Poll Tax

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Stu

.....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.....

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.

Originally Posted by Davadvice

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)

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Arrogant bitch.

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

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

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.

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