|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 10:54:50 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. I don't think an actual literal poll tax is the worst idea imaginable. If you don't want to contribute to the cause, you lose your vote and we call it quits. If everyone drops out of voting, we will need to start an investigation into why tax payer enthusiasm is so low |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 10:59:43 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. I don't think an actual literal poll tax is the worst idea imaginable. If you don't want to contribute to the cause, you lose your vote and we call it quits. If everyone drops out of voting, we will need to start an investigation into why tax payer enthusiasm is so low Which would be VERY good for the Tories, as it would mostly affect poorer people and those on low incomes. I think the idea of buying your vote is dead in the water and will never happen, thankfuly |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 11:09:26 GMT
I don't think an actual literal poll tax is the worst idea imaginable. If you don't want to contribute to the cause, you lose your vote and we call it quits. If everyone drops out of voting, we will need to start an investigation into why tax payer enthusiasm is so low Which would be VERY good for the Tories, as it would mostly affect poorer people and those on low incomes. That may be true, but I think you should dig a bit deeper. If you do not value your vote much or you are not making a minimum contribution that allows you to pay for it, is it really fair that you get to shape policy for those that do? I would set it so that a person working in a steady average job could easily plan to pay the fee - ie several hundred pounds per vote |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 15, 2023 11:58:56 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. But if you wanted to make the charge per person, how would you determine the level at which people should contribute, without making it a local income tax? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 12:30:48 GMT
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. Yes society costs money to run. That's why we have general taxation. But how does my occupation of my land specifically cost society such that it requires its own form of taxation? And can you quantify that and show your workings? Of course you can't answer either because the basic premise is nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 12:34:08 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. That's because the spongers suddenly found themselves faced with paying their fair share for a change and they didn't like it. Outside of that, the poll tax was quite popular but the UK panders to vociferous minorities and the government wrongly gave in. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 12:37:04 GMT
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. But if you wanted to make the charge per person, how would you determine the level at which people should contribute, without making it a local income tax? Why not just add it to normal income tax and do away with the local tax altogether? |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 15, 2023 12:59:38 GMT
But if you wanted to make the charge per person, how would you determine the level at which people should contribute, without making it a local income tax? Why not just add it to normal income tax and do away with the local tax altogether? Why have local councils at all? Run everything centrally from Westminster. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Sept 15, 2023 13:07:06 GMT
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. Why should those who use and overuse the services get them FOC and expect the 'few' to pay for their service supply? As for those who screamed blue murder at being told to contribute last time - deduct it from their benefits or use attachment of earnings orders-why should they get off scot free? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Sept 15, 2023 13:11:21 GMT
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) The money collected is supposed to fund services used by residents- not penalise some residents according to green eyed jealousy What does it matter where the resident lives? - if they use the public swimming pool they go for a swim in the pool with other residents-doesn't cost any more for one resident to do 5 lengths than another |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 13:14:31 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. That's because the spongers suddenly found themselves faced with paying their fair share for a change and they didn't like it. Outside of that, the poll tax was quite popular but the UK panders to vociferous minorities and the government wrongly gave in. As chairman of our local Anti Poll Tax group, I had been working full time for 13 years since leaving school on low wages, our rates on the family home was based upon the value of the property, and as I was living at home with parents I religiously handed over Board Money every week to my mother. Suddenly, instead of paying about £300 per year, the rateable value, we were paying instead £279 per person, amounting to over a thousand pounds for four persons living in a council house. An opinion poll conducted in 1990 indicated that 78% of those polled and who expressed an opinion gave preference to alternative means of taxation, therefore we can correctly assume the Poll Tax was very unpopular, hence the demonstrations all over the country, and hence the reason for its abolition. 17 million people, including me, refused to pay the tax, which defeated it and brought Maggie's time as Prime Minister to a premature end. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 15, 2023 13:15:25 GMT
Perhaps the main problem with council tax is that it isn't progressive enough. Even in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, reputed to be the most affluent in the country, the top band tax is less than £3,000 p.a. In many US states a million dollar home will attract a property tax of around $12,000 (1%+ of assessed value). Even that could prove too radical (or unfair) — especially if current property owners no longer have enough income to be able to purchase property of equivalent value, but can afford its upkeep.
Wouldn't a local income tax levied on all of a property's residents be more progressive (fair)...?
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Sept 15, 2023 13:16:00 GMT
But if you wanted to make the charge per person, how would you determine the level at which people should contribute, without making it a local income tax? Why not just add it to normal income tax and do away with the local tax altogether? And deduct it from those receiving welfare benefits in excess of personal allowance |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 15, 2023 13:18:40 GMT
What I was trying to point out to squeezed is that charging everyone the same is inherently unfair. He/she doesn’t seem to have addressed the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 15, 2023 13:19:33 GMT
Many US states have that too. In general state funding consists of three revenue streams: property tax, state income tax and state sales tax. Some states like California levy all three, but others may forgo one or even two (e.g. Oregon has no sales tax, Washington has no property tax).
Plus Federal 'grants' of course.
|
|
