Poll Tax - Why was it so bad?

8 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
the poll tax for me and my family was terrible, my then husband earned a very low wage and i was at home looking after our young children, we got no benefits and struggled to survive fincially anyway and that was just with a very basic standard of living and with help from my parents
when the poll tax came in we couldnt aford to pay the bills and feed the children let alone us unless my parents helped us more
what i didnt understand was why i had to pay it when i wasnt earning but someone i knew who was a mature student didnt pay it and she had a husband who earned at least 3 times as much as mine did plus they had a bigger family so therefore used more services and also got money to pay childcare
seemed unfair !

That would be because it was .... a perfect illustration of why taxes should be based on the abilty to pay
very true
im getting my own back now thou i supose because now i live with 3 other adults all working full time and another adult who lives here part time and we pay council tax not poll tax smile

8 Aug 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
i also object to the fact they seem to have lost my last two foi requests
never mind i might get them now they have been hand delivered to the relevant departments by a solicitor

Why didn't you just contact the FOI Commisioner or their office?
Dave_Notts
because i want the information before they have time to corrupt it dave i don't want time lost in bureaucracy :twisted:
Do you really think that after two FOI requests they have not had time to corrupt it if that is what they want?
Dave_Notts
you said it dave :cool:

9 Aug 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
i also object to the fact they seem to have lost my last two foi requests
never mind i might get them now they have been hand delivered to the relevant departments by a solicitor

Why didn't you just contact the FOI Commisioner or their office?
Dave_Notts
because i want the information before they have time to corrupt it dave i don't want time lost in bureaucracy :twisted:
Do you really think that after two FOI requests they have not had time to corrupt it if that is what they want?
Dave_Notts
you said it dave :cool:
So back to the original question..........why haven't you just gone to the FOI Commisioner?
Dave_Notts

9 Aug 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
example too hot.
at the time the poll tax came into being i worked with a guy who had three kids all working. let us say at that time his RATES were 400 pounds per yeer. the poll tax taxed every adult who was working. so they then were charging every adult in that house 400 pounds.
five adults all working paying 400 pounds works out at 2000 pounds insted of the 400 pounds he was paying. not fair the money but the pricipe of peeple paying for the services they use was fair. the money was the issue. as i hope my figures will show.

Taxes are something all working people need to pay in order that the state can provide the services we believe we need, should have and are entitled to.
Under the rates system a number of adults living under the same roof did not pay the same % of tax as individuals did.
The house I live in now was once occupied by 11 adults all paid a % of the rates after Poll Tax they would all make thier own contribution to the system as it should be.
All 11 students benefitted from having free access to hospitals, policing, roads, street lighting, rubbish removal etc as does the guy highlighted above with 3 working kids, each kid is a working adult and therefore should pay tax.
None of us want to pay tax but it is a necessary evil if we want services, all over europe and even the USA are striving to fight off Bankruptcy because more money is needed for services.
Maggie as right but stupid, she introduced a much needed system that was never going to be popular, her BIG mistake was to allow opposition Councils the opportunity to capitalize on it's introduction in thier wish to bring her down, Labour and Liberal Councils were given the chance to set thier own level of Poll Tax, many opposition Councils deliberately set it much higher than it needed to be in order to make the Government and Thatcher look bad, Maggie gave them the bullets, they fired them.
Like it or not Britain is a multi-cultural society and in some cultures co-habiting in large numbers is a way of life, why should the 11 working adults in the house opposite me pay the same rates that the two of us pay. why shouldn't a person sharing accommodation with others pay less for hospitals, roads, and all other services, they use them as much as individuals.
Yes the Poll Tax was needed, but a better way of implementing it should have been used.
Thatcher made mistakes, but Britain needed an Iron Lady, someone who could stand up and say, you use it you pay for it, someone who stopped the Unions having more power than sense, (buy a bag of coal for £10 that cost £20 to bring to the surface), someone who said to Europe stuff that Britain is a member not a cow to be milked and ruled by Europe.
Maggies mistake was trusting those that worked for her and for us, the right to buy was a brilliant idea giving people a chance to own the homes they lived in, but again, Councils should have been forced into putting some of the cash made from the sales back into acquiring new housing stock, the result of that was that once again we do not have enough council houses, the money was squandered and stocks of houses dwindled when it should have been the perfect opportunity to increase stock.

9 Aug 2011

Quote by MidsCouple24
Maggies mistake was trusting those that worked for her and for us, the right to buy was a brilliant idea giving people a chance to own the homes they lived in, but again, Councils should have been forced into putting some of the cash made from the sales back into acquiring new housing stock, the result of that was that once again we do not have enough council houses, the money was squandered and stocks of houses dwindled when it should have been the perfect opportunity to increase stock.

Mids,
Maggie being right, many don't think so.
It's worth noting individual local authorities have always had the ability to sell council houses to their tenants, but until the early 1970s such sales were extremely rare. However, the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its then Chairman of Housing, to create a general sales scheme.
However moving on, many of the Councils actually wanted to create new housing stock, sadly the rules she and her advisors/Ministers brought in around 'Right to Buy' meant that the Councils had millions of ring fenced funds that there were not allowed to utilise in this way. The effect was to reduce the council housing stock, especially in areas where property prices were high such as London and the south-east of England.
Whilst a great many long standing tenants benefitted through the Right to Buy, it wasnt without it's critics for the following reasons:
(a) In areas where demand for housing exceeds supply, the stock of social housing was depleted faster than it was replaced;
(b) Speculating investors were able to buy up council properties through deferred transaction agreements, hastening the rise in property costs;
(c) Commercially and socially valuable council assets being sold at below their market value or replacement cost;
(d) The remaining stock of council housing was concentrated in undesirable areas with little employment opportunity, further isolating and stigmatising the tenants.
(e) This policy contributed to the UK's recent housing bubble
It's worth noting that in 2005 Right to Buy was significantly changed and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) tasked with it's governance to solve the widespread problem of Right to Buy mis selling from brokers and solicitors alike. (Each had their own agenda and many were actively charging excessive fees which were then taken out of their client's discount. Fortunately, the above actions that have been taken coupled with the end of the boom period seem to have brought this problem under control.)

9 Aug 2011

Sometimes HnS I wanna snog your face off.

9 Aug 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
Sometimes HnS I wanna snog your face off.

:eeek:

9 Aug 2011

Ya live n learn, but I still think it was another good idea badly implemented even if it vas only pushing existing legistlation to the fore, she should have made it possinble for councils to use the money to increase housing stock, make them do it and bring in legislation to stop investors from taking advantage as much as humaly possible.

9 Aug 2011

Quote by HnS
It's worth noting that in 2005 Right to Buy was significantly changed

that would now of course be under a labour government.
tony blair became PM in 1997 and left in 2007. as you rightly say the right to buy was changed in 2005 eight yes eight yeers after he became PM.
if the right to buy was such a hated and unfair thing why did it take labour that long to change it?

9 Aug 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

It's worth noting that in 2005 Right to Buy was significantly changed

that would now of course be under a labour government.
tony blair became PM in 1997 and left in 2007. as you rightly say the right to buy was changed in 2005 eight yes eight yeers after he became PM.
if the right to buy was such a hated and unfair thing why did it take labour that long to change it?
Because Blair was a thatcherite mole

9 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

It's worth noting that in 2005 Right to Buy was significantly changed

that would now of course be under a labour government.
tony blair became PM in 1997 and left in 2007. as you rightly say the right to buy was changed in 2005 eight yes eight yeers after he became PM.
if the right to buy was such a hated and unfair thing why did it take labour that long to change it?
Because Blair was a thatcherite mole
have you any evidence of this at all mr staggers as if so please share it with us.
where is the, i am waiting for a answer icon?

