Poll tax -v- council tax : which is fairest?

[John Gault]

I think a balance is needed. I like the idea of a local income tax instead of council tax. I'm sure loads of folk on lowish (just not low enough) incomes would feel the same.

 

But four working adults in a house might not agree. They didn't agree with the poll tax, when in principle it was reasonably fair. It was never explained properly! The reality of any taxation is that the really rich can afford to pay (or know ways to avoid paying), the really poor don't have to pay, and all those in the middle (even if only marginally better off than the really poor) get taxed every which way.

 

The problem with the poll tax scottish play, was that the government used it as a mechanisum to reduce the SSA to certain local authorities, thus creating a vast per capita increase needed to fund such authorities.

[carosio]

Only taxation that bears some relation to income can be considered fair.

It will be interesting to see if the Liberals go ahead with their promise to replace council tax with local income tax if they get balance of power in a hung parliament.

 

But they ought to make clear (have they?) whether they intend to retain a property tax as well as introducing a local income tax; I suspect they would have both.

[John Gault]

But they ought to make clear (have they?) whether they intend to retain a property tax as well as introducing a local income tax; I suspect they would have both.

 

I belive its long been Liberal policy to introduce a local income tax to support local councils/authorities and they don't envisage any two tier system.

 

However the chances of them evry being in a position to implement this policy are slim and none.

 

Unless they manage to get the EU to pass a dirctive on proportional representation, which I belive is being disscused at the moment together with an overall policy to make voting eqal accross the EU.

[carosio]

I belive its long been Liberal policy to introduce a local income tax to support local councils/authorities and they don't envisage any two tier system..

 

On the face of it, it seems workable but the devil is always in the detail. For instance, at what income threshold will the tax kick in, and at what percentage rate? Who will qualify for benefits? I assume they will have to present some idea of the what tax-payers will have to fork out.

[John Gault]

Its not that complex really.

 

All you need do is work out what's raised through direct rates and apply the amount per capita over those in work and paying tax.

[Wildcat]

I never suggested or proposed anything. I just asked questions. Your response isn't adequate.

 

I was trying to be polite and was elaborating on my previous answer, because your question didn't make sense!

 

What's the difference with a Council Tax bill home when the council send the Band H bill out?

 

I assume you are asking what the difference is between the sense of an income based tax on mars bars and the sense of a local income tax.. The answer quite simply is an income based tax on mars bars would be impossible to implement.

 

I never ruled out anything. Does being obvious (to you) make it the right answer?

 

Not necessarily, but where on the one hand a progressive taxation system addresses the issue and the alternatives do not, then it has to be a progressive system.

 

There are plenty of ways.

 

Like? Taxing everyone equally but subsidising the poor so they can pay their way? Because that solution has the wrong emphasis and would be more complicated to administer.

 

I don't have time or the inclination to indulge in a one on one because I'm interested in what other people think on this thread.

 

Fair enough.

[Wildcat]

You post this as though our over-riding concern should be to mitigate the imbalance of power within the economic system (whatever that gobbledegook means). Surely if people want to have power, whether financial or political, they should work out ways of achieving this for themselves? Too many people in this country think the world owes them a living and are content to live on a pittance provided they dont have to work for it.

 

You can see this by contrasting the work ethic of the lowly economic migrants with the idleness of the peasant class born here. They'll set up a car wash, live in a caravan on site, whatever it takes. Far too many of our own just sit on their backsides with their hands out.

 

I don't want to help them at all. I'd sooner keep as much of my money as I can and use it to help people whom I want to help. Like a Victorian philanthropist assisting the deserving poor.

 

Do you really want to turn the clock back 200 years to those of a society with child labour, workhouses, dangerous working environments and poverty pay? Because they are the result Victorian philanthropy.

 

History says we weren't happy about living like that. We went on strike and sabotaged ruthless bosses, we petitioned, protested and rioted to redress the imbalance in power between rich and poor. People all over the world are and have always done the same, and people will do the same to preserve what social justice they have.

[Wildcat]

Actually I think tax based on consumption is far fairer than a tax on one's labour, but that's just IMO.

 

How then do you redress the imbalance of power within an economic system that rewards wealth above merit?

 

Consumption taxes have a role in that the costs to society of a product can be legitimately offset using them. For example taxation on tobacco is justified in so far as it pays for costs to society of the product, similarly green taxes have their place. But their extent as a non-progressive tax should be limited to offsetting those costs and perhaps a little social engineering in trying to improve society, because progressive taxation addresses a problem directly simply through the way the tax is raised and has to be preferable therefore to the alternatives.

[Tony]

I was trying to be polite and was elaborating on my previous answer, because your question didn't make sense!

 

 

 

I assume you are asking what the difference is between the sense of an income based tax on mars bars and the sense of a local income tax.. The answer quite simply is an income based tax on mars bars would be impossible to implement

on para 1, fair enough

 

Para 2, interests me. Does that mean that visible wealth (in this case a home but maybe equally a car, boat or fancy suit) should be taxed at a higher rate too?

[epiphany]

How then do you redress the imbalance of power within an economic system that rewards wealth above merit?

 

Because a lot of wealth is generated idly and it's this wealth which creates the most imbalance IMO.

 

I certainly think there's legitimately taxable wealth, but income directly from labour is not the fairest source.

 

I just think that the more we can base tax on consumption and the more we can encourage full remuneration in work (which includes legislation on profit share), the more we can direct society towards more sustainable living. It would of course help if our banking system also had this focus.