Council's tax rebellion sets collision course with ministers

10:00pm Wednesday 9th January 2013 in News Photograph of the Author Exclusive By Mark Tallentire, Reporter (Durham)

LABOUR leaders at the North-East’s biggest council are on a collision course with the Government, after guaranteeing benefit payments against Coalition spending cuts.

Tory ministers want town halls to respond to Council Tax reforms, set to come into effect in April, by cutting benefits for working-age claimants.

But, despite facing unprecedented cutbacks which could top £200m by 2018, Durham County Council today (Wednesday, January 9) agreed to protect payments to its council tax benefits claimants at current levels for the next 12 months.

Councillors were today warned the change could make County Durham a haven for “benefit tourists”, but they pressed ahead with the Local Council Tax Support Scheme (LCTSS), thought to be the first of its kind in the region and possibly the country.

Richard Bell, the Conservative group leader, welcomed the move and slammed his own Government’s reforms, saying he had never seen any such change quite so unwelcome.

He told today’s full council meeting at Durham’s County Hall that the LCTSS was a very pragmatic approach, but added that he had severe doubts where it was sustainable.

The measure will be paid for by cutting council tax discounts on empty and second homes and charging 150 per cent council tax on properties which have stood empty for more than two years.

Some councils, such as Hambleton, in North Yorkshire, have already reduced or axed such council tax discounts.

The LCTSS will come into effect in April and be reviewed after the first year.

Don McLure, the council’s corporate director of resources, said “careful monitoring” would be needed, in case the number of benefit claimants increased.

But, he added, without the scheme some of the most vulnerable people would see their annual council tax bills rise by £250.

The LCTSS is Durham’s response to Government moves to localise council tax from April and cut the grants by which council tax benefit is paid by ten per cent – which will leave Durham County Council with a £4.6m shortfall.

Councillor Bell asked today’s meeting whether the scheme left the county vulnerable to so-called benefit tourism – with claimants moving to Durham to get more benefits than offered elsewhere.

“Is there a danger of more people coming in to take advantage of it?” he asked; and called on the council to work with its neighbours to combat the risk.

Alan Napier, the council’s deputy leader, said the authority would take his concerns on board.

Benefit tourism could increase due to the “bedroom tax”, which will see council tax benefit reduced for people living in council or housing association accommodation who have spare bedrooms.

Around 50,000 North-East households could be affected, with many families forced to move out.

But many more could be forced out of wealthier areas in the south – potentially moving to the North, where living costs are cheaper, particularly if benefit payments are higher.

County Durham has almost 5,000 empty homes, 1,800 of which are considered ‘long-term empty’.

However, Monica Burns, North-East manager for the National Housing Federation, said benefit tourism to County Durham was “very unlikely”.

“Moving is an upheaval. People have children in schools, employment, family and friends," she said.

“It’s costly and the accommodation isn’t available – there’s a huge shortage.”

Ms Burns welcomed Durham’s LCTSS, saying: “In times of austerity, people’s budgets are very stretched and any help they can get from whatever source is very valuable. I think it’s a very good decision.”

What do you think?

Comments (66)

10:50pm Wed 9 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

Empty properties, I know loads except they dcc owned, can I tax dcc for these properties.
Empty properties, I know loads except they dcc owned, can I tax dcc for these properties. theWorkerScum

11:39pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

Why should I have to pay 150% council tax on a second property to subsidise peoples benefits?
Why should I have to pay 150% council tax on a second property to subsidise peoples benefits? Butterknowle Boy

11:54pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Voice-of-reality says...

As the benefits are not being cut - landlords can now afford to raise rents by the amount that would have been cut - tenant will be 'as worse off as they would have been' and owner will be richer - Labour helping the rich once more whilst the poor will blindly elect them thinking (erroneously) that they have their best interests at heart.
As the benefits are not being cut - landlords can now afford to raise rents by the amount that would have been cut - tenant will be 'as worse off as they would have been' and owner will be richer - Labour helping the rich once more whilst the poor will blindly elect them thinking (erroneously) that they have their best interests at heart. Voice-of-reality

9:11am Thu 10 Jan 13

SCROUNGER/SKIVER says...

@Butterknowle Boy. Do you need two homes? Do you live in both? Do you ever consider letting the second to someone who has no home. Or is it just a greedy profit based move to line your pockets while others rot.
Get a life!
@Butterknowle Boy. Do you need two homes? Do you live in both? Do you ever consider letting the second to someone who has no home. Or is it just a greedy profit based move to line your pockets while others rot. Get a life! SCROUNGER/SKIVER

9:12am Thu 10 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

Just when you thought your employer couldn't be any dumber they go and do this. Ran by a bunch of fools.
Just when you thought your employer couldn't be any dumber they go and do this. Ran by a bunch of fools. theWorkerScum

9:19am Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Butterknowle boy: why should you have an empty property when there are people sleeping rough? Why shouldn't those who have so much they can let the most valuable commodity in our society stand empty not be expected to share some small amount of that wealth to make our society better? When did we let it be ok for us all to act like toddlers with a favourite toy, snatching and grabbing and hoarding it to ourselves and throwing tantrums when asked to share with the other children?
Butterknowle boy: why should you have an empty property when there are people sleeping rough? Why shouldn't those who have so much they can let the most valuable commodity in our society stand empty not be expected to share some small amount of that wealth to make our society better? When did we let it be ok for us all to act like toddlers with a favourite toy, snatching and grabbing and hoarding it to ourselves and throwing tantrums when asked to share with the other children? sumdarkplace

10:32am Thu 10 Jan 13

the-big-yin says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
Why should I have to pay 150% council tax on a second property to subsidise peoples benefits?
Because over 70% of claimants are on the sick or are pensioners.....anyon
e that owns second properties that stand empty deserve to pay more....greed greed greed......
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: Why should I have to pay 150% council tax on a second property to subsidise peoples benefits?[/p][/quote]Because over 70% of claimants are on the sick or are pensioners.....anyon e that owns second properties that stand empty deserve to pay more....greed greed greed...... the-big-yin

10:41am Thu 10 Jan 13

the-big-yin says...

sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle boy: why should you have an empty property when there are people sleeping rough? Why shouldn't those who have so much they can let the most valuable commodity in our society stand empty not be expected to share some small amount of that wealth to make our society better? When did we let it be ok for us all to act like toddlers with a favourite toy, snatching and grabbing and hoarding it to ourselves and throwing tantrums when asked to share with the other children?
WELL SAID......anyone with second homes that are stood empty due to them not being able to afford to do them up, can apply for help in the form of grants from their local councils...then rent them out to council tenants at a fair price...what should be stopped is the amount landlords charge for rent...it should be £75 a week maximum...then you would hear all landlords whinge even more......
[quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: Butterknowle boy: why should you have an empty property when there are people sleeping rough? Why shouldn't those who have so much they can let the most valuable commodity in our society stand empty not be expected to share some small amount of that wealth to make our society better? When did we let it be ok for us all to act like toddlers with a favourite toy, snatching and grabbing and hoarding it to ourselves and throwing tantrums when asked to share with the other children?[/p][/quote]WELL SAID......anyone with second homes that are stood empty due to them not being able to afford to do them up, can apply for help in the form of grants from their local councils...then rent them out to council tenants at a fair price...what should be stopped is the amount landlords charge for rent...it should be £75 a week maximum...then you would hear all landlords whinge even more...... the-big-yin

10:44am Thu 10 Jan 13

frankyboy says...

Trouble is, could this not send a message to anyone thinking of investing in a second home in County Durham that they are not welcome, unless they pay a huge tax bill? It could put people off.
Also, I don't know how many this may apply to, but I read a while ago that some owners of low-value second homes standing empty for a long time had demolished the property to avoid being hit by the higher council tax, as the tax is not enforced on just land.
Trouble is, could this not send a message to anyone thinking of investing in a second home in County Durham that they are not welcome, unless they pay a huge tax bill? It could put people off. Also, I don't know how many this may apply to, but I read a while ago that some owners of low-value second homes standing empty for a long time had demolished the property to avoid being hit by the higher council tax, as the tax is not enforced on just land. frankyboy

10:59am Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

I would love to see a rent cap, so any rented property has a fixed rentable value set at the current housing benefit level. Landlords of premium properties could apply for an exemption allowing them to charge higher rents, but at a significantly higher tax on those rents. This would essentially create a void in the market between cheaper rentals, and expensive rentals, meaning landlords would be financially compelled to let their not quite premium properties at affordable rates. This would raise the average quality of accommodation available at the lower end of the market, and help make more houses available to those who cannot currently afford it.
I would love to see a rent cap, so any rented property has a fixed rentable value set at the current housing benefit level. Landlords of premium properties could apply for an exemption allowing them to charge higher rents, but at a significantly higher tax on those rents. This would essentially create a void in the market between cheaper rentals, and expensive rentals, meaning landlords would be financially compelled to let their not quite premium properties at affordable rates. This would raise the average quality of accommodation available at the lower end of the market, and help make more houses available to those who cannot currently afford it. sumdarkplace

11:02am Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

frankyboy wrote:
Trouble is, could this not send a message to anyone thinking of investing in a second home in County Durham that they are not welcome, unless they pay a huge tax bill? It could put people off.
Also, I don't know how many this may apply to, but I read a while ago that some owners of low-value second homes standing empty for a long time had demolished the property to avoid being hit by the higher council tax, as the tax is not enforced on just land.
I don't think the number of people willing to destroy a £50k+ asset to avoid a £1500 tax bill will be significantly high.
[quote][p][bold]frankyboy[/bold] wrote: Trouble is, could this not send a message to anyone thinking of investing in a second home in County Durham that they are not welcome, unless they pay a huge tax bill? It could put people off. Also, I don't know how many this may apply to, but I read a while ago that some owners of low-value second homes standing empty for a long time had demolished the property to avoid being hit by the higher council tax, as the tax is not enforced on just land.[/p][/quote]I don't think the number of people willing to destroy a £50k+ asset to avoid a £1500 tax bill will be significantly high. sumdarkplace

11:19am Thu 10 Jan 13

frankyboy says...

Maybe, but is the £50k not mainly in the land rather than the bricks and mortar? I'm talking lower end of the market of course.
Maybe, but is the £50k not mainly in the land rather than the bricks and mortar? I'm talking lower end of the market of course. frankyboy

11:32am Thu 10 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.
Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home. theWorkerScum

12:19pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Birdyy says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
Why should I have to pay 150% council tax on a second property to subsidise peoples benefits?
Read the article again.....
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: Why should I have to pay 150% council tax on a second property to subsidise peoples benefits?[/p][/quote]Read the article again..... Birdyy

12:21pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Birdyy says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
Just when you thought your employer couldn't be any dumber they go and do this. Ran by a bunch of fools.
You must mean 'run by a bunch of fools"
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Just when you thought your employer couldn't be any dumber they go and do this. Ran by a bunch of fools.[/p][/quote]You must mean 'run by a bunch of fools" Birdyy

12:32pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.
Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck.
Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home.
It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from.
The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market.

As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.[/p][/quote]Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck. Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home. It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from. The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market. As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades. sumdarkplace

12:36pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

frankyboy wrote:
Maybe, but is the £50k not mainly in the land rather than the bricks and mortar? I'm talking lower end of the market of course.
There obviously is this risk, but the numbers will still be low. This could be counteracted by better tax incentives and grants to invest in the property to bring it up to standard to let out to council tenants. As has been mentioned above, these schemes are already in place across many parts of the country.
If an owner would still rather tear down a house to avoid the tax instead of accepting grants and tax breaks to turn it into a viable letting property, then you'd have to question their judgement!
[quote][p][bold]frankyboy[/bold] wrote: Maybe, but is the £50k not mainly in the land rather than the bricks and mortar? I'm talking lower end of the market of course.[/p][/quote]There obviously is this risk, but the numbers will still be low. This could be counteracted by better tax incentives and grants to invest in the property to bring it up to standard to let out to council tenants. As has been mentioned above, these schemes are already in place across many parts of the country. If an owner would still rather tear down a house to avoid the tax instead of accepting grants and tax breaks to turn it into a viable letting property, then you'd have to question their judgement! sumdarkplace

12:46pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

It has nothing to do with greed on my part, Unlike some people I think ahead.

I work for a living and earn a modest wage, which I save up, when I have enough I buy a run down house, do it up on a weekend myself so it is in a good state then rent it out - At a modest affordable price.

The idea being that when I retire the rental income will cover the cost of living as the pension people currently get is s**t - which wont get any better

Granted the houses I buy stand empty for 2-3 years as I do the work myself to avoid getting into debt.

So why should I pay 150% council tax on these houses for basically preparing for my future?
It has nothing to do with greed on my part, Unlike some people I think ahead. I work for a living and earn a modest wage, which I save up, when I have enough I buy a run down house, do it up on a weekend myself so it is in a good state then rent it out - At a modest affordable price. The idea being that when I retire the rental income will cover the cost of living as the pension people currently get is s**t - which wont get any better Granted the houses I buy stand empty for 2-3 years as I do the work myself to avoid getting into debt. So why should I pay 150% council tax on these houses for basically preparing for my future? Butterknowle Boy

12:52pm Thu 10 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

sumdarkplace wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.
Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck.
Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home.
It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from.
The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market.

As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.
Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in.
[quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.[/p][/quote]Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck. Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home. It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from. The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market. As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.[/p][/quote]Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in. theWorkerScum

1:19pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
It has nothing to do with greed on my part, Unlike some people I think ahead.

I work for a living and earn a modest wage, which I save up, when I have enough I buy a run down house, do it up on a weekend myself so it is in a good state then rent it out - At a modest affordable price.

The idea being that when I retire the rental income will cover the cost of living as the pension people currently get is s**t - which wont get any better

Granted the houses I buy stand empty for 2-3 years as I do the work myself to avoid getting into debt.

So why should I pay 150% council tax on these houses for basically preparing for my future?
Why shouldn't you? You own multiple houses, and invest in them to rent out commercially for profit. Just because you are doing it because you want to have more than your pension when you retire does not change the fact that you should be taxed on your capital accumulation.
By doing things on the cheap you are making a considerable saving on the cost of employing professionals in your community, therefore you should be liable for, and able to afford, extra taxation to ensure you are supporting that community in other ways.
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: It has nothing to do with greed on my part, Unlike some people I think ahead. I work for a living and earn a modest wage, which I save up, when I have enough I buy a run down house, do it up on a weekend myself so it is in a good state then rent it out - At a modest affordable price. The idea being that when I retire the rental income will cover the cost of living as the pension people currently get is s**t - which wont get any better Granted the houses I buy stand empty for 2-3 years as I do the work myself to avoid getting into debt. So why should I pay 150% council tax on these houses for basically preparing for my future?[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't you? You own multiple houses, and invest in them to rent out commercially for profit. Just because you are doing it because you want to have more than your pension when you retire does not change the fact that you should be taxed on your capital accumulation. By doing things on the cheap you are making a considerable saving on the cost of employing professionals in your community, therefore you should be liable for, and able to afford, extra taxation to ensure you are supporting that community in other ways. sumdarkplace

1:26pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.
Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck.
Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home.
It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from.
The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market.

As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.
Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in.
I was about to respond to your shockingly inaccurate and intellectually flawed generalisations, then I realised that the only way somebody could appear so pitifully mean and foolish is if they were doing it deliberately.
Surely nobody could be so unintuitive and petty, so I applaud your attempt to troll, well done.
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.[/p][/quote]Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck. Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home. It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from. The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market. As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.[/p][/quote]Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in.[/p][/quote]I was about to respond to your shockingly inaccurate and intellectually flawed generalisations, then I realised that the only way somebody could appear so pitifully mean and foolish is if they were doing it deliberately. Surely nobody could be so unintuitive and petty, so I applaud your attempt to troll, well done. sumdarkplace

1:39pm Thu 10 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

Well if my facts are wrong which I have read on paper and spoken with landlords then I better quit my job at the council and put my head in the sand because the benefit system here is one big lie. All them numbers are just make believe! Next time a payment is late and abuse is delivered to me I will say to them that benefits no longer exist. Good day.
Well if my facts are wrong which I have read on paper and spoken with landlords then I better quit my job at the council and put my head in the sand because the benefit system here is one big lie. All them numbers are just make believe! Next time a payment is late and abuse is delivered to me I will say to them that benefits no longer exist. Good day. theWorkerScum

1:44pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

sumdarkplace I'm already taxed on my capital accumulation.

I pay tax on my wage which I save to buy the house, I'm taxed again on the house purchase, I'm taxed on the building materials that I buy to refurbish the house and I'm then taxed on the rental income when the house is let.

As I work in the building trade by doing the work myself I'm not taking the work out the the community, I'm in effect employing myself.
sumdarkplace I'm already taxed on my capital accumulation. I pay tax on my wage which I save to buy the house, I'm taxed again on the house purchase, I'm taxed on the building materials that I buy to refurbish the house and I'm then taxed on the rental income when the house is let. As I work in the building trade by doing the work myself I'm not taking the work out the the community, I'm in effect employing myself. Butterknowle Boy

1:48pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.
Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck.
Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home.
It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from.
The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market.

As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.
Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in.
Very true the WorkerScum.

I've paid tax since leaving school, always had a job and paid my own way. By saving my hard earned cash and being sensible with what I spend it on I'm expected to pay even more council tax.

I left school with some people who were "slackers" never had a job, never will have a job and claim benefits

Why should I have to pay for these people?
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.[/p][/quote]Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck. Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home. It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from. The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market. As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.[/p][/quote]Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in.[/p][/quote]Very true the WorkerScum. I've paid tax since leaving school, always had a job and paid my own way. By saving my hard earned cash and being sensible with what I spend it on I'm expected to pay even more council tax. I left school with some people who were "slackers" never had a job, never will have a job and claim benefits Why should I have to pay for these people? Butterknowle Boy

2:18pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
sumdarkplace I'm already taxed on my capital accumulation.

I pay tax on my wage which I save to buy the house, I'm taxed again on the house purchase, I'm taxed on the building materials that I buy to refurbish the house and I'm then taxed on the rental income when the house is let.

As I work in the building trade by doing the work myself I'm not taking the work out the the community, I'm in effect employing myself.
In that case you'll simply have to adapt your business model to allow for this extra cost in future. I still see no reason why you shouldn't have to pay it, or why you consider it unjust?

All of us are taxed the same way you are, you're not in a high risk vulnerable category, and this raise in tax could be easily avoided by you. So what's the problem?
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: sumdarkplace I'm already taxed on my capital accumulation. I pay tax on my wage which I save to buy the house, I'm taxed again on the house purchase, I'm taxed on the building materials that I buy to refurbish the house and I'm then taxed on the rental income when the house is let. As I work in the building trade by doing the work myself I'm not taking the work out the the community, I'm in effect employing myself.[/p][/quote]In that case you'll simply have to adapt your business model to allow for this extra cost in future. I still see no reason why you shouldn't have to pay it, or why you consider it unjust? All of us are taxed the same way you are, you're not in a high risk vulnerable category, and this raise in tax could be easily avoided by you. So what's the problem? sumdarkplace

2:29pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.
Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck.
Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home.
It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from.
The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market.

As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.
Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in.
Very true the WorkerScum.

I've paid tax since leaving school, always had a job and paid my own way. By saving my hard earned cash and being sensible with what I spend it on I'm expected to pay even more council tax.

I left school with some people who were "slackers" never had a job, never will have a job and claim benefits

Why should I have to pay for these people?
We all have to pay for these people, and those of us who have the most should surely pay the most?
Anecdotal observation is not evidence or fact. There will always be people who attempt to exploit the system. The moral thing to do is to tackle the minority whilst supporting the majority, not screw them all over because some bloke you went to school with is not very nice. The vast majority of people that this decision will affect are decent, honest people who want to work and contribute, but through circumstance find themselves unable to do so. They, but for bad timing, luck or judgement, are the same as us, and should we find ourselves in their position, we would expect the same support.
This campaign of hateful propaganda to brand everyone without a job as a benefit cheat and a workshy layabout is a horrendous corruption of the facts, and offends everything this society should stand for.
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Actually some landlords struggle to get tenents in their property. The dolers want the best u know they deserve it with such stressful lives. People sleeping rough has nothing to do with second homes I'm afraid, amazing how people turn on each other. U have a second home so you must give me money, doesn't matter if u earn less than I do, blah blah blah. For the record I don't have a second home.[/p][/quote]Landlords struggle to get people into their properties because the rents are so high. If you cannot pay the mortgage on your investment by charging a rent that will actually attract a tenant, then you can't afford to own the property. Sell it. If you don't get your investment back, that's your own poor judgement, tough luck. Owning a second home is something you either can afford the related costs of, or you can't. If you can't afford the premiums in tax it attracts, then you can't afford your second home. It's got nothing to do with wanting to take from those who seem wealthier, it's about those who are genuinely wealthier helping the society and community that they live in and benefit from. The cascade effect of making more rental property available means that prices would lower across the spectrum, meaning that those sleeping rough will have a greater chance of being able to get into accommodation at the lowest end of the market. As for your slur about those on social support; well done, you've been sucked in by the vile and disingenuous 'Striver vs. Skiver' propaganda. It may be worth you having a look at the figures relating to long term unemployment, it's costs to society, it prevalence and it's highest demographic constituents. You may be shocked to discover that the right-wing politicians and their spin doctors have been seriously misleading you for decades.[/p][/quote]Not necessarily through high rent at all, like I stated previously, they all want the best houses. This is a fact unfortunately. Your theory on lower rents is flawed as it is linked to house prices. As for my slur on the unemployed, I see people receiving more in benefits than some people earn after tax and travel costs to work so don't tell me I'm misguided because I know this to be fact. The unemployed want a better life than families that work who just get by, the dole lot want to be out every weekend with drink and fags, I'm afraid it is u who has been suckered in.[/p][/quote]Very true the WorkerScum. I've paid tax since leaving school, always had a job and paid my own way. By saving my hard earned cash and being sensible with what I spend it on I'm expected to pay even more council tax. I left school with some people who were "slackers" never had a job, never will have a job and claim benefits Why should I have to pay for these people?[/p][/quote]We all have to pay for these people, and those of us who have the most should surely pay the most? Anecdotal observation is not evidence or fact. There will always be people who attempt to exploit the system. The moral thing to do is to tackle the minority whilst supporting the majority, not screw them all over because some bloke you went to school with is not very nice. The vast majority of people that this decision will affect are decent, honest people who want to work and contribute, but through circumstance find themselves unable to do so. They, but for bad timing, luck or judgement, are the same as us, and should we find ourselves in their position, we would expect the same support. This campaign of hateful propaganda to brand everyone without a job as a benefit cheat and a workshy layabout is a horrendous corruption of the facts, and offends everything this society should stand for. sumdarkplace

2:40pm Thu 10 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

Sumdarkplace u do realise someone on 15k a year has to pay:

Approx:

3k tax/n
5k rent
1k c tax
2k car costs for work
Doctor/dentist/work clothes costs etc etc etc - no freebies

You do the math. I think you believe people that work have thousands to live on per month
Sumdarkplace u do realise someone on 15k a year has to pay: Approx: 3k tax/n 5k rent 1k c tax 2k car costs for work Doctor/dentist/work clothes costs etc etc etc - no freebies You do the math. I think you believe people that work have thousands to live on per month theWorkerScum

2:41pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.
The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse. Butterknowle Boy

2:54pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
Sumdarkplace u do realise someone on 15k a year has to pay:

Approx:

3k tax/n
5k rent
1k c tax
2k car costs for work
Doctor/dentist/work clothes costs etc etc etc - no freebies

You do the math. I think you believe people that work have thousands to live on per month
Considering I live on less than that, yes, I'm well aware of the cost of living. How many people on £15k own second homes?
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Sumdarkplace u do realise someone on 15k a year has to pay: Approx: 3k tax/n 5k rent 1k c tax 2k car costs for work Doctor/dentist/work clothes costs etc etc etc - no freebies You do the math. I think you believe people that work have thousands to live on per month[/p][/quote]Considering I live on less than that, yes, I'm well aware of the cost of living. How many people on £15k own second homes? sumdarkplace

3:01pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.
Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging.

You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.[/p][/quote]Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging. You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience. sumdarkplace

3:31pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle Boy wrote:
The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.
Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging.

You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.
Wrong
My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away.

If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out.

If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home.

I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get.

There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share.

What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?
[quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.[/p][/quote]Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging. You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.[/p][/quote]Wrong My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away. If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out. If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home. I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get. There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share. What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period? Butterknowle Boy

3:42pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle Boy wrote:
The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.
Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging.

You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.
Wrong
My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away.

If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out.

If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home.

I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get.

There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share.

What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?
Firstly, you would only have to pay the higher rate after you have had the house empty for 2 years, so only for a few months (Taking the mean of 2-3 years, 2.5 years, so on average 6 months).

So you earn enough money to buy multiple houses outright, yet you're quibbling about paying a one-off extra £1000 (assuming a Band E house, 2.5 year turnaround) on your council tax bill for each property? You portray yourself as a put-upon struggling investor, but in reality you are exactly the type of person who can afford this the most easily as it can be absorbed as a business expense. Maybe you'll have to wait another 4-5 weeks before you replace your car next time, boo-hoo.

The people who are being driven to desperate levels of poverty, starvation and deprivation by this will weep for your losses.
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.[/p][/quote]Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging. You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.[/p][/quote]Wrong My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away. If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out. If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home. I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get. There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share. What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?[/p][/quote]Firstly, you would only have to pay the higher rate after you have had the house empty for 2 years, so only for a few months (Taking the mean of 2-3 years, 2.5 years, so on average 6 months). So you earn enough money to buy multiple houses outright, yet you're quibbling about paying a one-off extra £1000 (assuming a Band E house, 2.5 year turnaround) on your council tax bill for each property? You portray yourself as a put-upon struggling investor, but in reality you are exactly the type of person who can afford this the most easily as it can be absorbed as a business expense. Maybe you'll have to wait another 4-5 weeks before you replace your car next time, boo-hoo. The people who are being driven to desperate levels of poverty, starvation and deprivation by this will weep for your losses. sumdarkplace

3:43pm Thu 10 Jan 13

behonest says...

For those who have young children and who earn between £50k and £60k a year, increase your pension contributions by the amount over £50k. You will get 40% tax relief AND save your child benefit.
I used to own a second home but not any more. Taxes and charges too high, so I got rid. The house was worth less than the stamp duty threshold so the buyer paid no stamp tax, and was a single person so will only pay the council 75% of council tax, they'd never get 150% of the tax from me.
When I had the 2 houses I declared my wife and I as separated and living separately, so we both got the 25% discount on council tax. Now that the second home is sold, we have 'reconciled'.
I have a source for red diesel and will always try to avoid VAT by paying cash.
Those workers who sit back and just suffer the continually increasing taxes, just so Labour councils like Durham can protect benefit claimants, must be mad. These claimants should be made to contribute, just like everyone else.
And I drink my own beer most of the time, pub prices include too much tax.

40% income tax and N.I. on £53k a year is a big enough contribution for anyone to make.
For those who have young children and who earn between £50k and £60k a year, increase your pension contributions by the amount over £50k. You will get 40% tax relief AND save your child benefit. I used to own a second home but not any more. Taxes and charges too high, so I got rid. The house was worth less than the stamp duty threshold so the buyer paid no stamp tax, and was a single person so will only pay the council 75% of council tax, they'd never get 150% of the tax from me. When I had the 2 houses I declared my wife and I as separated and living separately, so we both got the 25% discount on council tax. Now that the second home is sold, we have 'reconciled'. I have a source for red diesel and will always try to avoid VAT by paying cash. Those workers who sit back and just suffer the continually increasing taxes, just so Labour councils like Durham can protect benefit claimants, must be mad. These claimants should be made to contribute, just like everyone else. And I drink my own beer most of the time, pub prices include too much tax. 40% income tax and N.I. on £53k a year is a big enough contribution for anyone to make. behonest

3:55pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

behonest wrote:
For those who have young children and who earn between £50k and £60k a year, increase your pension contributions by the amount over £50k. You will get 40% tax relief AND save your child benefit.
I used to own a second home but not any more. Taxes and charges too high, so I got rid. The house was worth less than the stamp duty threshold so the buyer paid no stamp tax, and was a single person so will only pay the council 75% of council tax, they'd never get 150% of the tax from me.
When I had the 2 houses I declared my wife and I as separated and living separately, so we both got the 25% discount on council tax. Now that the second home is sold, we have 'reconciled'.
I have a source for red diesel and will always try to avoid VAT by paying cash.
Those workers who sit back and just suffer the continually increasing taxes, just so Labour councils like Durham can protect benefit claimants, must be mad. These claimants should be made to contribute, just like everyone else.
And I drink my own beer most of the time, pub prices include too much tax.

40% income tax and N.I. on £53k a year is a big enough contribution for anyone to make.
No wonder you think benefit claimants are deceitful fraudsters who lie, cheat, and steal from society; you think they're just like you.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: For those who have young children and who earn between £50k and £60k a year, increase your pension contributions by the amount over £50k. You will get 40% tax relief AND save your child benefit. I used to own a second home but not any more. Taxes and charges too high, so I got rid. The house was worth less than the stamp duty threshold so the buyer paid no stamp tax, and was a single person so will only pay the council 75% of council tax, they'd never get 150% of the tax from me. When I had the 2 houses I declared my wife and I as separated and living separately, so we both got the 25% discount on council tax. Now that the second home is sold, we have 'reconciled'. I have a source for red diesel and will always try to avoid VAT by paying cash. Those workers who sit back and just suffer the continually increasing taxes, just so Labour councils like Durham can protect benefit claimants, must be mad. These claimants should be made to contribute, just like everyone else. And I drink my own beer most of the time, pub prices include too much tax. 40% income tax and N.I. on £53k a year is a big enough contribution for anyone to make.[/p][/quote]No wonder you think benefit claimants are deceitful fraudsters who lie, cheat, and steal from society; you think they're just like you. sumdarkplace

3:59pm Thu 10 Jan 13

behonest says...

There's a big difference between 'stealing from society' and doing what you can to stop society (government and councils) stealing from you.
There's a big difference between 'stealing from society' and doing what you can to stop society (government and councils) stealing from you. behonest

4:02pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Withnail Lefty says...

Sadly, the outcome of these policies will only ensure greater upward pressure within the residential rental market as the industry will calculate the increased void cost and adjust rentals accordingly.
Sadly, the outcome of these policies will only ensure greater upward pressure within the residential rental market as the industry will calculate the increased void cost and adjust rentals accordingly. Withnail Lefty

4:02pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Butterknowle Boy wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle Boy wrote:
The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.
Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging.

You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.
Wrong
My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away.

If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out.

If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home.

I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get.

There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share.

What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?
Also, what happens if, in your retirement, there is a house price crash, all your tenants move out and buy one of these fictitious cheap houses, and you have to go into care. You can't sell your houses, nobody wants them, and their values rely on their desirability. Who pays for your care home?

It may be unlikely, but just imagine it. You're not that far away from the people you're willing to deprive.
[quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.[/p][/quote]Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging. You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.[/p][/quote]Wrong My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away. If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out. If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home. I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get. There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share. What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?[/p][/quote]Also, what happens if, in your retirement, there is a house price crash, all your tenants move out and buy one of these fictitious cheap houses, and you have to go into care. You can't sell your houses, nobody wants them, and their values rely on their desirability. Who pays for your care home? It may be unlikely, but just imagine it. You're not that far away from the people you're willing to deprive. sumdarkplace

4:04pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

Withnail Lefty wrote:
Sadly, the outcome of these policies will only ensure greater upward pressure within the residential rental market as the industry will calculate the increased void cost and adjust rentals accordingly.
Sadly you may be right, but at least it's worth trying to stand up to these attacks. More need to be done to control rents and manage the rental market generally.
We should not ever let fear of failure prevent us from trying to do what is right.
[quote][p][bold]Withnail Lefty[/bold] wrote: Sadly, the outcome of these policies will only ensure greater upward pressure within the residential rental market as the industry will calculate the increased void cost and adjust rentals accordingly.[/p][/quote]Sadly you may be right, but at least it's worth trying to stand up to these attacks. More need to be done to control rents and manage the rental market generally. We should not ever let fear of failure prevent us from trying to do what is right. sumdarkplace

4:09pm Thu 10 Jan 13

behonest says...

What is 'right'? What the Left says?
What is 'right'? What the Left says? behonest

4:11pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

behonest wrote:
There's a big difference between 'stealing from society' and doing what you can to stop society (government and councils) stealing from you.
No there isn't, not even a small difference. It's tax evasion, fraud and theft, plain and simple. I have no problem with extra pension contributions, or the home brew, I applaud your creativity, but to fake a failing marriage to avoid a few hundred pounds of council tax is despicable, low and vile. You are exploiting and leeching off society, and you don't even need to.

To steal a loaf because you cannot afford to eat is one thing, but to steal a loaf because you don't like paying for loaves makes you morally repugnant.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: There's a big difference between 'stealing from society' and doing what you can to stop society (government and councils) stealing from you.[/p][/quote]No there isn't, not even a small difference. It's tax evasion, fraud and theft, plain and simple. I have no problem with extra pension contributions, or the home brew, I applaud your creativity, but to fake a failing marriage to avoid a few hundred pounds of council tax is despicable, low and vile. You are exploiting and leeching off society, and you don't even need to. To steal a loaf because you cannot afford to eat is one thing, but to steal a loaf because you don't like paying for loaves makes you morally repugnant. sumdarkplace

4:23pm Thu 10 Jan 13

behonest says...

You make a false comparison again. To fake a failing marriage in order to pay 150% of council tax, rather than have the council take 200% in council tax, is a regrettable but understandable action to stop the council ripping people off.
You make a false comparison again. To fake a failing marriage in order to pay 150% of council tax, rather than have the council take 200% in council tax, is a regrettable but understandable action to stop the council ripping people off. behonest

4:33pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

behonest wrote:
You make a false comparison again. To fake a failing marriage in order to pay 150% of council tax, rather than have the council take 200% in council tax, is a regrettable but understandable action to stop the council ripping people off.
To fake a failing marriage for personal gain in any circumstance is disgusting to me, and I'm sure many others.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: You make a false comparison again. To fake a failing marriage in order to pay 150% of council tax, rather than have the council take 200% in council tax, is a regrettable but understandable action to stop the council ripping people off.[/p][/quote]To fake a failing marriage for personal gain in any circumstance is disgusting to me, and I'm sure many others. sumdarkplace

4:39pm Thu 10 Jan 13

behonest says...

Maybe, but that 'personal gain' is by avoiding disgustingly high taxes imposed by the council, which no-one votes for and which most people disagree with, except for those who don't have to pay them..
Maybe, but that 'personal gain' is by avoiding disgustingly high taxes imposed by the council, which no-one votes for and which most people disagree with, except for those who don't have to pay them.. behonest

4:44pm Thu 10 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

If the government promotes failed relationship by means of tax and handouts to single parents eg child tax credits. Then is it any wonder people split up or fake splitting up. Most people are better off that is why benefits should be reduced never mind frozen OR tax reduced. You choose.
If the government promotes failed relationship by means of tax and handouts to single parents eg child tax credits. Then is it any wonder people split up or fake splitting up. Most people are better off that is why benefits should be reduced never mind frozen OR tax reduced. You choose. theWorkerScum

4:51pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
If the government promotes failed relationship by means of tax and handouts to single parents eg child tax credits. Then is it any wonder people split up or fake splitting up. Most people are better off that is why benefits should be reduced never mind frozen OR tax reduced. You choose.
Again, I'd love to see your evidence of this false dichotomy.

What you're basically saying is that if a person commits a crime it's the fault of the law that they're breaking? Ludicrous.
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: If the government promotes failed relationship by means of tax and handouts to single parents eg child tax credits. Then is it any wonder people split up or fake splitting up. Most people are better off that is why benefits should be reduced never mind frozen OR tax reduced. You choose.[/p][/quote]Again, I'd love to see your evidence of this false dichotomy. What you're basically saying is that if a person commits a crime it's the fault of the law that they're breaking? Ludicrous. sumdarkplace

5:10pm Thu 10 Jan 13

behonest says...

Is it ludicrous? Or is it not the case that many laws been broken over the generations, to try and get change for the better in society?
Is it ludicrous? Or is it not the case that many laws been broken over the generations, to try and get change for the better in society? behonest

5:15pm Thu 10 Jan 13

sumdarkplace says...

behonest wrote:
Is it ludicrous? Or is it not the case that many laws been broken over the generations, to try and get change for the better in society?
So now you're equating civil disobedience as social activism to change society with fraud to steal from society for personal gain. I can see how those two are similar, right!
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: Is it ludicrous? Or is it not the case that many laws been broken over the generations, to try and get change for the better in society?[/p][/quote]So now you're equating civil disobedience as social activism to change society with fraud to steal from society for personal gain. I can see how those two are similar, right! sumdarkplace

5:39pm Thu 10 Jan 13

behonest says...

And you're equating 'society' with the tax policies of councils and government. Spending £100bn of our money on nuclear bombs is legal but is it on behalf of, or for the benefit of, 'society'?
Depends on whether or not you think it is!
We can't do anything about what the council or government waste our money on, all we can do is try and minimise the amount they grab from us. It's classed as 'illegal' when it breaks the 'laws' that are enforced upon us, but it doesn't make it wrong.
And you're equating 'society' with the tax policies of councils and government. Spending £100bn of our money on nuclear bombs is legal but is it on behalf of, or for the benefit of, 'society'? Depends on whether or not you think it is! We can't do anything about what the council or government waste our money on, all we can do is try and minimise the amount they grab from us. It's classed as 'illegal' when it breaks the 'laws' that are enforced upon us, but it doesn't make it wrong. behonest

6:09pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle Boy wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle Boy wrote:
The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.
Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging.

You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.
Wrong
My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away.

If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out.

If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home.

I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get.

There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share.

What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?
Firstly, you would only have to pay the higher rate after you have had the house empty for 2 years, so only for a few months (Taking the mean of 2-3 years, 2.5 years, so on average 6 months).

So you earn enough money to buy multiple houses outright, yet you're quibbling about paying a one-off extra £1000 (assuming a Band E house, 2.5 year turnaround) on your council tax bill for each property? You portray yourself as a put-upon struggling investor, but in reality you are exactly the type of person who can afford this the most easily as it can be absorbed as a business expense. Maybe you'll have to wait another 4-5 weeks before you replace your car next time, boo-hoo.

The people who are being driven to desperate levels of poverty, starvation and deprivation by this will weep for your losses.
How can the extra council tax be absorbed as a business expense? I rent a couple of houses out as a private individual so therefore can't clam it as an expence.

£1000 is a lot of money to myself, after working 12hours a day why should I pay extra tax for investing for the future.

If I put all of my money into a savings account rather than invest it into bricks and mortar would DCC have the right to come along after 2 years and say "err you have enough money in that account we'll take £1000 of that please" No they wouldnt so why a house be any differant?

They are already making a saving from me with an empty house as I'm paying 100% council tax but dont require my bin emptying.

PS I drive an 07 plate car, again which I bought when I could afford after saving up. If more people lived within their eans and didn't run up debt maybe they wouldnt be driven to desperate levels of poverty when they loose their jobs.
[quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.[/p][/quote]Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging. You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.[/p][/quote]Wrong My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away. If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out. If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home. I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get. There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share. What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?[/p][/quote]Firstly, you would only have to pay the higher rate after you have had the house empty for 2 years, so only for a few months (Taking the mean of 2-3 years, 2.5 years, so on average 6 months). So you earn enough money to buy multiple houses outright, yet you're quibbling about paying a one-off extra £1000 (assuming a Band E house, 2.5 year turnaround) on your council tax bill for each property? You portray yourself as a put-upon struggling investor, but in reality you are exactly the type of person who can afford this the most easily as it can be absorbed as a business expense. Maybe you'll have to wait another 4-5 weeks before you replace your car next time, boo-hoo. The people who are being driven to desperate levels of poverty, starvation and deprivation by this will weep for your losses.[/p][/quote]How can the extra council tax be absorbed as a business expense? I rent a couple of houses out as a private individual so therefore can't clam it as an expence. £1000 is a lot of money to myself, after working 12hours a day why should I pay extra tax for investing for the future. If I put all of my money into a savings account rather than invest it into bricks and mortar would DCC have the right to come along after 2 years and say "err you have enough money in that account we'll take £1000 of that please" No they wouldnt so why a house be any differant? They are already making a saving from me with an empty house as I'm paying 100% council tax but dont require my bin emptying. PS I drive an 07 plate car, again which I bought when I could afford after saving up. If more people lived within their eans and didn't run up debt maybe they wouldnt be driven to desperate levels of poverty when they loose their jobs. Butterknowle Boy

6:14pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Butterknowle Boy says...

sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle Boy wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote:
Butterknowle Boy wrote:
The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.
Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging.

You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.
Wrong
My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away.

If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out.

If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home.

I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get.

There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share.

What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?
Also, what happens if, in your retirement, there is a house price crash, all your tenants move out and buy one of these fictitious cheap houses, and you have to go into care. You can't sell your houses, nobody wants them, and their values rely on their desirability. Who pays for your care home?

It may be unlikely, but just imagine it. You're not that far away from the people you're willing to deprive.
When I retire I'll of been paying into the system for at least 49 year so in effect I'll of paid for my own care.
[quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Butterknowle Boy[/bold] wrote: The problem is I'm using my current wage wisely to prepair for my future so that I don't need to claim or rely on benefits should I fall on hard times. Yet the next man could be on the same wage as me but p*sses his all away yet expects my sensible ways to pay for his need for benefits shold he falls flat on his arse.[/p][/quote]Your 'Wise' use of your wage is only a house price crash away from being classed as you 'p*ssing it away'. The margins are far narrower than you are acknowledging. You are also still working on the assumption that everybody who needs Social Security help doesn't deserve it, and they are all at fault for their situation. This is simply not true, but it suits your agenda to believe it as it eases your conscience.[/p][/quote]Wrong My wise use of wage isn't a house price crash away. If you look at my earlier posts I save my money until I can afford to buy a house outright, Then take a couple of years to do it up as and when I have the money available until its in a livable state which I then rent out. If I own the house outright with no loans ect another house price crash makes no differance to me, I still own the home. I'm also not saying that everbody who needs social security dosen't desereve it. A lot of people do, and some people deserve more than what they currently get. There is enough money going into the system as it is, The problem at the moment is the distribution of those funds. Some people getting it who don't deserve it or getting paid more than their fair share. What I'm saying is I'm already taxed on the money that I saved to buy a second home, taxed again on the purchase of the second home and will be taxed again when the house makes a rental income - All of which I know about and have no problem paying, However as it takes me 2-3 year to refurbish a house without the need to get a loan ( So I'm not getting into debt ) why should I now pay 50% more council tax over that period?[/p][/quote]Also, what happens if, in your retirement, there is a house price crash, all your tenants move out and buy one of these fictitious cheap houses, and you have to go into care. You can't sell your houses, nobody wants them, and their values rely on their desirability. Who pays for your care home? It may be unlikely, but just imagine it. You're not that far away from the people you're willing to deprive.[/p][/quote]When I retire I'll of been paying into the system for at least 49 year so in effect I'll of paid for my own care. Butterknowle Boy

7:54pm Thu 10 Jan 13

theWorkerScum says...

I won't be allowed to retire I'm sure the government will have me work till 100 to pay for the non-workers.in essence that what this article is all about. Take from the hard working and give to the non-workers.
I won't be allowed to retire I'm sure the government will have me work till 100 to pay for the non-workers.in essence that what this article is all about. Take from the hard working and give to the non-workers. theWorkerScum

9:41am Fri 11 Jan 13

Withnail Lefty says...

This Council really is making some very divisive policies. They seem to be deliberately setting an agenda of "strivers" against " skivers," to use the current patois.
This Council really is making some very divisive policies. They seem to be deliberately setting an agenda of "strivers" against " skivers," to use the current patois. Withnail Lefty

10:49am Fri 11 Jan 13

owen07 says...

I rent out a house and think people need to be careful before attacking those who recieve housing benefits. The tenant has worked for the last 18 months he has been in the property. he pays below average rent at around £350 per month. Unfortunately he lost his job and is claiming. The council has only allowed hime £260 per month (130 a fortnight), I ask anyone to try and find a property anywhere to rent for that price. Therefore out of his £260 a month job seekers allowance he is expected to pay me £90? The tenant is not scrounger and is actively seeking work, however this additional money is unaffordable and if he is to pay his concil tax too... well lets be honest it's not going to add up is it?
Now i am all for thise who try to cheat the system being stopped but for those who are genuinely in need of help for a short space of time can we as a society think this is fair or right?
I rent out a house and think people need to be careful before attacking those who recieve housing benefits. The tenant has worked for the last 18 months he has been in the property. he pays below average rent at around £350 per month. Unfortunately he lost his job and is claiming. The council has only allowed hime £260 per month (130 a fortnight), I ask anyone to try and find a property anywhere to rent for that price. Therefore out of his £260 a month job seekers allowance he is expected to pay me £90? The tenant is not scrounger and is actively seeking work, however this additional money is unaffordable and if he is to pay his concil tax too... well lets be honest it's not going to add up is it? Now i am all for thise who try to cheat the system being stopped but for those who are genuinely in need of help for a short space of time can we as a society think this is fair or right? owen07

11:09am Fri 11 Jan 13

Taxpaying Homeowner says...

Wouldn't it be better if housing benefit claimants were only provided assistance for houses within Council Tax Band's A and B. This would reduce the rents paid to landlords and reduce the Council Tax benefits bill.

Council tax benefit increases for private tennents could then follow the government's planned 1% increase, given that it is more likely that these people will be working and will benefit from the tax threshold rise that everyone on here seems to have forgotten about.

This is partly self-inflicted by councils and the last government operating the Treasury like a sweet shop. People now believe that benefits are an entitlement. The 'bedroom tax' as it seems to be wrongly labelled should only be imposed on properties with more than 50% of the bedrooms aren't utilised. Lets remember that it isn't a tax, it would be reduction but think it should only come into force if the majority of bedrooms are not in use. Also believe that the DLA recipients should be exempt..
Wouldn't it be better if housing benefit claimants were only provided assistance for houses within Council Tax Band's A and B. This would reduce the rents paid to landlords and reduce the Council Tax benefits bill. Council tax benefit increases for private tennents could then follow the government's planned 1% increase, given that it is more likely that these people will be working and will benefit from the tax threshold rise that everyone on here seems to have forgotten about. This is partly self-inflicted by councils and the last government operating the Treasury like a sweet shop. People now believe that benefits are an entitlement. The 'bedroom tax' as it seems to be wrongly labelled should only be imposed on properties with more than 50% of the bedrooms aren't utilised. Lets remember that it isn't a tax, it would be reduction but think it should only come into force if the majority of bedrooms are not in use. Also believe that the DLA recipients should be exempt.. Taxpaying Homeowner

1:43pm Fri 11 Jan 13

jonty7 says...

the-big-yin wrote:
sumdarkplace wrote: Butterknowle boy: why should you have an empty property when there are people sleeping rough? Why shouldn't those who have so much they can let the most valuable commodity in our society stand empty not be expected to share some small amount of that wealth to make our society better? When did we let it be ok for us all to act like toddlers with a favourite toy, snatching and grabbing and hoarding it to ourselves and throwing tantrums when asked to share with the other children?
WELL SAID......anyone with second homes that are stood empty due to them not being able to afford to do them up, can apply for help in the form of grants from their local councils...then rent them out to council tenants at a fair price...what should be stopped is the amount landlords charge for rent...it should be £75 a week maximum...then you would hear all landlords whinge even more......
So if somebody like me moves out from the region and is stuck with a property bought at the high of the market that they pay a mortgage on has to suffer financially just because they own another house or are most of the comments on here just jealously? I let my property to those in receipt of benefits however should expect to receive market rent.
[quote][p][bold]the-big-yin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: Butterknowle boy: why should you have an empty property when there are people sleeping rough? Why shouldn't those who have so much they can let the most valuable commodity in our society stand empty not be expected to share some small amount of that wealth to make our society better? When did we let it be ok for us all to act like toddlers with a favourite toy, snatching and grabbing and hoarding it to ourselves and throwing tantrums when asked to share with the other children?[/p][/quote]WELL SAID......anyone with second homes that are stood empty due to them not being able to afford to do them up, can apply for help in the form of grants from their local councils...then rent them out to council tenants at a fair price...what should be stopped is the amount landlords charge for rent...it should be £75 a week maximum...then you would hear all landlords whinge even more......[/p][/quote]So if somebody like me moves out from the region and is stuck with a property bought at the high of the market that they pay a mortgage on has to suffer financially just because they own another house or are most of the comments on here just jealously? I let my property to those in receipt of benefits however should expect to receive market rent. jonty7

8:09pm Fri 11 Jan 13

fracker says...