9 Aug 2011

Quote by starlightcouple

It's worth noting that in 2005 Right to Buy was significantly changed

that would now of course be under a labour government.
tony blair became PM in 1997 and left in 2007. as you rightly say the right to buy was changed in 2005 eight yes eight yeers after he became PM.
if the right to buy was such a hated and unfair thing why did it take labour that long to change it?
Because Blair was a thatcherite mole
have you any evidence of this at all mr staggers as if so please share it with us.
where is the, i am waiting for a answer icon?
Yes I site the fact that Blair was a Thatcherite mole as conclusive undeniable evidence that Blair was a Thatcherite mole

9 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

It's worth noting that in 2005 Right to Buy was significantly changed

that would now of course be under a labour government.
tony blair became PM in 1997 and left in 2007. as you rightly say the right to buy was changed in 2005 eight yes eight yeers after he became PM.
if the right to buy was such a hated and unfair thing why did it take labour that long to change it?
Because Blair was a thatcherite mole
have you any evidence of this at all mr staggers as if so please share it with us.
where is the, i am waiting for a answer icon?
Yes I site the fact that Blair was a Thatcherite mole as conclusive undeniable evidence that Blair was a Thatcherite mole
loon

:loon:
your obviusly still being enigmatic i see.

9 Aug 2011

Star,
So it took 8 years dunno

It took several year's for the scams to start occurring and when the property boom really started the scam expanded.
The fact that it then took years for the naming, shaming, prosecutions, and embarrassment factor to start bringing about change that was finally enacted into Legislation in 2005, is neither an endorsement or otherwise of the party in power.
Rather a sad reflection in most governments, civil service and monied lobbying to get their act together when the scandal was finally investigated sufficiently by the Police, etc. and things wound their usual slow way through the justice system.
(Take a look at various 'commercial' scandals over the years that started under one Prime Minister or another and were finaly stopped by a new PM or change of ruling party of whatever 'colour'. Anyone remember Guinness, Polly Peck, Slater Walker to name but 3 of countless ones)
Least this scam was closed eventually and the crooked solicitors, etc. dealt with or moved on to other loopholes in poorly written/drafted legislation driven by a political idea/manifesto.

9 Aug 2011

good points but i still beleeve that the right to buy was the only oportunity thousands and thousands of peeple had of owning there own homes.
i think it was certainly one of the better things mrs thatcher did and i for one am thankful of that.
and still hundreds of thousands of peeple continue to benefit from the right to buy by ether now owning there properties out right or continuing to live in them.
:thumbup:

9 Aug 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
good points but i still beleeve that the right to buy was the only oportunity thousands and thousands of peeple had of owning there own homes.
i think it was certainly one of the better things mrs thatcher did and i for one am thankful of that.
and still hundreds of thousands of peeple continue to benefit from the right to buy by ether now owning there properties out right or continuing to live in them.
:thumbup:

are these the same people that you referred to in the post below from another thread? the areas don't change just because people had the right to buy.
"renting all your life in the private secter is expensive, very expensive. living in a housing asociation property usually meens in a dodgy area in most cases or worse if it is a council house. do they still have those"

9 Aug 2011

ooooooooooooooppssssss!!

9 Aug 2011

Quote by GeraldineBBW
the areas don't change just because people had the right to buy.

areas maybe not but streets certainly did.
around here there are plenty of peeple who have brought there own houses and you can usualy spot a brought house as opposed to a rented one.
the brought one has nice shiny windows and no car tyres and engines in the garden. lol

9 Aug 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
the areas don't change just because people had the right to buy.

areas maybe not but streets certainly did.
around here there are plenty of peeple who have brought there own houses and you can usualy spot a brought house as opposed to a rented one.
the brought one has nice shiny windows and no car tyres and engines in the garden. lol

And dodgy stone cladding ....never forget the stone cladding

9 Aug 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
the areas don't change just because people had the right to buy.

areas maybe not but streets certainly did.
around here there are plenty of peeple who have brought there own houses and you can usualy spot a brought house as opposed to a rented one.
the brought one has nice shiny windows and no car tyres and engines in the garden. lol

What absolute tosh, rented or privately bought, doesnt make any difference whatsoever, most people don't have the same standards as years gone by, bought or rented both have unkempt gardens and not so shiny windows.

9 Aug 2011

History has always proved that when the party in power introduce something new the opposition "put it down and promise to repeal the law as soon as they take power"
Labour said they would buy back all the publicly owned utilities and companies the tories sold - they never did.
Labour said they would end VAT they increased it, the tories are just as bad.

10 Aug 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
i also object to the fact they seem to have lost my last two foi requests
never mind i might get them now they have been hand delivered to the relevant departments by a solicitor

Why didn't you just contact the FOI Commisioner or their office?
Dave_Notts
because i want the information before they have time to corrupt it dave i don't want time lost in bureaucracy :twisted:
Do you really think that after two FOI requests they have not had time to corrupt it if that is what they want?
Dave_Notts
you said it dave :cool:
So back to the original question..........why haven't you just gone to the FOI Commisioner?
Dave_Notts
easy dave it goes a little like this
i make a complaint
FOI Commisioner contact council
council say they never recived such requests
FOI Commisioner asks me to send them again and they will be monitored
procces time any thing from a week to 1 month
but im pretty sure you already know this
not to worry i have a plan for my next requests that does involve FOI Commisioner :wink:

10 Aug 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
easy dave it goes a little like this
i make a complaint
FOI Commisioner contact council
council say they never recived such requests
FOI Commisioner asks me to send them again and they will be monitored
procces time any thing from a week to 1 month
but im pretty sure you already know this
not to worry i have a plan for my next requests that does involve FOI Commisioner

You do know that there are exemptions to release of info? Have you checked it is not one of those.
Also, have you checked the way you asked for the info. I have seen FOI refused because the info requested was not held in the way that it was requested. It is all in the wording. Sometimes, too descriptive is not the best way. Sometimes it is best to leave it loose
Dave_Notts

10 Aug 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
easy dave it goes a little like this
i make a complaint
FOI Commisioner contact council
council say they never recived such requests
FOI Commisioner asks me to send them again and they will be monitored
procces time any thing from a week to 1 month
but im pretty sure you already know this
not to worry i have a plan for my next requests that does involve FOI Commisioner

You do know that there are exemptions to release of info? Have you checked it is not one of those.
Also, have you checked the way you asked for the info. I have seen FOI refused because the info requested was not held in the way that it was requested. It is all in the wording. Sometimes, too descriptive is not the best way. Sometimes it is best to leave it loose
Dave_Notts
yes dave did you not read my original post regards this ???
i was informed that the relevent departments had not received them :doh:

11 Aug 2011

the right to buy should have been called the right for us to later on force you to sell that house,to pay for your care when you are older and save us more money.
? not so catchy i guess lol
xx fem xx

13 Aug 2011

Fem
That's if you can find a decent Care Home in later life, certainly the Quality Care Commission needs to get it's act together on it's inspections & enforcement, whilst for others the Care 'industry' seems to become a money making excercise at the expense of the actual customers, namely you and me.
For many the expression "Hope I die before I get old", written decades ago, seems a sentiment many still share even if only to protect their dignity and self respect in later life.

13 Aug 2011

Quote by HnS
Fem
For many the expression "Hope I die before I get old", written decades ago, seems a sentiment many still share even if only to protect their dignity and self respect in later life.

what a sad indictment of modern britain though?
to save all of your life and to buy your home ( out of money you have alredy paid taxes on btw )and then to have it snatched away to pay for your care in old age is shocking.
the other side is that if you have never saved you would not be asked to pay for your care.
there is something very wrong with that and gives a person no incentives for there old age if they were to fall ill.
i did heer that there was something where you paid say a lump sum of say 8 thousand pounds and on the event you did fall ill they would not force you to sell your home to pay for your care. i do not think you should have to pay anything just because you have opted to do something good with your money and because of that have a sound investmant.
a house or savings a person has has been paid for or saved on money that is theres after paying the relevent taxes. why should somebody be taxed twice on the same money dunno

22 Aug 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
yes dave did you not read my original post regards this ???
i was informed that the relevent departments had not received them :doh:

Oh dear. Never heard of registered post? If it is important then I always send it this way so it can be proved they received it.
Dave_Notts

22 Aug 2011

anything i find that important i take it there myself and give it to the correct person.
then because i am a trusting soul i even ask them to sign a piece of paper i prepared before saying they had got it personelly.
:thumbup:

22 Aug 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
anything i find that important i take it there myself and give it to the correct person.
then because i am a trusting soul i even ask them to sign a piece of paper i prepared before saying they had got it personelly.
:thumbup:

What would you do if they weren't in or on holiday? Also, what if their mail, by policy, had to go through admin before they got to them?
I know some senior partners that wouldn't meet a complainant but get the admin to sort it.
It will all boil down to how much they wanted your business I suppose
Dave_Notts