MSE News: UK economic dip worse than first thought

WRINKLES

RenovationMan wrote: »

And now they are back in power.

You seem unable to argue effectively against a local government tax that all adult wage earners have to pay towards. I doubt that most people could because it's a much fairer system than the current system that has a retired couple paying the same as a family of 4 (or more) wage earners living next door.

Using your reasoning a familly of four would pay VAT at 80% on everything they buy ...... perhaps i should not have said that ......your Tory mates may consider this as a much fairer system .

RenovationMan

WRINKLES wrote: »

Using your reasoning a familly of four would pay VAT at 80% on everything they buy ...... perhaps i should not have said that ......your Tory mates may consider this as a much fairer system .

Erm, no. Using my reasoning, VAT would be the same 20% rate for everyone. A family of 4 adults consumes more than a retired couple and so they would pay more VAT than the retired couple. This is how VAT works now.

You've just proved my point.

WRINKLES

RenovationMan wrote: »

Erm, no. Using my reasoning, VAT would be the same 20% rate for everyone. A family of 4 adults consumes more than a retired couple and so they would pay more VAT than the retired couple. This is how VAT works now.

You've just proved my point.

Aa i said the Tory party lost this argument when they were voted out of power ......you seem to want to bring back a tax that made people so angry they were prepared to go to prison and many did rather than pay the most unfair tax ever devised ......keep arguing you are showing people just what a pompous twit you are.

RenovationMan

WRINKLES wrote: »

Aa i said the Tory party lost this argument when they were voted out of power ......you seem to want to bring back a tax that made people so angry they were prepared to go to prison and many did rather than pay the most unfair tax ever devised ......keep arguing you are showing people just what a pompous twit you are.

If it was such a terrible tax then I'd assume that you'de be able to tear apart my arguments with ease.

I suggest the fact you keep having to resort to insults tells its own story about who is making the most reasonable argument and who simply isn't.

I'm not sure what is 'pompous' about my argument that every wage earning adult should pay local taxes, contributing towards services that everyone uses. Can you explain?

danothy

RenovationMan wrote: »

If it was such a terrible tax then I'd assume that you'de be able to tear apart my arguments with ease.

I suggest the fact you keep having to resort to insults tells its own story about who is making the most reasonable argument and who simply isn't.

I'm not sure what is 'pompous' about my argument that every wage earning adult should pay local taxes, contributing towards services that everyone uses. Can you explain?

Thing is that while a larger household will have more demands on public services, that demand won't typically increase linearly with the number of people there (for example a single person household will typically produce more than 50% of the waste of a two person household) so charging by the person could be considered unfair as communal living is more resource efficient.

Council tax is done by household with an increase in rate as the value of the house increased. I believe the rational for this to be that the more expensive the house the bigger, and therefore likely to have more people in it so more services are used. The charge for varying use is managed by how much the rate is for each band and not per head so can account for the non-linear increase without changing the charge per person based on how many in a house.

Is it a perfect system? No. I think ideally a charge per person that gets lower with more efficient living arrangements would be fair, however the current banding system is a closer approximation than Poll tax was in my view.