I don't kid myself that the streets of London will be any safer under Labour than the tories. Unfortunately there will be atrocities in the future no matter who is in charge. Even with more cops on the streets there will be terrorist attacks. There are just too many jihadist nutters out there, plus other extremists, who can now use ordinary transport and knives to cause murder mayhem as opposed to using harder to obtain guns or bombs. What gripes with me is Mrs May on her high horse trying to make out that we should trust her when she has previously undermined the police by her cuts as Home Secretary. I note that Corbyn has had to firm up a commitment for the police to shoot on sight in 'certain' situations. That is quite a move by him and a sign that he can compromise his ideals, which is important as a potential (if unlikely) PM.
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
Because he is not trying to market himself as strong and stable at the same time. It is an easy attack, not saying you don't have a point.
Glad you agree, because I don't think it is defensible. If May doesn't get hammered by the rubbish she is spouting going against the facts we can see how corrupt our media is! Sorry, but I am beyond angry at the contempt she has for the intelligence of the British people!
But stats don't always tell the full story, if it was purely down to numbers employed why did 7/7 happen, we had more officers then.
I'm led to believe that numbers of full time counter terrorism officers is at an all time high. Armed officers not so although there has been a huge recruitment drive with 140 passing in the last few weeks (Met).
I don't kid myself that the streets of London will be any safer under Labour than the tories. Unfortunately there will be atrocities in the future no matter who is in charge. Even with more cops on the streets there will be terrorist attacks. There are just too many jihadist nutters out there, plus other extremists, who can now use ordinary transport and knives to cause murder mayhem as opposed to using harder to obtain guns or bombs. What gripes with me is Mrs May on her high horse trying to make out that we should trust her when she has previously undermined the police by her cuts as Home Secretary. I note that Corbyn has had to firm up a commitment for the police to shoot on sight in 'certain' situations. That is quite a move by him and a sign that he can compromise his ideals, which is important as a potential (if unlikely) PM.
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
One was following an horrific attack on the streets of London the other was following a published key manifesto pledge for an election they called.
I don't kid myself that the streets of London will be any safer under Labour than the tories. Unfortunately there will be atrocities in the future no matter who is in charge. Even with more cops on the streets there will be terrorist attacks. There are just too many jihadist nutters out there, plus other extremists, who can now use ordinary transport and knives to cause murder mayhem as opposed to using harder to obtain guns or bombs. What gripes with me is Mrs May on her high horse trying to make out that we should trust her when she has previously undermined the police by her cuts as Home Secretary. I note that Corbyn has had to firm up a commitment for the police to shoot on sight in 'certain' situations. That is quite a move by him and a sign that he can compromise his ideals, which is important as a potential (if unlikely) PM.
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
It's strange, many Tories are expressing the same thing on Twitter. Right by articles criticising him for the u-turn. It's almost as if this is subjective.
Do you feel like corbyn is getting an easy ride? The majority of newspapers would demonstrate the opposite. I imagine the headline writers are getting ready for a full scale attack on him tomorrow.
When they should be attacking May's record on police cuts and watering down anti-terrorist legislation. If she was a labour leader, they would have a field day!
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
Good point but surely it is just as wrong to be intransigent as it is to flip flop? All politicians have to compromise and hopefully do so with grace and humility. We all get it wrong sometimes. TM back tracks on her manifesto pledge and then tries to pretend it was not a U turn. When politicians do that (not just May) it just grates on me as it smacks of dishonesty.
I don't kid myself that the streets of London will be any safer under Labour than the tories. Unfortunately there will be atrocities in the future no matter who is in charge. Even with more cops on the streets there will be terrorist attacks. There are just too many jihadist nutters out there, plus other extremists, who can now use ordinary transport and knives to cause murder mayhem as opposed to using harder to obtain guns or bombs. What gripes with me is Mrs May on her high horse trying to make out that we should trust her when she has previously undermined the police by her cuts as Home Secretary. I note that Corbyn has had to firm up a commitment for the police to shoot on sight in 'certain' situations. That is quite a move by him and a sign that he can compromise his ideals, which is important as a potential (if unlikely) PM.
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
The difference is that May, as Home secretary, implemented a decision, in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the police, and then went on to insult them, claiming they were crying wolf.
If yesterday in her "non-political" speech she had the grace to admit that her previous decision had been wrong, she might have emerged with some credit.
I started off last summer with some respect for this woman. None left now.
Phillip Hammond too. The mood music used to be 'at least the Tories are good with money if nothing else'. Well he is the Chancellor, one of the great offices of state. Where has he been during this campaign?
Running the economy I expect. I bet Corbyn wishes Abbott had gone missing, but no such luck.....
He ought to be in the public eye explaining how much Conservatives policies will cost (or save the country). For example the Conservatives have yet to make it clear how they will fund an extra £8bn a year for the NHS.
I don't kid myself that the streets of London will be any safer under Labour than the tories. Unfortunately there will be atrocities in the future no matter who is in charge. Even with more cops on the streets there will be terrorist attacks. There are just too many jihadist nutters out there, plus other extremists, who can now use ordinary transport and knives to cause murder mayhem as opposed to using harder to obtain guns or bombs. What gripes with me is Mrs May on her high horse trying to make out that we should trust her when she has previously undermined the police by her cuts as Home Secretary. I note that Corbyn has had to firm up a commitment for the police to shoot on sight in 'certain' situations. That is quite a move by him and a sign that he can compromise his ideals, which is important as a potential (if unlikely) PM.
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
However you look at it is apparent Corbyn's attitude on this has changed in response to the recent events. But Corbyn didn't promise to abolish "shoot to kill", nor did he put in his budget or his manifesto. He simply stated his belief in an interview.
May performed a u-turn on NI after this years budget, she clearly lied to the electorate when she told them she would not call a snap general election and she performed a u-turn on social care after publishing it in her manifesto.
I would argue one is reacting to events around you, and compromising on a belief in order to ensure a safer country. The other is repeated attempts to change policy (thus causing great instability and mistrust in government) to retain popularity, or increase a grip on power.
So onto another track..... I am trying to get my head around this 'garden tax' and work out how much, if at all, it will affect me and my family.
Maybe I am being lazy but Google is bringing up loads of conflicting info and I cant get my head round it. Could somebody summarise as briefly as possible?
My council tax is currently just shy of £3k per year - so I am sure you won't be surprise to hear I am constantly griping about that. Trying to work out of under Labour it would go up more or not?
I don't kid myself that the streets of London will be any safer under Labour than the tories. Unfortunately there will be atrocities in the future no matter who is in charge. Even with more cops on the streets there will be terrorist attacks. There are just too many jihadist nutters out there, plus other extremists, who can now use ordinary transport and knives to cause murder mayhem as opposed to using harder to obtain guns or bombs. What gripes with me is Mrs May on her high horse trying to make out that we should trust her when she has previously undermined the police by her cuts as Home Secretary. I note that Corbyn has had to firm up a commitment for the police to shoot on sight in 'certain' situations. That is quite a move by him and a sign that he can compromise his ideals, which is important as a potential (if unlikely) PM.
So how come when Corbyn changes his minds on policies it is seen as an important quality as a leader in compromising
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
The difference is that May, as Home secretary, implemented a decision, in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the police, and then went on to insult them, claiming they were crying wolf.
If yesterday in her "non-political" speech she had the grace to admit that her previous decision had been wrong, she might have emerged with some credit.
I started off last summer with some respect for this woman. None left now.
To be honest I never had too much respect for her - and not because of her colours - there are a number of Tories I respect! If anybody wants me to give a synopsis of the Emporers new clothes in two words, I now can - 'Theresa May'. She is the least able leader representing any major party since Neil Kinnock!
This one is even worse! I ignore CL for the weekend and this mess is what we come back to.
F***ing politics.
"we are here to discuss...."
You are there to answer any questions the interviewer considers to be relevant on the day. Even if it's Piers Morgan.
I've seen and heard this kind of dialogue several times recently. It's worse than trying to avoid the question. It's a trend towards telling the media what the questions should be. That needs to stop, and fast.
Agreed May is the worst for it. I can't find the interview I heard but it went like this:
Member of the public -"How will you ensure the future of workers in Sheffield?" (May not have been sheffield) May - Probably questions what town she is in before answering "If Sheffield wants a strong and stable future, it needs a strong and stable prime minister, Vote for me as I am the only strong and Stable leader that will lead the Brexit negotiations..."
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
So onto another track..... I am trying to get my head around this 'garden tax' and work out how much, if at all, it will affect me and my family.
Maybe I am being lazy but Google is bringing up loads of conflicting info and I cant get my head round it. Could somebody summarise as briefly as possible?
My council tax is currently just shy of £3k per year - so I am sure you won't be surprise to hear I am constantly griping about that. Trying to work out of under Labour it would go up more or not?
Clicked on a link to their website and it just says we are 'not taxing peoples gardens' but making council tax fairer. Doesnt explain any more than that.
What does fairer mean. I assume mine will go down, as I am paying double what friends of mine pay, and I dont put any more pressure on anything that Runnymede Council uses the money for:
collecting household waste and recycling (probably the only one that could be attributed to how much my household generates. street cleaning day centres for the elderly community transport and meals parks CCTV and other measures to keep our borough safe planning and building control.
Your payments to Surrey County Council go towards:
education children's and adults' social care (2016/17 includes an additional 2% for adult social care) libraries fire and rescue Trading Standards public transport roads maintenance.
So is fairer really nearly double what someone round the corner pays? Is the difference going to be made even greater, or pulled tighter?
maybe because I can remember much worse under previous Labour attempts at Government and because I think Labour would be an absolute disaster again.
You can remember our public services being in a much worse state than they are now or will be after another 5 years of austerity? When was that then?
I can't remember them being in a worse state than they are now, but they seemed to be in a similarly bad state in the run up to the 1997 General Election. Massively long waiting lists for operations, people dying on trolleys in hospital corridors, schools in a parlous state. I was teaching in an 8 form entry school at the time, and some of the form rooms were in prefabs across the road from the main site, there were only six science labs so my year 9 Chemistry class had their one lesson a week in a music room, and one of my IT classes was in the library with a bunch of computers that had to be booted up one at a time so the first 15 minutes of each lesson was spent doing that.
While I'm not at all keen on PFI as a mechanism for the investment in public services that Tony Blair's government carried out, at least they prioritised making those improvements, so that waiting lists came down and schools were repaired, replaced or expanded. Given their record of the last 7 years, I dread to think what state our public services are going to be in by 2022 if the Tories get back in.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
How the Labour manifesto would affect homeowners with gardens
The Labour manifesto includes a so-called ‘garden tax’ on the value of land to replace council tax. This tax would affect homeowners with gardens hardest.
The Labour manifesto says: “We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.”
What the heck does that mean? Most new builds have tiny gardens and you pay a wedge for the house, I've just bought a fixer (well last year) for its big garden and increased space.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
A land tax also takes into account things that society also adds to the value of the land such as local features or amenities, it isn't just about the demand you place on the area. Similar to how business rates work.
A land value tax ignores the value of your property and applies a tax based solely on the value of the land your property is built on. A plot of land in Kensington and Chelsea is gonna be taxed more than a similar sized plot of land in the poorest areas of the North. It means the tax is more fluid as areas rise and fall in popularity.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
What do you want here? No opposition party has ever, every gone into exact details of anything like this. For a start, no party every could, every single local authority will calculate their own rates to match, or exceed, current council tax/business rates income. You are holding Labour to a literally impossible standard. After every change of government policies change, some are better off, some are worse off. I'd be amazed if in any election in history you can find a party saying who will be what and by how much. They usually spin it to make their base and/or swing voters think they'll be better off, but then do whatever they want once elected.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
It's actually based on the potential value of the land, so in theory, it should encourage investment and stop people sitting on large stocks of land.
The problem might be in the percentages. There is a bloke down the road from me, retired and on a very modest pension, who bought his place for about £20,000 in the early eighties. The value of his house has increased stupidly, but if he now had to pay 3% of it's current value in a local tax, it would be about £20k per year which is more than his entire income. To cope he would be obliged to sell his place and move away.
The problem might be in the percentages. There is a bloke down the road from me, retired and on a very modest pension, who bought his place for about £20,000 in the early eighties. The value of his house has increased stupidly, but if he now had to pay 3% of it's current value in a local tax, it would be about £20k per year which is more than his entire income. To cope he would be obliged to sell his place and move away.
It's based on the value of the land, not of the house. 3% is not a proposed rate of tax either.
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term"
As per my post, can anyone really justify a rise for a household like me paying near enough 3 grand a year when I place no greater demand on the infrastructure of the local area?
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
My consumption of public services paid for through general taxation is probably the lowest possible drain on those services, yet Corbyn's income tax plans will cost me in excess of £25k a year more in income tax. I haven't got a problem with that.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
Yeah socialism - we really could end up with a socialist government here.....
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.
Comments
I'm led to believe that numbers of full time counter terrorism officers is at an all time high. Armed officers not so although there has been a huge recruitment drive with 140 passing in the last few weeks (Met).
Do you feel like corbyn is getting an easy ride? The majority of newspapers would demonstrate the opposite. I imagine the headline writers are getting ready for a full scale attack on him tomorrow.
And when the Tories do it, its seen as weak and backtracking?
Good point but surely it is just as wrong to be intransigent as it is to flip flop? All politicians have to compromise and hopefully do so with grace and humility. We all get it wrong sometimes. TM back tracks on her manifesto pledge and then tries to pretend it was not a U turn. When politicians do that (not just May) it just grates on me as it smacks of dishonesty.
If yesterday in her "non-political" speech she had the grace to admit that her previous decision had been wrong, she might have emerged with some credit.
I started off last summer with some respect for this woman. None left now.
In his speech yesterday he appeared to back track on that by saying that the police should use whatever force is necessary" to save lives. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40153536)
However a report from the BBC Trust has said that the interview in November 2015, shown on the News at Six, did misrepresent Corbyn's views on "shoot to kill" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-trust-rules-laura-kuenssberg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html). Make of that what you will.
