What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
bodhi said:
hidetheelephants said:
Strangely Brown said:
Yes. It was much fairer than the crap that we have now.
You can have it if you work out how to collect it without causing riots and the govt that brings it in to lose the next election.
I said it earlier. I don't like jazz.Desiderata said:
It doesn't matter how much your salary is or what your job title is, if you were furloughed during COVID, your job isn't important.
Hmm, there's a difference between "we don't need this" and "we can do without this for a bit". And there is also a difference between "essential" and "important". If you are drawing the line for "important" at "essential", then very little is important. 
No furlough for our company, by the way.
Countdown said:
paulguitar said:
So what people want is the Poll Tax?
I think it’s more likely that People want a tax (any tax) where they personally pay less. They might pretend they want it because it’s “fairer” but I’d be surprised if self interest isn’t the main motivation.FTAOD: I do not live in a huge house with massive council tax.
Strangely Brown said:
No. I meant what I said: I want it because it is fairer. The value of your house is completely and utterly irrelevant to the amount that you should pay to the council for services. What you pay should, IMO, be based on what you use, not the house that you live in.
FTAOD: I do not live in a huge house with massive council tax.
Those that use the most services are usually the least likely to be able to pay for them.FTAOD: I do not live in a huge house with massive council tax.
Adult and child social services are a massive cost to local authorities so how are they expected to pay enhanced council tax because they're heavy users of local authority resources?
Council spending is a lot more that emptying the bins and keeping the street lights on.
borcy said:
A local income tax would be fairer than Council tax.
Why? You don't pay for food, energy etc based on income, so why bin collections and police? It would also mean you pay more in the South, yet its more expensive to live there.The fair way is to have it linked to consumption.
valiant said:
Strangely Brown said:
No. I meant what I said: I want it because it is fairer. The value of your house is completely and utterly irrelevant to the amount that you should pay to the council for services. What you pay should, IMO, be based on what you use, not the house that you live in.
FTAOD: I do not live in a huge house with massive council tax.
Those that use the most services are usually the least likely to be able to pay for them.FTAOD: I do not live in a huge house with massive council tax.
Adult and child social services are a massive cost to local authorities so how are they expected to pay enhanced council tax because they're heavy users of local authority resources?
Council spending is a lot more that emptying the bins and keeping the street lights on.
98elise said:
Why? You don't pay for food, energy etc based on income, so why bin collections and police? It would also mean you pay more in the South, yet its more expensive to live there.
The fair way is to have it linked to consumption.
Not going to work well if your neighbors don't get their bins collected or qualify for police protection. The fair way is to have it linked to consumption.
98elise said:
borcy said:
A local income tax would be fairer than Council tax.
Why? You don't pay for food, energy etc based on income, so why bin collections and police? It would also mean you pay more in the South, yet its more expensive to live there.The fair way is to have it linked to consumption.
In relation to taxation, people differ in their idea of what "fair" means. Fair could mean "everyone pays the same", or "people should pay pro rata to their use of services", or "people who can afford to pay more should pay more". Even if people agree on the last one, they may disagree on the fairness of the implementation. Using house valuation as a proxy for how much people can afford to pay is a blunt instrument. Largely ignoring how many people live in the house distorts the contribution per person.
A local income tax charged on an individual basis and at a localised rate (so people in high income areas wouldn't pay more than people in low income areas, they just pay their share of the local tax pro rata to income) would be more closely matched to affordability than house valuations charged per household - but would create resentment amongst some around the fairness of people with lots of wealth but low income not paying much. I think wealth based taxes either get very messy, very quickly, or are very arbitrary if kept simple. Don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
A local income tax charged on an individual basis and at a localised rate (so people in high income areas wouldn't pay more than people in low income areas, they just pay their share of the local tax pro rata to income) would be more closely matched to affordability than house valuations charged per household - but would create resentment amongst some around the fairness of people with lots of wealth but low income not paying much. I think wealth based taxes either get very messy, very quickly, or are very arbitrary if kept simple. Don't think the juice is worth the squeeze.
That a well meaning policy change of restricting access to NP&E some time ago has had an unfortunate side effect. That side effect being an increase in uncivil and unpleasant posts in the lounge. These tend to involve tit for tat posts between people arguing.
It has also increased the amount of threads that become politicised
It has also increased the amount of threads that become politicised
anonymoususer said:
That a well meaning policy change of restricting access to NP&E some time ago has had an unfortunate side effect. That side effect being an increase in uncivil and unpleasant posts in the lounge. These tend to involve tit for tat posts between people arguing.
It has also increased the amount of threads that become politicised
I'm not sure that's an unpopular opinion.It has also increased the amount of threads that become politicised
You could argue that threads outwith of NP+E should be more strictly moderated to stop politicising and tit for tat argument.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
anonymoususer said:
That a well meaning policy change of restricting access to NP&E some time ago has had an unfortunate side effect. That side effect being an increase in uncivil and unpleasant posts in the lounge. These tend to involve tit for tat posts between people arguing.
It has also increased the amount of threads that become politicised
I'm not sure that's an unpopular opinion.It has also increased the amount of threads that become politicised
You could argue that threads outwith of NP+E should be more strictly moderated to stop politicising and tit for tat argument.
There are some members who could have an argument in an empty room.
The NP&E changes improved things as it meant creating a sock puppet account required a significant investment in time.
Family of four, two adults and two grown up children, all earning, pay the same amount of Council Tax as the couple next door.
Their other neighbour is a person living on their own, and this person receives a 25% CT discount as they live on their own.
There may well not be a fair system, but there has to be a better one than we currently have. Personally I think it should be a local income tax, and yes I get that wealthier people pay the same price for things in shops etc, but they do pay more for roads, education and everything else that income tax funds.
Their other neighbour is a person living on their own, and this person receives a 25% CT discount as they live on their own.
There may well not be a fair system, but there has to be a better one than we currently have. Personally I think it should be a local income tax, and yes I get that wealthier people pay the same price for things in shops etc, but they do pay more for roads, education and everything else that income tax funds.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff