|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 15, 2023 13:20:42 GMT
Steve's point is that poll tax was a personal charge, not one based on property. As it should be. Agreed. And, whatever charge is decided, it should be levied on everyone in each property — as, for example, is income tax... |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 15, 2023 13:21:07 GMT
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 As benefits by definition should be the bare minimum required to live on, how can you deduct anything from it? 😳 |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 13:26:10 GMT
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 That's slightly to one side of what was being discussed, We were only dealing with the costs to others of your pressence. I can also show that a person who occupies valuable land is receiving services from the government of a higher value and that that value ends up effectively in his bank account (ie value he collects). Two slightly differing subjects |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 13:55:40 GMT
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. Not what I said. But a centrally collected tax avoids any additional bureaucratic burden, any re-evaluation and any of the costs associated therewith. It's the most efficient system. And councils could be allocated their budgets according to a fairly simple formula taking into account their local population and any special conditions (for example, if they were especially deprived or especially sparsely populated etc. etc.) Simple, effective and fair. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 13:58:36 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. Because that wasn't my point: Income tax already takes into account ability to pay. I'm simply proposing to have it centrally collected. After all, why pay twice for the same thing? That would simply be a waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 14:23:28 GMT
Can't we just ask for volunteers to do the bins?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 15, 2023 14:30:07 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. Because that wasn't my point: Income tax already takes into account ability to pay. I'm simply proposing to have it centrally collected. After all, why pay twice for the same thing? That would simply be a waste of money. Ah, OK, so essentially a local income tax. You are right that it would be collected by HMRC and then redistributed to local councils. It has the advantage of being cheaper to collect than standalone systems, you'll have less costs on recovery for people on PAYE, and it abolishes the need for CTS. That was previously my favoured method, and was also promoted by the LibDems in the last decade. I'm just leaning a little towards the land tax now, but am still open to persuasion. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 15, 2023 14:31:57 GMT
Can't we just ask for volunteers to do the bins? Yes. Then we can go on strike and sit round our brassiers with our placards. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 14:38:54 GMT
Can't we just ask for volunteers to do the bins? Yes. Then we can go on strike and sit round our brassiers with our placards. business as usual and money saved to boot |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Sept 15, 2023 14:39:19 GMT
A local income tax is fairer than the rates system or the Council Tax. Shouldn't be based on property size but earnings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 14:42:11 GMT
i disagree. I think people should pay according to community created value they can exclude others from, rather than what they produce.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 14:43:22 GMT
A local income tax is fairer than the rates system or the Council Tax. Shouldn't be based on property size but earnings. Well quite. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 14:45:59 GMT
i disagree. I think people should pay according to community created value they can exclude others from, rather than what they produce. So you want to quantify an intangible via an undefined metric and tax us on the basis of that. What could possibly go wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 15:00:59 GMT
i disagree. I think people should pay according to community created value they can exclude others from, rather than what they produce. So you want to quantify an intangible via an undefined metric and tax us on the basis of that. What could possibly go wrong? No. The value of their land (absent improvements) is created by the community around them (ie everyone in concert creates this value) This is tangible enough to act as a basis for taxation. Is your alternative to tax people for being productive? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 15:21:17 GMT
The value of their land (absent improvements) is created by the community around them (ie everyone in concert creates this value) This is tangible enough to act as a basis for taxation. Is your alternative to tax people for being productive? And again, how is this to be measured? And how does it take into account the ability to pay? And, in view of the foregoing, how is it in any way preferable to the already known quantity of income? |
|
