Keir Starmer's time is up

[littlebabyjesus]

Labour are really trying to out-tory the Tories atm, aren't they?

I had feared this would happen, that Starmer could conceivably be even worse than Sunak in many measurable ways.

 

[kabbes]

So you don't care either way if the poorest people are made poorer? (I know that all the people affected would not be the poorest but certainly the poorest people would be made poorer by the abolition of the single person discount, given that 100% council tax relief for most jobless householders was abolished a decade ago).

I didn’t say that I don’t care either way, let alone that I don’t care about whether the poorest are made poorer. I said I don’t have a view on whether this very specific piece of fiscal engineering is effective within the wider tax system, which is otherwise to be left untouched. In short, “I wouldn’t start from here”.

 

[Chz]

What is the argument in favour of abolishing the single person discount? 8 million households await the answer with interest.

There's a plenty good argument to replace it with a needs-based discount, rather than just because you're single. Frankly, living alone in your own place is a privilege and should cost you something. But it shouldn't affect low earners who can't find anything else. They should get a discount, and quite possibly one larger than 25%, depending on their circumstances.

Labour, of course, aren't proposing any such thing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Frankly, living alone in your own place is a privilege and should cost you something.

Really?

You have to pay all the utilities on your own. And the rent. And you have to pay 75% of the council tax.

It already does cost loads more.

 

[Chz]

Really?

You have to pay all the utilities on your own. And the rent. And you have to pay 75% of the council tax.

It already does cost loads more.

On a smaller property with less council tax, less energy use, etc. And as I say - it is a privilege. I've never lived on my own, couldn't afford it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's it. Make the word bold and it becomes more true.

 

[Chz]

That's it. Make the word bold and it becomes more true.

Tell me about how it isn't then.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tell me about how it isn't then.

You really need me to do that? Living on your own might be a privilege or it might be a curse. It might be a choice or it might be something you've been forced into. Circumstances will vary hugely. Family break-up, bereavement. There are all kinds of reasons why people end up on their own that don't count as 'privilege'.

 

[Chz]

You really need me to do that? Living on your own might be a privilege or it might be a curse. It might be a choice or it might be something you've been forced into. Circumstances will vary hugely. Family break-up, bereavement. There are all kinds of reasons why people end up on their own that don't count as 'privilege'.

And if you're in need, you should get a discount.

But not just because you live on your own.

Edit: I already said that removing it is wrong because it's not being replaced by something else, but I'll say it again for clarity. What Labour is doing is wrong. (bolded just for lbj) But I also don't think everyone who lives alone should get a CT discount just because they live on their own.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm genuinely surprised that there is any support for this measure on here. Way to turn people against each other.

 

[sojourner]

Struggling to get my head around the idea of living alone being a privilege! Christ almighty. As lbj points out above, you pay for everything on one wage, it's not a bloody privilege.

 

[rasputin]

Can't find the link now, but I'm sure I read somewhere yesterday that applications for pension credits have doubled since the winter fuel announcement.

It would be ironic if the new policy ended up costing more, on a net basis, than if they'd left it alone.

 

[Chz]

It would be brilliant, to be honest. Might stop them implementing ideas off the back of a fag packet.

 

[Pickman's model]

And if you're in need, you should get a discount.

But not just because you live on your own.

Edit: I already said that removing it is wrong because it's not being replaced by something else, but I'll say it again for clarity. What Labour is doing is wrong. (bolded just for lbj) But I also don't think everyone who lives alone should get a CT discount just because they live on their own.

but that's what the single person discount is, for everyone who lives on their own. tell you what, perhaps you could share with us a system of local government finance that you'd agree with

 

[Chz]

but that's what the single person discount is, for everyone who lives on their own. tell you what, perhaps you could share with us a system of local government finance that you'd agree with

I'm sure I could come up with a few ideas - England could really use Wales' Band I if we keep the band system and don't move to pure property value @0.6% - but I think we are getting a bit off track on whether or not Keir Starmer's time is up.

 

[PTK]

On a smaller property with less council tax, less energy use, etc. And as I say - it is a privilege. I've never lived on my own, couldn't afford it.

I think that you ought you perhaps ought to think more about this statement and consider if it comes from resentment and ignorance.

 

[The39thStep]

Can't find the link now, but I'm sure I read somewhere yesterday that applications for pension credits have doubled since the winter fuel announcement.

It would be ironic if the new policy ended up costing more, on a net basis, than if they'd left it alone.

It would be. However my own suspicion is that this is just an outlier for further attacks on universalism or benefits.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

but that's what the single person discount is, for everyone who lives on their own. tell you what, perhaps you could share with us a system of local government finance that you'd agree with

I'm not sure anyone has wanted to touch that.

Should there be a property tax? If so how do you do it? Notional value at X date, like the rates were? Number of bedrooms? (that would lend itself to abuse and arguments) How often should it be re-valued?

Value of the property you live in doesn't necessarily reflect income / ability to pay - the value of your home could have risen a lot because of gentrification / the property market - should owner occupiers be forced to move to a lower value area when they retire? should council tenants who have lived somewhere for years - since before the area was gentrified - be forced to move?

Should it be purely based on per person like the poll tax?

Council tax was a fairly rapid bodge of an attempt to be somewhere between the two because the poll tax was seen as politically untenable.

Some countries have a local element to income tax - at one time the lib dems (or salads or whatever they were called at the time) were quite loud about that, which is possibly why neither of the main parties took the idea seriously.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm sure I could come up with a few ideas - England could really use Wales' Band I if we keep the band system and don't move to pure property value @0.6% - but I think we are getting a bit off track on whether or not Keir Starmer's time is up.

That's not really a new lgf thing. The ct is a shit system and should be binned in favour of something progressive

 

[Chz]

That's not really a new lgf thing. The ct is a shit system and should be binned in favour of something progressive

100% agree, but you just know they won't bin it for something else because it would be too controversial, even if it were fairer. So we just keep on bodging the fairly broken system. See also NI.

 

[brogdale]

Guardian picture editor finding the hypocrisy…

 

[Pickman's model]

100% agree, but you just know they won't bin it for something else because it would be too controversial, even if it were fairer. So we just keep on bodging the fairly broken system. See also NI.

Yeh they never introduced the poll tax there because it could have brought loyalists and republicans together, and who'd be the bailiff going down the falls road or around portadown?

 

[kabbes]

The issue of council tax adjustments is clearly more complicated than just considerations about individuals. If 50% is appropriate for single occupancy, does that mean that empty properties should have 0%? Few would think that is appropriate, because we don’t like the idea of empty houses. But if you want to boil it down to simplistic statements about cost per person, it would make sense. What about when children grow up and stay living with their parents — do we increase council tax to allow for that? Isn’t that just the poll tax? That was unpopular too. Then, there is generally a fixed number of properties in an area. If they all turned from dual to single occupancy, would we be okay with the local council only having half their previous income?

I think the problem here really lies with the regressive nature of the council tax in the first place. Like I said before, I wouldn’t start from here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It would be. However my own suspicion is that this is just an outlier for further attacks on universalism or benefits.

Yep, clear signal that they're going after universalism. Just as Blair did.

 

[xenon]

Local income tax has some initial appeal. But then you'd be entrenching geographical wealth gaps even further unless allowing for the shortfall to be made up from central govt.

 

[Pickman's model]

Local income tax has some initial appeal. But then you'd be entrenching geographical wealth gaps even further unless allowing for the shortfall to be made up from central govt.

About 90% of LG money comes from central govt

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Local income tax has some initial appeal. But then you'd be entrenching geographical wealth gaps even further unless allowing for the shortfall to be made up from central govt.

This is the big contradiction contained in all local tax regimes - the rich areas clearly are able to collect more tax and so provide better services and so perpetuate their position as the rich areas. This is even more starkly shown by business rates.

 

[The39thStep]

Yep, clear signal that they're going after universalism. Just as Blair did.

Watch the cult onetruepath Labourites try and dress that up as something progressive. We are also waiting for Liz Kendall's plans.

 

[kabbes]

I just don’t think it should be necessary for local councils to raise their own tax. There is a certain amount of money that is needed to provide local services and no reason why that shouldn’t be funded out of national taxation. Add x% to national taxes to compensate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I just don’t think it should be necessary for local councils to raise their own tax. There is a certain amount of money that is needed to provide local services and no reason why that shouldn’t be funded out of national taxation. Add x% to national taxes to compensate.

The argument is that elected councils should have tax-raising powers so that they can be held accountable to the voters for their performance. If all local council funding came from central government, that would mean a centralisation of power and accountability.

There is some merit in the argument. The rate-capping antics of the Thatcher years were fundamentally an attack on democracy.