Dracoro

blair - I take it that extends to te NHS, defence etc.?

There's some things I'm happy to pay for even though I don't use much (nhs, schools, old age pensions etc.) but alongside that there's stuff I don't like paying for. This is what really needs to be addressed. I think we are in a danger too much of looking at the issue from a me me me perspective. The issue should be what are WE prepared to pay for to make OUR standard of living better rather than what am I'M prepared to pay to make MY life better.

OllyK

They couldn't rob peter to pay paul then if they did that. Everything goes in to a big pot for the most part and the government spend it as they see fit, not an ideal situation but that's how it is

Suresh

Poll tax was a crock of ****, where the sole purpose was to benefit the rich. Did people on average incomes benefit from the introduction of the tax? No! was the answer to that.

I remember living in an average house in Bexley at the time and then finding our local tax bill had doubled with the introduction of poll tax. Thankfully, the total failure helped drive the Tories from office

imlach

I don't think poll tax drove them from office - poll tax was introduced in 1989/90 and abolished in 1992/3. There was an election in 1992, and guess who won? Yes, the Tories. Do you not think they'd have been out then if poll tax could be attributed to defeat?

Poll tax was all about reforming an unfair system. People like yourself chose not to see that you were underpaying in the previous system. Of course no-one likes to see changes/increases, but the poll tax system was a step in the right direction.

Gordo

"Poll tax was a crock of ****, where the sole purpose was to benefit the rich. Did people on average incomes benefit from the introduction of the tax? No! was the answer to that. "

What ****. The poll tax was the only fair way to charge people for the provision of local services. There is no justification whatsoever for it to be linked to income. Yes, there should be assistance or waivers for the really poor but everyone else should pay the same per head across the country.

Imagine the uproar if you had to pay more for your water, electric, gas or any other service because you earned more. The same applies to the local authorities. They are merely providing services which everyone should pay the same for.

Local authorities are anachronistic fiefdoms that are utterly undemocratic. They should be emasculated and merely put in charge of outsourced service contracts - it would be a lot cheaper than the monkeys who typically inhabit the local town halls!

Gordo

Senior_AP

I agree they should be chased for their debt. Time doesn't mean you can brush financial commitment under the carpet.

The Poll Tax was utterly fair IMO so these people should be forced to pay.....WITH INTEREST!!!

blair

To paraphrase a post earlier - "What ****."

The only fair way to charge people for local services is to charge them only for the services they use.

There is no way someone in rural Scotland should be paying the same flat rate as someone in metropolitan London, Birmingham, Edinburgh or Glasgow. The issue is to raise funds for local taxes to pay for local services. As the cost of these local services vary from area to area, so should the amount to be paid for their provision.

The only fair way is to charge the users of the service the cost of the service - not some arbitrary flat rate.

OllyK

True - somebody living in the sticks should be paying far more as the Police and Dustmen etc have to travel further to provide the service

blair

Offset of course by the reduced salaries paid to the dustment, reduced coverage of police, lack of public transport, street lighting etc.

I'm not arguing that everything would be cheaper, just that different services would cost different amounts in different parts of the country.

Faire D'Income

Why? The level of service is inferior to that in the towns, so why should we pay more?

Senior_AP

IMO flat rate should be flat rate the country over.

Everybody has access to the same amenities therefore they should ALL be paying the same.

Where you choose to live is your choice.

A bag of crisps costs 30p in London, as they should do in rural Wales.

OllyK

Ahh so we need to take Quality of service in to account as well now huh?? Discount on the price if the council fail to meet targets??

What services are inferior?? The waste service we have in town is pretty crap, they will collect about every other week if your lucky and just "forget" to turn up the other times. It also costs more to provide that inferior service in the countryside as there is the travelling costs to get out to you.

I think all we can say is you are not going to find a method of local taxation that is going to make everybody happy. The work shy element seem to think those that work hard should subsidise them and those that work hard for their money tend to think that everybody should pay for what they use.

Jerome

The poll tax was just great.

Anyone renting when it was brought in might have got a token reduction in rent, but that was gobbled up when the rental renewal came up. I was effective paying twice because I had the audacity to be renting. I couldn't afford to buy at the time.

My parents were big supporters of PT until they got their first bill and were paying the same as rates.

I was in a pub in North Devon where they received absolutely no services from the local council, yet their personal poll tax was 5 times their rates bill. Their commercial payment went up massively also.

Just about the only people that seemed to benefit were people who had massive houses. Everyone else seemed to pay more. I had no problem with people in big houses paying more. If you couldn't afford the rates buy a smaller house. If you can't afford to run a Bentley, get rid and buy a smaller, cheaper car.

blair

But they don't have access to the same amenities - the level of services provided (and the cost of providing these services) is determined by local councils. They amenities you have access to will be different to the ones I have access to.

That's like saying all cars do the same, they should all cost the same.

Although if you can persuade ferrari I'd be interested to hear more

Senior_AP

Exactly spot on!!

IMO the work shjy element are in the wrong hence why I consider Poll Tax to be as fair as you can pretty much get. When I studied this it amazed me how the public reacted. Kinda proves the work shy in this country is a vast number!!

OllyK

If you can't afford to contribute to the cost of having kids then don't have them???

Faire D'Income

Plenty of people did benefit from the introduction of Poll Tax, I was one of them and this whole attitude that people in larger houses should carry the burden and subisdise everyone else is ridiculous. It's the same argument that is applied to income tax but conveniently ignores the fact that the super rich make up a very small portion of taxpayers and their contribution is miniscule compared to the middle income and lower income earners.

The fact that it was fair got up people's noses partly because it was badly implemented at local levels and partly because people had to pay their own way rather than being subsidised by others.

Senior_AP

Agreed.

Potential parents should apply for a license. If you are to have children you should be "visited" by someone who will assess whether you're capable or not to bring up children and assess their living conditions etc. Too many peasant families diluting this country with their little ******* of kids.

TelBoy

It all gets a bit Stalinist then though, doesn't it?

Even though i agree with the underlying principle...

Senior_AP

It is a bit but I can't think of any other way to slow down the masses of scummy kids being born. Being a burden on the state.

It isn't the childs fault, they have no hope due to the parents. Hence my suggestion to provide a license (so to speak) for potential parents.

Thus preventing the Les Battersby mentality bringing their offspring into this already massively over crowded country.

Faire D'Income

Read my earlier post Olly. It's not about quality of service, it's about consumption of services and as we don't get the same offering out here in the sticks why should we pay for it? We don't get mains sewage, policing is at a lower than in town and as I said earlier the refuse collection is inferior to that in towns. We have no street lighting, the verges aren't cleaned and there isn't any public transport - all of which you get in towns which you happily use.

I have to pay my income tax which goes into the melting pot, otherwise known as the Exchequer which is redistributed according to the whims of the government in power at the time.

It may be spent on the NHS - which I don't use.

It may spent on Defence - which is open to abuse in my name by the Government in power.

It may be spent on Education - which I've never benefited from and won't in future as we have no plans for children.

It may spent on welfare benefits - which I've never benefited from

It may be spent on Pensions for the elderly - it's unlikely that I'll ever draw a State Pension as by that time we'll all have to provide for ourselves.

In other words it gets spent on a mulititude of things from which I derive no direct benefit but I have to accept it and I do because that's the way macro taxation works. However, I don't accept that I should have to subsidise other tax payers all the time when I feel that I pay more than my fair share of the tax burden already. That's why I feel that at least one form of taxation in this country should be fairly apportioned, which to a large extent Poll Tax was but unfortunately it seems as if there are still plenty of people who feel they should be subsidised by others and are unwilling to pay their fair share.

Senior_AP

Spot on.

Can we summarise that "anti poll tax" people are on the whole the social underclass that complain about everything and anything in order to save a few pence. Expect the well off to subsidise them, feeding us there hard done by working class bull****.

OllyK

I could also argue that I am provided with things in the town that I neither use nor want, and yet I am expected to pay for them for the benefit of others. I suppose it depends on how far you want to go. I'd like a discount on my refuse bill please as I am happy to take my stuff down to the tip myself (and usually do, as perviously mentioned, we usually get missed and no number of calls to the council seems to rectify the issue).

I sure as hell didn't want a £50K bronze statue of a man putting on a sock in the town centre, nor some bronze stick men by the university, but some of my council tax went to these things. Unless you give everybody in the council braket the option to opt in or out of every decision then you have to draw a line somewhere. In general I agree is should be consumption based, but as you can't meter every council service like you can electricty etc, you have to come to some sort of workable solution.

Faire D'Income

Absolutely, which brings us back to Poll Tax payable by all members of each household which will be the nearest thing to a fair form of local taxation we can get to.

Senior_AP

Everyone has access to the same facilities.

Everyone should pay the same.

If we start saying "well I don't use thi, or that or the other" we'd have over 60 million tax brackets. We would also not know if that person was using those facilities or not short of policing every single person on the planet.

Facilities, built for all, to be used by all, so you pay for all. I don't mind paying a flat rate even though I don't use it all. I haven't used the NHS yet but I'm happy to pay into it cos one day I may need to.

Poll Tax was totally fair.

OllyK

I think we are violently agreeing!!

Senior_AP

Err.....agreed!!

Abdabz

What baffles me is this. If I earn more than my next door neighbour due to pure fluke on the evolutionary scale, or due to hard bloody work, then why on earth should I have to pay more for the same local services that we both receive?
If I pay more I deserve more - maybe a diamond encrusted wheelie bin, or more regular cleaning on my part of the street? Maybe a newer quicker fire engine perhaps?

Mad as a box of frogs!

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Because you're better able to pay?

Unfortunately taxation can't just be the same flat rate for everyone, because if it were, the whole country would end up with a level of public services was consistent with one that everybody could afford to make an equal contribution to - ie. a lowest common denominator. The only way to get better public services is for those who can afford to pay extra, to do so. I have no problem with the principle of paying more based on ability to pay.

What I do object to is the current system, where a household's contribution to local services depends on the value of the property. Mrs C and I moved last year to a bigger house and saw a massive jump in council tax; do we suddenly represent a greater demand than before on local services? Erm... no. And do we have more disposable income? No again, in fact since we're paying off a bigger mortgage we have considerably less.

The whole idea of local tax is unfair IMHO. Stick the extra on income tax, distribute it according to need, and save all that bureaucracy and overhead.

Suresh

What ****!!

The rates system that pre-dated poll tax was never related to income. It was based on the [rateable] value of the property and therefore things like size and location of the dwelling. Like I said, only the rich benefitted from the abolition of this system - which is exactly what the Tories were about then.

Now they are a bunch of no hopers fishing for the vote of the over sixties and thankfully have no chance of winning the next election.