Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» "We are applying for a warrant to change your meter"
by Tiggy Today at 12:28 pm

» Court hearing
by petesomething Today at 12:24 pm

» F**king System does my head in
by Lansdowne Today at 12:08 pm

» Acoustic Proof of Second Shooter in Vegas
by toolapcblack Today at 11:36 am

» 18600 rule
by Ausk Today at 9:40 am

» Eating Out
by Ausk Today at 9:27 am

» What have they done to GOODF
by discodave4093 Today at 6:46 am

» Residence and Domicile
by iamani Today at 2:39 am

» Spending Time Together
by assassin Today at 2:12 am

» asked for accounting and got back...
by Waffle Yesterday at 9:05 pm

» Has Anyone Ever Reminded Cabot Of Their Past?
by Waffle Yesterday at 8:24 pm

» Sajid "pants on fire"Javid
by mitch Yesterday at 7:41 pm

» New Old Member
by assassin Yesterday at 6:57 pm

» Messed up the 3 letters process
by petesomething Yesterday at 4:24 pm

» Net tightens round paedophile run councils (corporations)
by daveiron Yesterday at 3:54 pm

» Another One Surfaces
by daveiron Yesterday at 3:23 pm

» Sunday sunday
by ceylon Yesterday at 2:55 pm

» ESTOPPEL
by petesomething Yesterday at 8:43 am

» Australia version of the ebook
by Bruce0439 Yesterday at 7:35 am

» Link Financial
by discodave4093 Yesterday at 2:01 am

» Notice of Discontinuance - Court Hearing for Alleged Debt.
by assassin Yesterday at 1:20 am

» Hello New Member
by Steve Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:10 pm

» Are the DEMONS coming?
by Phillpots Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:35 pm

» Acting agent or debt purchaser?
by Indebttoo Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:57 pm

» Counter Claims
by kingkotton Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:49 pm

» A short clip from ‘Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick’ that will either blow your mind. https://vimeo.com/184473343
by Society of the Spectacle Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:32 pm

» Statement of Assets and Liabilites
by Ausk Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:35 am

» More Northampton Nonsense
by kingkotton Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:38 pm

» 3 HOURS Winter & Fireplace Sound - Blizzard Sounds - Heavy Wind For Relaxation
by epsom Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:33 pm

» Beautiful Snow with Fireplace Sound
by epsom Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:32 pm

» Nottinham Meeting for Free Thinkers 21st October 2017
by Prometheus Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:26 pm

» Offal Wagons
by Tom Bombadil Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:22 pm

» Let's Have Some Tunes thread.
by Awoken2 Fri Oct 20, 2017 10:20 pm

» Social Media Soldiers - British Army 77th Bridage
by Society of the Spectacle Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:56 pm

» Thunderstorm At Sea Sounds For Sleeping, Relaxing ~ Thunder Rain Ocean Sea Lightning Ambience
by Tom Bombadil Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:39 pm

» The Rules for Rulers
by ceylon Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:35 pm

» County Court Claim
by petesomething Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:20 pm


local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

View previous topic View next topic Go down

local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by Candor on Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:11 am

Look You here:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1992/jan/21/local-government-finance-bill#S5LV0534P0_19920121_HOL_351

Local Government Finance Bill HL Deb 21 January 1992 vol 534 cc730-838 730

§ Baroness Hamwee:

"No, I use the term "dwellings". Our policy is for a local income tax on individuals. We will, I hope, have an opportunity at a later stage to discuss the best way of raising taxes on business property. I have not discarded lock, stock and barrel site value rating or a tax on land. However, at this point in the Bill we are discussing a tax on individuals."

Worth reading this Bill......




Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 126
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:57 am

Hi Candor

Nice one! Will read that later, well spotted!

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by Candor on Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:56 am

Hi eye am an eye ..

