehow moral ?! :huh:

I don't know what his overall financial situation is. But if he has to pay that much in council tax then his assetts must be over a certain level. And from the article (which mentions his £300,000.00 house), it states he has a car.

And that car will be driven on streets that are cleaned and lit by council funds.

Why shouldn't pay for that service?

He is harming no-one, he is making a stand against what he thought was injust.

And who picks up the tab for it?

Me. And you. In his unpaid council tax, and cost of legal fees and his stay in prison.

why should I pay for someone to break the law?

I don't know what his overall financial situation is. But if he has to pay that much in council tax then his assetts must be over a certain level. And from the article (which mentions his £300,000.00 house), it states he has a car.

And that car will be driven on streets that are cleaned and lit by council funds.

Why shouldn't pay for that service?

Where has he ever said he thought he was exempt from council tax? His beef is that the price of council tax has shot up above and beyond the price of inflation, leaving him having to pay a whopping eighth of his yearly income on it!

From what I see he is calling for a fairer method to calculate how much one should pay.

And who picks up the tab for it?

Me. And you. In his unpaid council tax, and cost of legal fees and his stay in prison.

why should I pay for someone to break the law?

Why should he or anyone else be forced to pay more for something that isn't fair or justified for the service they get ?

And who picks up the tab for it?

Me. And you. In his unpaid council tax, and cost of legal fees and his stay in prison.

why should I pay for someone to break the law?

Everyone goes on about "my taxes", "your taxes". Frankly, the amount of money this case cost is not even a drop in the ocean compared to how much the goverment waste every year on things I don't agree with - the war in iraq for example.

I don't give a monkeys about the 0.01 pence his court case has cost me. I'd rather people had the freedom to protest.

The councils are short of funds because they're run by inept idiots.


Thats just cheered my day up no end lol :hihi:

Where has he ever said he thought he was exempt from council tax? His beef is that the price of council tax has shot up above and beyond the price of inflation, leaving him having to pay a whopping eighth of his yearly income on it!

From what I see he is calling for a fairer method to calculate how much one should pay.

You quote me out of context.

The point I was raising is that the man can afford a car. The car uses council services. He should pay for them. If he can't afford to pay, he shouldn't have a car.

Why should he or anyone else be forced to pay more for something that isn't fair or justified for the service they get ?

I'm sure there isn't a thing in this world that someone couldn't apply that thinking to!

Should we all stop paying for everything?

You quote me out of context.

The point I was raising is that the man can afford a car. The car uses council services. He should pay for them. If he can't afford to pay, he shouldn't have a car.

I'm sure he is happy to pay for them! Why should he pay an eighth of his income though, when his neighbours are paying only a fraction of that for the same services?

Everyone goes on about "my taxes", "your taxes". Frankly, the amount of money this case cost is not even a drop in the ocean compared to how much the goverment waste every year on things I don't agree with - the war in iraq for example.

I don't give a monkeys about the 0.01 pence his court case has cost me. I'd rather people had the freedom to protest.

He does have the freedom to protest.

He also has the freedom to be locked up for it.

But he doesn't get my sympathy. And I don't think he is a hero.

I hope when they release him they still make him pay his council tax. And add some on for the legal fees.

I'm sure he is happy to pay for them! Why should he pay an eighth of his income though, when his neighbours are paying only a fraction of that for the same services?

His neighbours are paying the same.

Its the story of the old fella who refused to pay his council tax when it went up to about an eigth of his yearly income, and went to prison for a month. His wife aint too happy though...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2452540,00.html

Hope he's ok in prison.

I agree with him. Council tax is increasing faster than pensions are able to cover it. Saw a program yesterday, a pensioner was explaining how his pension has gone up by a tenner, council tax by 12 quid, so he's 2 quid worse off than last year. Disgusting.

;)
To top it all, as with the guy in this article, he's actually worked and paid tax all his life & got some savings, but now it counts against him since this means he's not elligable for Council Tax Benefit!
Anyone who's never worked, never saved and never contributed to society gets theirs paid in full.

Dunno what is going on these days, it seems people who work hard and pay their own way get nothing for their troubles, and those that don't get it handed on a plate. The people who cause all the problems seem to be constantly rewarded for it.

It's the same with everything these days.

I have a freind who is a teacher, all the pupils that actually just get on and study, get good grades and don't cause any problems get nothing. The ones that kick off all the time, do no work and cause endless trouble get sweets, money, chill-out room, video games... basically, if you get on and work, you get nothing, if you don't... again, everything handed on a plate.

Same with benefits. If you've worked all your life, have a house or any savings and are unfortunately made redundant, you will get no help or benefits because you have savings. If you've never worked, never contributed & have no savings, you get full benefits.

It's no wonder attitudes are going downhill, it makes sense to be a pain in the arse loafer, since the government will bend over backwards to help you out.

On the one hand the government wants people to save for their retirement, but if you do you're not elligable for a pension. If you never save, you are!

It all seems to be going backwards!

His neighbours are paying the same.

They're not paying an eighth of their income though, are they?! Give me strength!

They're not paying an eighth of their income though, are they?! Give me strength!

We don't know do we? they might be, their might only be one person working in their household, earning just enough to not qualify for any benefits.

They're not paying an eighth of their income though, are they?! Give me strength!

Back to the top of the (previous) page....


So should he be expected to pay less for a loaf of bread?

Give me strength!

We don't know do we? they might be, their might only be one person working in their household, earning just enough to not qualify for any benefits.

yeah, we don't know. But if it's the case that people are paying that much for their council tax then I think you must agree something is very wrong?!

Back to the top of the (previous) page....


So should he be expected to pay less for a loaf of bread?

Give me strength!

Yeah, but as was said before, you can shop around for a loaf of bread, you can't for council tax.

This is going round in circles.

He'll do 10-11 days and save himself 1,358.50. I don't know if that makes him a hero but with an income of £8k p.a. he is making the right economic choice.

To me, a hero is someone who carries out an act of bavery which puts their own life in danger. I would count someone as a hero if they go back into a burning building to rescue the occupants. I wouldn't class someone as a hero if they don't pay their bills, I manage to do that quite well simply by being skint.

I agree with him. Council tax is increasing faster than pensions are able to cover it. Saw a program yesterday, a pensioner was explaining how his pension has gone up by a tenner, council tax by 12 quid, so he's 2 quid worse off than last year. Disgusting.

;)
To top it all, as with the guy in this article, he's actually worked and paid tax all his life & got some savings, but now it counts against him since this means he's not elligable for Council Tax Benefit!
Anyone who's never worked, never saved and never contributed to society gets theirs paid in full.

Dunno what is going on these days, it seems people who work hard and pay their own way get nothing for their troubles, and those that don't get it handed on a plate. The people who cause all the problems seem to be constantly rewarded for it.

It's the same with everything these days.

I have a freind who is a teacher, all the pupils that actually just get on and study, get good grades and don't cause any problems get nothing. The ones that kick off all the time, do no work and cause endless trouble get sweets, money, chill-out room, video games... basically, if you get on and work, you get nothing, if you don't... again, everything handed on a plate.

Same with benefits. If you've worked all your life, have a house or any savings and are unfortunately made redundant, you will get no help or benefits because you have savings. If you've never worked, never contributed & have no savings, you get full benefits.

It's no wonder attitudes are going downhill, it makes sense to be a pain in the arse loafer, since the government will bend over backwards to help you out.

On the one hand the government wants people to save for their retirement, but if you do you're not elligable for a pension. If you never save, you are!

It all seems to be going backwards!



Indeed it is - The squirrel and the grasshoper- http://www.funny-haha.co.uk/Joke.asp?J=944

I don't know what his overall financial situation is. But if he has to pay that much in council tax then his assetts must be over a certain level. And from the article (which mentions his £300,000.00 house), it states he has a car.

And that car will be driven on streets that are cleaned and lit by council funds.

Why shouldn't pay for that service?

well if you dont know the financial situation, how can you be so sure that he's wrong ?

As for the house being worth 300,000, thats neither here nor there. What his his house is worth is not linked to his income.

Finally he pays car tax and hence has the privilige to drive around. I'll not mention the state of the roads but clean and well lit they aren't and not to mention the actual state of the roads!

To me, a hero is someone who carries out an act of bavery which puts their own life in danger. I would count someone as a hero if they go back into a burning building to rescue the occupants. I wouldn't class someone as a hero if they don't pay their bills, I manage to do that quite well simply by being skint.

Yes but Ken to be fair you define Blair as being "brave and farsighted" so perhaps your definition of "bravery" needs a revisit :thumbsup:

well if you dont know the financial situation, how can you be so sure that he's wrong ?

