As the Guardian has reported this morning:
Just 350 of the 15,600 wealthiest households in Westminster, one of the country's richest boroughs, have answered the local authority's call to voluntarily pay extra council tax to help tackle the homelessness crisis in the heart of London.
In February, the Westminster council leader, Nickie Aiken, wrote to all residents in the most expensive band H properties to ask them to consider paying an extra £833-a-year “community contribution” to help fund youth clubs, homelessness services and visits to lonely people.
But only 2% of the households have stepped forward to help their poorer neighbours, the Guardian can reveal.
It adds:
Residents in Westminster pay the lowest council tax in the country, with band H payments of £832 a year plus another £588 to the Greater London Authority. In Poole, Dorset, the band H charge is £3,358.
I guess £291,550 is better than nothing. But the reality is that measures such as this have to be compulsory. That is the nature of tax.
That does not make tax theft, as the right like to claim. It means that tax is then very clearly a claim on property made by the state or its agents using a proper legal process, which is the way all property rights are established. And then it has to be paid, because we have chosen that it should be.
What Westminster have asked for is a charitable act. That's fine. And good. But let's not confuse the two things. Tax and charity are not and were never intended to be the same thing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What a surprise; wealthy people are (often) not very charitable. A quick internet search gives the following conclusion from a recent study into charitable giving:
” the poorest tend to give the highest proportion of their income. In 2010/11, the poorest 20 per cent of those surveyed gave 3.2 per cent of their monthly income to charity, while the richest 20 per cent gave just 0.9 per cent”.
And as the Standard story last Friday on the Sackler family’s tax dodging showed, a lot of wealthy philanthropy is done by people who make every effort to avoid paying tax via the use of tax havens (mainly Bermuda in their case), and exploiting the UK’s absurd non dom rules. So they can well afford to be generous can’t they?
You’re right Richard. Charity is all well and good, but it’s not a substitute for the levying and collection of taxes by an elected government. The right of course, with their worship of wealth, and opposition to anything other than the barest minimum of state provided services, would prefer us all to be grateful for the crumbs from the rich man’s table.
Neglecting that, without there having been financial enabling of the poor in the first place, there’d be no table to dine from.
No, I don’t think that’s the case Bill. It would be more along the line that the rich man owned the table, but it was made by somebody else. And if those who think charity is better than social security had their way, those who made the table would be paid the absolute bare minimum.
Not everyone in Westminster pays their own tax bills. Whilst its an expensive area many will be charging it back to the companies or have the company pay and dont necessary even see the bill or are aware of what is happening.
I am reminded of the Clement Attlee quote: “Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.”
(and then there the rest at http://www.azquotes.com/author/20539-Clement_Attlee , most of which are still worthy of note)
Agreed
+ 42.
Yes Jeremy, a great quote. Loads of others there too, and virtually all relevant to now. Jesus, if only we had a man like Attlee at the head of a major party now. Then there’s be some hope.
That the residents in Westminster: some of the richest people in the country actually pay the lowest council tax in the country says it all. How does such a situation come about? Are all services and amenities in that area in reality subsidised by the presence of government real estate and consequent public money as well as big business estate management spends?
The council tax could be put up tenfold and the billionaires in residence wouldn’t even even notice.
It is not just that “charidee” is a cold, grey, loveless thing. It is that “charidee” is all about the giver, not the receiver, and is therefore probably the most unpleasant paradox it is possible to conceive …
Yes, undoubtedly the case with some philanthropists. Having made their pile, and very often avoided paying tax on it, they then seek to boost their social standing and sense of their own virtue. And they get to hobnob at parties with ‘celebs’. It’s all a big ego trip.
‘Look at me, look at me, I like to give to charidee,
I’m so humble, I’m so good……..etc, etc’. Pass the sick bag, please.
To be fair, there are some wealthy people who give a great of deal money, year after year, to unfashionable causes, and don’t make a song and dance about it.
Thanks for providing the up-to-date figure for Poole Band H, which has now overtaken Weymouth as the highest Council Tax – next time I give a talk here in Dorset. The owner of a mansion in Westminster pays about 0.005% of its value in Council Tax each year. I think they could afford a bit more than that.