However you look at it is apparent Corbyn's attitude on this has changed in response to the recent events. But Corbyn didn't promise to abolish "shoot to kill", nor did he put in his budget or his manifesto. He simply stated his belief in an interview.
May performed a u-turn on NI after this years budget, she clearly lied to the electorate when she told them she would not call a snap general election and she performed a u-turn on social care after publishing it in her manifesto.
I would argue one is reacting to events around you, and compromising on a belief in order to ensure a safer country. The other is repeated attempts to change policy (thus causing great instability and mistrust in government) to retain popularity, or increase a grip on power.
Maybe I am being lazy but Google is bringing up loads of conflicting info and I cant get my head round it. Could somebody summarise as briefly as possible?
My council tax is currently just shy of £3k per year - so I am sure you won't be surprise to hear I am constantly griping about that. Trying to work out of under Labour it would go up more or not?
Member of the public -"How will you ensure the future of workers in Sheffield?" (May not have been sheffield)
May - Probably questions what town she is in before answering
"If Sheffield wants a strong and stable future, it needs a strong and stable prime minister, Vote for me as I am the only strong and Stable leader that will lead the Brexit negotiations..."
Shut up you loon, tell them HOW
Re: the land tax. Labour has only pledged to reform council tax and business rates in their manifesto. They gave a land value tax as one such example that they would look at. Here is the quote from the manifesto:
"A Labour government will give local
government extra funding next year.
We will initiate a review into
reforming council tax and business
rates and consider new options
such as a land value tax, to ensure
local government has sustainable
funding for the long term"
What does fairer mean. I assume mine will go down, as I am paying double what friends of mine pay, and I dont put any more pressure on anything that Runnymede Council uses the money for:
collecting household waste and recycling (probably the only one that could be attributed to how much my household generates.
street cleaning
day centres for the elderly
community transport and meals
parks
CCTV and other measures to keep our borough safe
planning and building control.
Your payments to Surrey County Council go towards:
education
children's and adults' social care (2016/17 includes an additional 2% for adult social care)
libraries
fire and rescue
Trading Standards
public transport
roads maintenance.
So is fairer really nearly double what someone round the corner pays? Is the difference going to be made even greater, or pulled tighter?
While I'm not at all keen on PFI as a mechanism for the investment in public services that Tony Blair's government carried out, at least they prioritised making those improvements, so that waiting lists came down and schools were repaired, replaced or expanded. Given their record of the last 7 years, I dread to think what state our public services are going to be in by 2022 if the Tories get back in.
This is a link I posted earlier in the thread about a potential land value tax.
If there was this much wollyness over welfare, benefits, or the economic bits that matter more to Labour voters - they would be having a field day.
Where is the clarity?
The Labour manifesto includes a so-called ‘garden tax’ on the value of land to replace council tax. This tax would affect homeowners with gardens hardest.
The Labour manifesto says: “We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.”
What the heck does that mean? Most new builds have tiny gardens and you pay a wedge for the house,
I've just bought a fixer (well last year) for its big garden and increased space.
How is a land tax any different to council tax now - it will be based on the value of your property, as it is now. The more valuable the property the more you pay - simples. I expect the overall local taxes to increase for owners of expensive houses - and again I haven't got a problem with that. The purpose is for the local authorities to be able to provide the services they need - the services they have had to cut back on for the last 7 years. I won't consume many, if any, of those services but I haven't got a problem with that.
Can you see what I'm saying - a common thread? I have the ability to contribute more than I actually consume - and I AINT got a problem with that!
It's called socialism - sorry for swearing.
There is a bloke down the road from me, retired and on a very modest pension, who bought his place for about £20,000 in the early eighties.
The value of his house has increased stupidly, but if he now had to pay 3% of it's current value in a local tax, it would be about £20k per year which is more than his entire income.
To cope he would be obliged to sell his place and move away.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-ira-video-tories-attacked-fake-news-edited-labour-leader-refusal-condemn-sky-news-election-a7770026.html
I am sure I am not the only one who lives to a set of means - as I get squeezed more by various tax rises, I will need to compromise and cut back elsewhere.
So surely there is an element that it adds up to less spend from me into businesses and the wider economy. I wont be able to get that new front door so persons business suffers. Or I wont be able to get a new shed from the local carpenter.
Everything drops back - it's the classic example of something that doesnt work for anyone.
I just can't see how socialism works. Yes maybe taxes are cut for certain people, but if someone like myself (and many others) has less money to spend on (potentially) their business or services.... How does that work?
You obviously have a lot of disposable income - ie £25k!! I dont have £25k sitting there that isnt currently going in to my family.
People live to their means, and in most cases, if you squeeze them to hard, they will have less to spend elsewhere.
It will be counter productive to ALL people regardless of spending power.