Poll Tax

[scolopax]

It is raking up ancient history I guess but I was sat here wondering, what was wrong with Thatcher's 'Poll tax' ?

 

Not having Wikipedia to consult today I though I would ask the great and the wise on here. From what I recall it sounded like a fair and equitable system to pay for local council etc services?

Edited January 18, 2012 by scolopax

[CharlieT]

It is raking up ancient history I guess but I was sat here wondering, what was wrong with Thatcher's 'Poll tax' ?

 

Not having Wikipedia to consult today I though I would ask the great and the wise on here. From what I recall it sounded like a fair and equitable system to pay for local council etc services?

 

 

I to thought it a fair and even way to raise local taxes. Certainly no complaints from me.

 

Those that thought it unfair were those who suddenly found that they had to contribute towards something they had in the past received for nothing.

[timps]

It was simply un workable for a lot of people, property does not move boundaries but people do.

 

I had a lot of fun with Bury MBC when I was a young lad moving about a bit, they figured I should still pay for living at my parents whilst I was away and where I was staying also figure I should pay them at the same time as well.

 

I did not mind paying my share and thought it was fair, but I was sick and tired of all the hassle it caused me.

 

If you stayed in one council boundary you will not have had issues, but if like me you didn’t, but did go back to your parents from time to time you will know what a nightmare it was.

 

[DSPUK]

Basically I thought it was a fair system except the Gov pitched the payments far to high -- At the time my Rates were £250 per year - That was the main reason I bought the house I did - low outgoings - then the Poll Tax came in and it went up to £750 -- Think today and your council tax is £1k would you like it going up to £3k - If gov had pitched it at £100 each then it would probably got off the ground.

 

On the second year I was given a £250 discount so in effect Thatcher had doubled my payment by achieving f$$$ all. - I hated that woman that year and for a few years after.

 

Dave

[arjimlad]

I recall that the problem was that britons objected to everyone paying the same amount towards local authority expenditure. Which seemed fair to me.

 

Apparently how much you pay towards local authority expense should be worked out by how big your house is, regardless of how few people may be living in it, or how many of you use local schools and libraries etc. I don't have a big house, by the way.

[shaun4860]

It went from a household paying "rates" to everyone in the househo;d paying "rates"

 

So if 1 person lived in a house he paid, lets say £100 per year, then another household with 4 adults then the Govt were getting £400

 

In my opinion it was wrong.

 

Little old lady in a HUGE old family 6 bed house on her own paying £100 per year

 

Family of 4 people (2 parents, 2 children over 16 and working) living in a 2 bed flat paying £400 per year

 

there was no sense in it.

 

It was a way of gaining income by the number of people in the house.

 

was ok to try it in scotland first though.... :yp:

 

When the second year of bills were issued, ours had a charge on of £25 to cover the "non collection of payments"

 

kicked up a stink round here, was taken off the following year but was still hidden away somewhere.

 

Rates (council tax) is a fairer option in my opinion.

 

(maggie fan)

[Wharf Rat]

The poll tax was very regressive, i.e. the more you earned, the less you paid as a proportion of your income. The current council tax system is little better.

 

I think that the Lib Dems promised a local income tax if they ever got into power - don't hold your breath!

[shotgun sam]

The poll tax was fair every adult (with a few exceptions)was to pay a share for Council services the rates system was based on the value of your home so you could have one person living in an expensive house paying say £1000 but have a family of 4 living in a smaller house paying say £400. The family of 4 use more Council services than the single person so why should this single person subsidise the other family?

 

The people that were on the dole were given an increase in their allowances to pay for the poll tax but they spent it on drugs, drink and fags then they had the cheek to complain about not being able to pay the pole tax.

[shaun4860]

The poll tax was fair every adult (with a few exceptions)was to pay a share for Council services the rates system was based on the value of your home so you could have one person living in an expensive house paying say £1000 but have a family of 4 living in a smaller house paying say £400. The family of 4 use more Council services than the single person so why should this single person subsidise the other family?

 

The people that were on the dole were given an increase in their allowances to pay for the poll tax but they spent it on drugs, drink and fags then they had the cheek to complain about not being able to pay the pole tax.

 

 

Didnt know we paid their taxes

 

[mrwabbits]

The question you have to ask yourself, is what was right with it ?

 

It was big enough to bring Maggie and the Country to its knees.

 

If you dont get taxed on one thing another will get you

[working dog]

It worked for me.

 

Whatever system is in place there will be winners and losers and all systems will have their flaws.

[Dr W]

Little old lady in a HUGE old family 6 bed house on her own paying £100 per year

 

Family of 4 people (2 parents, 2 children over 16 and working) living in a 2 bed flat paying £400 per year

 

 

But why should a little old lady living in a 6 bed house, have to pay more for council services than the family of 4? She doesn't use anymore services just because she has a larger house.

 

In fact I well imagine the more you earn the less you use council services so actually it's the people using it most who pay most for it, ok I'll admit this doesn't help to redistribute wealth and those who need help with council services are probably the people least able to pay for it but there was some sense in the Poll tax.

 

My wife and I live in a 4 bed house but compare us to a family of 5 who live in a similar house, we don't have kids so not using any youth or education services, we put out less waste for the bin man, we don't claim any benefits, we probably use less of the NHS than 5 people, the list goes on but yet we pay the same as the family?

 

I'm not complaining but it's not exactly equitable is it.

[scolopax]

Still no convincing reason why it was a bad idea, each individual pays an equal share. I don't see why if you earn more or live in a bigger house you should pay more. Seems like penalising success. But then I was one of Thatchers children, although she did make me redundant, I lost my job as milk monitor

[Vermincinerator]

It did not work because the sheeple could not grasp that it was a person tax not a property tax, hence the average "im alright, I dont care" households with extended family and adult offspring in residence, found they had to cough up a lot more then the single widow living in the same style property, and did not like it.

 

Ian.

[keg]

Dr W you beat me to it. Unfortunately my PC crashed as I was typing my reply earlier.

 

Wharf rat why is it regressive, you are only paying for what you use and that is the same in all walks of life.

 

To take the example of the old lady, when she may have bought the house 50 or 60 years ago her and her husband may have struggled to pay for it the house has now increased in value which is out of her control so why should she be penalised for something she has no control over.

 

It comes down to the old class hatred I think where people think that if someone has a big house they must be rich.

 

If I look at my own mother who was born and brought up in a pit village, her income is fixed as she is on a pension yet as her house goes up in value it is reassessed for different bandings for council tax. So she has worked hard bought a house with my father, contributed to her pension yet has to pay more than the family of four workers down the road in a smaller cheaper house that's really fair...

[TaxiDriver]

My wife and I live in a 4 bed house but compare us to a family of 5 who live in a similar house, we don't have kids so not using any youth or education services, we put out less waste for the bin man, we don't claim any benefits, we probably use less of the NHS than 5 people, the list goes on but yet we pay the same as the family?

 

So maybe in your twilight years when you might need looking after and don't have any kids to help look after you, You will need more care.

[woodcock11]

So maybe in your twilight years when you might need looking after and don't have any kids to help look after you, You will need more care.

 

 

Mmmmm ..... In an ideal world maybe the children will look after you - who knows - lots do and lots don't. I think that the free level of care is also means tested and maybe Dr & Mrs W have loads saved up whereas the family of four don't - it is not that simple.

 

And as an example, neither my mother nor my father ever had to have any form of care - they both just died very quickly - well one moment and gone the next - a good way for them but a shock for the rest of us.

 

Undoubtedly though, the more people there in a house, the more it is going to cost local government in the way of services, education, NHS and so on.... Then let's not start on the so-called "Mansion Tax" which was hare-brained [sorry that is unkind to hares - I mean totally 100% and utterly lunatic] even by Vince Cable & Liberal party standards.

Edited January 18, 2012 by woodcock11

[keg]

Sadly Taxi Driver, if they need care they will probably have to sell up to fund it as happens currently.

 

You can be a druggie/waster/scrounger and get all the help you need or work hard, save hard and get no help at all. Rewarding isn't it...

[Coolhead]

The problem was that as it was a flat rate and it had no recognition of ability to pay.

 

The rich, the poor, the landed and the tenant, all paid the same. The country decided it was not the solution.

 

Rates aren't fair but they are more fair than that.

[scolopax]

The problem was that as it was a flat rate and it had no recognition of ability to pay.

 

The rich, the poor, the landed and the tenant, all paid the same. The country decided it was not the solution.

 

Rates aren't fair but they are more fair than that.

 

 

Well it seems on the face of it very fair to me. Ability to pay should not come into it. Does the gas supplier charge the guy on £120K more per unit than the chap on £12K, just so the more well off can subsidise the less well off ? Or the doctor pay twice as much for a tin of beans at Tesco's than the teacher, becasue he can afford more?

 

All seems very unfair IMO.

Edited January 18, 2012 by scolopax

[shaun4860]

But why should a little old lady living in a 6 bed house, have to pay more for council services than the family of 4? She doesn't use anymore services just because she has a larger house.

 

In fact I well imagine the more you earn the less you use council services so actually it's the people using it most who pay most for it, ok I'll admit this doesn't help to redistribute wealth and those who need help with council services are probably the people least able to pay for it but there was some sense in the Poll tax.

 

My wife and I live in a 4 bed house but compare us to a family of 5 who live in a similar house, we don't have kids so not using any youth or education services, we put out less waste for the bin man, we don't claim any benefits, we probably use less of the NHS than 5 people, the list goes on but yet we pay the same as the family?

 

I'm not complaining but it's not exactly equitable is it.

 

But you did use youth and education,

 

my argument at the time was the same as yours,

 

I was living at home, i wasnt using the education system, i had already left school and was working, we still had 1 bin emptied, didnt claim benefits, yet we suddenly had a 100% increase in "rates"

 

It was a kneejerk reaction by the tories which i believe cost them the confidence of the country.

 

I still believe it should be a property tax, the way it was before and the way it is now.

 

Dr W you beat me to it. Unfortunately my PC crashed as I was typing my reply earlier.

 

Wharf rat why is it regressive, you are only paying for what you use and that is the same in all walks of life.

 

To take the example of the old lady, when she may have bought the house 50 or 60 years ago her and her husband may have struggled to pay for it the house has now increased in value which is out of her control so why should she be penalised for something she has no control over.

 

It comes down to the old class hatred I think where people think that if someone has a big house they must be rich.

 

If I look at my own mother who was born and brought up in a pit village, her income is fixed as she is on a pension yet as her house goes up in value it is reassessed for different bandings for council tax. So she has worked hard bought a house with my father, contributed to her pension yet has to pay more than the family of four workers down the road in a smaller cheaper house that's really fair...

 

I may be wrong but i dont know of anyone who has their house rebanded because of house price increases, certainly not around here.

 

Edited January 18, 2012 by shaun4860

[Willxx]

I think the main problem with it was a family previously paying say £100 per year had it increased by a multiple of x - whereas a person living on their own effectively stayed the same, if it had been implemented as on saying on average there are 3 people per property so therefore each person will be asked to pay £33.33 each I tihnk it would have been more acceptable. It may ahve actually been calculated like that but I don't remember it being so, I remember multiple bills and parents worrying about how to pay 3 x rates

[shaun4860]

I think the main problem with it was a family previously paying say £100 per year had it increased by a multiple of x - whereas a person living on their own effectively stayed the same, if it had been implemented as on saying on average there are 3 people per property so therefore each person will be asked to pay £33.33 each I tihnk it would have been more acceptable. It may ahve actually been calculated like that but I don't remember it being so, I remember multiple bills and parents worrying about how to pay 3 x rates

 

Each person in the household got their own bill and was responsible for it,

 

It didnt fall on the head of the household to pay it.

 

[Wharf Rat]

Dr W you beat me to it. Unfortunately my PC crashed as I was typing my reply earlier.

 

Wharf rat why is it regressive, you are only paying for what you use and that is the same in all walks of life.

 

To take the example of the old lady, when she may have bought the house 50 or 60 years ago her and her husband may have struggled to pay for it the house has now increased in value which is out of her control so why should she be penalised for something she has no control over.

 

It comes down to the old class hatred I think where people think that if someone has a big house they must be rich.

 

If I look at my own mother who was born and brought up in a pit village, her income is fixed as she is on a pension yet as her house goes up in value it is reassessed for different bandings for council tax. So she has worked hard bought a house with my father, contributed to her pension yet has to pay more than the family of four workers down the road in a smaller cheaper house that's really fair...

 

All fixed/flat rate taxes are regressive e.g. VAT etc. I am not making a point here, just stating what any economist of any viewpoint would describe any fixed rate taxation. It is simply a definition. I was not offering an opinion.

 

I do agree that your example of the elderly person paying through the nose shows how unfair the current system is. In that people with different incomes pay the same amount of tax, be they pensioners or very wealthy, as long as they live in the same banded property, what you are highlighting is the regressive element of council tax.

[keg]

Shaun, i hear your point but mum has had her house re bandedonce when she lived in s yorks and once again when she moved back to Leeds.

 

Wharf, i also see your point in that all systems have some regression but fairness in my eyes is paying for what you use.

 

What did they used to say- The three subjects g'teed to start a lively debate- politics, religion and the poll tax.