Poll tax, was it actually a good idea badly implemented?
Discussion
At present me, the missus and the baby live in a 3-bed semi paying around £130pcm council tax.
We use x amount of sewage services, y amount of street lighting, z amount of waste disposal services.
In our new house, as it is worth more, we will pay £200pcm council tax, yet our values for x, y and z and every other public service will remain exactly the same, we will use no more resources.
How is this in any way fair?
Surely a fairer system would be a charge per person but with proper rebates this time for low incomes, pensioners etc.?
We use x amount of sewage services, y amount of street lighting, z amount of waste disposal services.
In our new house, as it is worth more, we will pay £200pcm council tax, yet our values for x, y and z and every other public service will remain exactly the same, we will use no more resources.
How is this in any way fair?
Surely a fairer system would be a charge per person but with proper rebates this time for low incomes, pensioners etc.?
No not just you, I remember studying this in Economics and the idea was actually sound and very much supported by most of the economics tutors. Unfortunately in every case there will be some who win and some who lose. In the case of the poll tax, families who lived 8 under one roof (lets call them pikeys) deemed that they were being persecuted, the fact that as you say you are paying for local services and nothing to do with your house seems to be mostly ignored. It was oh so easy however to target the elderly widow living in a large pile who suddenly was getting quite a good deal compared to the poor downtrodden underclass, despite the fact that to get the large pile in the first place the elderley widow and her late husband had probably earned and contributed vast sums in income tax, stamp duty etc etc.
I think it was a bandwagon that got jumped on without any real understanding of the system, much like the MMR bandwagon or anything else the press sometimes decide to get their teeth into.
Tax it tax it tax, one way or another your gonna get fooked.
>> Edited by touchingcloth on Wednesday 8th February 10:27
I think it was a bandwagon that got jumped on without any real understanding of the system, much like the MMR bandwagon or anything else the press sometimes decide to get their teeth into.
Tax it tax it tax, one way or another your gonna get fooked.
>> Edited by touchingcloth on Wednesday 8th February 10:27
We should be charged for the services we use, if a person lives in a large house he does not use more water or require more waste disposal than a similar person living in a small house, so why should he pay more ?
The principle of a Poll Tax is all well and good, but it should be payable per person regardless of the value of their home.
The principle of a Poll Tax is all well and good, but it should be payable per person regardless of the value of their home.
alfaman said:
Poll tax was fairer IMHO , but I think a more sellable solution to the electorate would be to replace council tax with :
1/3 of it via a Poll Tax
1/3 via local income tax ( hence little cost for those on low incomes )
1/3 via a property tax .
and have three organisations all not talking to each other, I think not!
Nope another vote here for poll tax.
Corpulent Tosser said:
We should be charged for the services we use, if a person lives in a large house he does not use more water or require more waste disposal than a similar person living in a small house, so why should he pay more ?
The principle of a Poll Tax is all well and good, but it should be payable per person regardless of the value of their home.
arguably large houses will use more water keeping the lawns watered , more garden waste , possibly more domestic waste. Water could be paid for by meter ...that would be fair.
alfaman said:
Poll tax was fairer IMHO , but I think a more sellable solution to the electorate would be to replace council tax with :
1/3 of it via a Poll Tax
1/3 via local income tax ( hence little cost for those on low incomes )
1/3 via a property tax .
I disagree, I already pay national income tax, if earn more I do not put a greater burden on local amentities, so why should I be penalised for earning more, same applies to property tax, I put my money into buying a nice house why should I pay more than someone who spends his/her money elsewhere.
alfaman said:
We should be charged for the services we use, if a person lives in a large house he does not use more water or require more waste disposal than a similar person living in a small house, so why should he pay more ?
The principle of a Poll Tax is all well and good, but it should be payable per person regardless of the value of their home.
arguably large houses will use more water keeping the lawns watered , more garden waste , possibly more domestic waste. Water could be paid for by meter ...that would be fair.
Agreed, pay for the services one uses.
Not just you.
It was a good system, sabotaged by the left and so badly represented in the media as to be almost a joke.
The rational was that a tax used to provide services was best paid for by those that used the services.
Ability to pay was taken into consideration, and the poorest qualified for up to 100% rebates.
It had the advantage of ensuring that little old lady living in her home alone did not pay more than the family of 6 young people living and working next door.
Where it all went wrong was the conservatives failed spectacularly to see what a golden opprtunity it was for the left to inflict major damage on Mrs T and her Govt. Cue lots of stories about the rich man being "let off" thousands of pounds of tax at the expense of the poor man. It was nonsense, after all if I'm richer than you I don't expect to pay more for my Mars bars but I do expect to pay more tax through my PAYE. This is where the imbalance should have been addressed rather than through a charge for services. Nevertheless the lefts campaign was very effective and the people bought into it in large numbers.
Some left wing councils shamefully manipulated the figures to make things worse too. Spending large amounts of money on nonsense projects whilst starving essential services of cash. The overspends resulted in capping and the resulting crisis was always portrayed to the media as "cuts in public services" and always of the worst kind. Councils would sack teachers and care workers but never administrators........... No votes in sympathy for administrators donchaknow!
The conservatives never could get on the ball with this s lost the argument big style.
What always makes me smile however is how few people actually did the maths. When you do you see how the left used the whole poll tax/council tax fiasco to cover up massive waste an inappropriate use of funds.
Almost without exception (and the exception are the very few super rich ) almost everyone ended up being far worse off. The poll tax, which would have made councils accountable to the individual HAD to be defeated if the left wing agenda for the control of local government in the 1980s was to be carried through.
Andy
It was a good system, sabotaged by the left and so badly represented in the media as to be almost a joke.
The rational was that a tax used to provide services was best paid for by those that used the services.
Ability to pay was taken into consideration, and the poorest qualified for up to 100% rebates.
It had the advantage of ensuring that little old lady living in her home alone did not pay more than the family of 6 young people living and working next door.
Where it all went wrong was the conservatives failed spectacularly to see what a golden opprtunity it was for the left to inflict major damage on Mrs T and her Govt. Cue lots of stories about the rich man being "let off" thousands of pounds of tax at the expense of the poor man. It was nonsense, after all if I'm richer than you I don't expect to pay more for my Mars bars but I do expect to pay more tax through my PAYE. This is where the imbalance should have been addressed rather than through a charge for services. Nevertheless the lefts campaign was very effective and the people bought into it in large numbers.
Some left wing councils shamefully manipulated the figures to make things worse too. Spending large amounts of money on nonsense projects whilst starving essential services of cash. The overspends resulted in capping and the resulting crisis was always portrayed to the media as "cuts in public services" and always of the worst kind. Councils would sack teachers and care workers but never administrators........... No votes in sympathy for administrators donchaknow!
The conservatives never could get on the ball with this s lost the argument big style.
What always makes me smile however is how few people actually did the maths. When you do you see how the left used the whole poll tax/council tax fiasco to cover up massive waste an inappropriate use of funds.
Almost without exception (and the exception are the very few super rich ) almost everyone ended up being far worse off. The poll tax, which would have made councils accountable to the individual HAD to be defeated if the left wing agenda for the control of local government in the 1980s was to be carried through.
Andy
I don't think you'll find governments are actually interested in the fairness of taxes. They are used to redistribute money from the higher earners who have everything given to them on a plate from the day they are born to those on low incomes who are just very unlucky, unfortunate and generally don't stand a chance in this world. Or to put it another way to take money from hard workers to give to lazy 
s.
>> Edited by greenie on Wednesday 8th February 10:34
s. >> Edited by greenie on Wednesday 8th February 10:34
The poll tax was also politically sabotaged by BOTH sides!
The Conservatives took the opportunity to manipulate the grants to Local Councils to *reward* their ones an *punish" others.
The Labour Councils then took the opportunity to gain political points by setting the poll tax at obscene levels. I was being charged £120 A MONTH in Reading by the s there. I moved to Cardiff where it was £12!
Why?
In one Conservative London Countil the poll tax was £0! Why?
They should have set the tax level *nationally* so absolutely everyone paid the same. Then set the grants so that everyone *got* the same. That might have been seen as fair. But it wasn't done that way - and now the fairest system of paying for local government services ever devised can never be implemented in the UK. Memories are long. Shame crap politics scuppered it.
And before the Party Members get on their high horses - ALL the Parties were to blame for the screw up.
The Conservatives took the opportunity to manipulate the grants to Local Councils to *reward* their ones an *punish" others.
The Labour Councils then took the opportunity to gain political points by setting the poll tax at obscene levels. I was being charged £120 A MONTH in Reading by the
s there. I moved to Cardiff where it was £12! Why?
In one Conservative London Countil the poll tax was £0! Why?
They should have set the tax level *nationally* so absolutely everyone paid the same. Then set the grants so that everyone *got* the same. That might have been seen as fair. But it wasn't done that way - and now the fairest system of paying for local government services ever devised can never be implemented in the UK. Memories are long. Shame crap politics scuppered it.
And before the Party Members get on their high horses - ALL the Parties were to blame for the screw up.
Yugguy said:
We use x amount of sewage services, y amount of street lighting, z amount of waste disposal services.
In our new house, as it is worth more, we will pay £200pcm council tax, yet our values for x, y and z and every other public service will remain exactly the same, we will use no more resources.
About to do pretty much the same thing, and can't quite work it out either.
Oh well, another excuse to redistribute the wealth I suppose.
Corpulent Tosser said:
Poll tax was fairer IMHO , but I think a more sellable solution to the electorate would be to replace council tax with :
1/3 of it via a Poll Tax
1/3 via local income tax ( hence little cost for those on low incomes )
1/3 via a property tax .
I disagree, I already pay national income tax, if earn more I do not put a greater burden on local amentities, so why should I be penalised for earning more, same applies to property tax, I put my money into buying a nice house why should I pay more than someone who spends his/her money elsewhere.
My point is about what you could "sell" to the electorate ...... poll tax is fairer , I just don't think everyone would be persuaded , if some national income tax were raplaced by local taxes would councils then be more accountable ? - maybe as wasteful councils would tax more .... and get voted out. (the system in the USA is a mix of national / local taxes ...... fortunately I grew up somewhere where the local tax was NEGATIVE ! )
Don said:
The poll tax was also politically sabotaged by BOTH sides!
The Conservatives took the opportunity to manipulate the grants to Local Councils to *reward* their ones an *punish" others.
The Labour Councils then took the opportunity to gain political points by setting the poll tax at obscene levels. I was being charged £120 A MONTH in Reading by the
Why?
In one Conservative London Countil the poll tax was £0! Why?
They should have set the tax level *nationally* so absolutely everyone paid the same. Then set the grants so that everyone *got* the same. That might have been seen as fair. But it wasn't done that way - and now the fairest system of paying for local government services ever devised can never be implemented in the UK. Memories are long. Shame crap politics scuppered it.
And before the Party Members get on their high horses - ALL the Parties were to blame for the screw up.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. The concept was designed so as to give local people a chance to vote for what they wanted in their area. If a local council majority party got elected on a platform of (say) free school milk at a cost of £x on the poll tax why could this not be a valid choice for the local electorate?
The reason why some taxes were lower than others had as much to do with efficiency, priorities and political will as it did with central grants.
A poll tax set nationally would deprive local people of choice and would effectively set local government against national government once again.
Andy
>> Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 8th February 10:41
The Poll tax was of course implemented in Scotland first. This destroyed the Conservative party up here and allowed almost a year where the media could get their teeth into the Cant Pay Wont Pay campaign.
The unfortunate legacy is that the Scottish parliament is now controlled by a majority of labour ex-councillors that have in many cases been promoted into a position of irresponsibility. We also have a bunch of labour MP's in London that prop up the labour party during votes that they arguably should not be allowed to participate in.
The unfortunate legacy is that the Scottish parliament is now controlled by a majority of labour ex-councillors that have in many cases been promoted into a position of irresponsibility. We also have a bunch of labour MP's in London that prop up the labour party during votes that they arguably should not be allowed to participate in.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff