live in hope Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 How do you prove a negative, there may well have been a huge queue of full fee paying customers standing outside for that film. But the cinema still made a profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 So you plan to tax a person in the area they work, not where they live? I've never driven on the M180 and I don't use the M25 that much, where do I apply for a discount on my road tax and fuel duty? The fact I never, or seldom, use these roads must substantially reduce their running and initial construction costs. Perhaps we should run road tax the way you like to run services. Where people who dont even own a car do pay it, as they get the benefit of there being roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Perhaps we should run road tax the way you like to run services. Where people who dont even own a car do pay it, as they get the benefit of there being roads. Presently, nobody pays non-drivers for access to the road. If they did (say the roads were owned by a non driver), then this person should pay to provide them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Perhaps we should run road tax the way you like to run services. Where people who dont even own a car do pay it, as they get the benefit of there being roads. That's a good point. All these road tax dodgers, who are getting their food etc delivered by road aren't paying a penny in road tax. It's got to stop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 But the cinema still made a profit. If you buy up ten seats at the cinema and then sublet temporary access to the service to another, the cinema owner wont approach the person sitting in the seat for another payment - The problem is the owners of real estate are legally allowed to occupy access to government services and sell on that access without paying to provide the services they are selling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I would imagine its something to do with not actually using the services the tax pays for? A radical idea I know. Also you've inflicted costs on the taxpayer by pushing up house prices which result in increased rents paid via housing benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 That's a good point. All these road tax dodgers, who are getting their food etc delivered by road aren't paying a penny in road tax. It's got to stop! Obviously, they are already paying for road usage in the price / cost of food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plummet expert Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 It sounds unlikely if you just include "empty" homes. Second homes and "holiday rentals" probably aren't included in that 1 million, so in fact if you add all those in, it could be possible. I very much hope the holiday rental property scandal is dealt with! Tax payers funding other peoples holiday homes by owners simply having a tax relief to pay for losses of mortgage cost against rent received is a disgrace and has skewed the property market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beggar Thy Children Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Perhaps we should run road tax the way you like to run services. Where people who dont even own a car do pay it, as they get the benefit of there being roads. Nobody pays 'road tax'. There has been no such thing as 'road tax' since 1937. Car drivers pay 'vehicle excise duty', which does NOT go towards roads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Obviously, they are already paying for road usage in the price / cost of food. So are you saying all the people I deal with on a day to day basis, don't pay council tax, and all the wages I indirectly pay via the services they provide don't include any cost for waste disposal or street lighting? If so I feel ripped off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) So are you saying all the people I deal with on a day to day basis, don't pay council tax, and all the wages I indirectly pay via the services they provide don't include any cost for waste disposal or street lighting? If so I feel ripped off. Yes they do. However, if you own the region in which the lighting etc exist, it is you they are paying that cost to Edited June 21, 2010 by Stars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the flying pig Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 thinking about this some more i reckon there might well be something to do with empty homes but £4bn worth is a pipe dream for now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 But the cinema still made a profit. The cinema either made a smaller profit due to the opportunity cost or they made the same profit by over-charging everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Do me a favour. How is that possible? How can a house that is only used infrequently utilise the same amout of services as one that contains a family of 4 or 5.. Bin only costs £100 a year to empty. That's about all most people use. An empty house is more likely to be burgled. That's why insurance is only valid for 30 days normally and you need special empty property insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Perhaps we should run road tax the way you like to run services. Where people who dont even own a car do pay it, as they get the benefit of there being roads. Or maybe we could use your system, where second and third cars enjoy a 50% discount on the VED and fuel duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Bin only costs £100 a year to empty. That's about all most people use. Thats the only service I actually want, please adjust my bill accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shindigger Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Phuck them George. Phuck them hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim123 Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Bin only costs £100 a year to empty. That's about all most people use. An empty house is more likely to be burgled. That's why insurance is only valid for 30 days normally and you need special empty property insurance. Bins'a are irrelevent. By far the largest costs (usually well in excess of 50% of spending) that fall on LAs, is education and welfare costs. A person with two houses only gets to use these from one LA, why should they have to contribute to two? tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepLurker Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Bins'a are irrelevent. By far the largest costs (usually well in excess of 50% of spending) that fall on LAs, is education and welfare costs. A person with two houses only gets to use these from one LA, why should they have to contribute to two? tim Because an empty house is inflicting extra costs on the other members of the community, e.g. kids have to walk further to school because all the homes close in to the village centre have been bought by Londoners? I have absolutely no figures to back up my hunch, but I'd be ready to bet that this is the biggest cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the flying pig Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Because an empty house is inflicting extra costs on the other members of the community, e.g. kids have to walk further to school because all the homes close in to the village centre have been bought by Londoners? I have absolutely no figures to back up my hunch, but I'd be ready to bet that this is the biggest cost. to be honest most of the costs paid out of council tax are kind of semi-fixed, semi-variable with respect to the number of year-round inhabitants, meaning that paying half is probably just about right from a cost causation point of view... but just personally my gut feel is that, for a community to feel that second home owners are making a proper, positive, year-round contribution to a community as a whole rather than to a few niche businesses such as posh restaurants, gardeners, cleaners, and so on, paying full whack would be more appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Lets be fair here anyway. Pretty soon 50% of council tax will go directly towards the councils pension fund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 just heard briefly on the radio that the budget will contain plans for tax on empty homes which would raise £4bn. Any know of the details of this? Not noticed it discussed here before. If true this could add to the cgt (hopefully) firesale. So, any news re. empty and 2nd homes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.