Explain Poll Tax to me...
Discussion
Poll tax replaced the old rates system. The old rates system was based on the the property you lived in, the Poll tax was for individuals. Ended up with the anomoly of one person in a mansion paying less than a working couple in their rented home.
Basic social injustice, and eventually people had had enough and demonstrated.
This bought about the Council Tax.
Basic social injustice, and eventually people had had enough and demonstrated.
This bought about the Council Tax.
In theory it made sense.
It was a flat rate tax paid by an individual rather than a property based tax based on the value of properties (i.e. the old Rates)
And no, it wasn't just that everybody who used local services had to pay it. EVERBODY had to pay it, no matter what level of local services were used by the individual.
But there were a number of flaws in the way it was set up -
Because it was a flat rate tax, there was no proper attempt to take into account the ability to pay. In other words, if you had earnings of £100,000 you paid the same poll tax (officially called the Community Charge) as someone on £10,000.
Each council area set its own level of tax. Therefore, neighbouring areas could have widely different taxes. This is still the case with modern Council Tax but because poll tax was assessed on the individual rather than the property, it meant councils had to rely on individuals keeping them up to date on their locations whenever they moved. This meant that certain classes of individual (peripatetic workers, students etc) were very hard for councils to keep track of.
There was therefore a huge amount of non-payment and it was costing councils fortunes trying to monitor and collect the tax.
Some people try to draw an analogy between US style state taxes and local council poll tax. Unlike US states, local councils generally cover quite small geographical areas, so moving in and out of these areas was quite easy and made life really hard for councils as explained above.
It was a flat rate tax paid by an individual rather than a property based tax based on the value of properties (i.e. the old Rates)
And no, it wasn't just that everybody who used local services had to pay it. EVERBODY had to pay it, no matter what level of local services were used by the individual.
But there were a number of flaws in the way it was set up -
Because it was a flat rate tax, there was no proper attempt to take into account the ability to pay. In other words, if you had earnings of £100,000 you paid the same poll tax (officially called the Community Charge) as someone on £10,000.
Each council area set its own level of tax. Therefore, neighbouring areas could have widely different taxes. This is still the case with modern Council Tax but because poll tax was assessed on the individual rather than the property, it meant councils had to rely on individuals keeping them up to date on their locations whenever they moved. This meant that certain classes of individual (peripatetic workers, students etc) were very hard for councils to keep track of.
There was therefore a huge amount of non-payment and it was costing councils fortunes trying to monitor and collect the tax.
Some people try to draw an analogy between US style state taxes and local council poll tax. Unlike US states, local councils generally cover quite small geographical areas, so moving in and out of these areas was quite easy and made life really hard for councils as explained above.
Mr MXT said:
SimonV8ster said:
Certainly didn't warrant riots and mass destruction.
It did if you couldn't afford to pay it and faced prison. Anyone know?
But I did like the comment ( It was terrible because those who used the services most, paid the most...........oh, wait...)
Amused2death said:
the Poll tax was for individuals. Ended up with the anomoly of one person in a mansion paying less than a working couple in their rented home.
.
This was considered to be unfair even though the guy in the mansion was educated privately, carried private medical insurance and was generally little drain on resources..
Whereas the people using the services, the couple above who later had 2 kids, educated on the state, she didn't work but was on the social for stress thought and still think it was the rich peoples duty to pay their lifestyle.
The clever trick was going from the rates to poll tax back to council tax (rates under another name) and doubling the money taken on the two years it took to do this. The population were even grateful.
Eric Mc said:
In theory it made sense.
But there were a number of flaws in the way it was set up -
Because it was a flat rate tax, there was no proper attempt to take into account the ability to pay. In other words, if you had earnings of £100,000 you paid the same poll tax (officially called the Community Charge) as someone on £10,000.
and?? How is that any different to road tax, fuel tax, energy tax etc... All flat rate taxes, no assumption made about "ability to pay". For basic services (which is what the Community Charge covered after all), if you use, you pay. It was a civil tax, providing for ALL citizens, so every adult should've contributed.But there were a number of flaws in the way it was set up -
Because it was a flat rate tax, there was no proper attempt to take into account the ability to pay. In other words, if you had earnings of £100,000 you paid the same poll tax (officially called the Community Charge) as someone on £10,000.
