# No, DON'T axe the tax



## christtopher (May 7, 2002)

So I've just had a LimDem advert pushed through my letter box, and aren't they so clever for trying to introduce a 'fairer' way of paying for my bins to be emptied? No. Using their calculator my household will be paying approximately Â£1800 more under their poxy rule. Do I fill my wheelie bin up more than my neighbour, and cause the bin men to spend twice as long emptying it? Err No. Surely I must call the fire brigade out more often, or use the local hospital more? Nope. Then what about local schools, surely my non-existant kids must get more use out of the teachers than the chap over the road that has 2 of the gob shites? Take a guess.

Why should I pay more for local services than my neighbour just because me and my GF have worked damn hard to earn a decent wage. Give the pensioners a council tax credit or something, but don't use me to subsidise the lazy fuckers down the road who live off benefits because they can't be bothered to get their lazy arses down the job centre.

[smiley=furious3.gif]

Thanks for listening.


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

christtopher said:


> So I've just had a LimDem advert pushed through my letter box ...


I know what you were thinking here - Limp Dem 

I think your subject is a really touchy one. The challenge is to make any council tax fair for everyone. I think it has to means orientated, but not to the level you've described. Also, I think everyone should pay something as everyone uses the local facilities in some way or other (that was the only good thing about the poll tax scheme).

Lets see what happens.

Moley


----------



## christtopher (May 7, 2002)

moley said:


> I think your subject is a really touchy one.


I agree it is touchy!  I apologise now if I've offended any lazy spongers on the forum. :wink:

However, I'd hazard a guess that a lot of people frequenting this forum will be worse off if the fence sitters get in.


----------



## GHuTTch (Dec 4, 2003)

People on low incomes already get rebates on council tax as well as tax credits, etc. Do I pay more at Tesco for my shopping than the pensioner in the flat next to me? No. So why the feck should I pay more council tax to receive the same services?


----------



## whirlypig (Feb 20, 2003)

Totally agree.

It's a service tax and should be charged as such. If you've decided you want kids then you should expect that you're going to contribute something towards the education provided by the local authority. If you're home to 5,6,7,etc. people then you'd expect on average you'll be more of a burden to doctors, hospitals and for refuse, etc.

I don't see or why it would need to be means tested, the only exceptions I could envisage would be for pensioners and those on very low incomes.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Where did all the Poll Tax protestors disappear to? Anyone willing to stand up and tell us how the Council Tax is fairer than Poll Tax? :roll:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> Where did all the Poll Tax protestors disappear to? Anyone willing to stand up and tell us how the Council Tax is fairer than Poll Tax? :roll:


If you can't afford the council tax as a pensioner you move to a smaller property. So then you can afford it.

You have a choice to minimise your payments by downsizing your house to a flat.

So Pensioners should all move to retirement 1 bedroom flats where their council tax is in band A and stop winging. After all, it will be easier to keep clean and maintain and cheap to heat as well. So lots of savings.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I don't recall the pensioners. I recall the young soap dodgers!


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> Where did all the Poll Tax protestors disappear to? Anyone willing to stand up and tell us how the Council Tax is fairer than Poll Tax? :roll:


Actually, I think the council tax is a little like the old "Rates" scheme - based on the value of your house/flat/masion/etc (  ).

But, it doesn't take into account of the usage of local facilities. As has been said, why should a single OAP in a large house pay as much as a family of 5, 6 or more who use the local facilities more?

This is a difficult one for sure.

Moley


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

vlastan said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Where did all the Poll Tax protestors disappear to? Anyone willing to stand up and tell us how the Council Tax is fairer than Poll Tax? :roll:
> ...


What an attitude! I bet you don't want to retire to a 1 bed flat when you get old. Why should people who have worked their whole lives have to leave their home? Unbelievable.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

On a slightly different note but related to the election, BNP I don't want your poison coming through my letter box!


----------



## shao_khan (May 7, 2002)

I agree with Christtopher on this one - we had the same leaflet a few days back......The other half was out the house like a shot (well as fast as an 8month pregnent woman moves) after reading this to confrot the bloke, but he disappeared before she could catch him.

I have enquired though and there is no provision to opt out - so no option for me to take my own rubbish to the tip, opt out of schooling and stuff like that - we already intend to pay for our kiddies education so we are making an effort by not try to over fill the local schools.

This whole scheme though gets my goat, and the only people it benefits are those that pay nothing in.....arghh


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

moley said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Where did all the Poll Tax protestors disappear to? Anyone willing to stand up and tell us how the Council Tax is fairer than Poll Tax? :roll:
> ...


Ahem.

The answer to that? "That's just the way it is...."

The Tories tried to change the system to a more "fair" one, but the public really didn't accept their offering...


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

Agree on the BNP and all the other lame parties, mainstream or otherwise, who haven't got 2 original and sensible thoughts to offer (on reflection, 1 would be a bonus)...

On the subject of council tax, I always though that a tax on services used not offered was fairer to all... so u have a kid in state school, then there is a set charge, go private and u don't pay it - or pay a reduced amount (been there done that, had 3 in private school at one time - we weren't esp well off and it was, and will be for some time, very painful, but I believe worth it in the long run).

Then there are fixed services - have your rubbish collected? then here's the charge... etc etc. Not sure I agree with total opt-out options... don't want to pay for rubbish collection? opt out and dump it in the nearest park - no thanks.

OK, we all know that there have to be some concessions, but I also believe that people have to both live and work within their means and that their total asset value shoud be assessed for some services... While I wouldn't go so far as V on forcing people to move out... there are a lot of older people living (in my area at least) in big houses worth upwards of Â£500k and yet somehow they manage to get every concession under the sun. As a trustee of a charity that has subscribed members it galls me to see someone get away with a reduced subscription on account of they get state aid for this, state support for that, then they come in all tanned and dripping jewellery to pay their greatly reduced subscription in cash with some Â£50's and drive off in their nearly new Roller to their next mediterranean cruise.


----------



## christtopher (May 7, 2002)

I may be generalising here, but the size/value of someones house is a good general indication of their wealth. Therefore the existing way of collecting council tax seems relatively fair. Maybe there needs to be a re-valuation of properties, but surely that'll be cheaper to implement than bringing in a totally new system.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Why should someone who decides to spendtheir money on a big house have to pay more than someone (lets say on identical income) who spends loads on cars, women and alcohol but lives in a small house?

Makes absolutely no sense. You're taxed for your income already so why have a secondary income tax?


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Here's a slightly alternative view.

Whether you like it or not the most important thing that our taxes, of all types, pays for is education. The benefit of an education is being able to make reasoned judgements about a range of subjects. When a sixteen year old without a job "keys" your car it is because his ability to make judgements is flawed. When a paramedic saves your life after a car crash it is because their judgement was good. Whether you benefit directly or indirectly from the educational system, you are benefitting from it all the time. This is what your taxes pay for.

When you decide to take your rubbish to the tip because you save Â£50 per year, remember the amount of additional petrol that you will consume and the addition pollution created. But remember also that if you, as a relatively high earner, drop out, so will all the less wealthy people. This will then make rubbish collection uneconomic. In addition, not everybody will be as thorough as you in taking the bin bags to the tip. Some people will leave bags of rotting food on their driveways for weeks in the sun. There will be a public health disaster as areas of the country are over-run with rats.

Like everything in politics there is no wrong or right answer, simply alternatives. No tax system has yet been invented that was fair to everybody all the time but the attitude of "I don't want to pay for what I don't use" would unfortunately take us back to the Middle Ages. Generally Education and Sanitation have benefitted everyone in the country and to a very large extent separate us from the underdeveloped nations, so everyone should be proud to pay.


----------



## jam (May 8, 2002)

christtopher said:


> So I've just had a LimDem advert pushed through my letter box, and aren't they so clever for trying to introduce a 'fairer' way of paying for my bins to be emptied? No. Using their calculator my household will be paying approximately Â£1800 more under their poxy rule. Do I fill my wheelie bin up more than my neighbour, and cause the bin men to spend twice as long emptying it? Err No. Surely I must call the fire brigade out more often, or use the local hospital more? Nope. Then what about local schools, surely my non-existant kids must get more use out of the teachers than the chap over the road that has 2 of the gob shites? Take a guess.
> 
> Why should I pay more for local services than my neighbour just because me and my GF have worked damn hard to earn a decent wage. Give the pensioners a council tax credit or something, but don't use me to subsidise the lazy fuckers down the road who live off benefits because they can't be bothered to get their lazy arses down the job centre.
> 
> ...


At least they're going to be doing up Morisson's on town street mate, be thankful of that!


----------



## christtopher (May 7, 2002)

jam said:


> At least they're going to be doing up Morisson's on town street mate, be thankful of that!


I wish they'd spend it on making sure my bin was emptied every Wednesday! :roll:

....mind you it did need doing!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> Why should someone who decides to spendtheir money on a big house have to pay more than someone (lets say on identical income) who spends loads on cars, women and alcohol but lives in a small house?
> 
> Makes absolutely no sense. You're taxed for your income already so why have a secondary income tax?


Erm, except that the person who buys loads of non-property stuff actually pays more in total to the Exchequer due to 17.5% VAT, which is in turn higher pro rata than any form of local authority charge currently levied against properties...until some bright spark decides that houses are eligible to pay VAT on... :? Plus one is taxed virtually every time one 
spends money earned after income tax. Mainly through VAT, various duties and stealth taxes, that's how it is in the UK. We are, in overall terms, the highest taxed country in Europe. Higher overall than say Sweden that has an income tax rate starting at 50%. Go figure.

It is presumed by local authorities that the size (or value) of the house one lives in is directly proportional to the value of local services that one consumes, when it is in reality, the number (and type) of people living in one house that really determines this. A Poll Tax indexed by property values is the most equivocal method, but not necessarily the 'fairest' or the easiest to collect.

It would be naive for anyone to think that _any_ changes made in local direct taxation to mean that anybody would actually pay _less_ in Council Tax, rates, Poll Tax or whatever it is called.

People such as Mrs C and myself are the ideal target as we are middle classed, living in 4 bed house with no kids or elderly relatives, have a low consumption of LA services (except 'Parking Services' of course :x ), and paying at the maximum rate with no concessions or rebates via welfare. We will always subsidise the lower incomed, elderly, prolific breeders etc, but so what?

That's how it is. It isn't going to change.


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

still think poll tax is fairer...bring it back and call it something different!

just cos u have a big house doesnt mean you earn a lot, you may have inherited it .... in fact i think thas the only way people will get proerty these days !! single kids with no bros/sisters will be better off !!


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Erm, except that the person who buys loads of non-property stuff actually pays more in total to the Exchequer due to 17.5% VAT, which is in turn higher pro rata than any form of local authority charge currently levied against properties...until some bright spark decides that houses are eligible to pay VAT on... :?


Fair point and one I'd not considered. I guess the best tax efficient outlet it to spend money on women who don't charge VAT or declare the income!  :roll:


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Our tax at source is still considerably lower than most countries. We are, however, taxed heavily on spending and in particular motor fuel. This is government policy and has remained so regardless of political hue. So whilst our petrol is expensive spare a thought for the French citizen. In the UK the employer has an additional 13ish percent to pay directly to the state on top of the gross amount it pays you. In France this figure is 70%! This is effectively part of your salary that you never see. Also in France the amount of income tax you pay depends on the number of people living off the income. If you are married and your wife doesn't work then your taxable income is divided by 2. If you have a child it is divided by 2.5, two kids by 3.0 and four kids by 4.0. This is because the state wants to encourage families.

Tax breaks and styles of taxation are political tools to encourage certain bahaviour, not just to discriminate against certain people.


----------

