We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Community Charge
Comments
-
OOh Loopy Juice not sure if I should take the bait and get involved in a political discussion with this one;).
Any type of taxation will have some who believe it is fair and some who don't. Personally, I have always thought that basing council taxes on the size of houses is wrong. I also think that basing it on income is wrong, as people have already paid national tax via their income. Charging people based on their property is unfair as people should be able to have life choices where by they don't get penalised for saving or inheriting. After all inheritance and capital gains tax take care of those people who haven't paid for their own property!
I personally believe the "poll tax" would have been a fair way to charge people. However, it was flawed in the way it was introduced. Although there should have been more people paying it, it was based on who was on the electoral register rather than who lived in each house. This meant that people would leave themselves off the register to avoid paying for it and this led to huge democratic issues. Not forgetting that average bills rose to much more than the old rateable value system, due to so many people not registering.
Let's face it, the government know where each and everyperson lives in this country. During the 1950's my father was called for National Service, he had moved schools considerably and had moved since leaving school yet the day he was called his papers still managed to find him! Now. if they could do this before computerisation then they can certainly do it now.
A "poll tax" will affect many younger people, just as they reach 18 or whatever age a government decides the tax is to be paid at. Most 18 year old will still be living with Mum and Dad and won't be responsilbe for paying towards a local tax. To charge a per person tax will suddenly mean lots of young suddenly get charged. From a political perspective this is political suicide for whichever party brings in such a policy. These young people will be coming up to their first vote and are unlikely to vote for the party which brings it in either in their next election and in many cases will make them anti that party for life. The other problem with targeting this age group is although they are often not vocal regarding politics, give them a single issue which affects them and they will take to mass demonstration on the streets.
So whilst I believe a "poll tax" is the fairest option, I can't see that any party will be brave enough to try it again. Maybe a local income tax isn't necessarily the best option either. Have you thought about areas where there is high unemployment coupled with lots of students? These sort of areas would have so many people not eligible for the tax that those who are working would be paying huge amounts to subsidise these people who would no doubt not be eligible to pay.
I guess the above leads me to see why we have the current situation. No taxation system for local taxes will be fair to everybody. The current situation has some basic assumptions built into it that people who have bigger houses are more likely to have more income to pay a higher local tax. Also, that the bigger your house the more people are likely to live in it and therefore be using more services and should therefore pay more ie Mum, Dad and 4 kids are using more services which the County provide eg education. It also takes account of single adults, giving them a discount of 25%.
So, Loopy Juice, I agree it's not fair but unfortunately lots of things aren't fair.0 -
I wasn't arround in the early 90's so never quite understood what the poll tax was all about - thanks for the clear and concise explanatin Chirp.Man plans and God laughs...Perhaps travel cannot prevent bigotry. But by demonstrating that all people cry, laugh, eat, worry and die, it introduces the idea that if we try to understand each other, we may even become friends.0
-
chirpchirp wrote: »From a political perspective this is political suicide for whichever party brings in such a policy. These young people will be coming up to their first vote and are unlikely to vote for the party which brings it in either in their next election and in many cases will make them anti that party for life. The other problem with targeting this age group is although they are often not vocal regarding politics, give them a single issue which affects them and they will take to mass demonstration on the streets.
Google poll tax riots, which have occurred more than once.
Unfortunately, nearly all taxes are unfair to someone. E.g I pay higher rate tax, yet have no kids in school and have private health insurance. Surely I should pay less since I am using less services than other tax-payers? I'm sure if I refused to pay tax on this basis I would get short shrift from the courts.
Sorry but life's unfair. Get over it and move on, or form your own political party.;)In case you hadn't already worked it out - the entire global financial system is predicated on the assumption that you're an idiot:cool:0 -
how about jacking in your job and join the doleites getting your council tax paid for you :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards