Poll Tax

[Stu]

Originally Posted by eviltwin

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 to £1480. Why the hell not if there's so many people working

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by gajjii

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.

Originally Posted by sarah

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

Done, bye!

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by timwilky

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.

Originally Posted by Stu

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 to £1480. Why the hell not if there's so many people working

Right, that's it

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by Warthog

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.

Originally Posted by Davadvice

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.

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by sarah

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!

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.

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

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

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by metalmonkey

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.



Thanks Tone.

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