The same Capita as this?
Are they setting themselves up for another Carillon style fiasco?
People of the City of Westminster will continue to have their council tax collected and housing benefit managed by Capita for up to another decade, the outsourcing badass confirmed today. The long standing agreement first signed 24 years ago will run for at least seven more, starting this month, with an option to extend it to …
> Lewis has, during his relatively brief time at the company, sold off a bunch of businesses, and wants Capita to concentrate on doing fewer things better
There must be, I suppose, in a company the size of Capita, some things that it does better than the competition. Good to see that he's on a mission to eliminate even these.
CAPITA isn't really one company it's more like a bag of marbles. Shitty marbles. Shitty marbles stripped of all talent, skill and hope then sold to a market with few choices manged by people with big egos and small brains.
This allows CAPITA to sell fuckin shitty products, with fuckin awful support for a fuckin lot of money.
"This allows CAPITA to sell fuckin shitty products, with fuckin awful support for a fuckin lot of money."
What allows Capita (and many others of their ilk) to do what they do is the fact that the majority of taxpayers and consumers judge products and services on cost and convenience with decent pay and working conditions for the poor bloody workers a long way down the list.
>>>Council tax is a bit of a sticky wicket for Westminster Council as it controversially charges one of the lowest rates in the country, despite the average price of a house in the borough set at £1.22m.<<<
The charge a council levies is related to the budget they set, not the price of housing. House valuation (based on the 1991 survey) is only used to differentiate charge bands within the area. If all the housing is at the same band they all pay the same regardless of any assumed multiplier
Lowest band (A) = 0.67 – (many northern towns are 90% plus band A)
Base band (D) = 1.0
Highest band (H) = 2 – Most of Westminster?
If all the houses in an area are the same band then this happens. (Assume the Council budget charges £1m over 1000 houses in the area)
In band H base figure (£1,000 /2) = £500 – Charge per house = £1,000
In band A base figure (£1,000 /0.67) = £1,492 - Charge per house= £1,000
Everyone pays the same, but politicos get to pick a number to support their line of BS.
(Having a band 'H' home in a predominantly 'A' area is going to sting the wallet a bit)
Lucky you. I live in the US where property tax is based on a percentage of the valuation of the property. Round here this means that Mr. Rees-Moog's place would be 1% of the assessed value plus anything extra for bonds or special assessments -- 56K in other words. There are rebates and exclusions and in California there's a restriction that prevents local authorities from arbitrarily revaluing property when they feel a bit short but on the other hand the Trump tax cuts have eliminated the ability to write off this tax against Federal income tax (this wasn't really a giveaway but rather the acknowledgment of a rather old fashioned idea that you should not levy taxes on taxes.)
UK council tax is peanuts which is probably why councils are chronically strapped for cash.
Incidentally, not living in a property doesn't excuse you from paying tax on it.
You'll notice that "better" is a highly subjective term. Technically, if you were on The Hindenburg when it blew up your chances were "better" than if you were on the Titanic's maiden voyage. That doesn't mean that you still weren't in for a horrific, painful, traumatizing experience.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019