Totally agree that it was implemented really badly and the government PR about it was carp, but it was a great idea.
Don't forget that the reason it was nicknamed "Poll Tax" (never its official name) was because if you didn't list and name all the eligible voting adults listed in the household, they would not get a vote. Hence this was also seen as a tax on voting, an infringement of their human rights, and a way of disenfranchising poor non-conservative voters who "opted out" of paying.
I welcomed its introduction - it seemed eminently sensible and fair to me.
However, quite apart from any perceived unfairness with the old 'ability to pay' chestnut, don't forget that the country was indeed divided at the time of its introduction and one side in particular was very vocal in blaming everything on 'The Tories'. It became almost a caricature where with any perceived slight or problem could blamed on 'The Tories' - to one side it was a joke; to the other deadly serious. The mood of the time was well summed up in the Alternative Carpark sketch in Not the Nine O'clock News - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avtfpNiVrzM - at 3:10.
So it wouldn't have actually mattered if the poll tax was the best thing since sliced bread, paid everyone money out and gave kids free Christmas presents - the fact it was 'imposed' by 'The Tories' was enough to protest against it. At the time I didn't know anyone who didn't think paying for local services consumed per head, per head, was remotely unfair (and this was from a very working class background/area) and we looked on the protesters with some disdain. But there was a lot of them about, and they were loud and vocal and many were using it as an anti-Government stance with the poll-tax being an excuse. Seems to me blaming the 'poll tax riots' exclusively on the poll tax is a bit like blaming the recent(ish) London riots on over zealous policing. It may have been the catalyst, but the causes ran far deeper and had political ends way beyond the poll tax.
However, quite apart from any perceived unfairness with the old 'ability to pay' chestnut, don't forget that the country was indeed divided at the time of its introduction and one side in particular was very vocal in blaming everything on 'The Tories'. It became almost a caricature where with any perceived slight or problem could blamed on 'The Tories' - to one side it was a joke; to the other deadly serious. The mood of the time was well summed up in the Alternative Carpark sketch in Not the Nine O'clock News - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avtfpNiVrzM - at 3:10.
So it wouldn't have actually mattered if the poll tax was the best thing since sliced bread, paid everyone money out and gave kids free Christmas presents - the fact it was 'imposed' by 'The Tories' was enough to protest against it. At the time I didn't know anyone who didn't think paying for local services consumed per head, per head, was remotely unfair (and this was from a very working class background/area) and we looked on the protesters with some disdain. But there was a lot of them about, and they were loud and vocal and many were using it as an anti-Government stance with the poll-tax being an excuse. Seems to me blaming the 'poll tax riots' exclusively on the poll tax is a bit like blaming the recent(ish) London riots on over zealous policing. It may have been the catalyst, but the causes ran far deeper and had political ends way beyond the poll tax.
mondeoman said:
Eric Mc said:
In theory it made sense.
But there were a number of flaws in the way it was set up -
Because it was a flat rate tax, there was no proper attempt to take into account the ability to pay. In other words, if you had earnings of £100,000 you paid the same poll tax (officially called the Community Charge) as someone on £10,000.
and?? How is that any different to road tax, fuel tax, energy tax etc... All flat rate taxes, no assumption made about "ability to pay".But there were a number of flaws in the way it was set up -
Because it was a flat rate tax, there was no proper attempt to take into account the ability to pay. In other words, if you had earnings of £100,000 you paid the same poll tax (officially called the Community Charge) as someone on £10,000.
And not only was it misjudged overall, the fact that the Scots were made implement it a year before everybody else more or less set the tone for the destruction of the Tories in Scotland and was instrumental in kick starting the road to Scottish independence.
It was her biggest mistake - no doubt about it.
Amused2death said:
Ended up with the anomoly of one person in a mansion paying less than a working couple in their rented home.
Basic social injustice, and eventually people had had enough and demonstrated.
This bought about the Council Tax.
The Council Tax, which has the anomaly of one family of 6 workshy benefit mongers paying less than a single retired person in their own home.Basic social injustice, and eventually people had had enough and demonstrated.
This bought about the Council Tax.
Basic social injustice, but this time the disadvantaged section are more refined and have better social responsibility.
Every tax system has winners and losers. The Poll Tax losers just happened to be those who were easily led into civil disobedience and violence.
There was nothing inherently wrong with the principles of what became known as the Poll Tax, as it is supposed to be based on consumption of local services which is fundamentally driven by population count. The way it was introduced left an awful lot to be desired.
prand said:
Don't forget that the reason it was nicknamed "Poll Tax" (never its official name) was because if you didn't list and name all the eligible voting adults listed in the household, they would not get a vote. Hence this was also seen as a tax on voting, an infringement of their human rights, and a way of disenfranchising poor non-conservative voters who "opted out" of paying.
Not strictly true.You were liable for the Community Charge as an individual whether your name was on the Electoral Roll or not. But the Electoral Roll was the method selected to identify people for the tax, so taking your name off the Roll made you slightly harder to find.
So this gave those opposing the Community Charge the chance to portray this as a tax on voting, which it wasn't - only if those who tried to evade the charge took themselves off the Electoral Roll to try and get off the radar.
Eric Mc said:
It wasn't but the psychological effect of bringing in such a radical change so quickly was just too much. It was a misjudged political move - no matter how rational anyone might have thought it was. People are not rational much of the time. They are emotional and Mrs T just didn't get that.
Exactly this. Such an instant radical change is bound to seem highly unfair no matter how rational. Looking back it was a surprisingly obvious mistake.Even wealthy people tend to agree that progressive taxes are fair, within reason, so it was an unnecessary and massive change.
blindswelledrat said:
Eric Mc said:
It wasn't but the psychological effect of bringing in such a radical change so quickly was just too much. It was a misjudged political move - no matter how rational anyone might have thought it was. People are not rational much of the time. They are emotional and Mrs T just didn't get that.
Exactly this. Such an instant radical change is bound to seem highly unfair no matter how rational. Looking back it was a surprisingly obvious mistake.Even wealthy people tend to agree that progressive taxes are fair, within reason, so it was an unnecessary and massive change.
I thought I was the only person in the world to think it was fair.
The more people in your house, the more you pay. More people means more rubbish and more consumption of public services. I just didn't understand why people thought it was unfair. Am so pleased to hear some others agree with me.
(I was around at the time but a young adult and not politically aware)
The more people in your house, the more you pay. More people means more rubbish and more consumption of public services. I just didn't understand why people thought it was unfair. Am so pleased to hear some others agree with me.
(I was around at the time but a young adult and not politically aware)
voyds9 said:
Amused2death said:
the Poll tax was for individuals. Ended up with the anomoly of one person in a mansion paying less than a working couple in their rented home.
.
This was considered to be unfair even though the guy in the mansion was educated privately, carried private medical insurance and was generally little drain on resources..
Whereas the people using the services, the couple above who later had 2 kids, educated on the state, she didn't work but was on the social for stress thought and still think it was the rich peoples duty to pay their lifestyle.
The clever trick was going from the rates to poll tax back to council tax (rates under another name) and doubling the money taken on the two years it took to do this. The population were even grateful.
And this is what makes me so ragingly angry whenever this subject crops up (as I may have hinted at again in the Maggie thread yesterday which kicked off this latest thread). The useless, incompetent Poll Tax rioters lumbered us with the Council Tax which is basically just a glorified Rates, but at double the previous prices.
But hey, it was the principle that mattered. f
king morons.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff