It is nothing short of outrageous that, in forcing up energy prices to pander to their green obsession, the government then benefits to the tune of £200 million in increased VAT. But, in calling for a reduction in VAT from five to four percent, you really think former MP Mark Todd would know better, even if it is too much to expect the Failygraph not to print his tosh.
Under VAT rules, member states cannot reduce VAT levels on fuel below five percent without the unanimous approval of all 27 member states. We've been through this VAT issue before, many times. What does it take for these people to wake up to the reality that we are no longer masters in our own house?
COMMENT THREAD
After refusing to take a pay cut, chief executive of Bromley council, Doug Patterson, says his £185,000 salary is justified because he "provides value for money".
That, of course, is debatable. But the one thing which cannot be disputed is that he certainly rakes it in. The London Borough at the extreme south-east of the city is the largest in London, occupying 59 square miles and boasting a population of 302,600.
In the last full financial year, 11,359 of those people received liability orders for non-payment of Council Tax, with defaulters paying £1,425,905 in fees for summonses, charged at £75 each, and the liability orders – a snip at £20 each.
Altogether, since the 1992 Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations, the Borough has issued over 50,000 summonses and liability order notices, extracting £13.2 million in fees – of which at least £12.5 million represents an illegal overcharge.
With summons fees as low as £12 in 1994, the turning point in this revenue-generating scam came in 2006, when summons fees shot from £40 to £75 – where they remain today – generating for the first time revenue in excess of £1 million - see chart above.
Despite the avarice, however, the population to liability order ratio remains relatively modest, at 1:55. The healthy revenue comes as a result of the size of the borough and the relatively high fees, totalling £95 for summons and liability order.
Interestingly, in terms of costs, producing the liability order required £3 Magistrates' fees and court time for officials, making this document significantly more costly to produce. Yet Bromley chooses to top load the summonses, charging nearly four times the price of the liability order.
This would tend to reinforce the claims that the actual fees levied bear no relation to the costs, and simply represent an easy – if illegal - "hit" against those least able to afford it, and least likely to have their complaints heard.
Still, Mr Patterson can rest easily, knowing that his handsome salary is paid-for by the poorest and weakest in the community, with substantial change to spare. He could even afford a pay rise.
COMMENT: "ROBBING THE POOR" THREAD
The FOI requests are beginning to drift in now – but they come at me in different formats, with some councils sending information in spreadsheets and others in Word tables. They have to be processed so that I can publish them here, and that is taking a bit of time, so bear with me.
This one is from East Hants District Council, a strong Tory area north of Portsmouth, centred on the town of Petersfield. With a population of 111,700 souls and 2082 liability orders churned out in the last financial year, it comes out lower than Runnymede, in the per capita ratio stakes, delivering 1:53 – representing one in every 53 people being served with an order.
However, there are several interesting things about the charges. Firstly, the council combines the charge, currently £85, and applies it to all those who are summonsed. Thus, people are paying the full whack of fees, even if they pay off their tax immediately, without a liability order being made.
With the legislation stating separately in respect of each document, that the council may recover "costs reasonably incurred", it can hardly be legal to impose charges on people for something that does not apply to them. Those who merely receive summonses should not be paying the same as those who also get liability orders.
As to the level of the charges, we see the levy stating at £40 in 2004 and more than doubling six years later. If the fee was correct initially – and it was then certainly inflated – then to more than double it in the space of six years cannot be justified.
In terms of the total amounts charged, in 2004/5 we see the council pulling in £83,160. Six years later, it is taking £268,685. There can be little doubt that the council is using its debtors as an income stream – wholly illegally.
But then, when your chief executive, Sandy Hopkins, is pulling in £125,000 from the payroll, plus two executive directors taking £91,000 each, the odd quarter of a million from the very poorest in your district can come in very handy indeed.
COMMENT: "ROBBING THE POOR" THREAD
At the heart of this Council Tax issue are examples such as these, this one from Basildon where the council is ripping off a widow on minimum wage, imposing charges of £45 for a summons and £50 for a liability order because the woman was late paying.
What comes over is the chilling indifference of the council official, which is positively sinister when one appreciates that the bulk of the charge is almost certainly unlawful. But then, with chief executive Bala Mahendran on an annual salary of £155,904 and the senior management teamtaking £987,960 – plus pension payments and bonuses – one can see why officials need to be stealing the widow's mite.
Continuing with the survey of charges made by local authorities, the latest result in is from Runnymede Borough Council, Surrey. This is a very prosperous part of the London commuter belt, with some of the most expensive housing in the UK outside of central London.
With a population of 84,000, comprising some of the richest people in the UK, it still found it necessary to extract £130,509 from 2,181 summonses and 1,626 liability orders during the last financial year – robbing some of the very poor to keep the rich fully serviced (chart above).
Looking at this in the round, though, with three results from last year to evaluate – Bradford, Ipswich and now Runnymede - I'm looking at ways of comparing the data. One such is to relate the populations to the number of liability orders issued, ratios which yield interesting results.
If we take the wealthy Runnymead, we see a ratio of 1:51. Ipswich, with its population of 122,300 and 4,803 liability orders, yields 1:25. Bradford, on the other hand, with a population of 501,700 (and they call this local government ... there are countries smaller) and 32,428 liability orders, delivers a ratio of 1:15 - essentially, one person in fifteen gets a liability order.
There are too few results yet to come to definitive conclusions, but this tiny spread certainly would support a claim that the councils are systematically robbing the poor.
COMMENT THREAD
As my erstwhile co-editor observed, you can always tell it's party conference time – the Tory europlastics come out to play … and then teacher slaps them about a bit. It the play goes according to script, the plastics get all precious and outraged, the Failygraph gets a headline or two, and then everybody goes back to sleep until the next conference.
Actually, the script has changed. The EU is a mortally wounded creature. It may take a long time dying, but it will become increasingly irrelevant as time passes, the economic crisis takes hold and nationalism re-asserts itself. We are already seeing that in Germany.
Hence this report that Germany's top judge has issued a blunt warning that no further fiscal powers may be surrendered to Europe without a new constitution and a popular referendum – something not heard of since Hitler's time. To mention the "r-word" in Germany is tantamount to blasphemy. To get a political judge doing it – calling for popular involvement – is staggering.
The real game in town, therefore, is – or should be – how we, the people, bring the aliens who have taken over our government back under control. But since the aliens are making the most noise at the moment, and the media aliens are listening to them, their chatter is drowning out the more important issues.
For the moment though, there is no great harm in letting them play, while the grown-ups get on with the real work. Their reckoning will come soon enough.
Posts
