JFKvsNixon Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 A fair system is privatise everying, and only pay for what you use. How do you define what you use and what you don't? For example, if you may not have any children you may feel that you shouldn't contribute taxes towards the education, but you have certainly benefited from those around you being educated, the doctor/nurse that would look after you when you're ill. Same if you don't drive, you may not want to contribute towards the roads, but you certainly benefit from there being a comprehensive road system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 How do you define what you use and what you don't? The water rates went that way. I object to recycling and reducing my waste, as a good citizen, yet those that dont bother just get their bins emptied; a charge per black bin would be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 It was fair to me, if not to my sister. While I lived in a damp one bed flat she lived in a 3 bed semi with garden and garage. Guess who was paying most in rates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The water rates went that way. I object to recycling and reducing my waste, as a good citizen, yet those that dont bother just get their bins emptied; a charge per black bin would be fair. don't recycle then just put everything in the blackbin being a good citizen of the country will get you nowhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 don't recycle then just put everything in the blackbin being a good citizen of the country will get you nowhere One thing that being a good citizen gets you, you don't have to try to stuff bin bags into your black bin leading up to when your bin is due to be emptied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The present Council Tax system is not really about fairness, it's about raising money in a way that's hard to avoid, that's why its levied on the occupier of a residential house. Apart from the 25% single occupier discount (a reflection of the Poll Tax) any one else living at the property (irrespective of how wealthy they might be) is not required to contribute to local services. I understand that a large proportion of the tax collected in the city pays for SCC pensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The present Council Tax system. Apart from the 25% single occupier discount (a reflection of the Poll Tax) any one else living at the property (irrespective of how wealthy they might be) is not required to contribute to local services. A more valuable house, means that you pay more, it could be even fairer still with more higher bands, but then it would be more like a tax. There should be a increase in council tax, per person, a family of working adults such be paying more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 A more valuable house, means that you pay more, it could be even fairer still with more higher bands, but then it would be more like a tax. There should be a increase in council tax, per person, a family of working adults such be paying more. That's not "fairness" - it's just charging some people more for services. It's called discrimination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 A more valuable house, means that you pay more, it could be even fairer still with more higher bands, but then it would be more like a tax. There should be a increase in council tax, per person, a family of working adults such be paying more. But this begs the question, who would actually be liable to pay the increased tax, the owner/occupier/tenant, or would liability also extend to the other occupants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerryBooth Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 so a family of 5 living in pitsmoor were entitled to pay the same as 2 people living in a mansion in dore. these same 5 people who also got the same services as the 2 in dore should pay five times as much ? you say you don't agree with taxing wealth so do you agree that taxing the less well off to make up the shortfall is ok ? Yes! A couple in Pitmoors paying the same as next door with 5 adults (yes adults, poll tax applied to over 18's) is unfair. Each adult paying their own share of local authority tax to pay their own way in this City. That is fair. So a couple live in a mansion in Dore? Well done them! Probably earned the money to pay for it and tax/NI to suit. But local authority tax in my opinion should be per person over 18. Why be made to pay more and get less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now