SFLKING Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/council-to-track-down-scots-owing-poll-tax-arrears-1-3556518 So apparently people are now being punished for daring to get politically involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Disgraceful. Who controls that council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFLKING Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Disgraceful. Who controls that council? The guy in the article is a conservative so I'll go with them. EDIT: Conservative/Lib-Dem/Independent/Labour coalition. Basically an anti-SNP coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 The guy in the article is a conservative so I'll go with them. EDIT: Conservative/Lib-Dem/Independent/Labour coalition. Basically an anti-SNP coalition. But, but, but surely the Tories and Labour are political opposites? How could they possibly form a coalition? Actually, maybe that should be 'opportunists' rather than 'opposites'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Poll tax dodgers. Hopefully that'll mean a few "radicals" from back in the day have to pay what they owe. I would also remind people who wanted to "eradicate poverty in the society we choose to live in" that taxes are required and failure to pay them disadvantages the poor. "Bad for democracy" - voice of the SNP. Is it little wonder that their leader's resigned and being booed at sports events in Scotland? I despair of anyone who would back non payment of taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/council-to-track-down-scots-owing-poll-tax-arrears-1-3556518 So apparently people are now being punished for daring to get politically involved. Thats not my take on it, they must have been registered back then so theoretically 'politically involved'. When they decided to put not paying for council services ahead of being politically involved you should be berating them for that, as the article says, they were effectively ripping off all those who did pay. If it was a political stance not to pay (being generous here) then it played right into the Tories hands, this was part of what the Poll tax was for (allegedly) so they would have disengaged from the politics that could have and eventually did change things to save their own cash. I'm not claiming any moral high ground here, I got chased for late payments myself but to put the twist that they're being punished for DARING to get politically involved is laughable, should the tax man just give up if you've 'got away with it' for 20 years ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Thats not my take on it, they must have been registered back then so theoretically 'politically involved'. When they decided to put not paying for council services ahead of being politically involved you should be berating them for that, as the article says, they were effectively ripping off all those who did pay. If it was a political stance not to pay (being generous here) then it played right into the Tories hands, this was part of what the Poll tax was for (allegedly) so they would have disengaged from the politics that could have and eventually did change things to save their own cash. I'm not claiming any moral high ground here, I got chased for late payments myself but to put the twist that they're being punished for DARING to get politically involved is laughable, should the tax man just give up if you've 'got away with it' for 20 years ? That's what the SNP councilors are saying mate. In a few months time when they've managed to calm their lunatic factions down, and Reynard is spot on, they'll split like a fecking banana. How irresponsible is that though? "People being hounded for their poll tax just because they become politically involved is undemocratic".What a f**king odious political party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFLKING Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Thats not my take on it, they must have been registered back then so theoretically 'politically involved'. When they decided to put not paying for council services ahead of being politically involved you should be berating them for that, as the article says, they were effectively ripping off all those who did pay. If it was a political stance not to pay (being generous here) then it played right into the Tories hands, this was part of what the Poll tax was for (allegedly) so they would have disengaged from the politics that could have and eventually did change things to save their own cash. I'm not claiming any moral high ground here, I got chased for late payments myself but to put the twist that they're being punished for DARING to get politically involved is laughable, should the tax man just give up if you've 'got away with it' for 20 years ? Sorry, that should be they're getting punished for daring to have a vote. One thing during this referendum that both sides agreed on was that everyone should register to take part in in deciding Scotland's future. To follow that up with hounding them for an unfair tax they refused to pay 20 years ago is a scumbag move, and will just make sure they don't register to vote again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFLKING Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 So an unlikely hypothetical scenario, say someone stops paying income tax and then 20 years later the HMRC come after them with a bill because they registered to vote with an address that they previously traded from. Do you think they should pay up? Also do you think the HMRC are being "undemocratic"? That depends, has Income tax been abolished in the 20 years since he stopped paying tax due to it's massive unpopularity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 That depends, has Income tax been abolished in the 20 years since he stopped paying tax due to it's massive unpopularity? When a government, or in this case a LA, levies a tax it's to raise money for the people who live within that area. If people "protest" by not paying it, they should be prepared to face the consequences. Isn't that all part of the purpose of "protest". "Sacrifice for the greater good" and all that nonsense. I'll be delighted when these tax dodgers get caught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFLKING Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 When a government, or in this case a LA, levies a tax it's to raise money for the people who live within that area. If people "protest" by not paying it, they should be prepared to face the consequences. Isn't that all part of the purpose of "protest". "Sacrifice for the greater good" and all that nonsense. I'll be delighted when these tax dodgers get caught Except this tax actually hurt the people who needed the money most. The difference here is that the protests worked and the government replaced the tax with different one, albeit not that much better. Therefore the government recognised it as a failure and shouldn't try to hunt people down for not paying it 20 years later, especially if it's a completely different government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Sorry, that should be they're getting punished for daring to have a vote. One thing during this referendum that both sides agreed on was that everyone should register to take part in in deciding Scotland's future. To follow that up with hounding them for an unfair tax they refused to pay 20 years ago is a scumbag move, and will just make sure they don't register to vote again. While a massive part of the problem for a lot of us at the time was that the electoral roll was used to gather the names for the community charge. At the end of the day it was put in place and used for a period of time before it was changed so it doesn't really matter if it was unfair etc etc we still used the services and council facilities so it needed to be paid. We can't just pick and choose the taxes that we want to pay, a lot of people fought hard to get it changed and it was but councils still needed to gather the money they needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 From a different standpoint, is there not some law over not being allowed to chase debts after a period of time, something like 6 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taza Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 When a government, or in this case a LA, levies a tax it's to raise money for the people who live within that area. If people "protest" by not paying it, they should be prepared to face the consequences. Isn't that all part of the purpose of "protest". "Sacrifice for the greater good" and all that nonsense. I'll be delighted when these tax dodgers get caught ^^^ Wouldn't have paid his poll tax, if he'd been around and liable. No fucking danger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidthebaw Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 thinking of the mechanics of chasing folk for debts incurred decades ago. As Community Charge legislation was repealed and replaced with Council Tax legislation I can't see chasing folks for debts incurred under defunct legislation is entirely illegal. There is also the case the Statute of Limitations Acts apply that debts not collected within a set period are legally unable to be enforced through the court action. Also the logistics required to trace and identify debts incurred at other addresses, possibly under different names. There is also the fact the council don't have a legal basis for retaining poll tax files from all those years ago as the purpose for keeping them went with the abolition of the Community Charge Act. It would be a breach of The Data protection Act if they did keep those files as councils could only keep those files for the purposes of complying with the Community Charge Act , which no longer exists. Just saying likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 When a government, or in this case a LA, levies a tax it's to raise money for the people who live within that area. If people "protest" by not paying it, they should be prepared to face the consequences. Isn't that all part of the purpose of "protest". "Sacrifice for the greater good" and all that nonsense. I'll be delighted when these tax dodgers get caught You're an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If the debt hasn't been acknowledged in a seven year timeframe, it's beyond the statute of limitations. Unlucks, right wing councils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 thinking of the mechanics of chasing folk for debts incurred decades ago. As Community Charge legislation was repealed and replaced with Council Tax legislation I can't see chasing folks for debts incurred under defunct legislation is entirely illegal. There is also the case the Statute of Limitations Acts apply that debts not collected within a set period are legally unable to be enforced through the court action. Also the logistics required to trace and identify debts incurred at other addresses, possibly under different names. There is also the fact the council don't have a legal basis for retaining poll tax files from all those years ago as the purpose for keeping them went with the abolition of the Community Charge Act. It would be a breach of The Data protection Act if they did keep those files as councils could only keep those files for the purposes of complying with the Community Charge Act , which no longer exists. Just saying likes. I don't know enough about the legal side but I'm not keen on the notion of 'getting away' with something for a period of time gives exemption from any action to chase the 'offender'. I'm being deliberately vague here because it applies to a number of situations but in the 'poll tax' scenario I don't have a problem with people who dodged paying local tax money being chased for it now even 20 years later. Whether we liked the poll tax or not is irrelevant, its like not wanting to pay your National Health contribution because you have private health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 20 years is the limitation on the councils to enforce the debt and they then have an additional 20 years to collect. Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 20 years is the limitation on the councils to enforce the debt and they then have an additional 20 years to collect. Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Pfft, dem councils eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.