Log in

View Full Version : Council tax whinge


Ed
30-03-09, 04:33 PM
Over the last 10 years, council tax has increased, on average, by 74%.

In the same period, inflation has increased by 19%.

Now can someone please remind me, which party has been in power throughout this period??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5067740/Council-tax-bills-have-increased-four-times-faster-than-inflation-in-ten-years.html

simesb
30-03-09, 04:40 PM
The one that has overseen the crash of the economy, is sleazy to the hilt, and takes us into wars of dubious legality? Can't remember :D

punyXpress
30-03-09, 08:45 PM
Is it the Monster Raving Looney Party ?
No : they had scruples.

embee
31-03-09, 12:38 AM
Mine's just gone up 3.9% :smt067

Stu
31-03-09, 12:51 AM
:mad:

Milky Bar Kid
31-03-09, 12:52 AM
If I could find a smilie which expressed my dispair I would use it here....

Kilted Ginger
31-03-09, 02:29 AM
Be grateful my brother in the us pays 3k a year council tax, the next street over pays 16.5k

Btw he has a 2 bed flat

Magnum
31-03-09, 06:29 AM
If I could find a smilie which expressed my dispair I would use it here....


:smt022?

Swin
31-03-09, 06:30 AM
I don't mind the council tax per se, everyone should contribute etc.

What I do despair of is what you're getting for your money - which seems to be diminishing every year.

Magnum
31-03-09, 06:36 AM
What I do despair of is what you're getting for your money - which seems to be diminishing every year.


Our council (Barking and Dagenham) seem to be doing a good job of showing us what the money goes towards. We have recently had two decent wheely bins per house, and also a lot of work on the pavements (regardless of how pointless i think the endless roadworks are...). I know its just bins and road maintainance, but its better than seeing nothing.

sarah
31-03-09, 06:42 AM
Lots goes on housing.

timwilky
31-03-09, 07:26 AM
I don't mind the council tax per se, everyone should contribute etc.

What I do despair of is what you're getting for your money - which seems to be diminishing every year.


When Maggie said everyone should pay, there was rioting. so they went back to only 30% must pay.


(I assume it is about 30% when you take into account husband/wife and those households with multiple grown up kids still free loading at home etc., probably going to be even less when you then take into account the rising number of unemployed entitled to rate rebates etc.)

Jabba
31-03-09, 08:00 AM
Over the last 10 years, council tax has increased, on average, by 74%.

In the same period, inflation has increased by 19%.

Speaking as a humble local government employee, I'd like to assure the .org that my salary hasn't gone up by 74% in the last 10 years.

In fact, due to several years of below inflation pay rises when times were good and private-sector employees were raking it in ;), our pay has dropped in real terms.

There was one year when my salary increase matched my Council Tax increase. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.........

Ceri JC
31-03-09, 08:54 AM
'course it needs to go up. They just lost all the money they had already taken off us in the icelandic banks, remember? ;)

Gazza77
31-03-09, 09:39 AM
Probably doesn't help that councils are funded by central government as well as council tax. In order for their total income to remain at a constant council tax has to rise each year, because central government funding is falling.

The govt seems to have other things to spend it on the local services....

punyXpress
31-03-09, 09:55 AM
If I could find a smilie which expressed my dispair I would use it here....


<------- You mean this one ? MBK ?


( on your post )

Luckypants
31-03-09, 09:58 AM
Be grateful my brother in the us pays 3k a year council tax, the next street over pays 16.5k

Btw he has a 2 bed flat

But his income tax is lower, offsetting it to a degree. He is also able write his local tax off against his federal taxes, which means he pays it out of untaxed income not taxed income - that makes a big difference to the amount of gross pay Council Tax takes.

Still a lot though!

Ed
31-03-09, 10:24 AM
I find it maddening that we pay so much. For some years it went up by 10 - 15% a year. Why has central government imposed this shift? And you get no thanks for it, just red letters and threats of court action if you miss a payment.

I can't wait to vote this lot out. They have just over a year left - the next election must be held before mid June 2010.

Luckypants
31-03-09, 11:37 AM
I find it maddening that we pay so much. For some years it went up by 10 - 15% a year. Why has central government imposed this shift? And you get no thanks for it, just red letters and threats of court action if you miss a payment.

I can't wait to vote this lot out. They have just over a year left - the next election must be held before mid June 2010.

I agree. I know a lot of folks got all het up about the Community Charge (poll tax), but IMHO that is the fairest system. A flat charge on all of age for council services. I get no more service for having a biggish house, than the folks next door in a small 2-bed bungalow, but am expected to pay double. Not fair! Payment should be proportional services consumed, so each adult should pay the same. (usual caveats about low income / students / pensioners).

And don't get me started on a local income tax!!!!

Swin
31-03-09, 12:33 PM
When Maggie said everyone should pay, there was rioting. so they went back to only 30% must pay.


(I assume it is about 30% when you take into account husband/wife and those households with multiple grown up kids still free loading at home etc., probably going to be even less when you then take into account the rising number of unemployed entitled to rate rebates etc.)

I park opposite number 10 Downing Street (for my sins, it's a pain in the bum what with protests and whatever). Back when the riots kicked off our carpark was open to the public with just a little chain link fence marking off our land as it were, the rioters got into the car park, smashed 2 of our guys cars roofs down into the steering wheel area and pushed all the bikes over, except mine - even rioters must have felt sorry for a bloke tooling around on a MZ TS250 :D

And to make it worse, on the way home that night I lost the back end on a big pile of horse poo left behind by the cop horses!!!

Foey
31-03-09, 02:37 PM
Payment should be proportional services consumed, so each adult should pay the same. (usual caveats about low income / students / pensioners).



Even that isn't fair, why should me & my other half pay the same as a husband & wife who have four or five kids, they would generate more waste than us so should pay more.

Biker Biggles
31-03-09, 04:59 PM
Indeed.Why have these services at all if no one wants to pay for them?

Luckypants
31-03-09, 05:17 PM
Even that isn't fair, why should me & my other half pay the same as a husband & wife who have four or five kids, they would generate more waste than us so should pay more.

See caveats about low incomes.... Those with kids tend to be strapped enough as it is. where do you think a lot of Council Tax goes to? Education is one of the highest costs for a council. I do believe we should all chuck in to the pot to pay for services, just that all should pay the same.

See you may have kids in the future and then you will be glad of the educatin provided (for instance).

Lou M
31-03-09, 09:36 PM
Bring back Poll Tax!!
I think that the services that I get from council are brilliant, but Poll Tax was still fairer.

tigersaw
31-03-09, 09:40 PM
Bring back Poll Tax!!
I think that the services that I get from council are brilliant, but Poll Tax was still fairer.

I remember looking forward to poll tax as I thought I'd save loads, but the reduction compared to my rates at the time was very little.

Biker Biggles
31-03-09, 09:58 PM
I believe its a longstanding Libdem policy to replace this tax with a local income tax.Seems a good idea given that all the other systems have failed.(Rates Poll Tax and the current Community Charge)

Ed
31-03-09, 10:02 PM
I'm supposed to be grateful that my business rates are going up by 'only' 2% instead of the planned 5%. I can't increase my fees by 2%. In fact I quoted somebody £400 to buy a piece of land - half an acre, it's farmland and he wants to turn it into garden land so there's planning considerations - only to find that a firm in Hereford had quoted him £200, and another here in Shrewsbury £250. I did in fact get the job, but if this goes on then I may as well close down now.

Luckypants
31-03-09, 10:08 PM
I believe its a longstanding Libdem policy to replace this tax with a local income tax.Seems a good idea given that all the other systems have failed.(Rates Poll Tax and the current Community Charge)

How can that be a good idea? Why should someone earning £20K pay double what someone earning £10K pay for the same council services? In what way exactly is that equitable? Flat fee, same for all - fair.

Ed
31-03-09, 10:09 PM
How can that be a good idea? Why should someone earning £20K pay double what someone earning £10K pay for the same council services? In what way exactly is that equitable? Flat fee, same for all - fair.

+1

Biker Biggles
31-03-09, 10:15 PM
How can that be a good idea? Why should someone earning £20K pay double what someone earning £10K pay for the same council services? In what way exactly is that equitable? Flat fee, same for all - fair.


For the same reason that we dont run the country that way.It doesnt work.You cant charge someone on £10000 a flat rate income tax(or poll tax)as it would mean you took all their money.So you have to tax according to what people can afford.The only realistic and vaguely fair way to do that is graduated income tax.

Luckypants
31-03-09, 10:29 PM
For the same reason that we dont run the country that way.It doesnt work.You cant charge someone on £10000 a flat rate income tax(or poll tax)as it would mean you took all their money.So you have to tax according to what people can afford.The only realistic and vaguely fair way to do that is graduated income tax.

Well I understand why we tax at a national level as a percentage of everything and indeed this makes sense as we need to raise a **** load of money to run the country (no arguments over the amounts please). This is then shared out to benefit everyone, but predominantly those on lower incomes. I do have major issues with 'tiered' rates of income tax - again, why do the moderately successful and higher achievers have to pay tax at a higher RATE than those on lower incomes? Higher earners already pay more in tax because 25% of 40K is more than 25% of 10K.

But when it comes to funding local services, it is much less complex to calculate the needs and therefore budget of the council. The figure they can arrive at fairly accurately should then be simply divided up by all those that are meant to pay. There will still be net contributors and net consumers to the council's services, but at least it would seem to be fair. A local income tax will be punitive to anyone who makes an effort to get on in life (same as 40% income tax is) and many folks on a decent wage living in modest accommodation will see their bills leap. The current LIB DEM proposals will cost me about £1000 extra a year and I already pay over the odds. The Lib DEMS have no hope of getting anywhere while they stay with this policy, as their natural vote of middle class voters will be hit hard.

Grrrrrr it's my fecking money, let me keep some of it!!!!!

MiniMatt
01-04-09, 02:58 PM
Total tax burden has increased. That's really the only argument that can be used effectively. Claiming that one tax has risen without looking at other taxes, and ultimately the rate change of disposable income is setting yourself up to have your arguments shot down.

Furthermore - claiming, as has been done earlier in this thread, that the rate of council tax change is the fault of central government is a slippery slope. Undoubtedly central government has a huge effect on the rate of council tax, no matter how hard they try to say otherwise - but you must be aware that by putting the blame on central government one tends to imply that if central government gave more support to local government these funds would magic themselves out of thin air. Sure, central government could increase funding to local government tomorrow and we'd see council tax cut to a tenner a year - but where does that money come from?

Ultimately it comes down not to individual figures on salary versus taxation - ultimately the only thing that really matters is disposable income. I could get a hundred percent pay rise tomorrow and have taxes cut in half - but if a loaf of bread then costs five times as much I'm in a worse boat. Now I'm definitely not saying it's all rosy by any stretch, I don't have the figures to hand and my hunch is that disposable income has seen some significant straining in the last couple of years but I am fairly certain that it's not been hit anything like as hard as figures would suggest if you only look at figures for one tax without taking into account all factors.

And to the folks who always crawl out the woodwork to say "I don't have kids, why should I pay for the neighbours kids education? Or subside their increased rubbish generation?" - stop being so (a) short sighted and (b) so bloody selfish. Who do you think subsidised your education when you were growing up, and who do you think will subsidise your pension and your medical care when you're old and senile, hell, as bikers we (unfortunately) probably make more use of (expensive) NHS emergency medical care than Mondeo Man - why should he subsidise your whims? No man is an island - society is people working together for common good, there are winners and losers in that but ultimately it works a hell of a lot better than everybody being isolationist and sat buried away in their own little individual ivory towers.

Biker Biggles
01-04-09, 04:21 PM
But Ive worked bloody hard and trampled on dozens of lesser mortals to get ahead and earn loadsa money like I do today.Why should I have to pay all that tax to subsidise the losers I stabbed in the back on my way up????:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

lily
01-04-09, 04:30 PM
But Ive worked bloody hard and trampled on dozens of lesser mortals to get ahead and earn loadsa money like I do today.Why should I have to pay all that tax to subsidise the losers I stabbed in the back on my way up????:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

O that has made be laugh!

Ceri JC
01-04-09, 04:31 PM
...This is then shared out to benefit everyone, but predominantly those on lower incomes.

+1. It would be interesting to see some stats breaking down cost to the council in servicing a person vs the amount paid in in tax. I suspect you'd see an exponential, inversely proportional line that drops markedly as the earning goes up. Considering what a large proportion is spent on wholely council-subsidised housing and the sadly common need for social workers, extra policing, etc. I suspect that there's some spectacular stat like the poorest 10% using 90% of the money or something nuts like that. Almost the inverse of the popular "The richest 2% own 50% of the wealth" statistic.

I'm not a bleeding heart by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't help but feel that some of this isn't the less fortunates fault; the poor are usually the victims of crime, usually by merit of where they live. It'd be harsh to say, "you call out the police all the time, so you should pay more", when the reason they call the police out all the time is because society housed them next door to a family of thieves. That said, seeing schemes where council tax-funded subsidised properties are mixed in with privately owned houses (often in areas and properties that are considerably more expensive than my own) makes my blood boil. I'd be even more livid if I'd worked hard all my life to retire somewhere nice and then a family of pikeys were moved in next door for no reason other than to give them something good to take away as an incentive for good behaviour.

What I can't reconcile myself to is how much vastly higher the standard of (wholely state-funded) living enjoyed by even the very poorest people in the UK is than those who are comparatively very successful and hardworking in poorer countries. How about an "exchange program" whereby we take the brightest and best of third world countries, whack them in council-funded housing for 3 years to allow them time to learn English, get their feet on the ground and start earning. After which time they are expected to be completely self supporting and pay a higher rate of tax for 3 years to pay back the money "borrowed" from the state in this time. They are then eligible for continued citizenship on the proviso that their gross cost to the state remains less than their gross gain. For every one we take who achieves this, we deport one of our biggest drains on resources to their country. A sort of "one in, one out" immigration policy? ;)

MiniMatt
01-04-09, 05:27 PM
+1. It would be interesting to see some stats breaking down cost to the council in servicing a person vs the amount paid in in tax. I suspect you'd see an exponential, inversely proportional line that drops markedly as the earning goes up. Considering what a large proportion is spent on wholely council-subsidised housing and the sadly common need for social workers, extra policing, etc. I suspect that there's some spectacular stat like the poorest 10% using 90% of the money or something nuts like that. Almost the inverse of the popular "The richest 2% own 50% of the wealth" statistic.

I suspect (rather cheekily) that 90% of the money is currently going to City bankers :D

But yep, social security is the biggest spend (although that includes child tax credits which Mondeo Man is entitled to just as much as Vicky Pollard, and pensions).
Second biggest I think is health at the moment and I'd argue that's fairly evenly dispersed - sure the poor suffer from more health problems but then they also die a lot earlier and save a bunch in pension provision, seems a bit harsh to make them pay more too, plus they don't break their legs on skiing holidays).
Next is education and again I'd argue that spending here is typically even, perhaps even slightly weighted in favour of middle class suburban schools.

I'm not a bleeding heart by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't help but feel that some of this isn't the less fortunates fault; the poor are usually the victims of crime, usually by merit of where they live. It'd be harsh to say, "you call out the police all the time, so you should pay more", when the reason they call the police out all the time is because society housed them next door to a family of thieves. That said, seeing schemes where council tax-funded subsidised properties are mixed in with privately owned houses (often in areas and properties that are considerably more expensive than my own) makes my blood boil. I'd be even more livid if I'd worked hard all my life to retire somewhere nice and then a family of pikeys were moved in next door for no reason other than to give them something good to take away as an incentive for good behaviour.

Nasty vicious slippery slope. Creates a them and us scenario and worse it implies that thieving scum and poor are interchangeable. I don't want to live next to thieving scum versus I don't want to live next to poor people. If you need a council house then we don't want you lot living next to us.

I've seen enough of your posts to realise that this is in no way what you're implying or desire, I'm just forseeing how it would pan out.

What I can't reconcile myself to is how much vastly higher the standard of (wholely state-funded) living enjoyed by even the very poorest people in the UK is than those who are comparatively very successful and hardworking in poorer countries. How about an "exchange program" whereby we take the brightest and best of third world countries, whack them in council-funded housing for 3 years to allow them time to learn English, get their feet on the ground and start earning. After which time they are expected to be completely self supporting and pay a higher rate of tax for 3 years to pay back the money "borrowed" from the state in this time. They are then eligible for continued citizenship on the proviso that their gross cost to the state remains less than their gross gain. For every one we take who achieves this, we deport one of our biggest drains on resources to their country. A sort of "one in, one out" immigration policy? ;)

To be honest we're doing that already and at horrifc cost to third world countries. **** poor countries in Africa and parts of the Asian sub continent are getting drained of trained medical staff - the third world country scrapes together enough cash to train a handful of the brightest and the best - who then subsequently (and quite understandably) feck off to the Western world in search of better personal prospects. Aid programs to third world countries are essentially a discount training scheme - which directly or indirectly gets spent training up the brightest and the best who then come to the UK - we get trained staff for less money (net) than if we'd trained them locally.

Biker Biggles
01-04-09, 05:54 PM
I did have a chuckle at the idea of "Import a qualified nurse and export a pikey in return".How would that stack up under the "fairtrade" agreements?

Ed
01-04-09, 08:33 PM
Claiming that one tax has risen without looking at other taxes, and ultimately the rate change of disposable income is setting yourself up to have your arguments shot down.

Furthermore - claiming, as has been done earlier in this thread, that the rate of council tax change is the fault of central government is a slippery slope.

Ultimately it comes down not to individual figures on salary versus taxation - ultimately the only thing that really matters is disposable income.


Cobblers.

You cannot deny that council tax has far outstripped inflation. It's a fine socialist dogma to confuse all the issues. I am talking about Council Tax and Council Tax alone. It is a perfectly valid statement to say that it has gone up far more than inflation. It is neither inaccurate nor misleading. But your suggestions are both.

And if it isn't the Government's responsibility - specifically Gordon Brown, as he was in charge of the purse strings - then whose responsibility is it?

Biker Biggles
01-04-09, 09:11 PM
Cobblers.

You cannot deny that council tax has far outstripped inflation. It's a fine socialist dogma to confuse all the issues. I am talking about Council Tax and Council Tax alone. It is a perfectly valid statement to say that it has gone up far more than inflation. It is neither inaccurate nor misleading. But your suggestions are both.

And if it isn't the Government's responsibility - specifically Gordon Brown, as he was in charge of the purse strings - then whose responsibility is it?


This is true,and brings us full circle because it shows the repeated failure of local taxation for decades.I recall Thatchers nemisis,the poll tax,was specifically brought in to counter exactly the same criticisms of the old Rates which were spiraling out of control.And that after a decade of Tory rule.They rejig it every few years but it doesnt work,no matter which lot are in power.

sauluk
01-04-09, 09:26 PM
This was a calculated a few years ago so will be worse now but about 68p of every £1 you earn will end up in the hands of the government on average

MiniMatt
01-04-09, 09:34 PM
Cobblers.

You cannot deny that council tax has far outstripped inflation. It's a fine socialist dogma to confuse all the issues. I am talking about Council Tax and Council Tax alone. It is a perfectly valid statement to say that it has gone up far more than inflation. It is neither inaccurate nor misleading. But your suggestions are both.

And if it isn't the Government's responsibility - specifically Gordon Brown, as he was in charge of the purse strings - then whose responsibility is it?

Oh please, socialist dogma? I'm more than open about my politics but please don't mistake my ideals for my eagerness to see the truth of any given matter rather than just resorting to knee jerk responses of "tax has gone up - burn the witch/politician/asylum seeker". I'm not looking for a fight but you sure as hell can have one if you want.

At no stage did I claim that council tax has done nothing other than outstrip inflation, in fact my very first sentence was "Total tax burden has increased." - is that socialist dogma, is that innacurate and misleading? What I did point out was that without looking at the whole picture you get a very narrow set of statistics that can be used to fuel knee jerk responses.

In fact this has already been highlighted at the beginning of this thread:
Be grateful my brother in the us pays 3k a year council tax, the next street over pays 16.5k

Btw he has a 2 bed flat

Followed by:

But his income tax is lower, offsetting it to a degree. He is also able write his local tax off against his federal taxes, which means he pays it out of untaxed income not taxed income - that makes a big difference to the amount of gross pay Council Tax takes.

Still a lot though!

Now I was quite happy to have an economic argument but if you want to reduce it down to socialist dogma insults - if others can follow the simple logic that one tax does not a whole picture make, then why the hell can't you?

sarah
01-04-09, 09:35 PM
this thread has really picked up

MiniMatt
01-04-09, 09:44 PM
this thread has really picked up

Meh :D MiniMatt is GrumpyCat today :(

Possibly a little harsh on Ed there. I shall ponder this further.

sarah
01-04-09, 09:51 PM
Meh :D MiniMatt is GrumpyCat today :(

Possibly a little harsh on Ed there. I shall ponder this further.

i haven't got the patience to write that kind of post. i wish i did.

Ed
01-04-09, 10:19 PM
I'm big enough to apologise for the 'socialist' jibe.

Sorry Matt.

But I stand by everything else. And your reply, whilst no doubt inflamed by my comment, is over the top. What difference does the 'overall tax burden' make to my 85 yo mother, she pays hardly any income tax as she has hardly any income, and most of it is pension so fixed, but the huge rises in council tax over the last 10 years have affected her badly. Her pension hasn't gone up by anything like as much.

And what's the relevance of a US comparison to the UK?

It isn't valid to mix up all these taxes. If you don't have a bike or a car then you won't pay road tax, fuel duties or insurance premium tax. If you buy very little there'd be next to no VAT. I don't agree that the acid test is average wealth because there is no such thing as the average person. It's perfectly valid to select one tax and to examine it in isolation and so far you have not persuaded me otherwise. Averaging hides everything, specifics stand or fall on their own.

northwind
01-04-09, 10:28 PM
Probably doesn't help that councils are funded by central government as well as council tax. In order for their total income to remain at a constant council tax has to rise each year, because central government funding is falling

Actually I think the exact opposite is true, I'm pretty sure central government contribution to councils has gone up over inflation every year in this period.

How much of council tax is actually controlled from central government? I was under the impression it was pretty devolved but it looks like I'm wrong.

northwind
01-04-09, 10:47 PM
They just lost all the money they had already taken off us in the icelandic banks, remember? ;)

Oh, maybe you can explain this one, why did people find it so objectionable that councils put their budget into banks in order to get a better return on our money? It'd be madness to have it sat around gaining no interest so they used short-term savings accounts, but when people hear about it they act like it's the end of the world... "Why are the council saving MY money?" it's ridiculous...

punyXpress
01-04-09, 10:55 PM
Actually I think the exact opposite is true, I'm pretty sure central government contribution to councils has gone up over inflation every year in this period.

How much of council tax is actually controlled from central government? I was under the impression it was pretty devolved but it looks like I'm wrong.

But Government has created so many hare-brained schemes and non-jobs that they have directly cost many councils much more than any increase they may have given in rate support. One in particular is Bus Passes. The money reimbursed to many councils is grotesquely less than the cost - another scheme not fully thought out!
Just to hide the bad news :
Due to Brown G's efforts ( and a few others ) our indebtedness as a country is now more per household than the value of that house.
On that basis, shouldn't he be paying that Council Tax ?

Luckypants
01-04-09, 11:12 PM
MiniMatt, it's late so I can't provide a response to your cogent argument (as usual). But I would like to point out it was me that expended the argument a little to include other taxes which may have provoked some of your response.

So Ed. my bad for bringing in other taxes. I totally agree that the rate of increase in Council Tax is way beyond inflation. I believe this was one of the ways in which New Labour was able to keep it's pledge to not raise Income Tax, by raising the revenue it would have provided in rate support via large Council Tax rises. And so we come full circle to the other taxes issue.

I'll try to make a better argument tomorrow. :D

MiniMatt
02-04-09, 01:21 AM
Ok, I was a little inflamatory, I'll try to be more constructive in this one.


It isn't valid to mix up all these taxes. If you don't have a bike or a car then you won't pay road tax, fuel duties or insurance premium tax. If you buy very little there'd be next to no VAT. I don't agree that the acid test is average wealth because there is no such thing as the average person. It's perfectly valid to select one tax and to examine it in isolation and so far you have not persuaded me otherwise. Averaging hides everything, specifics stand or fall on their own.

Bingo! We have a winner! You are 100% correct, there is no such thing as the average person. What I'm trying to show is that this is precisely why we can't treat everything in isolation and have to look at the wider picture.

Individual tax systems create winners and losers. I'll use a couple of examples:
LP has already outlined in this thread that if council tax were replaced with a local income tax he'd be notably worse off.
Going by your description of your mother's circumstances, if council tax were replaced with a local income tax she'd be notably better off.

So which system is right? The answer is neither - no tax system will be fair to all of the people all of the time. So you make sure that no one tax system makes up the entire tax burden. You make some taxes based on income, you make some based on consumption, you make some that are crudely based on property, and make some that are flat across the board. And you hope that when taking the big picture into account you smooth out the peaks and troughs of the winners and losers. If we only looked at council tax in isolation we'd see that the current version of council tax hits your mother harder and LP less so. If we look at income tax then LP gets hit harder with this stick than your mother. If we only looked at individual taxes in isolation we'd think that the solution would be for pensioners only to pay income tax and working age people only to pay council tax. Obviously that wouldn't work, but we stand a chance of making it work if we looked at the total tax burden rather than individual taxes in isolation - perhaps we could abolish council tax for your mother, and to pay for that we'd increase LP's income tax; now that may be a possibility, but naturally that money we're taking from LP is money he could otherwise be putting toward his own retirement, so when he reaches his dotage many years from now he'll require more assistance from the state than before.... there's no easy solution, but a fundamental mistake people seem to make is in assuming that central government money is free money.

And yet still the overall system does still creates winners and losers, and those winners and losers will vary as they go through life - the system that benefits you now may hurt you in retirement. Or vice versa.

Ok, that's the persuasion bit out the way. Now the argumentative bit.

What I really take issue with is knee jerk "it's all the current government's fault" response because it implies that A.N.Other party or the poster could do things so much better. Now I have no love for this government or Gordon Brown - I've already made it clear on this forum that I will not be voting for them in the next election (for other reasons than taxation, in the field of tax v. spend my personal opinion is that they've performed a very necessary re-adjustment of priorities over the previous incumbents - old ladies used to have to wait a lot longer for hip operations). But I'm not so naive as to think that any other party has the miracle answer that can make a winner out of both LP and your mother. Governments the world over have been trying to (or perhaps just promising to) make winners out of everybody for centuries - none of them have got it right.

Now, if you or anyone has a suggestion on making a fairer world then please, please pipe up. I pretty much consider it a responsibility of every individual on Earth to try (success is irrelevant) to leave the world a better place than they found it. But it really, really winds me up when people (and I'm generalising here rather than directing this at you) just whine about how crap the country is and about how unfair it is. Your mother lives in a country where she will not die of starvation, where she will not be imprisoned for her political views, where she will not be beaten by soldiers, she lives in a country where emergency medical care is provided free of charge, she does not have to worry about whether water will come out the taps or whether that water will be safe to drink. That alone puts your mother in the very top echelons of luckiest people on the planet.

Now getting more personal, in comparison to the rest of the country and it's inhabitants I'm fairly confident that you personally, and by implication the assistance you are able to give your mother, are more comfortable than average within this country - you're well educated, you're employed, you don't live in a sink estate, you're able to indulge in the occasional vice (motorcycles as a passion rather than a neccesity). I'm not suggesting you're rich (not that this is a crime), only that my guess is if you cut the country in half, you'd probably be in the more comfortable rather than less comfortable half. So assuming this to be the case - you're in the top half of people in one of the top countries on the planet and.... this next bit is unnecessarily cutting and I would wish it only to illustrate a general point rather than be aimed at you personnaly..... and you still think life is unfair?

Now why the section "and by implication the assistance you are able to give your mother"? Why should you subsidise your mother and make up the shortfall the government won't? Well aside from the fact that she did the same for you when you were in shorts, society is a collection of people - it's not isolatated individuals, within that society are smaller sub societies, we call those families. We've already discussed that different tax systems create different winners and losers so governments try to smooth the peaks and troughs across societies by implementing a range of tax strategies - well you have the power within your own sub-society to do a bit of smoothing yourself - your disposable income is currently greater than that of your mother; when you were doing your two year trainee time, saddled with student debt and ordering reams of OC1s on a crappy wage for some law firm perhaps the situation was reversed and perhaps she smoothed out some of those peaks and troughs in her own sub-society.

I'm not saying all this to guilt trip you, and I'm not saying that there aren't things terribly wrong with the tax system, all I'm saying is that I'm more interested in hearing potential solutions to problems than I am in hearing people just point and say "it's all their fault" (whoever they may be and whatever colour ribbon they might be wearing).

EDIT: Addendum
Now I'm not suggesting in the slightest that this implies that life for your mother and pensioners nationwide is rosy or anything like that but I just did a quick Google for some statistics (as you've probably noticed, I love a good statistic) - how about this one - in nine of the last ten years the number of pensioners below the poverty line has fallen. Who published this bit of Labour brown-nosing? The Daily Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2105770/Number-of-pensioners-in-poverty-rises-for-first-time-in-decade.html). Now is this good enough? Hell no - it's a feckin national disgrace that almost one in three are in poverty. But improvement in nine out of ten years - well, it sure as hell ain't good enough but I'd struggle to class it as fiscal incompetence especially when reported by the opposition's media mouthpiece (naturally, the Telegraph didn't spin it in quite the same way I just have - which is why you look at the statistics and make your own mind up rather than have it spoon fed from me or any other outlet).

EDIT 2: Saga Street Cred credentials
I figure when anyone makes a post like this they're duty bound to utter "some of my best friends are black/white/gay/straight". Well, my only Saga Street Cred comes from my mother, herself rapidly approaching pensionable age, who when I was growing up worked for Age Concern and who currently works for a charity which largely but not exclusively supports older people (Crossroads). Anyway, in my formative years it was her sense of outrage at the treatment of older people by the (then blue ribbon wearing) government which rubbed off on me, and it was my sense of outrage at the treatment of single mothers (and by implication their offspring - me) being demonised by the (then blue ribbon wearing) government which shaped me. Not sure if that's enough to make me "down" wiv da Tena Lady massiv?

Foey
02-04-09, 08:20 AM
Flat fee, same for all - fair.


Young teenage lad earning £10K a year, some fat arsed banker earning £2m a year & both pay £50 a month, how is that fair, deduct the tax centrally as a percentage of the wage, that would be fairer, those with kids could have a percentage of the child allowance deducted & the same for those on state benefit, who incidently i think should be made to work for the state to earn benefit in the first place.

Luckypants
02-04-09, 08:59 AM
Young teenage lad earning £10K a year, some fat arsed banker earning £2m a year & both pay £50 a month, how is that fair, deduct the tax centrally as a percentage of the wage, that would be fairer, those with kids could have a percentage of the child allowance deducted & the same for those on state benefit, who incidently i think should be made to work for the state to earn benefit in the first place.

See my original post (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=1845144&postcount=19) on this. The young lad earning £10K consumes the same amount of council services as the 'fat arsed banker' earning £2M. In fact the young lad may well consume more (housing benefit for instance?). Now as they consume the same amount of service, it is fair they pay the same. Does a mechanic check on your income before they decide what to charge to service your bike? No, it is the same price regardless of your income. I view local taxation as paying for local services, which are by and large available to all in equal measure, so should be paid for equally.

I accept that those on low incomes, your notional young man for instance, are less able to pay the full amount than someone whose income is considerably more. Therefore in my original post I said 'usual caveats about low income / students / pensioners' by which I mean there has to be provision for these people to pay less or even nothing. However, once we reach the threshold of income where you pay the full amount, it is fair that everyone pays the same in cash terms.

Ceri JC
02-04-09, 09:29 AM
Bloody hell Matt, I thought my posts were verbose. ;)

Actually I think the exact opposite is true, I'm pretty sure central government contribution to councils has gone up over inflation every year in this period.


I don't have stats, but I suspect it is true. What I do know, based on what I'm already seeing in the marketplace in which I work, is that the government (quite rationally, IMO) are laying the foundations that in 5-10 years time will allow them to centralise a lot of functions that are unneccessarily duplicated, at additional cost to the taxpayer, in each of the hundreds of councils and government departments around the country.

What I don't forsee is this having much of an impact on the overall rate of taxation. The central->local funding will probably drop and a lot of this saving will be used to pay for the cost of administering these things centrally. The local councils will consequently have less work to do and less central funding, so the logical conclusion would be to lay off a number of local council employees and drop the local rates slightly. What will happen, I suspect is that in typical government fashion rather than making them redundant, forcing them to enter the private sector and generate wealth, they will create arguably unnecessary jobs (which further add to beauracracy) just to keep these people employed. Consequently the local tax rate will stay the same/continue to rise.
The new system should result in a saving for the taxpayer somewhere along the line, but we cetainly won't see a drop in local taxation* and I think it's unlikely we'll see one in central taxation.

*They'll cite the decreased funding from central govt. as justification for this.

Oh, maybe you can explain this one, why did people find it so objectionable that councils put their budget into offshore [my addition] banks in order to get a better return on our money? It'd be madness to have it sat around gaining no interest so they used short-term savings accounts, but when people hear about it they act like it's the end of the world... "Why are the council saving MY money?" it's ridiculous...

I agree it'd be madness to not have it in a savings account. The problem is it being abroad. It smacks of hypocrisy given customs and excise are quite happy to tax me to disincentivise me from moving money out of my country and into that of others, even when buying things which are not available in the UK. It is, however, acceptable for them to whack money they take from me it into banks abroad, which our central government have less control over and cannot tax to the same extent.

I work for a very big corporation that does all sorts of things. If part of the corporation is able to offer a service we require, but are unable to provide/do ourselves, we are obligated to use them, even if they do not offer the best value for money to our part of the business. The reason for this is that even if the money is spent in my bit of the business, it goes to the other part of the business, so doesn't leave the company and the company as a whole grows stronger. I see this as analogous to Britain's economy; wouldn't it make sense to force government organisations to "buy British", unless they could prove that the gross cost to the taxpayer was less when using the foreign service? When you factor in the tax on the company's profits, tax on the salaries of that company's employees' salaries and tax on all the things those employees buy, the government can claw back a huge proportion of the money a UK company charge them for something. I don't have figures, but I would imagine the Icelandic banks could not have been offering rates of interest so much vastly better than that of UK banks that made it make financial sense, even before you factor in the loss of control and stability that using an offshore bank introduced. I know you work in banking and have a keener understanding of these things than me, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Luckypants
02-04-09, 09:39 AM
Matt I do agree with you that the total tax burden has increased over the past 10 years, from I believe 41%GDP to 44.5%GDP (rough figures that I have not checked for a few months). This figure alone should have tax payers up in arms.

I do not agree that we cannot treat individual taxes in isolation. The reason for this is quite simple, the authorities treat each tax individually when talking about taxation. Road Fund Licence is a subject close to our hearts, that money is supposed to go on the roads but we all know it just goes into the general pot - but is still talked about by those in power as a tax to fund transport improvements. The same goes for National Insurance and so on - but the point is that successive governments continue to talk about these taxes as individual entities, so we are perfectly entitled to talk about individual taxes.

So Ed. is quite right, the increase in Council Tax over the past 10 years is outrageous and much of the blame can be laid at the door of No. 10. It is central government that have passed laws and directives that have made councils spend a lot more, but did not match this with increased rate support. I agree to the point that any increase in rate support will not magically appear out of thin air and would need to be funded from an increase in general taxation, but as Tony and Gordy promised no Income Tax rises, they couldn't easily raise the cash that way and 'stealth taxed' us via Council Tax increases.

My moan (besides the rate of increase) has been the fairness of the Council Tax system, where the amount you pay is based on a notional value of your home. This is totally unfair to older folks who continue to live in their family home but whose income has fallen in retirement or those that need a large house because they have a large family - folks with lots of kids are often short of money. It is also unfair to folks like me, whose kids have flown the nest but still the keep the house so they can visit. My argument for a flat rate tax for local services is based on fairness.

Ceri JC
02-04-09, 09:49 AM
... I view local taxation as paying for local services, which are by and large available to all in equal measure, so should be paid for equally.

... However, once we reach the threshold of income where you pay the full amount, it is fair that everyone pays the same in cash terms.

+1. Exactly my view of how it should work. I view council tax as paying for services that need to be carried out in my area. I want the verges cut, I want the bins emptied, I want the drains to work (although don't quite understand why the water board whom I already pay for "drainage" aren't responsible for this). I don't understand why how much I earn should come into how much I should pay for these sort of things.

Central government's tax is another matter and one I consider more debateable, but for council tax I think poll tax is more* fair than the present systems.

MiniMatt
02-04-09, 01:05 PM
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way and trying to look for an economic solution whereas in reality this is just a whinge thread with no suggestion of looking to make things better. And in fairness, the thread title is just that and everybody is entitled to a good whinge from time to time.

Last attempt then, it's already been said that comparisions between the council tax over here and in the states is irrelevant - and that's precisely my point - comparisons between the two are irrelevant because as was correctly pointed out they have no meaning without being taken in the context of the total tax system.

LP makes a good list of people who lose out under the current council tax system - change current council tax for a local income tax and some of that list become winners and some become losers, change it for a flat poll tax rate and again some become winners and some become losers - we'd still be sat here saying council tax is unfair to group X,Y and Z. Taken into the context of the tax system as a whole some of those peaks and troughs get smoothed out; and yet you won't find me disagreeing that there are *still* winners and losers.

Ring fencing of taxes has never happened, I agree that it's always been implied but it's never happened and as you rightly say, everyone knows that it's never happened. And that's ok too, as it's more efficient - spending requirements peak and trough - a mild winter means a lesser burden on health services, severe flooding means increased road spending - if everything were ring fenced then we'd be constantly tweaking tax rates on a month by month basis wheras with one big pot we can smooth out those peaks and troughs in individual spending areas. Ring fencing just raises more questions and adds more administration cost - what about public transport - arguably this should come out of the road tax pot, but then the very people who use public transport the most probably pay the least road tax, should alcohol tax go to the NHS pot or to the Police pot?

On a flat tax for everyone (ala poll tax) I whole heartedly commend the suggestion - at least people are coming up with alternatives, whether I agree or disagree it's so much better than just saying "it's not fair". As you'd no doubt imagine, I disagree with a flat poll tax, but as a suggestion it deserves examination. The reason I disagree with a flat poll tax is precisely the same reason why people dislike the current council tax - it's unfair for some people. It would mean that the poor pay a greater proportion of their income as tax compared to the rich - you are penalised for being poor. Now you can take a hard line and say "well, why should I be penalised for having the ambition/intelligence/luck to get a better paying job?" - well that's fine until you realise that there are low payed jobs that are essential - you still want a mechanic to fix your bike, he's a skilled guy, he's good at his job, sure it's not the best paying job but you still need him there - why should he be penalised more heavily in tax than you? Both of you do a valid job, one gets paid more than the other, should the mechanic jack his job and come work with you instead?

Daimo
02-04-09, 01:08 PM
Found out my missis company spents like £24k per year on council tax....


They don't even collect the bins, so what exactly are they paying £24k per year for???

MiniMatt
02-04-09, 01:20 PM
Found out my missis company spents like £24k per year on council tax....


They don't even collect the bins, so what exactly are they paying £24k per year for???


Ooh, very good point, which I'm going to shamelessly twist for my own purposes :D

Perhaps they shouldn't be paying it, perhaps all businesses shouldn't be paying business rates (which I assume you're referring to as corporate council tax) because as you rightly say, they don't even get bins emptied for that. So we'll take that 24K off the company's shoulders and put it on.... the general public council tax bill, or we could get central government to make up the shortfall and they could recoup it through increased income tax, or perhaps the 24K should be taxed directly to the (eg) 24 people who work at the company, everybody pays 1K each for the benefit of coming to work - hmm, should the cleaner pay the same as the MD?

Individual taxes in isolation always result in some people or some businesses paying more than they get back in an isolated example. The business which doesn't get bins emptied or the benefit of local schools still pays toward their upkeep, the couple with no children still pays toward the education of other people's kids and the couple with kids still pay for the zero kids familiy's medical expensese and for the planning commitee which approved the construction of the business's new warehouse.

Ceri JC
02-04-09, 01:23 PM
On a flat tax for everyone (ala poll tax) I whole heartedly commend the suggestion - at least people are coming up with alternatives, whether I agree or disagree it's so much better than just saying "it's not fair". As you'd no doubt imagine, I disagree with a flat poll tax, but as a suggestion it deserves examination. The reason I disagree with a flat poll tax is precisely the same reason why people dislike the current council tax - it's unfair for some people. It would mean that the poor pay a greater proportion of their income as tax compared to the rich - you are penalised for being poor. Now you can take a hard line and say "well, why should I be penalised for having the ambition/intelligence/luck to get a better paying job?" - well that's fine until you realise that there are low payed jobs that are essential - you still want a mechanic to fix your bike, he's a skilled guy, he's good at his job, sure it's not the best paying job but you still need him there - why should he be penalised more heavily in tax than you? Both of you do a valid job, one gets paid more than the other, should the mechanic jack his job and come work with you instead?

It effectively boils down to the two points of view and I've never seen anyone shift their stance on this, online or IRL. :)

The counter argument clearly (and this isn't saying it's right) is that proportionality doesn't come into it: You should pay for what you use.

The mechanic you cited is an example of skilled, reasonably difficult and reasonably responsible work that is comparatively low paid. My counter argument would be what about someone who chooses a "laid back" profession through choice solely because they want a quiet/easy life. Let's say a council-employed gardener. You work shortish hours, comparatively little is expected of you. There's no period of several years spent below the poverty line as a student/apprentice* whilst learning the trade. Responsibility is almost nil and there is no stress to take home of an evening. You're choosing to do this, so why should someone who chooses to do something that has none of these advantages be expected not only to have a harder job, which is more useful to society, but also to subsidise you?

* This is something that often gets overlooked; all my fully qualified lawyer/doctor mates have less money in real terms than me. The reason being they spent so long studying and qualifying, they now have huge mountains of debt (through necessity, not lavishness). Sure, this will eventually get paid off and this balance will shift, probably by the time we've reached our thirties (27 now), but there are still often years of the high-earners lives spent living very frugally and this often gets missed out of the equation.

Daimo
02-04-09, 01:26 PM
[quote=MiniMatt;1848959]Ooh, very good point, which I'm going to shamelessly twist for my own purposes [/img]

Yeah its a company. If the bins we're taken or they received some kind of service for their £24k then i'd understand, but they get nothing.

Oh, you mean the excess money that councils witter into foreign banks who then go bust....

Ahhh thats where all this council tax money goes...........

Luckypants
02-04-09, 01:37 PM
Last attempt then, it's already been said that comparisions between the council tax over here and in the states is irrelevant - and that's precisely my point - comparisons between the two are irrelevant because as was correctly pointed out they have no meaning without being taken in the context of the total tax system.

Not entirely true, because Council Tax (and it's US equivalent) is paid directly to the council, not into the general central government pot. True whether it is an onerous amount or not should be viewed in the context of the overall personal tax burden, but Council Tax can absolutely be viewed in stand alone terms.

LP makes a good list of people who lose out under the current council tax system - change current council tax for a local income tax and some of that list become winners and some become losers, change it for a flat poll tax rate and again some become winners and some become losers - we'd still be sat here saying council tax is unfair to group X,Y and Z. Taken into the context of the tax system as a whole some of those peaks and troughs get smoothed out; and yet you won't find me disagreeing that there are *still* winners and losers.

Well we have agreement here. There will always be winners and losers.

Ring fencing of taxes has never happened, I agree that it's always been implied but it's never happened and as you rightly say, everyone knows that it's never happened.

See previous comment on Council Tax being paid to the LA. So that is ring fenced to a degree. If any of that makes it's way into the general pot, then I want to know about it!

On a flat tax for everyone (ala poll tax) I whole heartedly commend the suggestion - at least people are coming up with alternatives, whether I agree or disagree it's so much better than just saying "it's not fair". As you'd no doubt imagine, I disagree with a flat poll tax, but as a suggestion it deserves examination. The reason I disagree with a flat poll tax is precisely the same reason why people dislike the current council tax - it's unfair for some people. It would mean that the poor pay a greater proportion of their income as tax compared to the rich - you are penalised for being poor. Now you can take a hard line and say "well, why should I be penalised for having the ambition/intelligence/luck to get a better paying job?" - well that's fine until you realise that there are low payed jobs that are essential - you still want a mechanic to fix your bike, he's a skilled guy, he's good at his job, sure it's not the best paying job but you still need him there - why should he be penalised more heavily in tax than you? Both of you do a valid job, one gets paid more than the other, should the mechanic jack his job and come work with you instead?
IMHO a flat rate charge for council tax with rebates for those on lower incomes is fair. It is true that the tax will be much more affordable for folks on higher incomes, but the burden of paying for services has been equally shared. I'd be willing to consider a local income tax if the rate was set correctly, because I recognise that this is directly related to ability to pay. The setting of the tax rate would be crucial though.

Now I agree that no one should be penalised just for being poor, but by the same token you should not be penalised for being wealthy. This is where I have issue with the tax system in general. Council Tax discriminates against the 'wealthy' by charging them more because they have a more valuable house. Income Tax discriminates by charging 40% on income above £34K (I'm guessing as it is start of tax year). Inheritance Tax just discriminates against savers / home owners but also against the wealthy by charging a higher rate for more valuable estates.

So you can see where I'm coming from about fairness. If the tax system worked on flat rates, the wealthy would still pay more in cash terms, but the same as everyone else in percentage terms. This is fair if you accept the premise of society working together for the greater good.

MiniMatt
02-04-09, 01:44 PM
+1 Ceri, and I agree I doubt anyone's going to change their mind over this now :D

Suppose it comes down to how many low pay jobs you believe to be less work and less stress compared to high pay jobs. My personal opinion is that there is very little correlation between the difficulty of the work (whether that difficulty be expressed in stress, physical exertion or mental exertion) and the pay received. Fireman versus doctor - one saves lives, one risks his or her own life to save others, one is mentally stressful the other more physically so. Now, if one gets paid double the other, well perhaps that's ok, it's possibly fooked up priorities but hell, both knew the score when they were getting into it... but you'd expect the one getting paid double to be able to afford twice as much stuff - but flat taxes don't work like that - flat taxes mean the one getting paid double can buy more than twice as much stuff:

Bread costs £1 per loaf.
Fireman gets paid £10 per week
Doctor gets paid £20 per week
Tax is £5 per week
Fireman can buy five loaves of bread a week
Doctor on double the salary can buy fifteen loaves of bread a week - triple the fireman.

Ceri JC
02-04-09, 02:08 PM
Suppose it comes down to how many low pay jobs you believe to be less work and less stress compared to high pay jobs. My personal opinion is that there is very little correlation between the difficulty of the work (whether that difficulty be expressed in stress, physical exertion or mental exertion) and the pay received. Fireman versus doctor - one saves lives, one risks his or her own life to save others, one is mentally stressful the other more physically so.

I concede that the responsibilty/stress aspect is at best a 'general trend'. My brother earns about the same as me. In his job he is responsible for similarly large amounts of money AND the lives of hundreds of people. In mine, no one is going to die if I mess up. They're both stressful, responsible jobs, but his is inarguably moreso.

I would have to disagree with you in terms of difficulty. I think simple economics denotes that if something is hard (and we measure "hard" by how many people are able to do it) there will naturally be fewer people capable of doing it, and consequently they can command more money. There are of course exceptions to this rule (at both ends of the salary scale).

Incidentally, I have done plenty of low paid jobs in the past, so I'm under no illusions that it's all sweetness and light, but conversely definately recall never losing any sleep over my work, nor staying late unpaid and unnoticed after even the big boss has gone to fix something, which I can't say to be true now.


Bread costs £1 per loaf.
Fireman gets paid £10 per week
Doctor gets paid £20 per week
Tax is £5 per week
Fireman can buy five loaves of bread a week
Doctor on double the salary can buy fifteen loaves of bread a week - triple the fireman.

Interesting to mention food as the example; I'm actually against the European CAP because it's an undue tax on the poor. Still, I'll leave that derail for another day. :D

Luckypants
02-04-09, 02:20 PM
but flat taxes don't work like that - flat taxes mean the one getting paid double can buy more than twice as much stuff:

Bread costs £1 per loaf.
Fireman gets paid £10 per week
Doctor gets paid £20 per week
Tax is £5 per week
Fireman can buy five loaves of bread a week
Doctor on double the salary can buy fifteen loaves of bread a week - triple the fireman.

Nice twist, but we all know that income tax is a percentage. So in your case if tax is 30%, the fireman can buy 7 loaves, the doctor 14. Yes he has exactly twice the disposable income because he earns twice as much. If you add a flat rate for local service of £1 a week, then it neatly displays the 'unfairness' of the flat rate Council Tax. BUT as CT is paying for specific services, it is fair because both men get the same amount of service. As CeriJC pointed out, it entirely depends on your POV whether you believe that is fair.

MiniMatt
02-04-09, 02:30 PM
Nice twist, but we all know that income tax is a percentage. So in your case if tax is 30%, the fireman can buy 7 loaves, the doctor 14. Yes he has exactly twice the disposable income because he earns twice as much. If you add a flat rate for local service of £1 a week, then it neatly displays the 'unfairness' of the flat rate Council Tax. BUT as CT is paying for specific services, it is fair because both men get the same amount of service. As CeriJC pointed out, it entirely depends on your POV whether you believe that is fair.

So..... you're saying that we can't look at a single tax in isolation but have to look at the wider picture? My example looks fairer when you consider income tax in conjunction with a flat tax? :smt077

Luckypants
02-04-09, 02:35 PM
So..... you're saying that we can't look at a single tax in isolation but have to look at the wider picture? My example looks fairer when you consider income tax in conjunction with a flat tax? :smt077

:rolleyes: If you want to view it that way. I was trying to make your example more realistic, because of how it works in the real world. I think that CT can be viewed as a separate entity, for the reasons already stated.

We're not going to agree on this are we? :flower:

MiniMatt
02-04-09, 02:40 PM
We're not going to agree on this are we? :flower:

Nope :D But it's been interesting :D

You get....

One free pint voucher
(sales tax not included, terms and conditions may apply)

Ceri JC
02-04-09, 02:50 PM
Nope :D But it's been interesting :D

You get....

One free pint voucher
(sales tax not included, terms and conditions may apply*)

*your eligibilty to this free pint voucher is means tested. You may be required to repay any pints bought if you are later found to have been working in a higher income job at the time the pint was bought. You may also be additionally fined 1-3 vodka chasers. If in any doubt as to your eligibility please discuss this further with MiniMatt.

northwind
02-04-09, 05:11 PM
+1. Exactly my view of how it should work. I view council tax as paying for services that need to be carried out in my area. I want the verges cut, I want the bins emptied, I want the drains to work

...and if it's all flat charged, then regardless of it being more or less fair, nobody gets what they want because any flat charge has to be pitched to the lower earners, not the higher. You can't tax people money they don't have, so if you want a flat charge you have to charge everyone the bottom amount. So then, to compensate you'll end up needing a bigger central government grant, which still would vary depending on income. Alternatively, you just have less money to spend at a local level.

I agree it'd be madness to not have it in a savings account. The problem is it being abroad. It smacks of hypocrisy given customs and excise are quite happy to tax me to disincentivise me from moving money out of my country and into that of others, even when buying things which are not available in the UK.

Why is it beneficial to tax your tax? It's just an extra layer of beaurocracy, you're not generating money, just moving it around. It makes more sense for each area to get the best return possible. It's obviously not comparable to corporate or personal tax evasion, because it's ALREADY tax. There's no loss to the country, which there is if you move your own savings offshore. it's a zero sum game, taxing that income.

I am fully aware that this is not how you spell burocracy... buearocarcasy.... red tape.

Ceri JC
03-04-09, 09:59 AM
I am fully aware that this is not how you spell burocracy... buearocarcasy.... red tape.

No, I can't spell it either. :)



Why is it beneficial to tax your tax? It's just an extra layer of beaurocracy, you're not generating money, just moving it around. It makes more sense for each area to get the best return possible. It's obviously not comparable to corporate or personal tax evasion, because it's ALREADY tax. There's no loss to the country, which there is if you move your own savings offshore. it's a zero sum game, taxing that income.


I agree tax on tax is usually unjust and a nasty way of concealing just quite how much people are really being taxed and is inherently 'red-tapeish' and expensive to administer. In this instance though, despite some inherent loss in real terms due to the cost of administering the red tape, don't you still end up with more money in the gov's coffers because the UK banks' 'cut' is smaller than that of offshores?

Is it not accurate to simplify it as: If you use the money and can get at some of it back, that's better than using the money in the same way abroad and getting less of it back?