Blair warns Labour not to return to 1980s

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

No it isn't a charge for services provided or at least not one related to services I receive or choose to receive.

One could equally argue that much of the governments 'income' pays for services so isn't a tax so all should pay equally.

Does a rich person use more of the armed forces or emergency services than a poor person?

You could use that argument for all taxation.

Fair taxation should take into consideration ability to pay.

Arguably a rich person has more too loose and has greater need for a effective police and military.

AIUI one of the reasons Poll Tax was withdrawn was because it couldn't be collected. Householders can't disappear so easily.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

You could use that argument for all taxation.

Fair taxation should take into consideration ability to pay.

Arguably a rich person has more too loose and has greater need for a effective police and military.

AIUI one of the reasons Poll Tax was withdrawn was because it couldn't be collected. Householders can't disappear so easily.

I agree with you and so was against Maggies poll tax.

suelees1

TruckerT wrote: »

But it's not really a tax, is it? It's a charge for services provided. Presumably the benefits system would have provided support for the poor, just as it does with Council Tax.

TruckerT

But the poll tax aka community charge was a system of taxation introduced to replaced the rating system of taxes.

If you're saying it's not really a tax because it's a charge for services provided why is council tax so named when that's exactly what it's for?

The big difference with the poll tax was that everyone over the age of 18 was liable. It was an extremely unfair system which penalized large families. I used to do door to door collection of data for the electoral register during the two years of poll tax. One household consisted of a couple with 6 adult children. They all worked and the cost to that household was phenomenal. The amount of people who disenfranchised themselves because they didn't want to register was frightening.

TruckerT

suelees1 wrote: »

One household consisted of a couple with 6 adult children. They all worked and the cost to that household was phenomenal. The amount of people who disenfranchised themselves because they didn't want to register was frightening.

Did the Community Charge get as far as allocating actual charges per person? A household consisting of 8 working adults is likely to be a significant user of local services, whereas a single occupant of a very large house is likely to to use relatively little. The total income of any local authority would presumably have remained much the same as before, and it would not necessarily have been correct to assume that a household of 8 would have ended up paying 8 times as much as the single occupant.

The community charge was entirely logical from a Thatcherite perspective, and I was surprised that it was defeated. I suspect that the reason was due to the disenfranchisement issue etc, rather than any sense that the idea was inherently wrong.

But, TBH, it's not really an issue - my original point was to express my surprise that, out of all the changes which Mrs T wanted to make, the Poll Tax was the one which she gave up on.

TruckerT

grizzly1911

TruckerT wrote: »

Did the Community Charge get as far as allocating actual charges per person? A household consisting of 8 working adults is likely to be a significant user of local services, whereas a single occupant of a very large house is likely to to use relatively little. The total income of any local authority would presumably have remained much the same as before, and it would not necessarily have been correct to assume that a household of 8 would have ended up paying 8 times as much as the single occupant.

The community charge was entirely logical from a Thatcherite perspective, and I was surprised that it was defeated. I suspect that the reason was due to the disenfranchisement issue etc, rather than any sense that the idea was inherently wrong.

But, TBH, it's not really an issue - my original point was to express my surprise that, out of all the changes which Mrs T wanted to make, the Poll Tax was the one which she gave up on.

TruckerT

It wasn't removed until Thatcher went, she had defended it to the end despite senior parliamentary advisors warning against it.

Non payment was it's Achilles heel.

Interesting take on it, at the time, by an American commentator
.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39936.html

the_flying_pig

grizzly1911 wrote: »

It wasn't removed until Thatcher went, she had defended it to the end despite senior parliamentary advisors warning against it.

Non payment was it's Achilles heel.

Interesting take on it, at the time, by an American commentator
.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39936.html

i genuinely LOL'ed that that.

fair enough to make an economic/incentives case for a regressive poll tax, but to try & make some kind of ludicrous morale case...

wotsthat

Milliband does the most unconvincing impression of a left winger going.

He really should pay attention to the advice Tony Blair is giving him. Politics are moving right - to be electable labour need to move too otherwise they'll look like political dinosaurs.

The_Thrilla

TruckerT wrote: »

Did the Community Charge get as far as allocating actual charges per person? A household consisting of 8 working adults is likely to be a significant user of local services, whereas a single occupant of a very large house is likely to to use relatively little. The total income of any local authority would presumably have remained much the same as before, and it would not necessarily have been correct to assume that a household of 8 would have ended up paying 8 times as much as the single occupant.

The community charge was entirely logical from a Thatcherite perspective, and I was surprised that it was defeated. I suspect that the reason was due to the disenfranchisement issue etc, rather than any sense that the idea was inherently wrong.

But, TBH, it's not really an issue - my original point was to express my surprise that, out of all the changes which Mrs T wanted to make, the Poll Tax was the one which she gave up on.

TruckerT

The poll tax was not logical from a Thatcherite perspective. The Thatcherite perspective was supposed to be low taxes. The poll tax was introduced with a con trick. Government subsidies to local government were withdrawn at the same time, which is how the poll tax was so high. It took no account of people's ability to pay.

Usually for Britain, any new tax is met with grumbling, then people stick their hands in their pockets. This tax was met with overt resistance. People refused to pay. People were out on the street protesting. Some people disappeared from the electoral register to evade the tax. I turned up at the council offices, and tipped a big bag of mixed coin on the counter. I leaned against the counter reading a book as the time-server counted it. And I was not the only one who did that. I have seen prime ministers come and go. Some were good. Some were not so good. Some were just not up to the job. Thatcher was the only one who was a psychopath. She should never have been allowed anywhere near high office. She wrecked the country, both socially and financially. It has never fully recovered. She is right up there with Nero, Caligula, Hitler and her friend Marcos.

As Grizzly1911 said, Thatcher defended the poll tax to the last, until the Men in Grey Suits showed her the door.

Generali

The_Thrilla wrote: »

She is right up there with Nero, Caligula, Hitler and her friend Marcos.

You're mad or sick.

Thatcher = Hitler. Ridiculous.

The_Thrilla

Generali wrote: »

You're mad or sick.

Thatcher = Hitler. Ridiculous.

You are obviously not an historian. You are not qualified to give assessments on either Hitler or Thatcher. I stand by what I say. And I don't care what you call me, peasant.