Discussion
KingNothing said:
Adding additional council tax bands for higher value properties is just as punitive, as a "mansion tax" as far as I'm concerned.
I never understood taxes based on the perceived value of a property. Surely if anything is an indicator of wealth its how much of the property is actually owned as capital (although even this is flawed because the wealth only becomes "real" upon sale of the property)?A £250K house owned outright suggests greater material wealth than a £500k house that has an 85% mortgage - yet the owner of latter would pay more in council tax.
Moonhawk said:
KingNothing said:
Adding additional council tax bands for higher value properties is just as punitive, as a "mansion tax" as far as I'm concerned.
I never understood taxes based on the perceived value of a property. Surely if anything is an indicator of wealth its how much of the property is actually owned as capital (although even this is flawed because the wealth only becomes "real" upon sale of the property)?A £250K house owned outright suggests greater material wealth than a £500k house that has an 85% mortgage - yet the owner of latter would pay more in council tax.
te in my opinion, I hate the way council tax works with a passion. I live in a house with my girlfriend, a similar cost to one down the road, which houses two people and their two adult children, how is it correct that I have the same liability to the council as them? Based purely on the fact that I live in a house which costs a similar amount of money as theirs? When they're undoubtably creating more waste to be removed/recycled, have four cars taking up space on the estate and being driven around the local area, etc. etc.The answer to why, is; life's not fair, which I can accept.
There was a better fairer system put in place a few years ago, where people paid a flat rate per person, was there not? Community charge? Or incorrectly; "poll tax", look how well that turned out, once politics of envy kicked in. And thus we now have an envy based system of paying for local government, which won't be changing anytime soon, unfortunately.
Moonhawk said:
I never understood taxes based on the perceived value of a property. Surely if anything is an indicator of wealth its how much of the property is actually owned as capital (although even this is flawed because the wealth only becomes "real" upon sale of the property)?
A £250K house owned outright suggests greater material wealth than a £500k house that has an 85% mortgage - yet the owner of latter would pay more in council tax.
The same argument could be applied to any tax - if my income is £200k and my outgoings are £199k why should I pay more tax than somebody on £50k whose outgoings are £10k? Your income, your assets, or the size of your engine aren't an indication of your wealth. They're just an arbitrary basis to collect taxes.A £250K house owned outright suggests greater material wealth than a £500k house that has an 85% mortgage - yet the owner of latter would pay more in council tax.
There is no such thing as a "fair" tax - to me it's the price I pay for choosing to live and work here.
Moonhawk said:
KingNothing said:
Adding additional council tax bands for higher value properties is just as punitive, as a "mansion tax" as far as I'm concerned.
I never understood taxes based on the perceived value of a property. Surely if anything is an indicator of wealth its how much of the property is actually owned as capital (although even this is flawed because the wealth only becomes "real" upon sale of the property)?A £250K house owned outright suggests greater material wealth than a £500k house that has an 85% mortgage - yet the owner of latter would pay more in council tax.
Countdown said:
The same argument could be applied to any tax - if my income is £200k and my outgoings are £199k why should I pay more tax than somebody on £50k whose outgoings are £10k?
No - that's a terrible argument.You get something of value for the £199k - you have chosen to spend it. You didn't have to.
PAYE is pretty much the fairest tax there is, IMHO.
Countdown said:
There is no such thing as a "fair" tax - to me it's the price I pay for choosing to live and work here.
Fair, or fairer, that's worth a line or two.In what way is a flat rate of income tax not fairer than the current sustem in which high earners are over-penalised...and how is a local tax on the number of people liable to consume services or cause them to be needed not fairer than an arbtrary envy tax on the value of a property they live in and which has no link to the cost to a Council?
However as the LibDims appear to be consigning themselves to ever greater irrelevance and insignificance their plans needn't exercise anyone at this stage.
Living and working here doesn't mean you have to be a doormat with Patsy written on it. Just overpay your taxes and the more saps there are who do that, the less the rest of us might have to pay.
walm said:
No - that's a terrible argument.
You get something of value for the £199k - you have chosen to spend it. You didn't have to.
Depends on how much of it was on compulsory payments (PAYE, Council tax, work expenses, childcare, alimony). Just because a person earns loads doesn't mean he's rich You get something of value for the £199k - you have chosen to spend it. You didn't have to.
walm said:
PAYE is pretty much the fairest tax there is, IMHO.
I disagree. There is no link between how much you are paying into the system compared to the value of Public Services you are using. Just because you earn more doesn't mean it's fair for you to pay more. PAYE, tiered tax bands, flat rate tax, Council tax, VAT... all taxes are unfair because you are not paying for what you use.p.s. I'm reasonable happy paying my taxes (it's what makes this country such a nice place to live) I am just arguing that taxes can't be described as fair.
turbobloke said:
However as the LibDims appear to be consigning themselves to ever greater irrelevance and insignificance their plans needn't exercise anyone at this stage.
I'll agree with that point, but worringly their mates; the Labour party, who have a slightly better chance of getting in to power than the Lib Dems, are on the same frequency, and to them, "mansion taxes" and "bankers bonus' taxes" are the; be all, and end all, and they are lauded as going to be the saviour of the nation, once they get their grubby mitts back in power.walm said:
Countdown said:
The same argument could be applied to any tax - if my income is £200k and my outgoings are £199k why should I pay more tax than somebody on £50k whose outgoings are £10k?
No - that's a terrible argument.You get something of value for the £199k - you have chosen to spend it. You didn't have to.
PAYE is pretty much the fairest tax there is, IMHO.
Its only "fair" if you believe its unfair that someone earns more than you. Fair would be a fixed bill for everyone, just like everything else you buy. Thats not practical as some people just can't afford to pay their share. Fairer is that you pay a flat rate. That still treats everybody the same in term of % lost to taxes, and take home.
Progressive tax rates are not fair at all. This presents you with a bigger bill both in terms of actual cash, and %.
The real problem with a mansion tax is that the vast majority of properties that would be hit are just normal family homes in London. All it would achieve is to force even more indigenous Londoners out and for the properties to be bought by more landlords and overseas investors.
If you really want to tax property then you need to look at taxing the luxury element of the market and not the essential. This means an annual tax on second properties, properties held by a trust or corporate entity, property held by non UK passport holders and property held by non UK taxpayers.
This would have the benefit of reducing institutional competition who can outbid individuals and level the playing field.
But I hold the view that on an island residential property must be viewed as a benefit to the people in terms of providing housing and not for institutional investment. The latter have many commodities they can invest in for returns but where people can actually live is not flexible.
If you really want to tax property then you need to look at taxing the luxury element of the market and not the essential. This means an annual tax on second properties, properties held by a trust or corporate entity, property held by non UK passport holders and property held by non UK taxpayers.
This would have the benefit of reducing institutional competition who can outbid individuals and level the playing field.
But I hold the view that on an island residential property must be viewed as a benefit to the people in terms of providing housing and not for institutional investment. The latter have many commodities they can invest in for returns but where people can actually live is not flexible.
Countdown said:
walm said:
No - that's a terrible argument.
You get something of value for the £199k - you have chosen to spend it. You didn't have to.
Depends on how much of it was on compulsory payments (PAYE, Council tax, work expenses, childcare, alimony). Just because a person earns loads doesn't mean he's rich You get something of value for the £199k - you have chosen to spend it. You didn't have to.
walm said:
PAYE is pretty much the fairest tax there is, IMHO.
I disagree. There is no link between how much you are paying into the system compared to the value of Public Services you are using. Just because you earn more doesn't mean it's fair for you to pay more. PAYE, tiered tax bands, flat rate tax, Council tax, VAT... all taxes are unfair because you are not paying for what you use.p.s. I'm reasonable happy paying my taxes (it's what makes this country such a nice place to live) I am just arguing that taxes can't be described as fair.
You seem concerned with the value of public services you are using. And I think that is a PART of the equation but not the whole thing.
We need to consider things from the point of view of people often less fortunate than ourselves.
A Rawlsian Veil if you like.
The NHS is a great example. I have virtually NEVER used it (the odd scrip for antibiotics). But it has saved several of my friends lives.
I am more than happy to pay taxes to keep the NHS running.
Pay as you go is how developing nations work - it isn't what the developed world should strive for - the opposite!!
I would judge the success of many nations on how well off their least fortunate are!
If you had been born a mentally handicapped child - would you really be happy getting told - "no medical aid for you until you can afford it..."?!
I am not a particularly pinko commie but I do happen to think that there is some merit in the concept of:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
98elise said:
How is it fair?
Its only "fair" if you believe its unfair that someone earns more than you. Fair would be a fixed bill for everyone, just like everything else you buy. Thats not practical as some people just can't afford to pay their share. Fairer is that you pay a flat rate. That still treats everybody the same in term of % lost to taxes, and take home.
Progressive tax rates are not fair at all. This presents you with a bigger bill both in terms of actual cash, and %.
I just meant that, as you agree, a fixed bill is crazy.Its only "fair" if you believe its unfair that someone earns more than you. Fair would be a fixed bill for everyone, just like everything else you buy. Thats not practical as some people just can't afford to pay their share. Fairer is that you pay a flat rate. That still treats everybody the same in term of % lost to taxes, and take home.
Progressive tax rates are not fair at all. This presents you with a bigger bill both in terms of actual cash, and %.
I tend to agree too that a fixed rate (%age) would be better although I haven't thought that hard...
I am not sure why that isn't used more throughout the world?!
Like a lot of things, fairness is subjective, and in the matter of taxation, it will never be fair across the board.
IMO local government taxation as it is, is not fair. Having to pay a council tax based on the value of your home is arbitrary and punitive. The fairest way I can see it, is what was tried, a flat rate per person paid be everyone of the applicable age. That is fair in my eyes, each adult is paying a pre determined rate into the pot, instead of for example; four adults in a house splitting a £1k tax bill equally, and a couple in a house having to split that same bill between, all the while all parties receiving the same level of service. Then we can flip the coin to the other side, and we have the opposition, one of the main driving forces behind the "poll tax" riots, was the fact that people saw it as unfair, that Mr. Welloff was paying the same amount of tax to the council as Joe Average was, for all the same services, so all hell broke loose. Two opinions, both fair and unfair to any number of people.
On the subject of income tax, the ultimate fair way of collecting income tax, would be that everyone pays a fixed value and nothing more (notice I said value not percentage, as regardless of how you see it, that is the "fairest", everyone pays exactly the same, for arguments sake lets says £5k), but that is so unworkable and insane it's not worth mentioning. That being said I believe the fairest workable and plausible scenario is a flat percentage tax, give everyone a semi-decent/decent tax free allowance, everything after that is taxed at a certain percentage, none of the current bullst we have of loosing your tax free allowance when you earn a certain amount, or a sliding scale of percentages, which kick in once you've earned "X" amount. You earn £20k, you get taxed 20% after £10k, you pay £2k. You earn £110k, you get taxed the same percentage and pay £20k. How is that not "fair"? One person is paying the same as ten people combined! All while getting the same service from the government.
But then again on the other side, you'll have people saying, e.g.; "how come I've paid my 20% tax on my £10k and paid £2k, leaving me £8k and that guy over there has paid £20k, and he has £80k left, that's not fair", and "people who are paid more should pay more than their fair share of taxes", both arguments I disagree with as, someone paying the higher value, all the while still paying the same percentage as every other person, is still getting the raw deal, as they are paying 10 times more tax than the other person, all while they receive all the same things the government offers, possibly less actually, as more often than not, higher earners aren't privy to the benefits lower paid people get.
Long and short of it, taxes in all forms are just stty sticks that the government beats everyone into submission with, some people get beat more than others, and there will never be a scenario where everyone agrees that we're all being beaten equal amounts. Something fair to one, is unfair to another, vice versa, ad infinitum.
IMO local government taxation as it is, is not fair. Having to pay a council tax based on the value of your home is arbitrary and punitive. The fairest way I can see it, is what was tried, a flat rate per person paid be everyone of the applicable age. That is fair in my eyes, each adult is paying a pre determined rate into the pot, instead of for example; four adults in a house splitting a £1k tax bill equally, and a couple in a house having to split that same bill between, all the while all parties receiving the same level of service. Then we can flip the coin to the other side, and we have the opposition, one of the main driving forces behind the "poll tax" riots, was the fact that people saw it as unfair, that Mr. Welloff was paying the same amount of tax to the council as Joe Average was, for all the same services, so all hell broke loose. Two opinions, both fair and unfair to any number of people.
On the subject of income tax, the ultimate fair way of collecting income tax, would be that everyone pays a fixed value and nothing more (notice I said value not percentage, as regardless of how you see it, that is the "fairest", everyone pays exactly the same, for arguments sake lets says £5k), but that is so unworkable and insane it's not worth mentioning. That being said I believe the fairest workable and plausible scenario is a flat percentage tax, give everyone a semi-decent/decent tax free allowance, everything after that is taxed at a certain percentage, none of the current bulls
t we have of loosing your tax free allowance when you earn a certain amount, or a sliding scale of percentages, which kick in once you've earned "X" amount. You earn £20k, you get taxed 20% after £10k, you pay £2k. You earn £110k, you get taxed the same percentage and pay £20k. How is that not "fair"? One person is paying the same as ten people combined! All while getting the same service from the government.But then again on the other side, you'll have people saying, e.g.; "how come I've paid my 20% tax on my £10k and paid £2k, leaving me £8k and that guy over there has paid £20k, and he has £80k left, that's not fair", and "people who are paid more should pay more than their fair share of taxes", both arguments I disagree with as, someone paying the higher value, all the while still paying the same percentage as every other person, is still getting the raw deal, as they are paying 10 times more tax than the other person, all while they receive all the same things the government offers, possibly less actually, as more often than not, higher earners aren't privy to the benefits lower paid people get.
Long and short of it, taxes in all forms are just s
tty sticks that the government beats everyone into submission with, some people get beat more than others, and there will never be a scenario where everyone agrees that we're all being beaten equal amounts. Something fair to one, is unfair to another, vice versa, ad infinitum. Countdown said:
otolith said:
That's lovely for those of you who have the luxury to choose which country you live in.
We all have choices/options. They may not be great ones but everybody chooses the option that provides him or her with the most benefit.Oh, but not everywhere will have you. Because lots of countries are quite fussy about who they let in.
randlemarcus said:
walm said:
I am not a particularly pinko commie but I do happen to think that there is some merit in the concept of:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Sadly, the merit stays to the left of the comma."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Not what we have now - but SOMETHING!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff