Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Key Stakeholder

Extra Council Tax Charge For Empty Scots Homes

31 posts in this topic

Whether it is immoral to seek ways to avoid tax depends on your view point.

Socialists will always seek ways to waste the money of others, unfortunately they always run out of other peoples money to spend.

Those emplyed in the public sector will always try to safeguard their non-jobs. Those in essential services will survive the cuts however it remains to be seen if the delivery will be any more efficient.

The way forward will be less "services" as you rightly describe. What I'd hope for is severe cuts, however I'll no doubt be disappointed.

The concept of individual responsibility seems to have vanished in our entitlement based culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resentment? Yes indeed, I resent the fact that the number of homeless children in emergency accommodation is at highest ever levels, while others enjoy and indeed are happy to boast about taxpayer-funded subsidies on their EMPTY HOMES.

Yes house has been EMPTY for all of 5 weeks, a major consumer of space in the universe.....we could have moved in hundreds of orphaned kids in that time, just before Christmas as well. What was I thinking........Indeed I have become a blot on humanity. Let me know when you give up your house for the good of the community and I'll give up mine for the good of the community.

On reflection it would have been better to have sold my flat when I moved out 12 years ago and just let the people who were staying in social housing remain there.....just so I didn't later benefit from a legal discount on Council tax as I had the cheek to not sell the place immediately ....despite the fact that rules on inheritence make it inadvisable to release any assets within the first 6 months to ensure that all claims and debts are paid.......

If not just general resentment then what is it that drives you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resentment? Yes indeed, I resent the fact that the number of homeless children in emergency accommodation is at highest ever levels, while others enjoy and indeed are happy to boast about taxpayer-funded subsidies on their EMPTY HOMES.

Asserting that taxpayers do not subsidise your empty home (for which you revel in the hope of getting a 100% council tax rebate), asserting that empty properties do not 'consume' local services is a self-serving fallacy, for empty homes continue to served by the emergency services and infrastructure which is the major part of LA spend. Perhaps you would have law enforcement and fire services operate on a subscription-only model, like last seen in the eighteenth century? Perhaps you are an advocate of comprehensive road-charging? Perhaps this empty home of yours has its own completely independent water-supply and sewerage infrastructure? Perhaps you believe that your empty home does not benefit from general and universal refuse collection from neigbouring properties? For only then could you reasonably suggest that no-one subsidises your empty home.

I can understand the resentment many renters must feel, talking up/creating yet more beaurocracy is really clutching at straws.

I sympathise, however you really do need a reality check. Its obviously government policy to create a soft landing for the housing market, the unwinding will take years.

In the interim, it doesn't serve much trying to wind up people who are better placed due to historical choices. Wrapping statements up in pseudo intellect is just amusing for the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the resentment many renters must feel, talking up/creating yet more beaurocracy is really clutching at straws.

Surely abolishing the tax subsidy for unoccupied properties decreases the administration needed, by simplifying the system?

And surely changing the subsidy to a surcharge could likewise be made to result in efficiency savings, given that

1) There will already be a most comprehensive list of self-certified subsidy claimants, and

2) The number of people who stand to benefit from lying is decreased from the (occupied) majority to the (unoccupied) minority?

In the interim, it doesn't serve much trying to wind up people who are better placed due to historical choices. Wrapping statements up in pseudo intellect is just amusing for the rest of us.

Yeah, I found the way he pseudo-intellectually contrived not to repeatedly and grotesquely misspell the word "bureaucracy" particularly diverting. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.