Bring back the Poll Tax

[Surfer]

Not having a go at the OP but it’s been going on for years , do well get hammered even more for it

nice house good area pay more

mortgaged house get no help-rent and lose job = get some help 

[panoma1]

Truth to tell, if every person paid the same amount (a poll tax)......In order for all households to get the same level of service they do now.........the poorest would have to pay much more, to compensate for the richest paying much less!.......If they didn’t, the Local Authority wouldn’t have the money to provide, even the services they do now!....My understanding is that a Council (in Birmingham anyway) collect council tax on behalf of Central Government........Central Government then gives some (not all) of this money back to the council, to run its services, via what’s called the standard spending assessment (SSA)......so in effect, the government decides how much a council needs to run its services, and gives them back what they see fit! Including any year on year reductions they may decide to impose, under “austerity measures”

Also, don’t forget, out of our council tax the Local Authority is not only is responsible for potholes and verges, but also the Police, Fire Service, Environmental Services, Refuse Collection, Highways Maintenance, Parks, Education, Housing, statutory duties, enforcement and many other services.......

It is right, that in a civilised society the strong (rich) look after the weak (poor).....what boils my **** is paying for the feckless, benefits cheating, fraudsters and other work shy parasites......that take advantage of the system!

[Walker570]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Sure - why not? The problem is that differential sales taxes are  - without the technology - difficult to manage, but really that would be the equitable way to go. Cornflakes isn't a good example because they're zero rated but a cadbury's chocolate bar, for example, attracts the full 20%. So an OAP struggling to live off a basic pension who pays 20%VAT on the bar is paying a far higher percentage of his overall income in tax to buy himself a little treat than is a bloke on 500 quid a week. Or the owner of a string of buy to let houses. How can that be fair?

Perfectly fair, share and share alike is my view.  I bear no grudge against anyone who betters themselves and becomes wealthy as a result, I do object to scroungers and people who do object to someone being somewhat wealthier than them and I happen to be one of your poor pensioners.

[panoma1]

3 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

....  although a few in the public sector earn award themselves salaries so large that it seems more like the Robin B'stard approach  --  taking from the poor to give to the rich.

Well yes! It all comes out of the public purse so those that can, will........But that’s another story! 

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

...what boils my **** is paying for the feckless, benefits cheating, fraudsters and other work shy parasites......that take advantage of the system!

Well, of course they're out there. But really the biggest beneficiaries of the social security system are the employers. When I came back from South Africa in the 90s I worked for a little bit with a nationally known mail order/online fishing tackle  outfit. Don't get me wrong, they were great guys and I wouldn't say a word against them, but the turnover was in the millions and yet every employee had a paycheck that  - if they had dependents and rent -  would entitle them to government support. It was an old mining area and that was the general rate of pay. But they weren't in any way unique. There wasn't  a business in the town that was paying a wage that would keep a man and his family - and yet the owners were pocketing six figure+ net incomes themselves. How's that supposed to work? And how is it fair on the poor sod somewhere else who's paying PAYE into the national exchequer?

I don't mind betting that if a proper analysis were to be done as to where income support really finished up, it wouldn't be in the pockets of the people claiming it. Rather it would be in the pockets of the landlords (in rent) or employers (in subsidized wages). 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Retsdon

[clangerman]

18 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Well, of course they're out there. But really the biggest beneficiaries of the social security system are the employers. When I came back from South Africa in the 90s I worked for a little bit with a nationally known mail order/online fishing tackle  outfit. Don't get me wrong, they were great guys and I wouldn't say a word against them, but the turnover was in the millions and yet every employee had a paycheck that  - if they had dependents and rent -  would entitle them to government support. It was an old mining area and that was the general rate of pay. But they weren't in any way unique. There wasn't  a business in the town that was paying a wage that would keep a man and his family - and yet the owners were pocketing six figure+ net incomes themselves. How's that supposed to work? And how is it fair on the poor sod somewhere else who's paying PAYE into the national exchequer?

I don't mind betting that if a proper analysis was to be done as to who were the main beneficiaries of income support, it wouldn't be the people getting it, It would be the employers and the landlords.

 

 

 

 

you have got exactly how the system works the greedy feeding of the needy 

[Retsdon]

46 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Perfectly fair,

But it's not fair. A flat sales tax on goods weighs far more heavily on the poor than it does on the rich. Anyway, the system is shot, Do you know that Kellogg (the cereal maker) paid zero tax in the UK last year? And yet their UK operation made  probably 40 million quid. All good for me personally because I own the parent stock but there's nothing fair about it at all.

[old man]

20 hours ago, Walker570 said:

Just got my new local tax bill for 2020 and again it has gone up considerably. Now we have to shell out over £60 a weekbecause we live in a nice old house in a nice village location where house prices remain high and people want to live.  There are just two of us here , both pensioners and apart from the council taking a small amount of household rubbish away every two weeks and occasionally cutting the grass verges then that is about all we see in return for our money. Anyone driving any of the roads leading out of the village have to do so very carefully to avoid the numerous potholes which never get repaired and I regularly see cars on the sie of the road with wrecked tyres and wheels....you cannot see them at night. 

I certainly favoured the Poll Tax when it was introduced before and believe every person living in a council area, even if in a caravan who is of working age should be paying their fair share.  It makes me even more

17 hours ago, treetree said:

 

furious when I see people queing at Post Office counters for payments when they are more than capable of earning a living...that's after most of them have lost a few stone in weight mind you ...... funny isn't it, these so called poor people they put on telly are always seriously fat and over weight.

RANT OVER.

Sadly, impossible to collect as Birmingham discovered  last time.

17 hours ago, treetree said:

There was a large pot hole near the kids' school that had been an issue for a few weeks. Everyone at the school was aware of it, and moaned to each other about it.

My wife decided to report it to the Council. They visited that afternoon, and fixed it the next day. In all that time, and moaning, my wife was the first to report it to the council, who to their credit, got straight on it.

We have tens of thousands here that aren't repaired.

Edited March 14, 2020 by old man

[Walker570]

1 hour ago, old man said:

Sadly, impossible to collect as Birmingham discovered  last time.

We have tens of thousands here that aren't repaired.

Yes, I know I live close to Four Counties, Derbyshire, Warwickshire and Leicestershire are no better.

9 hours ago, Retsdon said:

But it's not fair. A flat sales tax on goods weighs far more heavily on the poor than it does on the rich. Anyway, the system is shot, Do you know that Kellogg (the cereal maker) paid zero tax in the UK last year? And yet their UK operation made  probably 40 million quid. All good for me personally because I own the parent stock but there's nothing fair about it at all.

Only 40 million ????  They aren't doing as well as they could then, are they.  If they can avoid paying tax legally then they have some good accountants. If they are doing it illegally, then your supporting them.

[Blackpowder]

13 hours ago, Retsdon said:

I'm on the left of the political spectrum but I struggle with this one. Provided you have access to a gas ring and a pot, I'd posit that it's far  cheaper to eat healthily than it is to eat instant or pre-prepared junk. 

Very true with a little effort good  food can be created with inexpensive basic ingredients.   Of course you need to put down your £400 mobile phone to do it.

Blackpowder

[Westward]

When it comes to political argy-bargy, the "poor" are treated as an oppressed minority which is why no one makes any real attempt to eradicate benefits scroungers. The poll tax caused an outcry, principally from those who regarded themselves as "poor". At that time I was contracting for a local company working in the accounts department and one of the staff was railing against the poll tax so I asked her what the issue was. She said she was 23 and living at her parents council home with 2 adult brothers, all working. The previous year their rates had been £150 but now, with 5 adults in the house the total bill would be about £1500. So I mentioned to her that there is an old lady who lives alone in a bungalow next door to us who's been paying around £800 per year since ever. I was then informed by her that anyone who owned their own home deserved to pay the lion's share of the council rates.

The poll tax was the only fair way to apply local taxation but with most councils dominated by the left and rent-a-mob in full cry it crashed and burned.

The simple reality is: You can't educate pork!

[B725]

5 hours ago, Blackpowder said:

Very true with a little effort good  food can be created with inexpensive basic ingredients.   Of course you need to put down your £400 mobile phone to do it.

Blackpowder

As above, as a kid my parent's had to manage and money was extremly tight so they grew there own,but a lot of society today are just lazy and expect everything handed to them for free. There will always be genuine case's and they should have help. 

[washerboy]

I pay £112 per month council tax

Imagine what it would be on the old poll tax system, me, wife and my son.. 

What extra would I get for the amount of money 3 of us would be churning out... 

No thanks 

[JohnfromUK]

15 hours ago, washerboy said:

I pay £112 per month council tax

Imagine what it would be on the old poll tax system, me, wife and my son.. 

What extra would I get for the amount of money 3 of us would be churning out... 

No thanks 

Look at it from the other side;

I pay (after my single occupancy discount has been deducted) £220 a month - for a largeish 2 bedroom house which has been in the family for 60 years.  For that I get the bin emptied (once a fortnight for recycling and similar for landfill, so a weekly visit), no public transport, (used to be regular buses) no street lighting (used to be some - but not for a long time now), no grass verges looked after (used to be regularly mown), all road drains been blocked for several years now and standing water as I write over an inch deep on the road (no pavements), scant police cover (if you can get through and it isn't easy you often only get a crime number and if they do come it takes at least 20 minutes, so they see it as a waste of time) (used to have two local bobby's within 2 miles), fire cover (which has been good when tested last year by a neighbour!), schooling if you have children, virtually no chance of help if you are elderly and infirm.