I know that he will have had his financial situation reviewed and found to be adequate in order for the council to demand he pay his full council tax.

As for the house being worth 300,000, thats neither here nor there. What his his house is worth is not linked to his income.

True, but the chap cannot really claim poverty can he.

Finally he pays car tax and hence has the privilige to drive around. I'll not mention the state of the roads but clean and well lit they aren't and not to mention the actual state of the roads!

He pays car tax for the actual roads. But he pays council tax to have them cleaned and lit.

I would count someone as a hero if they go back into a burning building to rescue the occupants.

More like a bloody fool.

BTW.. I can say this, as I was that fool (many years ago):P

Back to the top of the (previous) page....

So should he be expected to pay less for a loaf of bread?

Give me strength!

Councils have a social responsibility and a duty of care with regard to the services they provide to the public. Bakers do not.

Unless you imagine we don't live in any form of society then your statement is nonsense. Why should anyone ever get any benefits at all, why do any of us pay into the system if we know we will never be in a position to use it?

Should he pay less for bread... no ofcourse not. But then, if he can't afford it the money for food would be provided by the council/benefits system, just like it ISN'T for his council tax (which I assume he can't, or very soon won't be able to afford).

I'd be interested to know, did you agree or disagree with the Poll Tax?

Yes but Ken to be fair you define Blair as being "brave and farsighted" so perhaps your definition of "bravery" needs a revisit :thumbsup:

Although it is possible that you are deficient in the gene that detects irony, I would also point out that this is about someone being a "hero" and not whether they are brve or not. My view is that you can be "brave" to varying degrees, but a "hero" is someone very special. A small child can be brave enough to go on a scary ride at Alton Towers but that certainly doesn't make them a hero.

Councils have a social responsibility and a duty of care with regard to the services they provide to the public. Bakers do not.

Unless you imagine we don't live in any form of society then your statement is nonsense. Why should anyone ever get any benefits at all, why do any of us pay into the system if we know we will never be in a position to use it?

Should he pay less for bread... no ofcourse not. But then, if he can't afford it the money for food would be provided by the council/benefits system, just like it ISN'T for his council tax (which I assume he can't, or very soon won't be able to afford).

I'd be interested to know, did you agree or disagree with the Poll Tax?

The argument I am making above is in reference to the point raised about him paying the same as his neighbour who enjoys a higher income. IMO the payment he makes for his council tax should not be directly in proportion to the income he has.

We already get taxed based on our income. Why should some of us suffer it at both ends.

He has been means tested and it has been determined that he has overall assetts that enable him to pay the full amount.

We aren't talking about a man in poverty here. He has a £300,000.00 house and a car.

Those who don't have enough to pay are entitled (quite righly) to a reduction in payments.

This man has enough to pay. So he should. Any law breaking on this inexcusable.

What if he can only afford to pay if he sells his house or his car, is that inexcusable?

What if he can only afford to pay if he sells his house or his car, is that inexcusable?

If I wanted to, I could go out and buy a Ferrari on credit. I wouldn't be able to afford to pay any of my bills after I'd paid the credit each month. Do you think the Gas/electric companies would take into account my Ferrari repayments when I asked if I could get away with not paying my gas/elec bill?

Or do you think the answer would be 'sell it'.

If he cannot pay his bills because he is living beyond his means then he has to adjust to his means.

What if he can only afford to pay if he sells his house or his car, is that inexcusable?

Hang on a minute. The only bearing on this to do with the value of his house is what Council Tax band he will be in. The value of your home is disregarded when assessing CTB.

Had he got savings of less than £6000, then, looking at his income, and the applicable amount to do with his household, he would get CTB. Over £6000, there is a system whereby benefit is reduced, as the value of savings increases.

His income would have been assessed, and following on from that, he has to pay Council Tax for the services he uses.

I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Whether it's right or wrong, whether Council Tax is right or wrong, whether the increase was right or wrong, are all immaterial.

He can pay it, according to law, and has to pay it.

For me, the point here is being lost a bit.

Ok, so he's been means tested, he may have to sell his car to pay his council tax, he has a 300,000 pound house etc. Regardless, is it right that he should be paying such a large portion of his income on council tax?

That's what he's protesting about - the way he has been means tested. The fact that someone who has worked and paid taxes all their life has to give up such a large amount of their money to the council in the twilight of their lives.

I don't think it's right.

For me, the point here is being lost a bit.

Ok, so he's been means tested, he may have to sell his car to pay his council tax, he has a 300,000 pound house etc. Regardless, is it right that he should be paying such a large portion of his income on council tax?

That's what he's protesting about - the way he has been means tested. The fact that someone who has worked and paid taxes all their life has to give up such a large amount of their money to the council in the twilight of their lives.

I don't think it's right.

So would you be happy to take on a Council Tax price increase in order to pay for this chap then?

So would you be happy to take on a Council Tax price increase in order to pay for this chap then?

I think people should pay what is within reason for their financial position. You're implying that there is an arbitrary sum of money that the council has to collect - this isn't the case. Me having to cover because someone is paying less doesn't come into it.

I agree with him. Council tax is increasing faster than pensions are able to cover it. Saw a program yesterday, a pensioner was explaining how his pension has gone up by a tenner, council tax by 12 quid, so he's 2 quid worse off than last year. Disgusting.

;)
To top it all, as with the guy in this article, he's actually worked and paid tax all his life & got some savings, but now it counts against him since this means he's not elligable for Council Tax Benefit!
Anyone who's never worked, never saved and never contributed to society gets theirs paid in full. This really ticks me off too!

Dunno what is going on these days, it seems people who work hard and pay their own way get nothing for their troubles, and those that don't get it handed on a plate. The people who cause all the problems seem to be constantly rewarded for it. My sentiments precisely

It's the same with everything these days.

I have a freind who is a teacher, all the pupils that actually just get on and study, get good grades and don't cause any problems get nothing. The ones that kick off all the time, do no work and cause endless trouble get sweets, money, chill-out room, video games... basically, if you get on and work, you get nothing, if you don't... again, everything handed on a plate. What a great example to give to kids, eh? Be good and no rewards, be bad and if you're occasionally good you'll get a reward, crazy :rant:
Same with benefits. If you've worked all your life, have a house or any savings and are unfortunately made redundant, you will get no help or benefits because you have savings. If you've never worked, never contributed & have no savings, you get full benefits. If the creators of the Welfare State could see us now, they would be turning in their graves

It's no wonder attitudes are going downhill, it makes sense to be a pain in the arse loafer, since the government will bend over backwards to help you out. Its an actual career choice these days I believe :hihi:

On the one hand the government wants people to save for their retirement, but if you do you're not elligable for a pension. If you never save, you are! The government needs to give everyone a decent pension, that would reward those who have worked for low to average incomes. Those with big private pensions would be taxed anyway

It all seems to be going backwards! I believe the benefits system is very unfair towards the low to middle earners who have always worked

I understand why the man did what he did. He may have a house thats worth a bit - he may well have made sacrifices in his younger days to pay for it. He may have paid as much each month for a mortgage as someone on the same income paid for fags, holidays and socialising? Property tax alone isn't the way forward, thats why I thought the Community Charge (Poll tax) had elements of fairness that council tax doesn't - but thats already been done to death on another thread.

Although it is possible that you are deficient in the gene that detects irony, I would also point out that this is about someone being a "hero" and not whether they are brve or not. My view is that you can be "brave" to varying degrees, but a "hero" is someone very special. A small child can be brave enough to go on a scary ride at Alton Towers but that certainly doesn't make them a hero.

and its equally possible that the gene(s) that form intelligence all vacated your particular pool.

A Hero is ofcourse subjective, but if enough people describe him as being a hero then indeed he is one. I dont see you giving up your liberty for a principle.:thumbsup:

For me, the point here is being lost a bit.

Ok, so he's been means tested, he may have to sell his car to pay his council tax, he has a 300,000 pound house etc. Regardless, is it right that he should be paying such a large portion of his income on council tax?

And the reason why he has no recourse to public funds is because of his savings.

That's what he's protesting about - the way he has been means tested. The fact that someone who has worked and paid taxes all their life has to give up such a large amount of their money to the council in the twilight of their lives.

I don't think it's right.

And that's the point. It's nothing to do with his income from pension/s, it's to do with the cash (at least £16000) in his bank account.

Take this hypothetical situation. Two households, with identical income (let's take this guy's income as its level), identical dwellings (worth £300k), identical size (married pensioners). One, however, has savings of £1 million, the other none at all. Is it right that the £1 million household receives the help that the zero savings household would get?

