|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 16, 2023 8:50:58 GMT
A problem with too much freedom in local taxation is it can lead to a Derek Hatton regime scaring the better off out of town and ending up like 1990's Detroit.
As for local income taxes we already have a 60% marginal rate so we're on the tipping edge of talent flight as we saw in Wilson's 1960s idiocies.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 17, 2023 13:44:02 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. you never struck me as a corbyn admirer. That’s something he dreamed up…. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 17, 2023 13:46:12 GMT
The Poll Tax was the fairest method: Everyone pays for what everyone uses, on a per person basis. What's not to like, unless of course you were previously a non-contributor? Anything based on property or land values is fraught: Just because an old age pensioners home has gone up umpteen times in value since they bought it decades ago does not mean that they are rich or can afford to pay 1% or whatever of it's value every year. It's effectively a tax on inflation (and funds that are entirely notional). Local Income Tax? Hmmm... Not so good since it discourages work. Especially for people like me who can afford to retire now. If work is simply going to drop me into a higher tax bracket then I might just stay in bed - which is not the way forward if the government really wants people in their 50s to carry on working. And of course all of the above have a bureaucratic burden and likely increased cost. No, it's fine as it is. Besides, given every public bodies huge propensity to waste money, we should be looking at ways to pay them less not more. The Poll Tax was £140 per head in Westminster and £300 per head in Newport. How is that fair ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 17, 2023 14:58:05 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. you never struck me as a corbyn admirer. That’s something he dreamed up…. No. LVT predates corby. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 17, 2023 17:09:45 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. you never struck me as a corbyn admirer. That’s something he dreamed up…. No - its been promoted by among others Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Milton Friedman. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 17, 2023 18:24:14 GMT
The Poll Tax was the fairest method: Everyone pays for what everyone uses, on a per person basis. What's not to like, unless of course you were previously a non-contributor? Anything based on property or land values is fraught: Just because an old age pensioners home has gone up umpteen times in value since they bought it decades ago does not mean that they are rich or can afford to pay 1% or whatever of it's value every year. It's effectively a tax on inflation (and funds that are entirely notional). Local Income Tax? Hmmm... Not so good since it discourages work. Especially for people like me who can afford to retire now. If work is simply going to drop me into a higher tax bracket then I might just stay in bed - which is not the way forward if the government really wants people in their 50s to carry on working. And of course all of the above have a bureaucratic burden and likely increased cost. No, it's fine as it is. Besides, given every public bodies huge propensity to waste money, we should be looking at ways to pay them less not more. The Poll Tax was £140 per head in Westminster and £300 per head in Newport. How is that fair ?? Perhaps because it represented local expenditure?
Under the current system different areas charge differently and under every alternative system proposed above there would be different charges in different areas.
But I agree to an extent: The Tories screwed up an excellent idea by attempting to skew it in favour of their own constituencies.
And history tells us the result of that.
Pillocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Sept 18, 2023 8:13:12 GMT
The Poll Tax was £140 per head in Westminster and £300 per head in Newport. How is that fair ?? Perhaps because it represented local expenditure?
Under the current system different areas charge differently and under every alternative system proposed above there would be different charges in different areas.
But I agree to an extent: The Tories screwed up an excellent idea by attempting to skew it in favour of their own constituencies.
And history tells us the result of that.
Pillocks.
Not really, as council tax is only one part of council income. Westminster raises a lot of money through business rates, so they can afford to keep the council tax artificially low. |
|