It has gone up by more than inflation (or pensions) in every year since the 'poll tax' except two years when it was 'frozen' despite getting less and less every year.

I regard it as VERY POOR value for money.

Under the poll tax, it was based on 'per adult person', so those who had several adults in the house (= several earners, more rubbish and more needs of council services/facilities) paid more, and those with a single person (= less costs/demands to the council) paid less. 

That seems essentially 'fair'.

Edited March 15, 2020 by JohnfromUK

[panoma1]

I’m sure the industrialist and his wife living in a seven bedroom house, on a small 500 acre estate, would be happy to pay £200 per month per occupant, poll tax...total £400 per month.....whereas a factory worker in a three bedroom semi, with a wife and three kids would have major problems paying £1000 per month total poll tax (@ £200 per month per occupant!).......sound fair?

If a tax was introduced, calculated and levied on a fixed percentage of the total income of a household, that would be fair......wouldn’t it?

Edited March 15, 2020 by panoma1

[Penelope]

On 14/03/2020 at 13:38, Westward said:

When it comes to political argy-bargy, the "poor" are treated as an oppressed minority which is why no one makes any real attempt to eradicate benefits scroungers. The poll tax caused an outcry, principally from those who regarded themselves as "poor". At that time I was contracting for a local company working in the accounts department and one of the staff was railing against the poll tax so I asked her what the issue was. She said she was 23 and living at her parents council home with 2 adult brothers, all working. The previous year their rates had been £150 but now, with 5 adults in the house the total bill would be about £1500. So I mentioned to her that there is an old lady who lives alone in a bungalow next door to us who's been paying around £800 per year since ever. I was then informed by her that anyone who owned their own home deserved to pay the lion's share of the council rates.

The poll tax was the only fair way to apply local taxation but with most councils dominated by the left and rent-a-mob in full cry it crashed and burned.

The simple reality is: You can't educate pork!

Hell yeah.

On 15/03/2020 at 10:35, JohnfromUK said:

Look at it from the other side;

I pay (after my single occupancy discount has been deducted) £220 a month - for a largeish 2 bedroom house which has been in the family for 60 years.  For that I get the bin emptied (once a fortnight for recycling and similar for landfill, so a weekly visit), no public transport, (used to be regular buses) no street lighting (used to be some - but not for a long time now), no grass verges looked after (used to be regularly mown), all road drains been blocked for several years now and standing water as I write over an inch deep on the road (no pavements), scant police cover (if you can get through and it isn't easy you often only get a crime number and if they do come it takes at least 20 minutes, so they see it as a waste of time) (used to have two local bobby's within 2 miles), fire cover (which has been good when tested last year by a neighbour!), schooling if you have children, virtually no chance of help if you are elderly and infirm.

It has gone up by more than inflation (or pensions) in every year since the 'poll tax' except two years when it was 'frozen' despite getting less and less every year.

I regard it as VERY POOR value for money.

Under the poll tax, it was based on 'per adult person', so those who had several adults in the house (= several earners, more rubbish and more needs of council services/facilities) paid more, and those with a single person (= less costs/demands to the council) paid less. 

That seems essentially 'fair'.

Hell yeah.

[bavarianbrit]

I thought poll tax did not tax peoples children or those kids still in further education.  Correct me please.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, bavarianbrit said:

I thought poll tax did not tax peoples children or those kids still in further education.  Correct me please.

I believe you are quite correct.

[panoma1]

4 hours ago, bavarianbrit said:

I thought poll tax did not tax peoples children or those kids still in further education.  Correct me please.

I think you may well be correct for children, but I think once they left education (at 18?) they were liable?

Edited March 16, 2020 by panoma1

[Westward]

Poll tax was certainly much fairer than taxing people simply on the relative value of their property.

I'm not opposed to higher earners paying a higher rate of tax, I simply feel it's for HMRC to handle it nationally and that it's wrong at every level for local government to assess taxes using any observational assumption about wealth. The fact is a lot of people living in nicer or bigger homes got there by planning, budgeting and by being fiscally prudent, and compelling them to subsidise others, who in many cases have been less circumspect with their spending, is anathema to me.

[JohnfromUK]

23 minutes ago, Westward said:

Poll tax was certainly much fairer than taxing people simply on the relative value of their property.

I'm not opposed to higher earners paying a higher rate of tax, I simply feel it's for HMRC to handle it nationally and that it's wrong at every level for local government to assess taxes using any observational assumption about wealth. The fact is a lot of people living in nicer or bigger homes got there by planning, budgeting and by being fiscally prudent, and compelling them to subsidise others, who in many cases have been less circumspect with their spending, is anathema to me.

Well put.

[Vince Green]

The trouble with the poll tax last time was that people just dropped off the electoral register to avoid having to pay. Also it was hard to collect where people lived in shared accommodation.