Poll Tax

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

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]

Originally Posted by sarah

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

Seems more like you can't read quick enough to keep up

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Stu

LP is a complete fascist

Stu is a pinko commie subversive

Originally Posted by Stu

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]

Originally Posted by sarah

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.

Originally Posted by Luckypants

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...

Originally Posted by Luckypants

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.

[Stu]

@LP



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]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

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