I suggest all of YOU do, many will think 100 pages; feck that .... this is the mentality of failure and mediocrity ....don't be like those people.

what else is there:


Baronness Bitch:

Clause 3(3) provides a slightly different treatment for composite hereditaments from that contained in the schedule to the 1991 Act. The purpose is to enable the valuation provisions for non-domestic rating and those for the council tax in respect of composite hereditaments to mesh precisely. For non-domestic rating, the valuation officer assesses the rateable value of a composite property according to the extent of non-domestic use of the property. To mirror that, we intend to provide in regulations that only the value attributable to domestic use is taken into account for council tax purposes. That will ensure that there is no double taxation of composite properties.

I always knew this lot were up to no good.

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 126
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by Waffle on Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:24 pm

CT was never intended only for domestic use, part of the 'dwelling' is used for non-domestic purposes, that makes it rateable as a composite hereditament, however, it is not recorded as a composite for council tax purposes. Any composite hereditament that falls to be rated for local valuation is classed wholly as a hereditament for the local valuation list!

What makes a 'dwelling' a 'dwelling' for council tax purposes???? Who has a gas and leccy meter in their 'dwelling'............ F**k**g b***a*d*

Everyone should be charging these 'BEEEEEEEP' for profiting off your estate, whatever the estate constitutes.

Would you let your neighbour charge you tax because they have put solar panels in your garden to generate power from? Would you not ask them for a cut of the profit for using your property to capitalise on? How have we al missed this for so long!

Im not in a position to do this, but you should all knock your selves out with this information.

Excellent work Candor, its absolute now, undeniable, they have hidden this for too long. Its 26 billion a year they generate (excuse the pun) in council tax. And more people are behind with payments than ever, they shouldn't even be being charged, people hurt themselves for this stuff, it destroys lives, separates families....

The council tax is not a tax by the council, it is a government tax that is traceable back to HMRC, which has nothing at all to do with her majesty, and the census! its a governments tax based on the census!

Waffle
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 762
Join date : 2017-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by Candor on Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:22 am

Yes that is correct Waffle, the Commissioners for HMRC collect this tax through the executive agency of the VOA as value auditors and the Councils as administrators.

So did any one read the document ? Did you know at least 85% of the Council expenditure is already paid by the central grant (that means you have paid already through antecedent taxation for 85% of the services councils (allegedly provide), but of course your Council Tax Bill has not been reduced by 85% has it, nay it is never reduced by any % at all, it only increases).

I hope this fact is sufficient to end the mythical belief that the council tax is essential for keeping essential public services provided for, it is simply a tax increase per capite or stock using home ownership and a carefully orchestrated PR campaign to make it appear acceptable to the electorate...who are consenting fools. because their has always been cross party accord on introducing a land and head tax in one.

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 126
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:13 am

Hi Candor

i'm almost half-way through it - it's a big read and very dry, so doing it piecemeal. i've yet to come to the part about '85%' but i was starting to wonder why the 'opposition' seem to roll-over on their amendments so easily....

Btw, a 'head' tax is also a 'land' tax in their eyes. We are just pieces of land according to T.H.E.M. and our spirits are separated from our bodies according to decree by William the first.

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by Candor on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:42 am

Yes it is dry and tedious reading, I make no apologies as I have had to read the whole document and its like many times over to further my knowledge of the subject and I am afraid their is no short cut, (I wish their were) the rating/council tax manual is in conjunction with this a useful reference guide.

Anyway just for you iamani, start at a round p70 if you wish to avoid the party political ping ponging nonsense, its nonsense not only because it does not clarify anything other than that all parties are unanimous in one thing only, stealing your energy in ever increasing amounts.

Now I think I have clarified in my own mind the conundrum of 115(1) of the 1967 act, but the fact that they are talking about a hereditament by virtue of that definition and that it is no longer "at this time" on a valuation list is a total contradiction in terms.

Did you note the secretary of state deploying Henry the 8th clauses too ?

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 126
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:54 am

Hi Candor

Henry VIII? No, not yet. Something for me to look forward to i suppose....

Thanks for the heads-up on page number. Was starting to wonder if it would ever get more interesting. Not really found anything better than the guy near the start pointing out the odd way they had worded the stuff about 'dwellings' - was he, being in the know, having a sly dig? Looks like it to me.

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:39 am

Hi Candor

OK, no page numbers when viewed on android but i've been reading something interesting at about the 9pm mark.

