imlach

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3555802.stm

Why are people shocked to be chased for debts?

Just because a tax has been abolished, doesn't mean you still aren't due the tax for the period it was in force....

After all, the people who refused to pay at the time would have been financially better off at that point in time due to their non-payment. They didn't contribute ANYTHING to the council during that time.

tiggers

The way Maggie and her morons managed to utterly screw up what was a perfectly simple idea the cost of poll tax collection outweighed the benefit in many cases when it was first implemented. Didn't stop the local authorities trying to collect it then so why should it stop them now!

MooseRacer

tiggers, Maggie's idea was a sound one imo. It was the changes forced through by jittery MP's before it was even introduced that sunk it.

Freak

agreed

Iwan

Poll Tax was a WAY better idea than council tax IMHO. Thatcher had the right idea.

Hopefully Howard will bring it back when he gets in next year.

tiggers

Agree entirely.

As my post says the idea was simple and a very good one. However instead of everyone paying the same and the government collecting it centrally and distributing it to the authorities based on their needs/average annual population they:

a) allowed the authorities to set their own poll tax charges
b) made them collect it for each individual resident in their area based on how long that individual lived in that area.
c) made it the responsibility of each individual to notify their local authority as to their place of residence.

The fact that not everyone paid the same amount across the country and the fact that the local authorities struggled, particularly in the large cities, to keep up with population movement in and out of their respective areas hence making the tax very costly to collect were the final nails in the coffin for the poll tax system.

The general unrest about such an unjust form of taxation (not necessarily my opinion, but definitely that of many sections of the population) coupled with the local authorities not backing the system due to the reasons mentioned above finally led to it's replacement with the council tax system.

To this day I am still bewildered as to how a government can make such an appalling mess of what was such a simple and good idea. If they had thought it through properly it would have been one of their (few??) triumphs, but the way they spectacularly managed to get it so badly wrong is quite unbelievable.

tiggers.

tiggers

If he thinks it will win him votes I'm sure he'll promise to do just that

the moose

Oh, my aching sides. Howard has no more chance than IDS or Hague, and is merely marking time. He's made no significant impact since he arrived, and his latest one - let's build more prisons - shows that, as usual, the Tories like to attack the effects of a problem rather than the causes.

I've a bet on with Telboy on the outcome of the election, and if you're up for it, I'll take some money off you too. £50 says Howard won't win next time.

OllyK

Personally I think is disgusting, these people should have been fined and or jailed years ago, how ineffective are these councils

OllyK

I belive they have already suggested that they would! Just pray the Lib Dems don't get in as they seem to think that we are not paying enough and want to introduce all sorts of whacky ideas to put the cost up.

ChrisB

Being just a wee nipper, what was the great idea behind the Poll Tax? I can only remember the rioting in London.

Iwan

Nah, i don't bet unless it's a sure thing. Whilst i'd like them to get in next time, i can't honestly see it happening.

imlach

The idea was that every adult contributed to council services.

It is a fair scheme. Every adult uses council services, so fair enough that every adult should pay for them.

The current council tax/rates schemes means that it is only households that pay for services - no matter how many are in the house (obviously 25% discount for those who live alone).

So, a 2 person household is penalised, whilst a 7 person household is using more services, yet paying the same.

Poll tax rectified this situation. However, the great British public hated change, and therefore rioted. Dumbwits.

Dracoro

The only 'fair' way is to link it to earnings. Put 1/2/3 % onto general taxation and spread the money to councils accordingly. It'd be easy to implement as the system is already in place.

imlach

I've always said, the simplest taxation is VAT. I notice even the Americans are now considering scrapping income tax, and putting up sales tax.

So, put VAT way up, and scrap income tax.

You earn more, you buy more. Simple.

Only problem would be perhaps higher evasion by buying goods abroad?

Faire D'Income

I disagree. Earnings aren't related to usage levels of the various services provided by councils and there's a long history of central government unfairly distributing taxation revenue to local government.

Geezer

I would have to disagree. Your income puts you firmly in your place in society with regards to wealth, but spending patterns vary greatly.

I believe you should be taxed only on your income, if you earn shed loads, you pay more tax, but anything after that is yours, sod VAT!

I do think they should scrap 40% tax brackets. People already pay more tax because they earn more moeny, don't see why they should receive a double whammy.

Geezer

Kyl3cook

Income tax is completely unfair...why should high earners have to pay 40% on a % of their earnings....even if they were to still pay 23% on all their earnings, they would be paying more money than other people who use exactly the same services, and in some cases, more services, where you take into account that some high earners might send their children through private education and use a private health service.

A similar tax to poll tax is the way to go, where every individual contributes the same as everyone else...you can't say fairer than that

imlach

Scrap 40%, and your general rate of tax would increase....Labour would never get into power again if the majority of the population had their basic rate of tax increased by 3-4% (ie, those below the 40% threadhold and therefore generally labour voters).

OK, let's do it

Geezer

That's very true. I would like to see it abolished, but being realistic, they can't. The govt. has to raise enough money to pay for helath, defence, roads etc. and no matter how you cut it, the amount needed is the same no matter how it is raised.

That's what always amazes me about the British public, they complain about taxation until they are blue in the face, then complain about the state of the NHS of schools! There's just no pleasing some people!!!!!

Geezer

imlach

...errr, much like you in Post No.18 in this thread then

Geezer

LOL , I just think it's unfair, but I do realise why it is necessary.

Faire D'Income

But this is the problem, just because you earn more than the average it's deemed that you should pay more tax because you can afford to which completely fails to take into account your consumption of local services.

Remember that this is about taxation on a local level to help pay for local services, not about income tax which is redistributed accordingly on a national level. On that basis, the Poll Tax was a fairer system although I would have preferred it to go further and also charge a levy on children within each household as well.

If you take our situation, we pay over £2k per annum because the house is in band G and yet we are offered and consume far less than urban dwellers in our area. We don't have mains drainage, we have no street lighting, there is no police presence nor do we have any public transport links. We don't use the local education system, we have no footpaths to maintain and we have the privilege of a bi-weekly recycling service as opposed to the weekly one offered to the towns in the area.

In fact, it's bloody cheap (for the council) to "maintain" our area because we are in fact subisidising many other houses in the area by virtue of the fact that this house has a higher value on it than others - not because we use more services.

Bring back the Poll Tax, I say, and if you still owe money then it should be paid.

tiggers

Now that I do agree with.

davegtt

problem with that is the average family with 1 maybe 2 kids will have to pay more money to support Mrs Tramp in the local estate with 7 kids who doesnt pay any tax anyhow

Faire D'Income

Dave, as I recall people claiming any form of benefit had to pay Poll Tax as well which should sort out Mrs.Tramp and her mates.

davegtt

ahhh well that wasnt explained, get in there!!!! thats another vote going to the Cons then

blair

The main thrust of the arguments about the benefits of the poll tax appears to be that it spreads the costs of provision of local services between those that use them in a proportion which is closer to their use rather than anyones wealth/ability to pay/size of house.

Why not move the cost of providing these services to one which is directly attributable to their use. Bring in tolls for pavement use; Street lights with 'lecy meters on them that accept coins for payment; private companies to collect refuse with the user paying by the ton disposed of per year, charge people for the use of libraries - no infact scrap them, if you want to read buy the f'in book yourself. Abolish state school provision - why should I pay for it when I don't have kids. Parks and kids playparks that charge for each 15 minutes of use

Also revert to having a fire service provided by your insurance company - if you don't have insurance tough - watch your house burn down (this might also stop the lazy gits from striking all the time).

The only fair way to pay for services is only to charge those who use them - i recon this includes paying per mile for use of the roads and congestion charging.

OllyK

It's called fuel duty and if your car is a guzzler, you pay even more per mile.

blair

The only thing wrong with fuel duty is that it isn't linked to the cost of building and maintaining the national (ie A roads and Motorway) road network.

If the funds raised were ringfenced solely for use on the road then the cost of using it would be more transparent to the driver and hence the cost would seem more "fair".