|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 15:34:58 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? It is measured in the same way real estate assessors measure land price now. It doesn't. The tax (charge) itself is based on what you hold from others, not on what could be taken out of your bank account. Think of it like a price for a service. It is preferable because it doesn't penalise people for being productive and instead incentivises them to only hold what they need for their use. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 15:52:44 GMT
I see.
Although I suspect that if you could overcome the obvious shortcomings of that system, it would end up looking very similar to the one that we already have: A tax based on a notional value.
And, if you're not going to take into account ability to pay then you may as well do away with the inherent bureaucracy and simply impose a poll tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 16:06:23 GMT
And, if you're not going to take into account ability to pay then you may as well do away with the inherent bureaucracy and simply impose a poll tax. There are important distinctions. A poll tax doesn't create the same positive incentives. Any attempt to introduce a poll tax would be headed off by a similar sentiment expressed by yourself earlier - ie a charge that doesn't expand according to means must be wrong. However, consider that people who live in rented accommodation don't have their rents set by their ability to pay, people trying to buy a house don't have the price of housing or the interest rate set according to their ability to pay their mortgage. Unfortunately, this well meaning sentiment re 'ability to pay' has more or less boxed us in to 'fining' producers for being productive and letting sizable and damaging free-rides go relatively un-taxed. It needs to be challenged a bit to get out of this mess. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 16:28:13 GMT
And the best case from your proposed scenario looks pretty much the same as the system that we already have.
Which, as I've already said, is probably the least worst system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 15, 2023 17:07:17 GMT
And the best case from your proposed scenario looks pretty much the same as the system that we already have. Which, as I've already said, is probably the least worst system. I disagree. If implemented properly, my system has the potential to relieve all sorts of problems related to 'dog in the manger' real estate exploits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2023 17:45:30 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. The problem I saw was that the new tax was expecting people with no income whatsoever, living in a family household to pay the tax. Where were they going to get the money? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 15, 2023 19:59:33 GMT
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. Because people that own a lot but technically earn little can pay very little tax. Taxation should be levied as fairly as possible to the benefit the taxed get from society. Seems you want those that have very little to pay for the privilege of being able to gaze adoringly at your property. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 15, 2023 20:00:55 GMT
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. The problem I saw was that the new tax was expecting people with no income whatsoever, living in a family household to pay the tax. Where were they going to get the money? Well the obvious route would be by looting Chateau Middle |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 15, 2023 20:46:33 GMT
And the politics of envy finally shows its face. But, in true Scooby-Doo fashion, we knew it was there all along. If it wasn't for those meddling righties they'd have gotten clean away with it, too!  |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 15, 2023 21:09:07 GMT
And the politics of envy finally shows its face. But, in true Scooby-Doo fashion, we knew it was there all along. If it wasn't for those meddling righties they'd have gotten clean away with it, too! You know what, I don't agree, but your post made me smile. How nice to have a thread with positive contributions and constructive arguments with people even when you don't agree. I wish all the threads were more like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 15, 2023 21:34:35 GMT
And the politics of envy finally shows its face. But, in true Scooby-Doo fashion, we knew it was there all along. If it wasn't for those meddling righties they'd have gotten clean away with it, too! Nope but maybe now you understand some of the use you and I get from society that's proportional to the value of the properties we live in. The difference between you and I is I accept paying £3k a year as a fair contribution, you think you shouldn't. Far from politics of envy, it's your politics of freeloading. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 16, 2023 6:38:54 GMT
No, Stevie.
The difference between thee and me is that I object to elderly widows being punished over the notional value of an asset that they purchased 50 years ago in very different circumstances.
It's yet another aspect of the lefts growing hatred of the elderly: The pure politics of envy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 16, 2023 8:24:52 GMT
No, Stevie. The difference between thee and me is that I object to elderly widows being punished over the notional value of an asset that they purchased 50 years ago in very different circumstances. It's yet another aspect of the lefts growing hatred of the elderly: The pure politics of envy. You do know that council tax is reduced for such single occupants don't you? Maybe not. You do know they can raise money on the property don't you? I guess that's one you know about but want to obscure. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 16, 2023 8:36:06 GMT
Yes to both and my point still stands.
Now it's been a good thread and I'm not going to spoil it by getting on the Stevie-Go-Round.
So you can have the last word on me.🙂
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 16, 2023 8:44:05 GMT
Having the economy dominated by 'dog in the manger' real estate gambits, and taxing people for working, hurts far more elderly widows than changing that situation would harm. If we were to significantly sort this out, most people would benefit indirectly, including widows.
Btw. What happens currently to an elderly widow (or indeed anyone) if they can't keep up mortgage repayments or rent? They have to move or modify their plan to repay. However, I don't dismiss this notion entirely and feel such changes need to be brought in gradually because it is a significant switch. This is why i think local taxation is a good place to start.
Perhaps a good place to start this is to give local councils some more discretion on how they tax? not sure.
|
|
