DCSIMG

Petition opposing toilet tax attracts plenty of attention

The online petition against the proposed toilet tax

The online petition against the proposed toilet tax

An online petition has been set up by a group outraged by the government’s proposed toilet tax.

As reported in last week’s Manx Independent, plans were unveiled in Tynwald to introduce an annual sewerage charge of £50 per property or flat, set to increase to £100 the next year.

The petition has been set up by the Isle of Man Politics Facebook group with a target of 2,500 signatures. It can be found here: www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/toilettaxisleofman

A spokesperson for the group, who preferred to remain anonymous, said: ‘We will keep increasing the goal amount. MHK Chris Thomas is presenting it for Tynwald for us. We have had three MHKs and one minister messaging in agreement.

‘I think people would be able to accept the new toilet tax more if Tynwald started to lead by example with cuts in Tynwald, fewer MHKs, pay freezes with the rest of us.

‘People simply cannot keep getting hit who are already living from hand-to-mouth. We understand money needs to be found, maybe lifting the tax cap would be more morally acceptable.’

Comments on the group’s Facebook page include:

Andy: ‘Going on the comments made by Mr Houghton, he said that the water authority’s deficit was £1m, year on year, so this next year they need to make up the shortfall. So why then does the £50 per house or occupied property tax, give him a return of £1.7 million approximately, given the number of properties on the island, what’s the £700,000 extra paying for?’

Stuart: ‘It’s the government using a financially sound body (Water Authority) to cross-subsidise the MEA mess – just because the UK charges for water, doesn’t mean we have to.’

James: ‘This £50 toilet tax is not on. Single people in small houses will be paying the same amount as multi-occupancy larger houses. Also people who are not householders will not have to pay it. Therefore the costs of sewage disposal should be funded through general taxation.’

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page