HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Charles Bulman, 14:44, Thu 29 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Re: Iran. We are in a completely hypocritical position regarding Iran. While we retain our own nuclear weapons we cannot ask Iran or any other country not to develop their own. We should seek to 'engage' with Iran and to meet their requirements regarding peace in Palestine.

  Re: Council tax. I have no objection to a local income tax but would prefer to see a significant tax on second homes before any adjustments were made to Council tax.

• Posted by Daniel Hogan, 18:34, Thu 29 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  What exactly is 'fair' about one person living in a house that could accomodate 5, when families cannot afford to get onto the housing ladder? Taxing people according to the size of their property is perfectly fair, and compensates for the failiures of the property market. Those calling for a local income tax overlook the effect such a measure would have on the housing market. It would mean that even more lone pensioners in massive houses end up getting in the way of families with a real need for a larger home progressing up the housing ladder. If your Council Tax outstrips your 'ability to pay', you are most likely living far beyond your needs. While the rates of each band may need redressing, the fundamentals of Council Tax should not be changed.

  However, I agree with the previous poster that second homes need more punitive fiscal disincentives. This will also make the housing market more accessible for first time buyers.

• Posted by Peter Bagnall, 21:21, Thu 29 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  With regard to Iran, I agree with Mr Bulman, that we are being hypocritical. Also I believe I'm correct in saying that under the non-proliferation treaty we actually have an obligation to help Iran and any other non-nuclear power to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

  We have nuclear arms, so it's said, as a deterrent. If you look at the US talk of the "axis of evil" from an Iranian perspective it is hardly a surprise that they might also want to have a deterrent to ward off aggression from the US. So I think one part of the problem is the US's apparent inability to respect other nations sovereignty. If the US gave an absolute guarantee that they would not attack Iran it would reduce (although not eliminate) Iran's interest in joining the nuclear powers. I believe that we should use the "special relationship" to try to persuade the US to stop using such aggressive terms, and instead be more diplomatic. The same goes for North Korea in large part. So far I think we get very little from the "special relationship". We need to be real friends to the US - that is we need to be honest and tell them when they are wrong.

  As for local taxes, personally I think that a local income tax is a better solution. I don't think the problem is older people taking up large houses, and I think it's rather callous to effectively evict older people from a home they may have lived in for much of their life. An income tax could be efficient by reusing the administrative machinery that already exists for national taxation, which would be a significant improvement.

  As for the house price problem, part of this is fueled by lenders increasing the multiples they are willing to lend. Since many house sales end in a bidding war, especially when supply is poor, it ends up being he who borrows more wins. This inevitably leads to house price inflation. I would advocate a legal limitation on the multiple of annual income that lenders are allowed to lend. The effect of this would be to cool the housing market and reduce inflation. At present the only people who benefit from out of control house prices are the banks. Clearly any legal limitation would have to be applied gradually to avoid causing a house price implosion (and the subsequent negative equity problems) but done gradually over a number of years it could help first time buyers and increase economic stability with a single piece of legislation. Also, it could help stimulate renovation of older unoccupied houses, rather than new builds since with high house prices the total cost of building a house is not the fabric of the building but the land. If the fabric was a larger percentage of the cost it could be more economically viable to renovate, which could possibly help some towns regenerate.

  On the second home issue, I do think a punitive tax is appropriate. I also think it would be appropriate to apply a tax on the "buy to let" market, which has also put pressure on the housing market and raised prices. While there clearly needs to be a healthy rental market, the balance should be tipped in favour of people owning the home they live in if that is their wish.

• Posted by James Ryder, 22:22, Thu 29 June 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I don't lose too much sleep over the Iranian nuclear issue, though as a sometime scientist I'm very interested in the underlying question - does it make economic sense for a country to invest in a civil nuclear programme unless they also have some interest in developing or maintaining a weapons programme in parallel? I wonder if this question will feature in the forthcoming UK energy review?

  I hope that it will be possible to engage constructively with the Iranian regime. It is my impression that it is a more diverse and democratic country than the erratic outbursts of its President would have us believe. However I've never actually been luck enough to go there and so would be very interested to learn of Ben's impressions when he returns. Any chance of a post-visit slideshow in the Gregson Centre?

  Re: Council Tax - This year my decision to share a house with others was influenced by the fact that this would reduce the amount of council tax we would each have to pay. The system therefore works to encourage efficient use of property, though in a somewhat 'clunky', inflexible manner.

  However, I have been employed in low income jobs in the past and have found it difficult to keep up with repayments, on top of other bills. I was therefore in receipt of letters the Council threatening court summons - never a pleasant experience. I won't go into the gory details of my budget, but I can assure you that I was never ‘living beyond my means’. Of course there is the possibility of Council Tax benefit, but this system is primarily targeted towards the unemployed.

  I think the root of the unfairness argument is this – a home owner on a high salary is liable for just the same contribution as someone in the same street on a low salary who can only afford to rent. The differences between the different property band rates are very small compared to the differences in household earnings across a community. Furthermore, house prices in specific areas fluctuate much more rapidly than council property ratings which are supposed to reflect these changing prices.

  I can see the case for retaining a banded council tax, but would like to see a link to earnings built into the mechanism. This would serve not to discriminate so directly against those on very low wages.

• Posted by Adrian Nash, 23:01, Mon 10 July 2006: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Re: Iran - Is it any of our business? Or are we intent on starting another war against another country with some oil reserves? The Iranian regime may be un-trustworthy and corrupt but why should they not have nuclear weapons when we do have them and an equally unreliable set of Parliamentarians in control of our nation. (Prescot has his finger on the trigger until Tony comes home from his holls, now can you think of anyone less suitable to have that privaledge?) I just wish that the UK government would stop playing at being an ex 19th century world super power and concentrate on us, the UK tax payers leaving the Yanks to play at "world domination!" They can afford it, we can't.

  Re: Council Tax - Where should I begin? Well possibly it would be best to start with some long standing economic guidelines on taxation, or what makes a good tax and what makes a bad tax. Many would agree that a good tax is fairly levied, equitable, transparent and not readily subject to political manipulation. A good tax is progressive and therefore bears a fixed relationship to the subjects ability to pay, ie Income tax, where the more you earn the more you pay on a fixed scale that is easy to calculate and free of political manipulation to some degree. A bad tax is the reverse of this, being unfairly levied, unequitable, far from transparent and readily manipulated for political ends. This is where Council Tax lies. Council Tax is unfair primarily because it bears no relationship with ability to pay. In some cases CT represents 30% of income whilst in others it amounts to a fraction of one percent, how can this be fair? What possible link exists between the alledged value of a home and what you can afford to pay in tax? None would be my answer. CT is plagued by political manipulation, if not through the dictates of Westminster on local spending, constraining and ringfencing budgets but by the crooked grants system. We are told that local tax gives us some control over local affairs, what a joke! This will never be the case whilst the half of the population who pay no CT have a local vote. It is only fair that registered CT payers in any locality are the only ones that should be elidgable to vote in local elections, that would stimulate some harsh economy wouldn't it?

  From my own point of view I have, like the previous postee, suffered the purile demands of my local town hall (Lancaster Stazi,) been forced to attend Court and scupper bailiffs, which for a married, working, responsible, 42 year old father of two children was quite daunting at the time. I am sick and tired of being hammered to prop up the overgenerous pay and pensions of council employees to the detrement of my own future income. My bill is now in excess of £1600 PA, damn dear for two bin bags a week and zip all else. My advice to anyone else in this position is pay over thirteen months, ignore all "junk mail" from the council and join "ISITFAIR.co.uk" today, together we will get CT scrapped once and for all! Adrian.

Commenting on this message is now disabled.