Would you become an Olympic martyr ?

Question

An elderly couple are vowing to go to jail rather than pay the 2012 Olympics surcharge on their council tax bill.

Tom and Rita Glenister insist the £33.33 levy imposed on London homes to cover the cost of the London Games is unfair.

They will appear in court later this month after ignoring repeated demands for the Olympic charge from their local council

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051922/The-2012-Olympic-martyrs-Well-jail-pay-33-Games-tax-say-pensioners.html

Answer 1

They should leave London before being arrested.

If Government raise tax on all England Homes, it may be about GBP0.3 and more reasonable & affordable.

Answer 2

Effort, but good on 'em

Answer 3

This kind of thing is near impossible to pull of. Years ago when I was a tax payer I joined an organisation attempting to lobby for the right to withhold part of the tax paid to the government funding arms sales.

Nightmare.

It's a complex thing. I do see the injustice of paying for something you don't want or approve of but I would have thought they would also need to prove they will never benefit from the regeneration or other positive aspects of the games.

A simple belief or stance is often swallowed up and spat out by the mechanics of the collective needs of society and...business.

Answer 4

Good luck to them.  They have a really good point - UK won the bid to hold the Games so technically the whole of the UK should pay for the costs.

However, as most of the events will be held in London and most of the benefits will go to London then Londoners should pay for it.  If I thought the facilities and the events were going to be spread across the entire UK then I could understand if everyone had to pay a small amount.  

But I am opposed to holding the Games in UK at all.  I still think they should have a permanent home with each participating country paying for their upkeep.  Every country that wins the right to hold the Games tries to outdo the previous holder - not in athletic prowess - but in who can look best in the eyes of the world in spending power and prestige.

Think how much China spent in hosting the Games and then think of the devastation of those recent major earthquakes and how that extra money could have helped the people of China, instead of trying to look good in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Good luck to this couple.  Unfortunately they don't have a hope in h**l of avoiding the surcharge because if they won, thousands of Londoners would follow suit.

Answer 5

Nobody asked us (Londoners or the rest of us) whether we wanted the games. There was no referendum, nor was it an issue in an election. The whole thing boils down to a Ken Livingstone ego-trip, for which someone else has got to pay.

Now, we are liable for taxes where we could knowingly vote for one party or another's tax and spend policies. If we come out on the losing side, our tough - at least we had our say. We are also liable for expenditure we ourselves undertake.

The bill for the Olympic games falls into neither of these categories. In justice, the Glenisters are not liable to pay for an event they did not want and did not contract for.

The law is, of course, probably different. Law rarely has much to do with justice.

However, I would not be a "martyr" over £33.33. Some things are just not worth fighting over.