Caravan parks first...marinas next??

[Gareth E]

2 hours ago, Jerra said:

I always found that a very strange point of view but so many held it was unfair.

You supported the community charge? The single policy that almost brought down Thatcher before she really got going? Staggered!

 

Personally, I've always supported local services being funded by a tax on individuals incomes and investment incomes, at a fixed percentage rate. In this way everyone with an income pays a little but those with larger incomes pay proportionately more. This strikes me as being much fairer than a system that is based on a perceived property values which could have any number of people earning any amount of money living in them.

 

The only downsides to this I can see is that a tiny number of people living with millions stuffed under their beds would be exempted. But those with bank accounts earning interest would not be as investment income would be included. While I think on, I'd also include investment income in calculations for national insurance contributions, I've no idea why that's limited to earned income. The other potential issue is that the money would be collected centrally then would need to be distributed to the various councils. Given that a set of grants already exists, setting this up shouldn't be too difficult and could actually result in efficiencies at councils, as they could close down whole council tax collection departments. 

 

Council tax is a lousy system and has trundled on for too long now, I'm surprised Labour hasn't suggested the above (perhaps leaving out the last bit ) I know it was an old Liberal Democrats policy idea but even they seem to have gone quiet on it. 

[Momac]

8 hours ago, Jerra said:

I always found that a very strange point of view but so many held it was unfair.

One factor was the amount of money .

if I recall correctly, for a couple living in one house,  the poll tax  doubled the payment compared to the 'rates' that it replaced . Well it did in my case . We lived in a small semi. While rich folk living in a mansion were better off.

it was definitely unfair. Nothing strange  about it.

[Gareth E]

Just now, MartynG said:

One factor was the amount of money .

if I recall correctly, for a couple living in one house,  the poll tax  doubled the payment compared to the 'rates' that it replaced . Well it did in my case . We lived in a small semi. While rich folk living in a mansion were better off.

it was definitely unfair. Nothing strange  about it.

I suppose you could say it was fair in one way in that had someone being living in that house on their own, they would be paying the same as 2 people (or 5) under the old rates system. The unfairness was that the amount was fixed, regardless of income or ability to pay.

[Momac]

10 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

The unfairness was that the amount was fixed, regardless of income or ability to pay.

Yes  the amount was too high. But when they changed to council tax it didn't drop back to the old rates system.

Almost all of us  do have to pay tax and in the case of council tax  to fund the education of young people, to fund the road, police etc .  

 

With council tax the one choice most people can make is to live in a smaller house with lower council tax band . One person living in a house does also get some relief on council tax.

The current council tax system does have some element of fairness.

 

 

[Jerra]

32 minutes ago, MartynG said:

One factor was the amount of money .

if I recall correctly, for a couple living in one house,  the poll tax  doubled the payment compared to the 'rates' that it replaced . Well it did in my case . We lived in a small semi. While rich folk living in a mansion were better off.

it was definitely unfair. Nothing strange  about it.

On the other hand the single lady living in a semi with a couple and three grown up kids next door found things so much fairer.   Why is it strange to want such people to have a fairer deal?

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

The single policy that almost brought down Thatcher before she really got going?

What's not to like about that?

[Gareth E]

Just now, MartynG said:

Yes  the amount was too high. But when they changed to council tax it didn't drop back to the old rates system.

Almost all of us  do have to pay tax and in the case of council tax  to fund the education of young people, to fund the road, police etc .  

 

With council tax the one choice most people can make is to live in a smaller house with lower council tax band . One person living in a house does also get some relief on council tax.

The current council tax system does have some element of fairness.

 

 

Yes it's better than the old rates system but it's still a regressive tax. Generally band H is less than 4 times what band A is. So someone earning 1 Million a year only pays 4 times as much as someone earning £15K. With an income based system they would pay around 60 times more. Many would consider this to be fairer, based on ability to pay. 

Just now, Jerra said:

On the other hand the single lady living in a semi with a couple and three grown up kids next door found things so much fairer.   Why is it strange to want such people to have a fairer deal?

What's not to like about that?

A moment ago you seemed to be supporting the community charge. Perhaps it's time to make your mind up?

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

 

A moment ago you seemed to be supporting the community charge. Perhaps it's time to make your mind up?

I am sorry but are you fully awake?   The example I give supports "Poll Tax" - the single person pays one fee the 5 pay 5 fees I think that is fair.

[Naughty Cal]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am sorry but are you fully awake?   The example I give supports "Poll Tax" - the single person pays one fee the 5 pay 5 fees I think that is fair.

In some ways I agree.

 

On our estate for example all of the properties are Band A for council tax. Which means that the single people in the one bed flats are paying the same as me and Liam in our two bed semi who are paying the same as the large six bed houses which have ten plus occupants. 

 

How is that a fair system?

 

ETA: Which does kind of come back around full circle to the point that those who live on their boats on non residential moorings who have provided a land based address which they can legally use. If that property is paying council tax then that boat owner owes no council tax as the property they are registered at is already paying it. Council tax is a property tax not a person tax.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Naughty Cal

[Gareth E]

Just now, Jerra said:

I am sorry but are you fully awake?   The example I give supports "Poll Tax" - the single person pays one fee the 5 pay 5 fees I think that is fair.

So while you support the community charge it pleases you that it nearly brought down Thatcher. I'll have to go away for a while, consider the logic behind that thinking.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

So while you support the community charge it pleases you that it nearly brought down Thatcher. I'll have to go away for a while, consider the logic behind that thinking.

No thinking required.   The community charge I thought was sensible and yet Thatcher did IMO irreparable damage to UK society and was the start of the "me me me" culture of today.

 

It is possible if you are open minded to like a single policy but not the over all ethos.

[Gareth E]

Just now, Jerra said:

No thinking required.   The community charge I thought was sensible and yet Thatcher did IMO irreparable damage to UK society and was the start of the "me me me" culture of today.

 

It is possible if you are open minded to like a single policy but not the over all ethos.

Fair enough. 

 

I'm no socialist, far from it, but I personally disagreed with the community charge. Not the concept that everyone should pay, I agree with that. It was the concept that everyone should pay the same amount. I understand that it's the simplest way from an administration point of view but I think it's unfair that everyone, rich and poor, should pay the same amount. What are your feelings on that? 

[Momac]

10 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

In some ways I agree.

 

On our estate for example all of the properties are Band A for council tax. Which means that the single people in the one bed flats are paying the same as me and Liam in our two bed semi who are paying the same as the large six bed houses which have ten plus occupants. 

 

 

The single occupants will get a discount?

Sounds like The six bed houses have been wrongly banded.

[Jerra]

Just now, Gareth E said:

Fair enough. 

 

I'm no socialist, far from it, but I personally disagreed with the community charge. Not the concept that everyone should pay, I agree with that. It was the concept that everyone should pay the same amount. I understand that it's the simplest way from an administration point of view but I think it's unfair that everyone, rich and poor, should pay the same amount. What are your feelings on that? 

Had the tax come anywhere near implementation I feel it would be possible to have some link to wealth.   Perhaps based on some thing similar to rates. e.g. person in Band A pays X so in my example single lady pays X house next door with 5 pays 5 X.

 

Another set of houses in say Band C pay Y or X+n

 

Alternatively you could base on an individuals tax code with a set payment for those who don't pay tax.

 

There are I think a good number of ways it could be thought through.

[Gareth E]

Just now, Jerra said:

Had the tax come anywhere near implementation I feel it would be possible to have some link to wealth.   Perhaps based on some thing similar to rates. e.g. person in Band A pays X so in my example single lady pays X house next door with 5 pays 5 X.

 

Another set of houses in say Band C pay Y or X+n

 

Alternatively you could base on an individuals tax code with a set payment for those who don't pay tax.

 

There are I think a good number of ways it could be thought through.

How about very simply, x percent (to be determined) of salary deducted at source via paye for the employed, and via tax returns for the self employed. This seems so obvious and fair, easy to administer too, without need for additional departments. 

[KevMc]

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

You supported the community charge? The single policy that almost brought down Thatcher before she really got going? Staggered!

 

Personally, I've always supported local services being funded by a tax on individuals incomes and investment incomes, at a fixed percentage rate. In this way everyone with an income pays a little but those with larger incomes pay proportionately more. This strikes me as being much fairer than a system that is based on a perceived property values which could have any number of people earning any amount of money living in them.

 

The only downsides to this I can see is that a tiny number of people living with millions stuffed under their beds would be exempted. But those with bank accounts earning interest would not be as investment income would be included. While I think on, I'd also include investment income in calculations for national insurance contributions, I've no idea why that's limited to earned income. The other potential issue is that the money would be collected centrally then would need to be distributed to the various councils. Given that a set of grants already exists, setting this up shouldn't be too difficult and could actually result in efficiencies at councils, as they could close down whole council tax collection departments. 

 

Council tax is a lousy system and has trundled on for too long now, I'm surprised Labour hasn't suggested the above (perhaps leaving out the last bit ) I know it was an old Liberal Democrats policy idea but even they seem to have gone quiet on it. 

Isn't the reason it is calculated on "earned income" because at the time a certain amount of benefits that were supposedly paid out of the "insurance" were related to earnings?

 

And while we are at it ... isn't all income is earned, either through the sweat of your brow or by careful investment?

1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

How about very simply, x percent (to be determined) of salary deducted at source via paye for the employed, and via tax returns for the self employed. This seems so obvious and fair, easy to administer too, without need for additional departments. 

What ... something simple to be implemented by a government --- obviously you haven't been paying attention for the last 40 or so years. The whole purpose of government is to make life difficult for everyone while providing jobs for the boys with PPE degrees.

[Gareth E]

Just now, KevMc said:

Isn't the reason it is calculated on "earned income" because at the time a certain amount of benefits that were supposedly paid out of the "insurance" were related to earnings?

 

And while we are at it ... isn't all income is earned, either through the sweat of your brow or by careful investment?

I don't know. All I know is that all my income comes from investments and I'm not required to pay any national insurance contributions at all. If a future government required that national insurance should be paid on all incomes, I wouldn't have a problem with this, it would seem fair, income is income...

[Jerra]

14 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

How about very simply, x percent (to be determined) of salary deducted at source via paye for the employed, and via tax returns for the self employed. This seems so obvious and fair, easy to administer too, without need for additional departments. 

Yes that would work.  As I said I am sure there are a lot of ways it could be achieved.

[KevMc]

8 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

I don't know. All I know is that all my income comes from investments and I'm not required to pay any national insurance contributions at all. If a future government required that national insurance should be paid on all incomes, I wouldn't have a problem with this, it would seem fair, income is income...

As has been said elsewhere they should simply merge NI and Income Tax to give a true picture - it's all well and good saying that Income tax is at x% when in fact you pay another 10% or so in NI ... but what Chancellor is going to announce a 50% rise in the basic tax rate ?

[GUMPY]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

if I recall correctly, for a couple living in one house,  the poll tax  doubled the payment compared to the 'rates' that it replaced . 

Er no

The idea was that a couple living in an average house would pay the same as before.

Living in a small semi in rural Northants we found ourselves a few quid better off.

[Gareth E]

Just now, Jerra said:

Yes that would work.  As I said I am sure there are a lot of ways it could be achieved.

Thinking it through some more I guess the only downside might be that the burden of cost for local services would be switched more onto the working population, that might not be desirable.   

[Jerra]

Just now, Loddon said:

Er no

The idea was that a couple living in an average house would pay the same as before.

Living in a small semi in rural Northants we found ourselves a few quid better off.

The same for us.

1 minute ago, Gareth E said:

Thinking it through some more I guess the only downside might be that the burden of cost for local services would be switched more onto the working population, that might not be desirable.   

That could be taken care of by the payment I suggested for those not paying tax.  Incidentally why might it be undesirable for only workers to pay?

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, Jerra said:

I always found that a very strange point of view but so many held it was unfair.

Something about 'ability to pay'?

 

One problem is that if you set the charge at a level that everyone can pay then you raise very little from those on better incomes or resources. Not for nothing is our system called a 'progressive' tax. 

[Naughty Cal]

58 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The single occupants will get a discount?

Sounds like The six bed houses have been wrongly banded.

Not at all. They all come under the Band A.

 

They are all council or ex council properties.

[Gareth E]

Just now, Jerra said:

The same for us.

That could be taken care of by the payment I suggested for those not paying tax.  Incidentally why might it be undesirable for only workers to pay?

I'm not saying it would be undesirable, just entertaining the notion! There's much talk at the moment of the elderly being 'protected' from often declining living standards. There are universal benefits such as free public transport, free prescriptions etc. and the so called triple lock on pensions. If you remove the need for pensioners to pay council tax and instead pay tax on probably mostly modest incomes they will more often than not save money. It would be for society to decide whether a further shift in the burden in cost from the elderly to younger working people is desirable, or not.

[Jerra]

16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Something about 'ability to pay'?

 

One problem is that if you set the charge at a level that everyone can pay then you raise very little from those on better incomes or resources. Not for nothing is our system called a 'progressive' tax. 

There is no account taken at the moment of ability to pay.    I know there is the argument that you can move to a smaller property but that in itself costs money.    There has been one time in my life when I couldn't pay my "rates".   I was in a small rural property virtually nothing smaller would have been suitable.

 

Read some of the posts by Gareth and myself between the post you quote and this reply.