Clearly not. This is also why a local income tax wouldn't work.

The argument I am making above is in reference to the point raised about him paying the same as his neighbour who enjoys a higher income. IMO the payment he makes for his council tax should not be directly in proportion to the income he has.

But that is how taxation has been applied in the UK forever, the more you earn the more you pay. I don't understand why you think council tax should be the exception to the rule? That system used to exist, it was called The Poll Tax, and millions took to the streets to protest the injustice that everyone should pay the same regardless of income.


We already get taxed based on our income. Why should some of us suffer it at both ends.


Why should they? They paid out for pensions and benefits for the pensioners in their day. So your saying it's OK that they paid out, but you don't think you should have to?


He has been means tested and it has been determined that he has overall assetts that enable him to pay the full amount.


And why do you assume the testing is fair? How can it be if he paid into a system the same as someone else, but by virtue of having worked hard and generating some savings he now has to pay when someone else who's been lazy doesn't.
How is that fair?


We aren't talking about a man in poverty here. He has a £300,000.00 house and a car.


I fail to see how this is in anyway relevant, he's got a house and a car because (in all likelyhood) he's worked hard to get them while paying into a scheme that should look after him in old age. Now he's being punished for working hard. I don't see being forced to sell your house in your retirement as in anyway fair when you've worked all your life to get it.
Also, the cost of his housing is zero, since he owns his own house, unlike those who didn't work and buy one, they're an extra burden of housing benefit!
So basically this guy has saved the taxpayer tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds in benefit payments over his lifetime, and then gets punished for it.


Those who don't have enough to pay are entitled (quite righly) to a reduction in payments.


OK, so lets assume we have two pensioners, both have worked all their lives and paid an identical amount of tax/pension contributions.
Pensioner A blew all his money on booze, fags, holidays & lives in rented accomodation.
Pensioner B saved, didn't go on holiday, and bought a house.

Are you suggesting that Pensioner B should now pay extra, purely because he didn't have as many holidays as Pensioner A?

I'd love you to explain to me how that is in anyway fair?


This man has enough to pay. So he should. Any law breaking on this inexcusable.

Nonsense, he's paid into a system that said he wouldn't have to pay these taxes when he retired, that the rug has been pulled out from under him is not his fault.

If you work hard, you won't get any benefits, if you get no benefits, why pay into the system? If we all had that attitude we'd soon be seeing dead and dying in the streets.

OK, so lets assume we have two pensioners, both have worked all their lives and paid an identical amount of tax/pension contributions.
Pensioner A blew all his money on booze, fags, holidays & lives in rented accomodation.
Pensioner B saved, didn't go on holiday, and bought a house.


Pensioner B should have lived a bit BEFORE he became a pensioner IMO

I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Whether it's right or wrong, whether Council Tax is right or wrong, whether the increase was right or wrong, are all immaterial.

He can pay it, according to law, and has to pay it.

Well I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't believe you have to obey the law just because it's the law. If it doesn't add up or is unfair, then it's everyones duty to disobey it.

This guy paid into a system that said he would be looked after in his old age, that promise was broken by New Labour. I don't see how it is remotely fair when the goalpost have been so radically moved compared to the promises made when he joined the scheme.

If you bought something from a shop, handed over your cash, then they refused to give you the goods unless you paid again, you'd rightly be somewhat unhappy.

Part of Richard Fitzmaurice's argument is that the Council Tax that is being demanded of him is being misused and wasted.

This is true, even in Sheffield. I see it almost every day.
Will we ever get decent managers (at all levels) with good organisational control to ensure that we get value for money?
Tell you what .... let hire a couple more consultants to see if it is possible!

Clearly not. This is also why a local income tax wouldn't work.

It depends on how the money was earned and spent surely. Again, who's to say the house with £1 saving hasn't spent a fortune adding swimming pools, sauna, spa's and other luxuries, thus leaving them with £1 from £1m.

Should the person who saved their money now be penalised by both having to now spend their money in taxes, while at the same time having a crapper house?

Pensioner B should have lived a bit BEFORE he became a pensioner IMO

It's an answer, but not the right one :P

Well I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't believe you have to obey the law just because it's the law. If it doesn't add up or is unfair, then it's everyones duty to disobey it.

This guy paid into a system that said he would be looked after in his old age, that promise was broken by New Labour. I don't see how it is remotely fair when the goalpost have been so radically moved compared to the promises made when he joined the scheme.

If you bought something from a shop, handed over your cash, then they refused to give you the goods unless you paid again, you'd rightly be somewhat unhappy.

And we're talking about a guy who has considerable assets above his income. Had he not got those assets, he would have received help.

To cgk, although I agree that local authorities may spend considerable amounts of cash on matters which many of us would regard as trivial or worthless, the way to change that is at the ballot box, and not by withholding funds, which will still be required.

Whichever party is spending it.

Part of Richard Fitzmaurice's argument is that the Council Tax that is being demanded of him is being misused and wasted.

In that a councillor used "tax payers" cash to defend a claim that the councillor had breached a local authority code of conduct?


"Fitzmaurice made the stand because the council paid for legal advice for Mr Dobson after a complaint was made that the councillor had breached a local authority code of conduct."

Sorry.. I disagree..
Yet another oldie wanting to duck the system and get something for nothing.

You HAVE to pay council tax- no matter who you are - and why should old people be treated any differently?

They are not hero's ... and dont get me started on the wars :D

It depends on how the money was earned and spent surely. Again, who's to say the house with £1 saving hasn't spent a fortune adding swimming pools, sauna, spa's and other luxuries, thus leaving them with £1 from £1m.

No it doesn't depend on that at all. It's a material fact, and that's what counts in law. Had the money been spent in order to evade paying council tax, it would be (if proven) counted as notional income, and they would still have to pay.

Should the person who saved their money now be penalised by both having to now spend their money in taxes, while at the same time having a crapper house?

And who's to say that the household with zero savings haven't worked hard all their lives to get the nice house they have, and the millionaire just happens to be the nephew of the Duke of Devonshire, and hasn't done a tap in his life?

To return to the real story, I don't care about how the cash got there, I don't care how hard or not this guy worked for it, the fact is that it should be paid due to his circumstances.

But that is how taxation has been applied in the UK forever, the more you earn the more you pay. I don't understand why you think council tax should be the exception to the rule? That system used to exist, it was called The Poll Tax, and millions took to the streets to protest the injustice that everyone should pay the same regardless of income.

Yes. Taxation. This is not taxation. This is paying for a service. People on low income and low savings get a reduction in Council Tax. But the payments you make should not be directly in proportion to the amount you earn. And they aren't.


Why should they? They paid out for pensions and benefits for the pensioners in their day. So your saying it's OK that they paid out, but you don't think you should have to?

I already am paying out, through my income tax. Why should I have to do it again with what I spend?



And why do you assume the testing is fair? How can it be if he paid into a system the same as someone else, but by virtue of having worked hard and generating some savings he now has to pay when someone else who's been lazy doesn't.
How is that fair?

How else would they test other than income and savings? It isn't entirely fair that some get a reduction in payments because they have frittered their money away, but lets face it, I think we'd all prefer to be in the position of the man who has a £300,000.00 house and a car to the man who has nothing and can't afford to pay his council tax.



I fail to see how this is in anyway relevant, he's got a house and a car because (in all likelyhood) he's worked hard to get them while paying into a scheme that should look after him in old age. Now he's being punished for working hard. I don't see being forced to sell your house in your retirement as in anyway fair when you've worked all your life to get it.
Also, the cost of his housing is zero, since he owns his own house, unlike those who didn't work and buy one, they're an extra burden of housing benefit!
So basically this guy has saved the taxpayer tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds in benefit payments over his lifetime, and then gets punished for it.

The point about his house and car is that we shouldn't read this story and assume it's some guy living in poverty, wrapped in blankets and eating cold soup. He has finances and assetts and can afford to pay.

He isn't being 'punished'. He is being asked to pay for a service he uses.


OK, so lets assume we have two pensioners, both have worked all their lives and paid an identical amount of tax/pension contributions.
Pensioner A blew all his money on booze, fags, holidays & lives in rented accomodation.
Pensioner B saved, didn't go on holiday, and bought a house.

Are you suggesting that Pensioner B should now pay extra, purely because he didn't have as many holidays as Pensioner A?

I'd love you to explain to me how that is in anyway fair?

It isn't fair. But if it were fair - and EVERYONE paid the same amount, ther would be a lot more up in arms. Unfortunately we do have to finance some who have wasted their lives away, but that doesn't mean those pensioners who haven't, and who can pay, should get away with paying whilst the rest of us have to pay in full


Nonsense, he's paid into a system that said he wouldn't have to pay these taxes when he retired, that the rug has been pulled out from under him is not his fault.

Wether it was rates, poll tax or council tax, people have always had to pay as pensioners. Where do you get the idea that he wouldn't have to?


If you work hard, you won't get any benefits, if you get no benefits, why pay into the system? If we all had that attitude we'd soon be seeing dead and dying in the streets.

I think you have gone a bit OTT here, but I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying.

But excusing this man from paying, when he can, because others don't have to is wrong.

The law has deemed he is fit enough to pay. Therefore he should pay.

I think people should pay what is within reason for their financial position.

I disagree.

I have already paid more than some with income tax, and I receive nothing more for it.

Why should I be asked to pay more when I spend my money as well.

I'm already paying more than someone with a smaller house, although I receive nothing extra for it.

Why should I be means tested again as to what I can afford to pay.

It's back to the loaf of bread again.


You're implying that there is an arbitrary sum of money that the council has to collect - this isn't the case. Me having to cover because someone is paying less doesn't come into it.

The council provide services at a cost. That cost has to be covered. It is covered by Council tax. A very crude calculation suggests that Council tax cost is determined by the cost of the services divided by the people it covers (with some offset for different bands).

If you suggest that all pensioners don't pay council tax, then the non pensioners would have to cover it.

Would you be happy to pay that extra?

But then the lower incomes would complain, and in the end the middle income band would end up picking up the bill YET again.

In esscence this would be become a stealth tax aimed at 'the reasonably well off'.

I.



The council provide services at a cost. That cost has to be covered. It is covered by Council tax. A very crude calculation suggests that Council tax cost is determined by the cost of the services divided by the people it covers .

Which was the exact premise of the Poll Tax. Unfortunately, those who use the most are least likely to want to pay or can afford to pay for it. The local tax argument is also fundamentally flawed. It's based on the same old premise...........those who appear to have the most pay the most.

This guy paid into a system that said he would be looked after in his old age, that promise was broken by New Labour. I don't see how it is remotely fair when the goalpost have been so radically moved compared to the promises made when he joined the scheme.



Council tax, and the penalties for non - payment, were introduced by the Tories back in the 90's. He's known where the goalposts are for years.

And has anyone mentioned that the Kings Lynn and West Norfolk council has a Conservative majority?

'A council spokeswoman said: “Mr Fitzmaurice does not qualify for council tax benefit . . . although he can afford to pay, he is choosing not to. As a result he has been subject to the same recovery processes as any other non-payer.” '

A person who can afford to pay his dues, but deliberately chooses not to as a form of protest, is not a hero, but a fool.

A person who can afford to pay his dues, but deliberately chooses not to as a form of protest, is not a hero, but a fool.

Or simply a man of principles (something the leader of the council in question, has in short supply):(.

'A council spokeswoman said: “Mr Fitzmaurice does not qualify for council tax benefit . . . although he can afford to pay, he is choosing not to. As a result he has been subject to the same recovery processes as any other non-payer.” '

A person who can afford to pay his dues, but deliberately chooses not to as a form of protest, is not a hero, but a fool.

See previous posts which will better explain all the points raised, he is just simply standing up for sometthing he thinks is wrong and has brought it to the publics attention.

In that a councillor used "tax payers" cash to defend a claim that the councillor had breached a local authority code of conduct?


"Fitzmaurice made the stand because the council paid for legal advice for Mr Dobson after a complaint was made that the councillor had breached a local authority code of conduct."

But wouldn't it be normal pratice for councils to pay legal fees of councillors who were defending a claim made against them in carrying out their public duties, if, in the opinion of the council he hadn't breached the code.

I don't think we'd be expecting councillors to pay their own fees in such circumstances - or nobody, except someone very rich, could afford to take the risk of being a councillor.

But wouldn't it be normal pratice for councils to pay legal fees of councillors who were defending a claim made against them in carrying out their public duties, if, in the opinion of the council he hadn't breached the code.

The council in question has now stopped the practice, which shows it was on somewhat dodgy ground.

I can't see anything on the news websites yet, but I heard on the radio that an anonymous benefactor has paid his bill/fine.