The worker scum,Shouldn't your user name be reversed?
The worker scum,Shouldn't your user name be reversed? fracker

8:41pm Fri 11 Jan 13

spragger says...

If DCC did not exist can you imagine anyone inventing it?
If DCC did not exist can you imagine anyone inventing it? spragger

9:37pm Fri 11 Jan 13

the-big-yin says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
Well if my facts are wrong which I have read on paper and spoken with landlords then I better quit my job at the council and put my head in the sand because the benefit system here is one big lie. All them numbers are just make believe! Next time a payment is late and abuse is delivered to me I will say to them that benefits no longer exist. Good day.
the payments are always late to landlords, due to the councils not employing the right people for the job and lack of training = high turnover of staff.......also due to this tenants are being evicted...
i work and get some housing benefit and council tax benefit....
it should all be capped at a sustainable level...
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Well if my facts are wrong which I have read on paper and spoken with landlords then I better quit my job at the council and put my head in the sand because the benefit system here is one big lie. All them numbers are just make believe! Next time a payment is late and abuse is delivered to me I will say to them that benefits no longer exist. Good day.[/p][/quote]the payments are always late to landlords, due to the councils not employing the right people for the job and lack of training = high turnover of staff.......also due to this tenants are being evicted... i work and get some housing benefit and council tax benefit.... it should all be capped at a sustainable level... the-big-yin

9:39pm Fri 11 Jan 13

the-big-yin says...

sumdarkplace wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
Sumdarkplace u do realise someone on 15k a year has to pay:

Approx:

3k tax/n
5k rent
1k c tax
2k car costs for work
Doctor/dentist/work clothes costs etc etc etc - no freebies

You do the math. I think you believe people that work have thousands to live on per month
Considering I live on less than that, yes, I'm well aware of the cost of living. How many people on £15k own second homes?
you are talking out of your backside....
how do you save up £40 to £50k in less than a few years t buy these houses...do you not pay any bills and starve yourself?
[quote][p][bold]sumdarkplace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: Sumdarkplace u do realise someone on 15k a year has to pay: Approx: 3k tax/n 5k rent 1k c tax 2k car costs for work Doctor/dentist/work clothes costs etc etc etc - no freebies You do the math. I think you believe people that work have thousands to live on per month[/p][/quote]Considering I live on less than that, yes, I'm well aware of the cost of living. How many people on £15k own second homes?[/p][/quote]you are talking out of your backside.... how do you save up £40 to £50k in less than a few years t buy these houses...do you not pay any bills and starve yourself? the-big-yin

9:43pm Fri 11 Jan 13

the-big-yin says...

behonest wrote:
For those who have young children and who earn between £50k and £60k a year, increase your pension contributions by the amount over £50k. You will get 40% tax relief AND save your child benefit.
I used to own a second home but not any more. Taxes and charges too high, so I got rid. The house was worth less than the stamp duty threshold so the buyer paid no stamp tax, and was a single person so will only pay the council 75% of council tax, they'd never get 150% of the tax from me.
When I had the 2 houses I declared my wife and I as separated and living separately, so we both got the 25% discount on council tax. Now that the second home is sold, we have 'reconciled'.
I have a source for red diesel and will always try to avoid VAT by paying cash.
Those workers who sit back and just suffer the continually increasing taxes, just so Labour councils like Durham can protect benefit claimants, must be mad. These claimants should be made to contribute, just like everyone else.
And I drink my own beer most of the time, pub prices include too much tax.

40% income tax and N.I. on £53k a year is a big enough contribution for anyone to make.
OH!!!! BE HONEST...I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE...
DO YOU WANT TO BE PRIME MINISTER? L.O.L.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: For those who have young children and who earn between £50k and £60k a year, increase your pension contributions by the amount over £50k. You will get 40% tax relief AND save your child benefit. I used to own a second home but not any more. Taxes and charges too high, so I got rid. The house was worth less than the stamp duty threshold so the buyer paid no stamp tax, and was a single person so will only pay the council 75% of council tax, they'd never get 150% of the tax from me. When I had the 2 houses I declared my wife and I as separated and living separately, so we both got the 25% discount on council tax. Now that the second home is sold, we have 'reconciled'. I have a source for red diesel and will always try to avoid VAT by paying cash. Those workers who sit back and just suffer the continually increasing taxes, just so Labour councils like Durham can protect benefit claimants, must be mad. These claimants should be made to contribute, just like everyone else. And I drink my own beer most of the time, pub prices include too much tax. 40% income tax and N.I. on £53k a year is a big enough contribution for anyone to make.[/p][/quote]OH!!!! BE HONEST...I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY FORWARD FOR EVERYONE... DO YOU WANT TO BE PRIME MINISTER? L.O.L. the-big-yin

10:08pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Dean M says...

fracker wrote:
The worker scum,Shouldn't your user name be reversed?
Shouldn't the fr in your user name be kn? Or the fr replaced with a w and the c replaced with an n?
[quote][p][bold]fracker[/bold] wrote: The worker scum,Shouldn't your user name be reversed?[/p][/quote]Shouldn't the fr in your user name be kn? Or the fr replaced with a w and the c replaced with an n? Dean M

11:39am Sat 12 Jan 13

fracker says...

Dean m,aha you have come out from under your stone again,must be all the damp weather!!!
Dean m,aha you have come out from under your stone again,must be all the damp weather!!! fracker

11:44am Sat 12 Jan 13

fracker says...

Dean m,aha you have come out from under your stone again,must be all the damp weather!!!
Dean m,aha you have come out from under your stone again,must be all the damp weather!!! fracker

11:48am Sat 12 Jan 13

fracker says...

Some breaking news to cheer people up on this thread,the government is putting a big rise on n.i. contributions to raise the retirement pension to £144.
Some breaking news to cheer people up on this thread,the government is putting a big rise on n.i. contributions to raise the retirement pension to £144. fracker

12:57pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Porca miseria says...

Follow your example and the capatilist system which you obviously support would collapse, no need for borrowed money you see. I think you may also find that the calculation for refuse collection is based on historical averages by mass and not per bin! Do you think the bin men actual count them and mark them off??
Follow your example and the capatilist system which you obviously support would collapse, no need for borrowed money you see. I think you may also find that the calculation for refuse collection is based on historical averages by mass and not per bin! Do you think the bin men actual count them and mark them off?? Porca miseria

10:58pm Tue 15 Jan 13

spragger says...

What's a Caterpillar got to do with it?
What's a Caterpillar got to do with it? spragger

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree