Bring Back The Poll Tax

[winkie]

Fascinating quote on the impact of taxation on house prices - I'm always interested in the pragmatic.

On the original question: The poll tax was unfair - it was a regressive tax. More importantly, it proved impossible to collect. John Major - never bound by silly dogma in the way most of his colleagues realised it had failed completely, and the damaging effect this was having on service provision hence he abolished it in favour of council tax.

Rates and council tax are the same thing...both attached to the property...poll tax is a tax attached to the person.

[the shaping machine]

if you want your big house you pay for it.

People in big big houses do pay more for them. However, what correlation is there between your house size and your use of local services?

we are not all the same so why pay the same.

Do rich people pay more for their baked beans / electricity / TV licence ?

A full poll tax is not going to happen. However itemising local services and charging the users for what they use has many merits. e.g. want the council to empty your bins? pay X pounds. Take the rubbish to the dump yourself = pay X/2 pounds.

.

[Crazy88s]

Council bods would pay far more than the millionaire, as each individual is targetted to pay full whack over 16yrs/18yrs - which is why Poll taxes have been dissolved both times, leading to loss of government control & direct cause of UK riots & anarchy!

O.P who mentioned it is a deliberate Inflama!

Council bods use more council services. Millionaires pay enough tax as it is.

No I am not a deliverable inflamer, I truly believe poll tax is more equitable.

[Injin]

People in big big houses do pay more for them. However, what correlation is there between your house size and your use of local services?

Service = higher house value. So the council provides service which it extorts money from everyoen for and those in big houses see thei rhouse value go up.

Not particularly just.

Do rich people pay more for their baked beans / electricity / TV licence ?

No, they are subsidised by poor people.

A full poll tax is not going to happen. However itemising local services and charging the users for what they use has many merits. e.g. want the council to empty your bins? pay X pounds. Take the rubbish to the dump yourself = pay X/2 pounds.

.

Surely no service = no charge.

however I have a much better idea. How about no council tax, no service provision and let the market decide?

I thought tories were all for that sort of thing.

[winkie]

People in big big houses do pay more for them. However, what correlation is there between your house size and your use of local services?

Do rich people pay more for their baked beans / electricity / TV licence ?

A full poll tax is not going to happen. However itemising local services and charging the users for what they use has many merits. e.g. want the council to empty your bins? pay X pounds. Take the rubbish to the dump yourself = pay X/2 pounds.

.

No I disagree strongly with that argument...if you start charging the poor for services they do not benefit from, the rich will only end up paying for it.

[uptherebels]

I wasn't in the UK during the poll tax. I remember paying rates before that, and I understand how council tax works. What was different about Poll tax? Upthread, someone said it was impossible to collect. Why was that? Rates and council tax seem to get collected OK (mostly). How was Poll tax any different?

[Injin]

Council bods use more council services. Millionaires pay enough tax as it is.

No I am not a deliverable inflamer, I truly believe poll tax is more equitable.

it isn't.

millionaires are generalyl millionaires because they have pushed their costs onto other people.

For example a happy, educated workforce with good health benefiots emplyers more than employees - but the employees pay for it.

We live in a coercive system based on violence. The better you are doing under it, the bigger piece of scum you are (in general, not everyone.)

[winkie]

People in big big houses do pay more for them. However, what correlation is there between your house size and your use of local services?

Under poll tax/community charge you paid the same tax whether you lived in a mansion or in a council bed sit...wrong.

Do rich people pay more for their baked beans / electricity / TV licence ?

A full poll tax is not going to happen. However itemising local services and charging the users for what they use has many merits. e.g. want the council to empty your bins? pay X pounds. Take the rubbish to the dump yourself = pay X/2 pounds.

.

A rich person has a far greater disposable income.....a poorer person may not have a surplus at the end of the week so would leave their rubbish on the street.

[the shaping machine]

Service = higher house value. So the council provides service which it extorts money from everyoen for and those in big houses see thei rhouse value go up.

I'm still not seeing a correlation between house prices and council services. Some of the nicer (and most expensive) rural areas have hardly any contact with their councils.

Surely no service = no charge.

however I have a much better idea. How about no council tax, no service provision and let the market decide?

I thought tories were all for that sort of thing.

I was floating a step in that direction. Once people realise that they are not serfs, and can in many cases opt for superior non-state options big government would be fatally wounded.

[Crazy88s]

I wasn't in the UK during the poll tax. I remember paying rates before that, and I understand how council tax works. What was different about Poll tax? Upthread, someone said it was impossible to collect. Why was that? Rates and council tax seem to get collected OK (mostly). How was Poll tax any different?

Exactly, people rebelled against it without understanding it. It was more about bringing thatcher down than the fairness/unfairness of the poll tax

[the shaping machine]

A rich person has a far greater disposable income.....a poorer person may not have a surplus at the end of the week so would leave their rubbish on the street.

So silly little sheeple can't be trusted, the state must do everything for them?

Proposal: if you leave your rubbish on the street you will face a bill for clearing it up + you must opt back into the council scheme.

It is not unlike other areas where people are assumed to be responsible until proven otherwise e.g. driving cars and drinking.

.

Edited May 12, 2010 by the shaping machine

[Crazy88s]

it isn't.

millionaires are generalyl millionaires because they have pushed their costs onto other people.

For example a happy, educated workforce with good health benefiots emplyers more than employees - but the employees pay for it.

We live in a coercive system based on violence. The better you are doing under it, the bigger piece of scum you are (in general, not everyone.)

What a load of socialist diatribe.

The employees can create their own enterprises if they are unhappy with their lot. Employees have incredible rights and securty compared to some owner manager who work their nuts off.

Someone with nothing has everything to gain, someone with something has everything to lose and unless you are stupendously wealthy the rich end up giving to the poor more than the poor give to the rich.

[Crazy88s]

People in big big houses do pay more for them. However, what correlation is there between your house size and your use of local services?

Exactly, there is no relationship other than a bunch of socialists think you ought to subsidise the 'shameless' generation

[winkie]

So silly little sheeple can't be trusted, the state must do everything for them?

Proposal: if you leave your rubbish on the street you will face a bill for clearing it up + you must opt back into the council scheme.

It is not unlike other areas where people are assumed to be responsible until proven otherwise e.g. driving cars and drinking.

.

I will tell you what then...you send your kids to the school in a poor area that would pay the same price for a school in a better area...deal.

You can't prise blood out of a stone....so they will opt back into the benefits scheme.

[erranta]

So silly little sheeple can't be trusted, the state must do everything for them?

Proposal: if you leave your rubbish on the street you will face a bill for clearing it up + you must opt back into the council scheme.

It is not unlike other areas where people are assumed to be responsible until proven otherwise e.g. driving cars and drinking.

.

Idiot - people have no choice now legislated by THE STATE.

You are not allowed to bury anything and can get done for burning stuff in your back garden!

'They' cleverly laid these 'traps' before clamping down on the general poplulation with the no rubbish tip areas left(EEC Directive fines)/recycling scams etc!

Ever see your rates go down now everyone returns billions of tons of glass /aluminium/metals etc annually? Complete CON!

In the old days people buried their rubbish in their back gardens, which is why if you dig deep enough in older victorian properties etc you will find piles of old bottles/crockery!

They burned the rest or fed it to their horses!

Edited May 12, 2010 by erranta

[the shaping machine]

I will tell you what then...you send your kids to the school in a poor area that would pay the same price for a school in a better area...deal.

Not trying to be rude, but I can't make sense of this sentence.

You can't prise blood out of a stone....so they will opt back into the benefits scheme.

I'm suggesting that there be the option to tailor the amount of services that you receive to the amount of money you have available to pay for them. So in my original example: The time-rich cash-poor may find a cheaper 'no-collection' rubbish service preferable to the one size fits all scheme forced on them now. Why would having that choice be a bad thing?

.

[winkie]

Not trying to be rude, but I can't make sense of this sentence.

I will try to make it clearer for you....take two state schools, one in a poorer area, one in a richer area...where would you send your kids...the cost is the same.

I'm suggesting that there be the option to tailor the amount of services that you receive to the amount of money you have available to pay for them. So in my original example: The time-rich cash-poor may find a cheaper 'no-collection' rubbish service preferable to the one size fits all scheme forced on them now. Why would having that choice be a bad thing?

Poll tax was designed as 'one tax fits all' and it turned out to be very wrong.

[Guest happy?]

I wasn't in the UK during the poll tax. I remember paying rates before that, and I understand how council tax works. What was different about Poll tax? Upthread, someone said it was impossible to collect. Why was that? Rates and council tax seem to get collected OK (mostly). How was Poll tax any different?

Both council tax and rates are levied against a property - which isn't going anywhere. The poll tax was levied against individuals - as a result many people refused to register and kept moving around. In some places this meant that the collection levels fell from 98%+ (for the rates) to less than 70% for the poll tax.

As others have pointed out there were numerous iniquities about it - but what really killed it as a form of taxation was that it was proving impossible to collect - the longer it lasted the greater the problem grew. John Major recognised this and introduced the council tax - which returned the system to one broadly based on property values (and indirectly, income levels).

The primary criticism levelled at the council tax is that it also places a high burden on those on low incomes as it is banded heavily at the lower end whereas there's a cap at the upper end - so someone with a property just falling into band G - (the highest rate) pays the same tax as someone who owns a mansion.

The other main criticism is that some prosperous towns have a large percentage of higher banded properties (i.e. lots of big houses in leafy suburbs) and it's easy to collect enough money in these areas. In other areas - those with a high proportion of cramped/terraced properties the rate will be lower and a council by definition can only raise a smaller sum of money.

[the shaping machine]

I will try to make it clearer for you....take two state schools, one in a poorer area, one in a richer area...where would you send your kids...the cost is the same.

The best school obviously.

Anecdote time: In the area I grew up in, grammar schools were abandoned in favour of the comprehensive system. The (excellent) grammar schools were in the centre of the city (poor area), the secondary moderns were in the suburbs and villages. Within 10 years the ex-grammars were failing and the ex-secondary moderns were topping the league tables. Lesson? it's not necessarily where things are located but how good the service is, and having choice makes that service better.

Poll tax was designed as 'one tax fits all' and it turned out to be very wrong.

So avoid socialist 'one-size-fits-all' solutions.

.

[winkie]

The best school obviously.

Anecdote time: In the area I grew up in, grammar schools were abandoned in favour of the comprehensive system. The (excellent) grammar schools were in the centre of the city (poor area), the secondary moderns were in the suburbs and villages. Within 10 years the ex-grammars were failing and the ex-secondary moderns were topping the league tables. Lesson? it's not necessarily where things are located but how good the service is, and having choice makes that service better.

So avoid socialist 'one-size-fits-all' solutions.

.

When I grew up you went to the nearest school.....I agree with your second point.

[rockhopper]

My take on the poll tax was that it was a tax on being alive .

I can see some logic to it but it still feels like that and for that reason

I was strongly against it ... not enough to riot

It wouldnt be much of a stretch to imagine an oxygen tax following on

where you were charged for (maybe estimated) amount of oxygen you

breathed per year.

I thought the old rates system was fair (and simple) and Maggies version

ie the banding was purely to favour the wealthy end of the tory party .

rockhopper

[Injin]

What a load of socialist diatribe.

The employees can create their own enterprises if they are unhappy with their lot. Employees have incredible rights and securty compared to some owner manager who work their nuts off.

Someone with nothing has everything to gain, someone with something has everything to lose and unless you are stupendously wealthy the rich end up giving to the poor more than the poor give to the rich.

Interesting.

I've certainly never been called a socialist before!

And the rest of your post is well, divorced from actuality, shall we say.

[Crazy88s]

Interesting.

I've certainly never been called a socialist before!

And the rest of your post is well, divorced from actuality, shall we say.

So exaclty what are your political leanings?

I dont think my 'get on your bike' type comment about unhappy employees forming their own enterprises (business) is divorced from actuality actually, I would say more of an accurate observation of the many people that do just that. Sadly there are too many people that think 'someone else' owes them a living.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Crazy88s

[Injin]

So exaclty what are your political leanings?

I'm just a vaguely logical guy who likes facts. I am utterly opposed to all politics.

I dont think my 'get on your bike' tyle comment about unhappy employees forming their own enterprises (business) is divorced from actuality actually, I would say more of an accurate observation of the many people that do just that. Sadly there are too many people that think 'someone else' owes them a living.

This simply isn't credible.

Functional literacy rates, numeracy and other key itellectual abilities required to operate on your own two feet have been utterly eviscerated in the general population. We are talking folks who didn't start off too bright and then had a decade or more of the best pyschological programming an "education budget" can buy inflicted upon them. They really are helpess to all intents and purposes in a capitalist world without a lot of work on their basics and then some more advanced stuff to actually make them competitive, and a section of society worked very hard to make them that way.

And there is ****** all chance of anyone helping them.

Lots of people do indeed think the world owes them a living. Given that they were newborn once and pretty much everything they know is learned, it's worth asking where they got that idea from.

If you do want freedom and free markets to prosper then a bit of empathy for some pretty broken souls wouldn't go amiss because after this farce is over, there will be a lot of conmen willing to rouse a crowd by incanting "the free market did it."

[Crazy88s]

I'm just a vaguely logical guy who likes facts. I am utterly opposed to all politics.

This simply isn't credible.

Functional literacy rates, numeracy and other key itellectual abilities required to operate on your own two feet have been utterly eviscerated in the general population. We are talking folks who didn't start off too bright and then had a decade or more of the best pyschological programming an "education budget" can buy inflicted upon them. They really are helpess to all intents and purposes in a capitalist world without a lot of work on their basics and then some more advanced stuff to actually make them competitive, and a section of society worked very hard to make them that way.

And there is ****** all chance of anyone helping them.

Lots of people do indeed think the world owes them a living. Given that they were newborn once and pretty much everything they know is learned, it's worth asking where they got that idea from.

If you do want freedom and free markets to prosper then a bit of empathy for some pretty broken souls wouldn't go amiss because after this farce is over, there will be a lot of conmen willing to rouse a crowd by incanting "the free market did it."

An independant thinker - well thats a start. Use your logic to evaluate all sides of the argument please.

You are way too negative, the programming for humans to self improve is hardwired. Yes there are lots of demotivated cerebally lacking individuals but take my painter, would not pay him minimm wage myself but being self employed takes home a reackon about 800-1000 per week. Hardley any skill required, just a few brushes. Many many people could improve their lot if they got off their arses.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Crazy88s