Poll tax brought in this year..............

[tamore]

would the public be arsed to go as far as to riot these days?

[tangent police]

Is it replacing council tax?

[tamore]

tangent police said:

Is it replacing council tax?

for the sake of this thread, yes. real life, no.

[anonymous-user]

Of what i can gather(was 12 months before my time) it was actually a fairer tax? Why should the home owner pay for what others can use as services? (Fire, Police, street lighting etc). Or am i completely wrong?

[Einion Yrth]

It was fairer, but it was very badly presented by the gummint of the day. Also stuff that the crusty dog-on-a-string brigade don't like tends to get demonstrated against rather more forcefully than stuff that merely shafts the middle classes.

[AndrewW-G]

Dave_ST220 said:

Of what i can gather(was 12 months before my time) it was actually a fairer tax? Why should the home owner pay for what others can use as services? (Fire, Police, street lighting etc). Or am i completely wrong?

In theory yes,

Not that any of the socialists thought that everybody paying the same amount for council services was a good idea...................after all socialism is only a good idea when its somebody elses money your spending!

[JonRB]

Dave_ST220 said:

Of what i can gather(was 12 months before my time) it was actually a fairer tax? Why should the home owner pay for what others can use as services? (Fire, Police, street lighting etc). Or am i completely wrong?

No, you are right. It was actually a very fair tax. Houses with more people generate more refuse, effluent, etc. than ones with fewer. Most of the services covered are on a per capita basis so the tax sought to tax on a per capita basis.

The trouble is that the kind of person who would riot was the kind of person who was going to be less well off over it.

[tangent police]

I'd like to see a flat rate house tax.

One which is not proportional to it's value. That is merely another envy based money grab. The community charge did nail council scum pretty hard.

If we are going to be taxed, it should be flat across the board. Equality and all that. init.

[anonymous-user]

JonRB said:

Dave_ST220 said:

Of what i can gather(was 12 months before my time) it was actually a fairer tax? Why should the home owner pay for what others can use as services? (Fire, Police, street lighting etc). Or am i completely wrong?

No, you are right. It was actually a very fair tax. Houses with more people generate more refuse, effluent, etc. than ones with fewer. Most of the services covered are on a per capita basis so the tax sought to tax on a per capita basis.

The trouble is that the kind of person who would riot was the kind of person who was going to be less well off over it.

In which case i for one would not be rioting Council Tax, as it stands, sucks. Just because you live in a larger more expensive property does not mean you use the services any more, nor does it mean you can afford the bills they come up with. In my case, we moved from a 2 bed end of terrace to a 5 bed detached, because it is modern the other bills(energy water etc) are actually lower, the council tax however doubled to over £2k a year.

[Asterix]

As said above - the Poll Tax was far better for everyone except those which had many people living in one abode.

I don't think I need to point out what demographics that would be...

Labour would never bring in something like this as it would alienate their core voters and to answer the OP's original question - I don't think the militant hard left is as organised as it was back then, as it was they who smahed the place up, not the average joe that had a grumble. I don't think anything woiuld happen now if the Tories brought in something similar in the next government.

[Diderot]

Stupid thing was the unwashed, crusty, dogs-on-ropes scumbags wouldn't have paid anyway since they did want to be on the electoral register.

[tangent police]

Dave_ST220 said:

JonRB said:

Dave_ST220 said:

Of what i can gather(was 12 months before my time) it was actually a fairer tax? Why should the home owner pay for what others can use as services? (Fire, Police, street lighting etc). Or am i completely wrong?

No, you are right. It was actually a very fair tax. Houses with more people generate more refuse, effluent, etc. than ones with fewer. Most of the services covered are on a per capita basis so the tax sought to tax on a per capita basis.

The trouble is that the kind of person who would riot was the kind of person who was going to be less well off over it.

In which case i for one would not be rioting Council Tax, as it stands, sucks. Just because you live in a larger more expensive property does not mean you use the services any more, nor does it mean you can afford the bills they come up with. In my case, we moved from a 2 bed end of terrace to a 5 bed detached, because it is modern the other bills(energy water etc) are actually lower, the council tax however doubled to over £2k a year.

Let's put another slant on that.

If you happen to have bought a house when it was cheap and now you've retired, if market forces now suggest that your house is worth £1M you will be slung into band "ouch" and stung accordingly.

Obviously, these people should be slung out of their homes.

Having said, the local council need to sort out their hopeless pension ponzi scheme somehow, or at least mitigate against it's collapse.

[colonel c]

tangent police said:

I'd like to see a flat rate house tax.

One which is not proportional to it's value. That is merely another envy based money grab. The community charge did nail council scum pretty hard.

If we are going to be taxed, it should be flat across the board. Equality and all that. init.

Therein lies the main problem with the poll tax as it was. Flat rat taxes hit the less well off harder in terms of percentage of income. If the poll tax was set as a percentage of income tax then it would have had a better chance of being accepted.

[Asterix]

colonel c said:

a percentage of income tax

We've already got two of those - also, those the Poll Tax would hit hardest probably don't have income anyway.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

tangent police said:

Having said, the local council need to sort out their hopeless pension ponzi scheme somehow, or at least mitigate against it's collapse.

They also need to stop spending money they don't have....just like the government!

They should be approving schemes based on funds available to them......not creating schemes and then finding new ways to generate funds for them.

[esselte]

colonel c said:

Flat rat taxes hit the less well off harder in terms of percentage of income. I

How many people would have had to pay it? How many people get their council tax paid for them or at least a portion?

[anonymous-user]

tangent police said:

Dave_ST220 said:

JonRB said:

Dave_ST220 said:

Of what i can gather(was 12 months before my time) it was actually a fairer tax? Why should the home owner pay for what others can use as services? (Fire, Police, street lighting etc). Or am i completely wrong?

No, you are right. It was actually a very fair tax. Houses with more people generate more refuse, effluent, etc. than ones with fewer. Most of the services covered are on a per capita basis so the tax sought to tax on a per capita basis.

The trouble is that the kind of person who would riot was the kind of person who was going to be less well off over it.

In which case i for one would not be rioting Council Tax, as it stands, sucks. Just because you live in a larger more expensive property does not mean you use the services any more, nor does it mean you can afford the bills they come up with. In my case, we moved from a 2 bed end of terrace to a 5 bed detached, because it is modern the other bills(energy water etc) are actually lower, the council tax however doubled to over £2k a year.

Let's put another slant on that.

If you happen to have bought a house when it was cheap and now you've retired, if market forces now suggest that your house is worth £1M you will be slung into band "ouch" and stung accordingly.

Obviously, these people should be slung out of their homes.

Having said, the local council need to sort out their hopeless pension ponzi scheme somehow, or at least mitigate against it's collapse.

Council Tax is based on values of 1994 or whatever which makes the system even more of a farce.

[JonRB]

Dave_ST220 said:

Council Tax is based on values of 1994 or whatever which makes the system even more of a farce.

I bought a house in 1994 that was in Band B but whose purchase price was in Band A. I successfully got it reclassified with the quite reasonable argument that I had just paid a value that put it in Band A so that was surely what it was worth.

[anonymous-user]

JonRB said:

Dave_ST220 said:

Council Tax is based on values of 1994 or whatever which makes the system even more of a farce.

I bought a house in 1994 that was in Band B but whose purchase price was in Band A. I successfully got it reclassified with the quite reasonable argument that I had just paid a value that put it in Band A so that was surely what it was worth.

I got out old house re-banded, i looked at all the others on the estate(forget the website) of the same type & we were the only ones in the higher band. Sadly i have done the same here & we are all been arse raped. Still, 2 grand to have the bins emptied every TWO weeks isn't bad is it? (the street lights etc are actually paid for via a private company that we pay an EXTRA £265 PA to! Speaking of which that really boils my piss-someone who has the council do all the street cleaning/lighting etc pays the same as us-NO REDUCTION for us having a private company do this side of things).

[Hedders]

Dave_ST220 said:

Council Tax is based on values of 1994 or whatever which makes the system even more of a farce.

My house was just scrub land in 1994, i am being ripped off!