Poll Tax

[Warthog]

When thinking of examples of mass demonstrations that have worked in the past, I though of the Poll tax. So, I am a bit young to remember the riots, and I never really got what it was all about. Poll tax was like council tax but instead was levied on individuals rather than properties? Isn't this a much more fair way of doing things? I used to pay tons of council tax living with just two people in a house close to the centre of Oxford, whereas a 5 person family living in a house further from the centre paid significantly less. But they would use the emergency services more than me, produce more waste than me, have more cars that use the road more than me. Why did so many people riot?

[G]

I always wondered that myself, I dont know enough about it so this could be interesting.

As far as I can see...everyone just paid an equal amount each? nobody paid more and nobody paid less?

Or have I misunderstood it entirely.

For me and kerry we live in a 4 bed house. So we pay way above average for council tax.

Yet we use bugger all and are lucky if our bins go out once a month let alone every two weeks.

I guess there was alot more big families back in the day, so had to pay alot, where as nowdays with not so many people having large families due to the cost poll tax would be better for most.

[Davadvice]

i was too young to be affected but they charged every one a fortune. think of a 16 year old being asked to pay at a guess an average of 900-1200 a year out of there pocket when they earn 120 a week. my brother was impacted by it and my mum had to pay his as he was earning £30 as a yts.

i agree there should be an individule tax. but it would have to be fair. say split my council tax in half and i pay part and the wife the other based on soul income.

or
give me the option to pay for the "services" as an adhoc agreement. as for the road use that should be the fuel and road fund licence that pays for that.

as it is just now i don't use all the local services i pay for and all the poor kids that have parents that are on benifits and have never worked seem to get better access to these funds where as my kids need to go somwhere else where the comunity isn't so rough and then need to pay full price.

[eviltwin]

AFAIR, put extremely simply, man in massive castle pays the same as man on street...and guess whose bill it was that went up in many cases

[G]

Was the protest about how crap the poll tax was? or about how crap the new system was?

[timwilky]

The issue was about fairness. Everyone should pay for local service etc.

The problem was about 14 million pay or should pay for the current services. However under the community charge (It was not a poll tax, that title was hijacked) about 38 million would be eligible to pay.

Of course the work shy feckless lot who had never paid a penny for anything and expected state to subsidise them kicked off. and unfortunately Maggie was by then not strong enough to fight them.

The current system is grossly unfair on those who struggle to remain in family homes after partners die, kids move on etc. They are penalised unfairly for having saved and bought a nice place etc. Why should they pay more than the family of 6 who are using local services such as probation, social services, generating more rubbish etc. with probably 4 time the combined income

[Specialone]

Also, under the old rate system you could have 6 adults in a house paying virtually the same as 2, so when the poll tax came out the people not paying fook all was very annoyed.
I had just left school and had to pay £200 odd for it and my mum didnt even own her own house.
Few friends refused to pay and never did even after getting hounded for it, in the end they gave up asking.
Me, i paid every penny stupidly, my allegience to the tory party waivered a bit around that time.

[Jabba]

IIRC (and I am an old enough (just!)) to remember) the problem was a potentially significant difference in bills from the former "rates" to the new "community charge" (I agree with TW, "poll tax" was a term used by the Labour-supporting red-top newspapers to inflame the situation).

Houses/families with low rate bills were having to face a huge hike in bills in short order without having the disposable (i.e. non-committed) income to support it. Contrast that with families in larger high-rate houses (with the income to support it) seeing their bills drop.

Also, families with higher incomes who chose to live in lower value/lower rate houses to have more disposable income (to spend or save as they chose) were having this choice taken away by the higher charge.

The Community Charge was perceived as being unfair not so much in the idea itself but in the way that it was implemented. It was all or nothing. What we have now is closer to being a half-way house between the old system, where some of the annual charge is levied on the value of the house but there are discounts for single people, students, etc.

HTH

[Specialone]

It was an individual tax, even if you lived at home with your parents YOU was liable for it, as i was.

[Biker Biggles]

Bottom line is that the state will raise a certain amount of money in tax and it has to do that from those who have the money available to pay.Therefore the biggest part of the burden will always fall on the middle income people who have a bit of dosh and are numerous enough to provide real money.Thatcher (you cant buck the market) tried to buck that reality by increasing the burden on those with little or no money available she paid the inevitable price.However you dress it up the poll tax was a regressive tax on the poor,and even the more realistic elements of the tory party tried very hard to stop her doing it,but the iron lady knew best.Arrogant bitch.

[Luckypants]

I agree with Tim Wilky on this one. Council Tax is not raised by Central Government so has little to do with them, it is a local tax to help pay for local council services. All central government have to do with it is setting up the laws and mechanisms to collect the money.

The community charge was IMO the fairest way to pay for council services. Everyone uses these services in more or less equal measure. (I know there are exceptional cases) so why should everyone not just pay the same? A property tax (the old rates system and current council tax) is very unfair in that it penalises those just starting on the property ladder or those heading into retirement. Have you noticed that most Council Tax protesters / withholders of payment are OAPs? That is because with a much reduced income they want to stay in the house they have worked for and paid for, but CT seems dis-proportionately high relative to their now reduced and fixed incomes. How about a single parent who finds themselves with a family house but very little income? The single person starting out on the housing ladder struggling to pay a big mortgage?

No tax system is fair to all, all the time, but the Community Charge really did seem to be fairest to me. The ones who objected had never paid Rates in the past.

[Stu]

i was too young to be affected but they charged every one a fortune. think of a 16 year old being asked to pay at a guess an average of 900-1200 a year out of there pocket when they earn 120 a week.
What utter RUBBISH.
I am old enough to remember the Community Charge as it was properly known and it was of the order of £300 odd a year per person, with the likes of students and other poor people being exempt from 80% of the charge.
The only reason for the riots IMO was a bad PR job in the introduction of it and basically all the scum at that time hated Maggie.
I really wish they had stuck with it rather than me having to pay £1700 a year now FFS.

And another thing, it was a charge on adults, so I doubt a 16 year old would be charged until they reached 18.

[Red Herring]

I think the idea of the individual community charge was a way forward, as has been said it was a tax on an individuals choice to live in a particular area, but the way they went about getting it went wrong and they bottled it after all the protests. I also agree that those making the most noise were the ones who were suddenly going to have to start paying for something which until then they had had for free, no real surprise there then!

One of the reasons a tax on property is so effective is that properties don't move or hide from the authorities. It is however grossly unfair that those that try and further their lot in life seem to have to pay for those that don't!

[Stu]

Well said LP :)
If you read the Wiki pages for Poll tax and Community Charge they're very interesting. As it says, the local councils took the opportunity of the confusion from change to hike the charge to raise more money for themselves this obviously added to the unpopularity of it, a bit like when the Euro was introduced everyone took the opportunity to hike their prices and blame it on the Euro.

I was taught that it was not the purpose of local taxation to redistribute wealth - that is one of the purposes of national taxation, so the Community Charge is much closer to the ideal. It was just unfortunate that all the people losing from it's introduction (I think I referred to them before - no need to repeat it) were more vocal than those in big houses that gained.

The only thing the Community Charge suffered from was the difficulty in collection - people are mobile, whereas property is stable and a charge on property is reasonably easy to enforce. This also lead to the PR disaster of linking it to the electoral register so that it was linked to your ability to vote, hence poll tax.

[Red Herring]

.....It was just unfortunate that all the people losing from it's introduction (I think I referred to them before - no need to repeat it) were more vocal than those in big houses that gained.


Those in big houses that stood to gain were to busy out working hard for that privilege to have time to protest, whilst those that stood to lose had all the time on the world, and nothing to lose by doing so.....

[kitkat]

the main bug bear as far as I remember (yes I am that old) was that it was tried out on Scotland first. I didnt have to pay as I was living in a naval base at that time and you dont pay, for some reason.

[Luckypants]

It was late when I posted last night, so missed these two prime examples of the FUD and unreasonableness of the Community Charge protester's argument.

think of a 16 year old being asked to pay at a guess an average of 900-1200 a year out of there pocket when they earn 120 a week. Completely devoid of fact! The charge was levied on all over 18, hence why some called it a poll tax, because you also had to 18 to vote. (the list for the Community Charge was also compiled from the Electoral Roll so one of the ways to avoid paying was to not register to vote)

Arrogant bitch.

Just unreasonable hatred of Mrs Thatcher, no logical argument in that!

[Luckypants]

Those in big houses that stood to gain were to busy out working hard for that privilege to have time to protest, whilst those that stood to lose had all the time on the world, and nothing to lose by doing so.....It was not just those in big houses. As a non-working wife (at that time) and young baby at home my ex qualified for the 80% reduction in Community Charge alluded to above. In my newly bought run down ex-council semi, this saved us about £240 a year which was probably one month's mortgage back then. Going to Council Tax it went up by over £300 and we were worse off than we would have been on the Rates.

[Warthog]

Thanks for all the responses guys, although it has actually confirmed my suspicions that the one time mass protesting actually had an effect was in an unjust way!

It is people who use the services of the council, not houses. Someone said, a person in a castle was paying the same amount as a person in a small house. But isn't that fair? The person in the castle does not produce more waste, nor do they use the emergency services or roads and facilities more. So what on earth does it have to do with property? It seems solely that the people skiving off it before went up in arms whilst the honest workers whom it would have benefitted couldn't do anything to stop the protesting.

What a sad state of affairs :(.

I suppose bringing in a new system that completely alters how much everyone pays will ruin people's budgeting, and so can't work. Maybe they should have tried to phase it in percentage wise over 5 years or something?

[Stu]

They did try to phase it in.

Scotland first :roll:


:lol:

[Warthog]

They did try to phase it in.

Scotland first :roll:


:lol:

Lmao, trying to get the scots to pay more money first to see if it works :lol:

[sarah]

Thanks for all the responses guys, although it has actually confirmed my suspicions that the one time mass protesting actually had an effect was in an unjust way!

It is people who use the services of the council, not houses. Someone said, a person in a castle was paying the same amount as a person in a small house. But isn't that fair? The person in the castle does not produce more waste, nor do they use the emergency services or roads and facilities more. So what on earth does it have to do with property? It seems solely that the people skiving off it before went up in arms whilst the honest workers whom it would have benefitted couldn't do anything to stop the protesting.

What a sad state of affairs :(.

I suppose bringing in a new system that completely alters how much everyone pays will ruin people's budgeting, and so can't work. Maybe they should have tried to phase it in percentage wise over 5 years or something?

taxes aren't just about getting people to pay for what they use. as (stu?) said earlier it's also about redistribution of wealth.

it's also worth noting that council tax does not constitute all of a council's income, it also gets money from centrally gathered taxes (from government).

[Warthog]

taxes aren't just about getting people to pay for what they use. as (stu?) said earlier it's also about redistribution of wealth.

it's also worth noting that council tax does not constitute all of a council's income, it also gets money from centrally gathered taxes (from government).

Use income tax to redistribute the wealth! Measuring a persons wealth by measuring the house the occupy regardless of how many people share it is not a reliable way of doing it. I am a case in point! Nearly highest council tax band in Oxford and I am hardly Duke Nicholas the 3rd, Tsar of Botley!! :lol:

[sarah]

Use income tax to redistribute the wealth! Measuring a persons wealth by measuring the house the occupy regardless of how many people share it is not a reliable way of doing it. I am a case in point! Nearly highest council tax band in Oxford and I am hardly Duke Nicholas the 3rd, Tsar of Botley!! :lol:

so should all of the money that council needs be gathered via council tax? and none from central government?

[yorkie_chris]

Redistribute wealth?
Surely the purpose of tax is to take just enough to provide essential services and no more.

[sarah]

Redistribute wealth?
Surely the purpose of tax is to take just enough to provide essential services and no more.

i think that you missed the point there.

[Sally]

Lmao, trying to get the scots to pay more money first to see if it works :lol:

Seriously? Haha Good luck with that! ;)

[yorkie_chris]

i think that you missed the point there.

Yes, this debate was before my time and I don't know anything about it. Just a general point that people would mention that.

[Stu]

taxes aren't just about getting people to pay for what they use. as (stu?) said earlier it's also about redistribution of wealth.

it's also worth noting that council tax does not constitute all of a council's income, it also gets money from centrally gathered taxes (from government).
Oi! :smt075 Don't go perverting my argument!

Yes it is a role of taxation to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, but that is ideally a function of national taxation NOT local taxation.

The ideal local taxation would be simple, fair and easy to collect, which a well run Community Charge should achieve.

[sarah]

Oi! :smt075 Don't go perverting my argument!

lol ;-)

Yes it is a role of taxation to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, but that is ideally a function of national taxation NOT local taxation.

The ideal local taxation would be simple, fair and easy to collect, which a well run Community Charge should achieve.


but councils are funded by local AND national taxation.

[Stu]

That's a completely different argument about whether local councils provide national benefit. e.g. I don't live in Manchester so don't pay any taxation there, but if I went there I would be quite happy if they had roads to use & a Police force to ensure I was safe.

We are discussing how the councils should raise the local element. :)

[sarah]

That's a completely different argument about whether local councils provide national benefit. e.g. I don't live in Manchester so don't pay any taxation there, but if I went there I would be quite happy if they had roads to use & a Police force to ensure I was safe.

We are discussing how the councils should raise the local element. :)

i was asking what the point of a locally raised element is.

[Warthog]

i was asking what the point of a locally raised element is.

No, you were saying local council taxation should be used to redistribute the wealth! Two seperate (at least) issues here; redistribution of wealth on a national scale, and raising of funds on a fair and equal scale for council services.

[Stu]

Redistributing wealth at a local level doesn't work. What use is redistributing wealth in Mosside? or Mayfair? but redistributing wealth from Mayfair to Mosside does make sense (unless you're completely facist :lol:)

[Luckypants]

taxes aren't just about getting people to pay for what they use. as (stu?) said earlier it's also about redistribution of wealth.
And as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, local taxes such as Council Tax (as it is now) are for paying for local services. It is set independently (sort of!) of central government. It should have nothing to do with stealing from the rich to give to the poor! As it is, local tax from better off families who don't consume as much of the indirect services (housing benefit, day centres, etc) are paying more than their 'share' of what they consume and that subsidises these indirect services.

it's also worth noting that council tax does not constitute all of a council's income, it also gets money from centrally gathered taxes (from government).Which is where your re-distirbution argument may carry some weight, by taking tax raised in wealthy areas and giving it to councils in deprived areas.Using tax to re-distribute wealth is not what tax is for IMO, but most folks views on this vary, depends on what side of the political spectrum you sit.

The Community Charge was very neutral in this regard and therefore a good tax, the council decided how much they needed than split it equally between those eligible to pay. Fair :D

[sarah]

No, you were saying local council taxation should be used to redistribute the wealth! Two seperate (at least) issues here; redistribution of wealth on a national scale, and raising of funds on a fair and equal scale for council services.

i didn't say anything should or should not be done.

i was trying to make the point that the majority of funding that councils receive is from central government and not council tax.

[Stu]

i was asking what the point of a locally raised element is.
Because that's where most of the benefit of the services that they provide goes! Why should I pay for local services in Manchester? FFS I never go there & I never want to! If you don't match the services with the cost, then the cost will just spiral. A bit like going out for a meal with friends & splitting the bill. If you're going to pay for exactly what you eat you might not order a starter & desert, whereas if everyone else is & you're splitting the bill equally you may as well.


:lol:

[sarah]

Redistributing wealth at a local level doesn't work. What use is redistributing wealth in Mosside? or Mayfair? but redistributing wealth from Mayfair to Mosside does make sense (unless you're completely facist :lol:)

lol.

want to continue the debate in the pub later? ;-)

[Luckypants]

Yes it is a role of taxation to redistribute wealth from rich to poor,

No it is not. :D

[Stu]

LP is a complete fascist :lol:

[sarah]

i can't type quick enough to keep up with this thread

[sarah]

75% of council income comes from GOVERNMENT
25% of council income comes from COUNCIL TAX

does it matter if all of it is raised in a redistributing the wealth kind of a way?
is it better to have 75% raised in a redistributing the wealth kind of a way and 25% in a different way?

[Stu]

i can't type quick enough to keep up with this thread
Seems more like you can't read quick enough to keep up ;)
75% of council income comes from GOVERNMENT
25% of council income comes from COUNCIL TAX

does it matter if all of it is raised in a redistributing the wealth kind of a way?
is it better to have 75% raised in a redistributing the wealth kind of a way and 25% in a different way?
I already set out the benefits of services being paid for mostly by the people that use them (the restaurant example) otherwise costs tend to spiral upwards.
So it all depends on how local services are used (on a local/national level e.g my Manchester example) and also how much the people that have to pay them have a say in how they are spent and how expensive.

[Luckypants]

LP is a complete fascist :lol:

Stu is a pinko commie subversive :D

[sarah]

I already set out the benefits of services being paid for mostly by the people that use them (the restaurant example) otherwise costs tend to spiral upwards.
So it all depends on how local services are used and also how much the people that have to pay them have a say in how they are spent and how expensive.

so would it be better if councils relyed solely on council tax income? or mostly on council tax income rather than the current situation?

[Luckypants]

so would it be better if councils relyed solely on council tax income? or mostly on council tax income rather than the current situation?

Yes in an ideal world, but there would then have to be a suitable reduction in national taxation to put money back in folks pockets to pay the increased local tax. Then we have more direct accountability of how the council spends it's money because people see the link more clearly. Most people have little awareness of how anything is funded IME.

[eviltwin]

And as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, local taxes such as Council Tax (as it is now) are for paying for local services. It is set independently (sort of!) of central government. It should have nothing to do with stealing from the rich to give to the poor! As it is, local tax from better off families who don't consume as much of the indirect services (housing benefit, day centres, etc) are paying more than their 'share' of what they consume and that subsidises these indirect services.

Maggie didn't bring in the poll tax to encourage some sort of move towards a nice federal system where each region had control over its own affairs.

Remember that at the time of the poll tax introduction, the Thatcher government had slashed the level of control that local authorities had over their own budgets. With business rates set by central government, local authorities controlled approx only 25% of their budgets.

16 million people refused to pay the poll tax. Movements formed in towns across the nation...the biggest example of people power - or civil disobedience - in our (recent) history.

Can it have been a 'fair' policy to generate that level of opposition...

[sarah]

Yes in an ideal world, but there would then have to be a suitable reduction in national taxation to put money back in folks pockets to pay the increased local tax. Then we have more direct accountability of how the council spends it's money because people see the link more clearly. Most people have little awareness of how anything is funded IME.

:lol:

[Stu]

@LP

:lol:

No, secretly I'm with you, I'd love to wipe out the welfare state. ergo No unemployment benefit, No income support, no housing benefit, no incapacity allowance, no motabilty support.

That is what you meant by no redistribution of wealth right?

Leaving the Government to only run the public goods i.e. things that we all benefit from and could not individually pay for such as NHS, education, Defence, emergency services and overseas aid etc.

We would be left with an insurance based system whereby those that could afford it would have unemployment insurance, & Permanent health insurance (i.e. a financial payout for poor health) etc.

[Stu]

Yes in an ideal world, but there would then have to be a suitable reduction in national taxation to put money back in folks pockets to pay the increased local tax. Then we have more direct accountability of how the council spends it's money because people see the link more clearly. Most people have little awareness of how anything is funded IME.
+1

[Stu]

16 million people refused to pay the poll tax. Movements formed in towns across the nation...the biggest example of people power - or civil disobedience - in our (recent) history.

Can it have been a 'fair' policy to generate that level of opposition...
The people are stupid

[sarah]

@LP

:lol:

No, secretly I'm with you, I'd love to wipe out the welfare state. ergo No unemployment benefit, No income support, no housing benefit, no incapacity allowance, no motabilty support.

That is what you meant by no redistribution of wealth right?

Leaving the Government to only run the public goods i.e. things that we all benefit from and could not individually pay for such as NHS, education, Defence, emergency services and overseas aid etc.

We would be left with an insurance based system whereby those that could afford it would have unemployment insurance, & Permanent health insurance (i.e. a financial payout for poor health) etc.

why bother keeping the nhs, emergency services and education? why not pay for them as we use them too?

[Luckypants]

16 million people refused to pay the poll tax. Movements formed in towns across the nation...the biggest example of people power - or civil disobedience - in our (recent) history.

Can it have been a 'fair' policy to generate that level of opposition...

Well I haven't researched the figures myself, but will take your numbers at face value if you will accept Tim Wilky's figures for the increased number of payers under the Community Charge, from 14M rate payers to 38M charge payers. :) So the 16M refusals is a significant proportion of those who did not had to pay before, so I think what they objected to was not the charge itself, but the idea that they should pay for the services they use.

Yes I will always say a system where everyone pays the same for getting the same is fair.

[sarah]

Yes I will always say a system where everyone pays the same for getting the same is fair.

wales would be fecked

[G]

16 million people refused to pay the poll tax. Movements formed in towns across the nation...the biggest example of people power - or civil disobedience - in our (recent) history.

Can it have been a 'fair' policy to generate that level of opposition...

Tell the 16 million+ people currently taking a crap load in benefits every month and living in council houses for next to nothing that they now have to get a job and pay their way and I imagine you would probably get the exact same response now.

Doesn't make it un fair or wrong.

[Stu]

why bother keeping the nhs, emergency services and education? why not pay for them as we use them too?
The definition of a public good is that I get a benefit from you consuming them.
So if you had TB, I quite like you to get treated for it rather than spread it around, If my next door neighbour's (semi detached) house was on fire I'd quite like the emergency services to put it out I also quite enjoy all the local kids being educated instead of running feral in the streets :)

[eviltwin]

Well I haven't researched the figures myself, but will take your numbers at face value if you will accept Tim Wilky's figures for the increased number of payers under the Community Charge, from 14M rate payers to 38M charge payers. :) So the 16M refusals is a significant proportion of those who did not had to pay before, so I think what they objected to was not the charge itself, but the idea that they should pay for the services they use.

Yes I will always say a system where everyone pays the same for getting the same is fair.

I have had many a conversation with working people who were devastated financially by the RISE in what they had to pay - they weren't necessarily non-payers.

Are you suggesting that all the protesters were non rate payers? And, in fact, so what if that was the case...there's another political argument: should everybody have to pay, regardless of financial position. Plus, how do you measure exactly what you use? Weigh your wheelie bin each week (or fortnight;)).

Surely a system based on paying for exactly what services you use is massively flawed...there has to be a balanced supposition of theoretical access to services. I mean think of the massive increase there'd be in taxes to fund the administration of working out how many plastic milk bottles you were recycling this week ;)

[timwilky]

Hmmm, lets be cynical

The poll tax as some called it was as a result of using the electoral roll as a register of who lived where and then being able to send a bill.

So we don't like that register. Now me thinks there is another database that our current government would like to force every one onto. Yes the one that would stop terrorism. The one that would establish your entitlement to public services. oh the one you have to pay to join and would cost billions to operate.

Now we know who everyone is by the bar code on their neck and RFID fitted in their head, why not try again at finding a fair way to fleece the populous instead of fleecing the minority

[sarah]

The definition of a public good is that I get a benefit from you consuming them.
So if you had TB, I quite like you to get treated for it rather than spread it around, If my next door neighbour's (semi detached) house was on fire I'd quite like the emergency services to put it out I also quite enjoy all the local kids being educated instead of running feral in the streets :)

fair enough. i'm glad there is some logic behind your argument.

[eviltwin]

Now we know who everyone is by the bar code on their neck and RFID fitted in their head, why not try again at finding a fair way to fleece the populous instead of fleecing the minority

Yep and then we could be automatically charged for road use per mile and given speeding fines via text message to our brain! Not so unlikely I fear! :shock:

[Warthog]

The people are stupid

Tell the 16 million+ people currently taking a crap load in benefits every month and living in council houses for next to nothing that they now have to get a job and pay their way and I imagine you would probably get the exact same response now.

Doesn't make it un fair or wrong.

Absolutely

[Grant66]

Sorry if this has been said before, not read all of the precedding posts.

When the 'community charge' was introduced I was living on my own in a small house. The old rates system meant I paid the same as the couple next door. The 'poll tax' didn't change the ammount I paid but doubled theirs.

The problem wasn't the principle of the system it was the ammount it increased the average family's payments to the local council. Had it be pitched at no change to the average family payments then there would have been little protest.

[eviltwin]

Tell the 16 million+ people currently taking a crap load in benefits every month and living in council houses for next to nothing that they now have to get a job and pay their way and I imagine you would probably get the exact same response now.

Doesn't make it un fair or wrong.

Nah, maybe you're right. Stuff it, let's kick them all out to live on the street and have those 16 million+ people having to steal from you and I just to satsisfy their human instinct to stay alive. :-dd

[Stu]

I have had many a conversation with working people who were devastated financially by the RISE in what they had to pay - they weren't necessarily non-payers.

Are you suggesting that all the protesters were non rate payers? And, in fact, so what if that was the case...there's another political argument: should everybody have to pay, regardless of financial position. Plus, how do you measure exactly what you use? Weigh your wheelie bin each week (or fortnight;)).

Surely a system based on paying for exactly what services you use is massively flawed...there has to be a balanced supposition of theoretical access to services. I mean think of the massive increase there'd be in taxes to fund the administration of working out how many plastic milk bottles you were recycling this week ;)
But this was a flat rate charge for being an Adult (not studying or registered unemployed). So it's a lot closer to theideal of paying for what you use, while considering your financial position, rather than just the size of your house, without going into a too complicated administrative procedure

[Warthog]

Sorry if this has been said before, not read all of the precedding posts.

When the 'community charge' was introduced I was living on my own in a small house. The old rates system meant I paid the same as the couple next door. The 'poll tax' didn't change the ammount I paid but doubled theirs.

The problem wasn't the principle of the system it was the ammount it increased the average family's payments to the local council. Had it be pitched at no change to the average family payments then there would have been little protest.

This was possibly an effect of the aforementioned hike in overal charges which was snuck in using the community charge as a smokescreen. But technically your neighbours were indeed twice as likely as you to need an ambulance, and probably produced twice as much waste so it would have been fair!

[Stu]

Nah, maybe you're right. Stuff it, let's kick them all out to live on the street and have those 16 million+ people having to steal from you and I just to satsisfy their human instinct to stay alive. :-dd
Yes, fair point, well made.
I would like to see some incentive to work instead of relying on the state though.

[eviltwin]

But this was a flat rate charge for being an Adult (not studying or registered unemployed). So it's a lot closer to theideal of paying for what you use, while considering your financial position, rather than just the size of your house, without going into a too complicated administrative procedure

Stu, even if you are right, increasing the amount of tax a household has to pay by 100% or more in one fell swoop just doesn't make sense. I guess that's why Maggie was ousted within months of the introduction of the new tax and the government ditched it completely after another few months.

[Stu]

This was possibly an effect of the aforementioned hike in overal charges which was snuck in using the community charge as a smokescreen. But technically your neighbours were indeed twice as likely as you to need an ambulance, and probably produced twice as much waste so it would have been fair!
Just as fair as if theirs had stayed the same & Gaji's had halved. It was unfortunate that the councils took advantage to try to hike the overall take (& probably pay for all the enforcement costs and defaulters)

[sarah]

This was possibly an effect of the aforementioned hike in overal charges which was snuck in using the community charge as a smokescreen. But technically your neighbours were indeed twice as likely as you to need an ambulance, and probably produced twice as much waste so it would have been fair!

but seeing as most of the money to pay for those things comes from central government...

[sarah]

can someone ban me from accessing this thread please?
i have important stuff to do.

[Stu]

Stu, even if you are right, increasing the amount of tax a household has to pay by 100% or more in one fell swoop just doesn't make sense. I guess that's why Maggie was ousted within months of the introduction of the new tax and the government ditched it completely after another few months.
I don't accept the increase of 100%.
As I remember it, the charge was £360 so for a couple £720, The previous rates bills were close to a thousand for a decent house.

If you have a family of 4 in a house, say, Father working, Mother housewife & 2 offspring 18+ working so it goes from £500-£800 :smt102 to £1480. Why the hell not if there's so many people working

[timwilky]

Sorry if this has been said before, not read all of the precedding posts.

When the 'community charge' was introduced I was living on my own in a small house. The old rates system meant I paid the same as the couple next door. The 'poll tax' didn't change the ammount I paid but doubled theirs.

The problem wasn't the principle of the system it was the ammount it increased the average family's payments to the local council. Had it be pitched at no change to the average family payments then there would have been little protest.


Strange, mine more than halved. I was gutted when they abandoned it.

[Warthog]

can someone ban me from accessing this thread please?
i have important stuff to do.

Done, bye! :smt039

[Luckypants]

Strange, mine more than halved. I was gutted when they abandoned it.

Same :( Although I do take on board that some household's bills went up dramatically. My next door neighbour at the time had two working daughters over 18, so their bill went up by 50% or so and mine went down by 50% or so, so all of a sudden they were paying three times what I was. My view was they had two bins where I had one, they had three cars on the roads where I had one and so on, this seems fair to me. The thing that made the way they had to pay different was that each person was responsible for the tax, instead of the 'householder', so the two girls were ****ed off but the mum was actually quite pleased. :D

[eviltwin]

I don't accept the increase of 100%.
As I remember it, the charge was £360 so for a couple £720, The previous rates bills were close to a thousand for a decent house.

If you have a family of 4 in a house, say, Father working, Mother housewife & 2 offspring 18+ working so it goes from £500-£800 :smt102 to £1480. Why the hell not if there's so many people working

Right, that's it

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1221/gordonbrowncampaignpos0.jpg (http://img225.imageshack.us/i/gordonbrowncampaignpos0.jpg/)

[Sid Squid]

Isn't this a much more fair way of doing things?Yes it is, much fairer.

But that didn't take into account the way it was implemented by various errr... 'free spending' local authorities. If there were a national rate it might have worked, but of course the rate was set locally and there were a number of irresponsible and wasteful councils that used the business to increase their income by a staggering degree whilst blaming central government. Camden, where I live, made an absolute fortune from it while professing to oppose the charge, but then they've never been big on honesty, reason or fairness.

i was too young to be affected but they charged every one a fortune. Not so - there were a number of local authorities who imposed an extremely low rate, Wandsworth for instance charged less than £100 for the first year, (as I recall it was £79, but whatever it was exactly it was a perfectly reasonable figure), and set the rate at zero the second year as the change in business rates that accompanied the charge raised the funds needed.

AFAIR, put extremely simply, man in massive castle pays the same as man on street...and guess whose bill it was that went up in many casesThere is a case for arguing that someone who lives in a castle should pay more, and I'd like to have it explained in a rational manner but I'm still waiting. The rates paid on your property fund the local authority, and contributions to the fire brigade, police etc etc. Does someone who lives in a large house derive a greater benefit from street lighting, or road sweeping? If the charge were levied personally why does the value of your property make a difference? Should people who live in big houses pay more for milk or petrol? If prices should take into account the ability to pay then I might pay a different figure for my tomatoes than you do - would that be right? Should the size of the contribution an individual makes to public services be different, and if it should then why, and most importantly how should it differ - what will we calculate that difference upon? Property value is at least an unreliable way of making the difference - if it has any merit at all, which I have doubts about.

[metalmonkey]

why bother keeping the nhs, emergency services and education? why not pay for them as we use them too?

Really? Can you imagine giving someone a bill after they had been arrested, for use of the facilities, food and staff!:smt005

As the other bits look at the US, their system for health care and education is fair...Not!

The only people who pay tax are the poor and middle class, it has been shown in the past few weeks if your a lord and in the conervative party you don't pay. How good is that? The rich don't pay taxes, they "avoid" it.

Would it not be reasonable to suggest that coucils get their house in order? The same should go for all public services, having been in the private and public sector, I see a great deal of waste going on in the public sector. They have 100's possiable 1000's of people in buildings in my orgainsation who don't seem to do a great deal, maybe get rid of them? Also government contracts, thats a can of worms in its self. They end up cost a whole lot more, than they need do. A simple item cost, a hell of more becasue it has to be bought from an approved contrator when I could walk down any high street, buying said item for a lot less money. It really is a joke, this affects everything. Even when a service is provided it doesn't work properly, I wish it was funny but it isn't.

Get rid of that, pay less tax sounds simple doesn't it?

As the whole poll tax thing, I know nothing...too young I hear it was a little unpopular. But what would replace council tax, how should ppl pay it? The one thing I do know, there is a load of ppl who have never worked I pay alot of tax, they should bed made to work. Being a lazy c*** isn't a medical condition desipte what they make out.

[eviltwin]

There is a case for arguing that someone who lives in a castle should pay more, and I'd like to have it explained in a rational manner but I'm still waiting. The rates paid on your property fund the local authority, and contributions to the fire brigade, police etc etc. Does someone who lives in a large house derive a greater benefit from street lighting, or road sweeping? If the charge were levied personally why does the value of your property make a difference? Should people who live in big houses pay more for milk or petrol? If prices should take into account the ability to pay then I might pay a different figure for my tomatoes than you do - would that be right? Should the size of the contribution an individual makes to public services be different, and if it should then why, and most importantly how should it differ - what will we calculate that difference upon? Property value is at least an unreliable way of making the difference - if it has any merit at all, which I have doubts about.

Sid, as said, my statement was meant in very simple terms - metaphorically, even, with a hint at the subject of class. After all, there is a class argument to be had over many of Thatcher's policies...which I suspect the two of us could argue over for a long time and come to opposing conclusions :smt014

[Sid Squid]

it has been shown in the past few weeks if your a lord and in the conervative party you don't pay.Not so - the troughing bstards are found in all political hues - the only group that has been significantly under-represented in the expenses scandal is the hereditary lords.

Which we're getting rid of.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2vae5fr.png

Thanks Tone.

[eviltwin]

Uh oh, heriditary peers Sid? Let's not have another thread on political/democratic 'fairness' today!