|
|
Post by ratcliff on Sept 14, 2023 23:43:20 GMT
Steve's point is that poll tax was a personal charge, not one based on property. More nuanced than that. Middle is trying to pretend that those with property make no use of the existence and maintenance of an ordered society. Well he's wrong, without such a society the properties would be valueless wrecks so it's fair that the more 'use' a property owner makes of that society protection of value the more they should pay. But they don't. Mrs K and I live in a band F property quite possibly worth £500k so it's absolutely right we pay a multiple of what those in band A's pay even though with no kids we actually make much less use of the overt services like education and refuse. What's wrong is someone in a property worth 10 times only pays a fraction more. Well the Tories couldn't have their mansion owning mates pay a fair whack could they so they capped council tax at band H. that the more 'use' a property owner makes of that society protection of value the more they should pay. ================ Using your argument those properties with multiple occupants are making most use of the rented or owned property ( and services) so logically properties with multiple occupants should pay their ''fair share'' and pay much larger contributions towards services |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 15, 2023 6:36:48 GMT
Personally I'd go with a Land Value Tax but I suspect that will be an idea that is a bit too radical for the UK. I'd go to a per person charge - along the lines of a poll tax Spread the charges amongst all the users - why not? Why should only the few pay? That is a fair argument, but as we saw last time, those who had never paid a cent before had a total meltdown when asked to chip in - do we really need to go through all that again? The benefit of a LVT is that it makes the economy more efficient by encouraging best use of the land. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 15, 2023 6:39:25 GMT
Perhaps the fairest way would be a revaluation with an offset for the property rich money poor in that they be allowed to pay a lesser amount (a set charge country wide) until their death or selling up be then repaid with interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 6:57:05 GMT
I am very proud to declare that I was Chairman of our local Anti Poll Tax protest group, and as such I did my little bit to bring down Margaret Thatcher. The Poll Tax meant that a single pensioner with no other income living in a one bedroom flat paid the same as the local arisocrat living in a castle with staff. It was wrong... Whereas now she pays 75% as much as the family of six living next door. Which is also wrong. And which is why Steve and Andrew Brown are also wrong, as is anyone else proposing an unfair land/property value based tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 7:06:13 GMT
I am very proud to declare that I was Chairman of our local Anti Poll Tax protest group, and as such I did my little bit to bring down Margaret Thatcher. The Poll Tax meant that a single pensioner with no other income living in a one bedroom flat paid the same as the local arisocrat living in a castle with staff. It was wrong... Whereas now she pays 75% as much as the family of six living next door. Which is also wrong. People are not fixed immovably to the ground. Somebody who is occupying a high value location, but isn't making much use of it, should be incentivized to move to an area that is less in demand (more suitable) |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 7:14:52 GMT
Why? And measured by which metrics?
Along with Steve and AB, you are simply proposing another system based on intangibles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 15, 2023 8:15:51 GMT
I am very proud to declare that I was Chairman of our local Anti Poll Tax protest group, and as such I did my little bit to bring down Margaret Thatcher. The Poll Tax meant that a single pensioner with no other income living in a one bedroom flat paid the same as the local arisocrat living in a castle with staff. It was wrong... Whereas now she pays 75% as much as the family of six living next door. Which is also wrong. And which is why Steve and Andrew Brown are also wrong, as is anyone else proposing an unfair land/property value based tax. We're not wrong. If you were to look at those cases of 6 or more people occupying a band A property you'd typically find they'd be some of the poorest people in society. Yes you could tax them into starvation or you could tax them more and up their benefits but the former is evil and the latter just a bureaucrat's inefficient dream. Council tax is the only effective tax on increased wealth we have except the really wealthy made sure it didn't affect them. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 8:37:02 GMT
Why? And measured by which metrics? Because the resource is finite (in extent) and anyone's occupation of it (studied in isolation) comes at an economic cost to others - to everyone else. Why do people have to pay to occupy land at all? Because there is less of it than would be ideal (in the places that matter) and so use (occupation) is often contested. As an extremis illustration - It would be far better for me if I occupied a tenth of central London and turned it into a Blake's Seven memorial, but the negative effects on others in terms of unemployment and lost economic opportunity would be huge. The metrics thing is a bit more involved. You measure the cost to the community of a person's land occupation by looking at the market price of the land they are occupying would have if it was bare. This is going to be an inexact science and so most advocates agree the community should only collect a significant fraction of this value, but never more. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 8:44:41 GMT
We're not wrong. If you were to look at those cases of 6 or more people occupying a band A property you'd typically find they'd be some of the poorest people in society. Yes you could tax them into starvation or you could tax them more and up their benefits but the former is evil and the latter just a bureaucrat's inefficient dream. Council tax is the only effective tax on increased wealth we have except the really wealthy made sure it didn't affect them. But any alternative system based on intangible notions of value will inevitably introduce inequalities of its own. As I said: We probably already have the least worst option. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 8:46:11 GMT
Why? And measured by which metrics? Because the resource is finite (in extent) and anyone's occupation of it (studied in isolation) comes at an economic cost to others - to everyone else. Why do people have to pay to occupy land at all? Because there is less of it than would be ideal (in the places that matter) and so use (occupation) is often contested. As an extremis illustration - It would be far better for me if I occupied a tenth of central London and turned it into a Blake's Seven memorial, but the negative effects on others in terms of unemployment and lost economic opportunity would be huge. The metrics thing is a bit more involved. You measure the cost to the community of a person's land occupation by looking at the market price of the land they are occupying would have if it was bare. This is going to be an inexact science and so most advocates agree the community should only collect a significant fraction of this value, but never more. And how does my occupation of my land "Cost the community"? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 8:51:40 GMT
Because the resource is finite (in extent) and anyone's occupation of it (studied in isolation) comes at an economic cost to others - to everyone else. Why do people have to pay to occupy land at all? Because there is less of it than would be ideal (in the places that matter) and so use (occupation) is often contested. As an extremis illustration - It would be far better for me if I occupied a tenth of central London and turned it into a Blake's Seven memorial, but the negative effects on others in terms of unemployment and lost economic opportunity would be huge. The metrics thing is a bit more involved. You measure the cost to the community of a person's land occupation by looking at the market price of the land they are occupying would have if it was bare. This is going to be an inexact science and so most advocates agree the community should only collect a significant fraction of this value, but never more. And how does my occupation of my land "Cost the community"? To be completely clear about what i'm saying - Your occupation of land (taken in isolation) represents a cost to everyone else. If everything else remained the same but you were release that land, everyone else would experience the change as a reduced cost (less pressure on the occupation of land) |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 9:00:13 GMT
Btw, Squeezed.
You can entertain this notion without having to worry about it being implemented. The UK is more likely to convert to Hare Krishna than implement sensible taxation - too many influential people would have their free-ride removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 9:15:15 GMT
And how does my occupation of my land "Cost the community"? To be completely clear about what i'm saying - Your occupation of land (taken in isolation) represents a cost to everyone else. If everything else remained the same but you were release that land, everyone else would experience the change as a reduced cost (less pressure on the occupation of land) Nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 15, 2023 10:45:49 GMT
Because the resource is finite (in extent) and anyone's occupation of it (studied in isolation) comes at an economic cost to others - to everyone else. Why do people have to pay to occupy land at all? Because there is less of it than would be ideal (in the places that matter) and so use (occupation) is often contested. As an extremis illustration - It would be far better for me if I occupied a tenth of central London and turned it into a Blake's Seven memorial, but the negative effects on others in terms of unemployment and lost economic opportunity would be huge. The metrics thing is a bit more involved. You measure the cost to the community of a person's land occupation by looking at the market price of the land they are occupying would have if it was bare. This is going to be an inexact science and so most advocates agree the community should only collect a significant fraction of this value, but never more. And how does my occupation of my land "Cost the community"? Because the existence of an organised society to give you the ability to occupy that land costs real money to create and maintain that society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 10:49:59 GMT
The country had its verdict on a "per person" charge back in the 1990s, which resulted in mass protests and even riots, but obviously some people dont learn.
|
|