Macintosh is pressing hard for Blatch to explain the difference between 'domestic property' in the '91 act and 'dwelling' and she won't clarify.

What i'm getting is that 'dwelling' is either an individual home (whether a family home or a studio flat) or just....an individual?

A 'hereditament' is a human and everything he has, including everything he doesn't know he has (CQV/House funding/insurance).

'Domestic property' is a 'House-held' slave property.....

....so 'non-domestic' could mean non-slave?

A single hereditament may have several properties, dwellings or otherwise, and that one NAME (House) may bear only one liability for council tax, whereas they would like to charge every dwelling as separate hereditament/persons.

It's confusing but i think i'm getting there!

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:57 pm

Hi guys

OK, i'm there now.

Hereditament is a human male and everything he has.

Dwelling is a human female and everything she has.

Ta-daaaa!

Thanks to the Henry VIII type clauses the sec. of state doesn't have to definitively define the definition of 'dwelling' at any time. Now we know why!


Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:20 pm

Hi guys

Of course! Women don't have the same sort of House accounts as men! That will be connected to women being perceived as property of man - her father (supposedly) in childhood and when the father manages to offload her she traditionally became the responsibility/property of her husband.

i would suspect the female BC fund accounts could be described as dowry? Which would be added to the House of the man she marries?

You were right Candor - it was worth reading.

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:26 pm

Hi guys

Oh, re: domestic property vs non-domestic property.

i suspect domestic is married and non-domestic is single. Or perhaps they are distinguished as to whether or not they are mothers? It'll be one or the other i'm sure.....

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by Candor on Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:45 am

You are almost there iamani with regard to "hereditament" it is not the person but rather the deemed status and capacity (lack of) that is what is so interesting about the definition.

And the Supreme Court was in fact very meticulous in keeping that in mind, despite observing that the whole thing is a mind bending myriad of gobbledygook

Their is no inheritance and thus no heritable property, their is no heir ! - they let us know that on their vessel that was how you would be defined in 1925; the type of individuals the Crown are looking to feed off are those unable to own property and thus exercise equitable rights thereto .... I now have that admission in effect from the head enquiries investigator of the VOA in writing, the Court decide who is DEAD or alive, the rest of it is all presumption and assumption by performance and conduct.

I will stop there as I think those who are deserving of working it out will do eventually, I have done my bit, spending the last few years dealing with the automatons within the different departments and layers of their delegated administration "sorry it's a machine, the computer says this.." etc .

Suffice to say when others begin asking questions, making requests and generally reading a bit more, 500 odd members, are only two or three of us capable of sending an email or writing a request ? the evidence to support the above hypothesis will become clearer and more evident by doing.

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 126
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by iamani on Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:45 pm

Hi Candor

The deemed status of a human is that of a 'thing', a status lower than 'person'. As a human or as a person we are regarded as 'things' and 'things' can be treated in whatever way the owner desires. We need to change our status, and we know how to do that.

Now that we know what 'hereditament' and 'dwelling' mean we can put that to use.

The fact the system is set up to deny us inheritance doesn't necessarily mean there is no inheritance, surely? We certainly have equity if only when we know how to operate in it.

Don't forget, this is a debt-relief advice site - that'll be the only thing most members will be interested in, hopefully the other stuff we post about may kindle an interest in some of them but..... who knows?

Maybe we should do some 'notice' templates? T.H.E.Y. get away with what they are doing because no-one objects in the correct manner in the correct 'persona'......

Cheers!

iamani
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 805
Join date : 2017-05-01

Back to top Go down

Re: local govt bill 1992 - Hansard

Post by Candor on Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:36 pm

i think for now i will just have to say i disagree, with exception to the last sentence on notices. Thank God for Romley coming along and giving us an clear insight into things, like the others have, this road is full of road blocks, ambushes and crooked diversions for the unprepared.

As for the forum, I made the allegation, the white writing on the blue bar at the page header is my witness, as is the forum content, guess what that makes a fact.

Candor
Not so newb
Not so newb

Posts : 126
Join date : 2017-07-20

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum