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

[carosio]

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.

 

"Generated idly"-are you referring to personal wealth?

 

You advocate profit sharing (presumably for employees), but who would be liable for losses if their company went bankrupt?

 

If consumption was taxed too much then demand would fall, creating unemployment.

[epiphany]

"Generated idly"-are you referring to personal wealth?

 

Wealth not generated directly through labour.

 

You advocate profit sharing (presumably for employees), but who would be liable for losses if their company went bankrupt?

 

The people who control the capital, obviously. If it's run as a proper worker's co-op then all stakeholders would be liable. Incidentally, profit sharing doesn't have to be in relation to 100% of a company's capital.

 

If consumption was taxed too much then demand would fall, creating unemployment.

 

Why would I advocate taxing consumption "too much"? It's a sliding scale. What I advocate is a necessary move towards a society whereby those who consume the most pay more in social reparation than those who consciously consume less.

 

I agree, however, that this won't work in the current system as efficiently as it could, since we're still obsessed with unsustainable concepts such as endless growth and single bottom lines.

[carosio]

Why would I advocate taxing consumption "too much"? It's a sliding scale. What I advocate is a necessary move towards a society whereby those who consume the most pay more in social reparation than those who consciously consume less..

 

But how could consumption (of what?) be reduced without punitive taxation? We are already taxed heavily on consumption through VAT, which some would label a "progressive" tax.

 

Whilst I find this interesting, we are perhaps moving away from the original post, and I suppose I have to be mercenary and would choose whichever system that best suits my personal position.

[Keith Rich]

Scenario 1 : Council Tax

Home owners and occupiers pay a standing charge based on the notional price of their house regardless of what services they actually use or if the house is occupied.

 

 

Scenario 2 : Poll tax

Everyone in work pays an equal amount towards the services that they collectively use regardless of which services they actually use.

 

 

If the above alternative was proposed today which would you plump for?

 

Neither. The council tax is a complete rip off for most people. As a percentage of earnngs the poor pay far more than the rich.

 

The bottom catagory should be scrapped and the money lost added to the top catagory so that millionnaires pay more.

[discodown]

Neither. The council tax is a complete rip off for most people. As a percentage of earnngs the poor pay far more than the rich.

 

The bottom catagory should be scrapped and the money lost added to the top catagory so that millionnaires pay more.

then you'd just have another bottom category?

[Longcol]

Neither. The council tax is a complete rip off for most people. As a percentage of earnngs the poor pay far more than the rich.

 

The bottom catagory should be scrapped and the money lost added to the top catagory so that millionnaires pay more.

 

A lot of people in the "bottom category" will get council tax benefit so it doesn't cost them anything.

[Wildcat]

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.

 

I don't understand how that would work?

 

Boris Johnson's proposals to increase reliance on VAT at the expense of progressive direct taxation like income tax leaves the poorest 30% worse off and the richest 9% better off.

 

Consumption taxes compound inequality.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/top-torys-vat-plan-would-leave-poorest-30-worse-off/

[epiphany]

I don't understand how that would work?

 

Boris Johnson's proposals to increase reliance on VAT at the expense of progressive direct taxation like income tax leaves the poorest 30% worse off and the richest 9% better off.

 

Consumption taxes compound inequality.

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/top-torys-vat-plan-would-leave-poorest-30-worse-off/

 

People below a certain income threshold can be given exemptions or deductions. The old style flat rate VAT isn't the only form of consumption tax, i.e. you can have a more progressive consumption tax. It can (and should) be targeted more consciously at products and operations that have a greater negative effect on the environment and society. We should be using advances in technology and science to better gauge the link between consumption and degradation.

 

I would like to see other non-labour based income taxes as well. Basically, a tax on non-productive or damaging economic actions. Banks who invest in the arms trade and environmentally unsound businesses (and their customers) will be one of the key targets.

 

People can bury their heads in the sand all they want. We consume far too much in the west and our habits are unsustainable plain and simple. I think taxing the source would be more effective than taxing the fruits of productive labour. Yes it would create a more complex tax system, but then I've never understood why a simplified tax system is necessarily a priority over actually addressing key issues.

[carosio]

People below a certain income threshold can be given exemptions or deductions. The old style flat rate VAT isn't the only form of consumption tax, i.e. you can have a more progressive consumption tax. It can (and should) be targeted more consciously at products and operations that have a greater negative effect on the environment and society. We should be using advances in technology and science to better gauge the link between consumption and degradation.

 

I would like to see other non-labour based income taxes as well. Basically, a tax on non-productive or damaging economic actions. Banks who invest in the arms trade and environmentally unsound businesses (and their customers) will be one of the key targets.

 

People can bury their heads in the sand all they want. We consume far too much in the west and our habits are unsustainable plain and simple. I think taxing the source would be more effective than taxing the fruits of productive labour. Yes it would create a more complex tax system, but then I've never understood why a simplified tax system is necessarily a priority over actually addressing key issues.

 

Can you be more specific, ie, what other non-labour based taxes, and what do we consume too much of? By taxing the source do you mean at the point of import/origin or the purchase?

[slimsid2000]

Scenario 1 : Council Tax

Home owners and occupiers pay a standing charge based on the notional price of their house regardless of what services they actually use or if the house is occupied.

 

 

Scenario 2 : Poll tax

Everyone in work pays an equal amount towards the services that they collectively use regardless of which services they actually use.

 

 

If the above alternative was proposed today which would you plump for?

 

Which is fairest - whichever costs you less.