Up to 84% on low incomes will not pay council tax, local authorities believe

[Sandman]

Will we end up with another poll tax revolt, will it end up in

another battle of Trafalgar, which in 1990 signalled the demise

of Thatcher, despite all the rhetoric from Pickles, local councils

will do what they want to do, the eventual outcome will depend

on how pissed off the public become, and we may well see more

people protesting, in the courts, and on the streets.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/27/low-incomes-council-tax-local

[Affa]

 Another year and we are into election year and countdown ........
 The Tories might just see this as a rallying call.
 Get the workers that do pay to unite against the jobless that do not.

Yet another attempt at fragmenting society, from the party of divisions.
Divide and conquer!

[ewill]

So only 16% of us pay council tax to fund so called ''essential''
services for the non contributing majority who only
take ....presumably that's why the Liberals see a section of payers
who live in houses in expensive areas as a cash cow to milk
further.........

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/27/low-incomes-council-tax...

[jaria]

Personally AFFA I would like to see Cameron get a drubbing at Eastleigh as it might make him understand that some of his policies are little more than vanity projects. Ie. overseas aid, and HS2 to name but a couple. He is being advised rightly in my opinion that he should enforce a strict austerity programme and not allow the Lib Dems to water it down . Ireland apparently has shown the way

[Affa]

On Thursday, 28 February 2013 12:16:55 UTC, ewill wrote:

So only 16% of us pay council tax to fund so called ''essential''
services for the non contributing majority who only
take ....

Nastiness has a way of surfacing even when there are no prompts.

The article tells that 84% of those means tested and pay no Council tax will 

now be required to pay council tax.

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 28 February 2013 16:56:13 UTC, Affa wrote:

Nastiness has a way of surfacing even when there are no prompts.

 

Yes, we all saw council soar by record amounts under Labour hitting the poorest.

 

[jaria]

You are seeing things that are not there AFFA . I understand why you imagine these things but you descend to Tinman and Jonskys level if that is the only response you can manage

[Sandman]

The poll tax revolt started in Scotland where ir was introduced first,

the two main protagonists against the tax, were Galloway and

Tommy Sheidan, Maggie got her police thugs out again, and they

attacked the crowd, breaking up the speakers, some time later was

when Sheridan got arrested and banged up, people were being

banged up for not paying, all over the country, and that was the

difference between the poll tax revolt and the miners strike, this

time it was all over the country, Maggie wasn't getting away with it

this time, even though Heseltine was going to sort it,  she became

a liability, so the knife went in and she went out. I hope this time

enough people hit the streets, and the police get heavy handed

again, bailiffs sent in, with police enforcers, mothers getting banged

up, becoming bloodier by the day. 

[Sandman]

The bitter you is surfacing again Elaine, read it once more, it's not

what you interpret it as

 

On Thursday, 28 February 2013 12:16:55 UTC, ewill wrote:

[ewill]

never read the article but if it means that some non contributors will now be paying less than £1 a day and at least paying something its a great idea-were all in this together - maybe they'll need to cut down on the designer gear, hordes of offspring,flying lessons,£1000 parrots and hordes at livery whilst they languish in their 6 bed hours foc- don't know why they are moaning they are still getting their bins collected for less than a pound a day-i pay 2500 a year to get mine emptied

[ewill]

bitter?
no its about time suoplicants were brought kicking and screaming into the real world .
about time they were in in together with the rest of us who do pay.
its less than a pound a day-still far too cheap!

[jaria]

There's a lot more to it Sandman and I'm sure you are aware of it. Firstly it was used by Blair and his little Scot for party political purposes, very cleverly on has to say. A lot of people who didn't want their movements or addresses know obviously were not happy and since we have heard that had it been adopted it would have been a far better system than we have.
It's no coincidence that Elaine is unpopular with you and AFFA as she is inclined to check up her facts or those that have a different version to those you give us.

[Sandman]

Elaine, you can't get blood out of a stone, it's not going to be

a matter of won't pay, it will be a case of can't pay, when you

are faced with feeding a child and heating a room, or paying

more council tax, then paying the extra tax loses, it's not just

a pound a week, spread over the year, in the winter everything

for the low paid, becomes a case of survival in many cases, my

objection is to the councils themselves, they are fiefdoms, and

they are a burden we should not be asked to fund. 

[ewill]

They will just have to cut the flat screen TVs,flying lessons,horses
at livery,designer gear,fags,gambling,iphones, FOC luxury
houses ,takeaways , readimeals booze , feckless breeding,wear a jumper
instead of turning the heating up etc etc etc. It's less than a £1 a
week - about time they were brought into the real world and forced to
understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

It can be deducted from the far too generous handouts they already get

Oh , and if it's ''so'' much of a problem for the poor dears they
could always get a job, another job(s) , a better paying job,work f/t
instead of minimal hours for social reasons and still claim full
benefits , become self employed- then they would know what life is
like for normal people who have to fund them.

I'm all for making supplicants pay towards their keep ,why shouldn't
they have to budget? my view is that all handouts should be parceled
up , treated as income and taxed as income.

[Affa]

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:53:18 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

never read the article 

 You read it.


 

[ewill]

**less than £1 a day

my typo

[ewill]

You are wrong as usual - have read it now

Don't see the problem- it's standard I'm entitleds' supplicant
whinging , nothing more

Less than £1 a day - about time they were reminded they can't just
'take', no more free lunches

[Affa]

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:42:02 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

You are wrong as usual - have read it now

 No I was not wrong! You had read it earlier!
 

Don't see the problem- it's standard I'm entitleds' supplicant
whinging , nothing more

 People with very little cannot compensate for having less. They are already struggling on
low income and now see an additional demand. Why hurt the most vunerable?

 

Less than £1 a day - about time they were reminded they can't just
'take', no more free lunches

 Free lunches? Now that is a joke. Wealthy people get free lunches, business execs get free lunches,
councilors and politicians get free lunches.


 

[ewill]

<<> No I was not wrong! You had read it earlier!>>

Why do you continue to lie unashamedly ?

I hadn't read it-I read the thread title only and took 84 away from
100 making it 16

<< They are
> already struggling on
> low income and now see an additional demand>>

tough

as I stated if they can't ''afford'' less than £1 a day they'll need
to cut down on the holidays << flat screen TVs,flying lessons,horses

at livery,designer gear,fags,gambling,iphones, FOC luxury
houses ,takeaways , readimeals booze , feckless breeding,wear a jumper
instead of turning the heating up etc etc etc.>>

<<> > Free lunches? Now that is a joke. Wealthy people get free
lunches,
>
> business execs get free lunches>>

really? business people go to lunch and don't do business over lunch?
A businessperson taking a client to lunch chats about what was on TV
last night throughout and not their current /future business? You
really are naive

You really are clueless about business if you really believe that old
lefty public sector tosh

<<> councilors and politicians get free lunches.>>

Funded by the private sector taxpayer , the same people who fund
handouts for whinging supplicants

On Feb 28, 8:53 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:42:02 PM UTC, ewill wrote:
>
> You are wrong as usual - have read it now
>
>
>

>
>
>

[jaria]

AFFA I cannot believe you havnt heard of the saying there's no such thing as a free lunch.
You have to bring what you see as wealthy business men into it. Those lunches are business lunches perhaps you would consider why business people find them useful especially as you like to be seen as a capitalist.
What this country has to do is wean people off the welfare life style where they feel they can claim items leaving some spare for treats etc. when you see all these people coming over here finding work and sending a good proportion home you have to question some welfare reliants lack of indicative to work.
all the Portuguese that came over that worked for me were sending money home either to their parents of building themselves a home. What's so different with them and our people . They have to work and once working want to keep their jobs.

[Affa]

On Thursday, 28 February 2013 21:06:54 UTC, ewill wrote:

<<>  No I was not wrong! You had read it earlier!>>

Why do you continue to lie unashamedly ?

I hadn't read it-I read the thread title only and took 84 away from
100 making it 16

 That really is silly of you.
 You wrote >  17:53 (4 hours ago) never read the article but if it means that some non contributors will now be paying less than £1 a day .... etc

 Until then nobody had mentioned what the expected bills would be ....... so you must have read the article.
 That's not it all though ......... and then you come out with "Why do you continue to lie unashamedly ? ".
 I'm having fun here ............ the people that continually call me a liar just keep telling lie after lie.

[ewill]

You can't even remember your LIES and misinformation

My post at 5.53 was in response to YOUR post at 4.56 ie 57 minutes
later

I read the article after then ie I read it between your post at 4.56
and mine in response at 5.53

<<That's not it all though ......... and then you come out with

*"**Why do

> you continue to lie unashamedly ? ".
> I'm having fun here ............ the people that continually call me a
> liar just keep telling lie after lie.>>

All you have done here is to prove yourself a pathological LIAR who
can't even recognise when he lies

You are a joke as well as a liar

On Feb 28, 10:30 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 February 2013 21:06:54 UTC, ewill wrote:
>
> <<>  No I was not wrong! You had read it earlier!>>
>
>
>
> > Why do you continue to lie unashamedly ?
>
> > I hadn't read it-I read the thread title only and took 84 away from
> > 100 making it 16
>
>  That really is silly of you.
>  You wrote >  17:53 (4 hours ago) never read the article but if it means
> that some non contributors will now be paying less than £1 a day .... etc
>
>  Until then nobody had mentioned what the expected bills would be .......
> so you must have read the article.

>  That's not it all though ......... and then you come out with *"**Why do

> you continue to lie unashamedly ? ".
>  I'm having fun here ............ the people that continually call me a
> liar just keep telling lie after lie.
>

> *

[Affa]

On Friday, 1 March 2013 00:20:01 UTC, ewill wrote:

You can't even remember your LIES and misinformation

My post at 5.53 was in response to YOUR post at 4.56 ie 57 minutes
later

I read the article after then  ie I read it between your post at 4.56
and mine in response at 5.53

When you wrote " never read the article but if it means that some non contributors will now be paying less than £1 a day....."
there had been no mention of the figure some would be expected to pay ......... you made the first reference, ergo you had read the article from
which you gathered the figure.

>You are a  joke as well as a liar

I'm not the liar here .......... the record exists to prove it.

[ewill]

I hadn't read the article when I first posted in response to the
opening post , the title seemed clear enough-I only read the link
after your post which suggested that my only 16% pay council tax
statement was incorrect.

ie I hadn't read the article at 4.56 but I had read it by 5.53 and
posted accordingly using information contained therein.

You've been caught out lying yet again, thinking you are so clever
backfired completely on you - Think it's 4 (might be 5) blatant lies
from you that I've highlighted in the past 48 hours and I only read
threads that catch my eye so there are probably lots more

Lying is your department , your pathetic protestations are a joke

[Affa]

On Friday, 1 March 2013 00:55:28 UTC, ewill wrote:
 

ie I hadn't read the article at 4.56 but I had read it by 5.53 and
posted accordingly using information contained therein.

But it was AT 5.53 that you said " never read the article but if it means that some non
contributors will now be paying less than £1 a day ....... ".

 There is no ambiguity there. You State you have not read the article, you even use a 'but'
to imply you had not.
Yet now you say you had read it .......... which is btw what I said.

(On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:53:18 PM UTC, ewill wrote:

never read the article 

 You read it.)


You above, your latest post, are confirming that I was correct ............ and yet call me a liar.
Oh dear!

[ewill]

Yes

Oh dear- ''read'' - past tense

You really are quite pathetic

[Affa]

On Friday, March 1, 2013 9:05:51 AM UTC, ewill wrote:

Yes

Oh dear- ''read'' - past tense

You really are quite pathetic

 I refer you to your own post at 8.42.02

There you say have 'read it now' ........... another unambiguous statement.
Another 'mistake'.
Oh the pathos!






 

[ewill]

No mistakes -it's posted after 4.56

You really are pathetic..............even for a rabid lefty