What are your unpopular opinions? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Turtle Shed said:
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.
if the family of four are all earning they are all probably paying income tax etc. thoughTheir 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.
Strangely Brown said:
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.
Countdown said:
But the amount that you pay in CT has no connection to how much you use Council Services so why is a "Poll tax" any fairer?
Even if it isn't fairer - it's much better for the provision of council supplied services...Total council budget, divided by inhabitants, done. None of this frigging around with house price banding (and updates/appeals/etc.), no need to really forecast what might be achievable in terms of incomes, etc.
Countdown said:
But the amount that you pay in CT has no connection to how much you use Council Services so why is a "Poll tax" any fairer?
Is it in principle "fair" that your personal contribution to providing local services depends upon the number of people you live with? I would say not - people of similar means living alone or with others should pay a similar amount each. It would make more sense to charge per household if the costs were related to the services provided and mostly invariant with the number of people in the household - the cost of visiting to empty a bin, for example - but as you say, that is not the case.
"Poll tax" carries an implication of a flat rate implementation - I'm not sure that's necessarily "fair", but that depends upon your interpretation of fairness, and is any case not necessarily how one might implement it.
Any method that isn't "pay for exactly what you use" is arbitrary and therefore unfair. The unfairness is exacerbated when you're paying for services that you will never ever need from the Council.
The only thing about the various different methods being proposed is that they're unfair to different people.
The only thing about the various different methods being proposed is that they're unfair to different people.
If you can't agree a definition of fairness that people agree on, you will always have arguments - but you can certainly objectively examine fairness within a particular statement of principles. If your principle is that the amount paid should be related to the ability to pay - which is what we are apparently trying to use house banding as a (poor quality, easily administered) proxy for - allowing multi-adult households to split one bill is clearly unfair.
Blown2CV said:
for services that are free at the point of use, it is essential to just spread the cost across everyone. The alternative is to charge at the point of use....
No one is saying don't spread the cost across everyone. As always the question is how the spread happens...Although tbf, more than half the population don't actually pay towards anything - they merely partially offset the costs of services provision.
Blown2CV said:
if you start spreading the cost unevenly, you may as well just start charging at the point of use because arguably this would be far less complex.
The issue then is that the rich pay less proportionally (compared to their income) than the poor and social mobility dies. Blown2CV said:
if you start spreading the cost unevenly, you may as well just start charging at the point of use because arguably this would be far less complex.
We already 'spread the cost unevenly'. Mum's household of four working adults pay less in total than I do with one (currently not working, but working on it!)... Blown2CV said:
We have an income based taxation model too it’s called income tax.
Different things. Income Tax goes to the Exchequer.Council tax/poll tax/whatever is directly to local government.
Frankly, can't see how income taxation could work for council provision. That'd be horrifically complex to administer for both employers and HMRC.
Dagnir said:
vetrof said:
The ‘West’ didn’t ‘win’ the Cold War. The Soviet plan, as detailed by Yuri Bezmenov, is working perfectly.
I think it's staggering how easily so many have turned on their own country.A sight to behold for sure.
It's weird how so many want to rubbish their own Country.
vetrof said:
The ‘West’ didn’t ‘win’ the Cold War. The Soviet plan, as detailed by Yuri Bezmenov, is working perfectly.
Was it part of the Soviet plan to have the Soviet Union collapse and disintegrate into 15 sovereign states in an uncontrolled manner provoking several ongoing conflicts which are still simmering decades later, including several successor states which went on to join NATO and the EU? That's some 4D chess.I know the guy you're talking about and the interview you're talking about, and sure, Putin is behaving in the manner he describes and has has been for 20 years or so and appear sot be a student of this approach, however to claim this is some continuation of the Soviet Plan to destabilize the West does ignore some pretty spectacular destabilization it inflicted upon itself.
otolith said:
If you can't agree a definition of fairness that people agree on, you will always have arguments - but you can certainly objectively examine fairness within a particular statement of principles. If your principle is that the amount paid should be related to the ability to pay - which is what we are apparently trying to use house banding as a (poor quality, easily administered) proxy for - allowing multi-adult households to split one bill is clearly unfair.
Is it unfair if people pay only for those services that they want/use? IMHO that's perfectly "fair".The problem is that for "Society" as a whole it's crap - you'd end up with a 3rd world country where the streets are full of garbage, where great swathes of the population are uneducated, where healthcare is provided only to the minority who can afford it, crime would be rampant and where Law & Order is administered by the local Mafia leader. In short it would be s
t.Thats why a system has evolved over time which tries to keep as many people as possible "happy" basically by redistributing wealth from those who have to those who don't. That's never going to be truly "fair" but it does mean a better "society" overall.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff