Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so why did the Thatcher government want to give a 'tax break' (of sorts) with the Community Charge - was it supposed to be an incentive, create jobs, trickle down etc?
not that I agree with any of these notions, but I'm trying to figure out the Conservative social policy here.
In the 1970s there were certain regional taxation areas (usually areas where the majority of people voted labour) which got themselves a reputation for being 'socialist' (not really a problem) and 'anti house-owner' (total anathema!)
Between Sep 1971 and May 1973 I lived in the People's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire. A Socialist Workers' paradise!
You could get a bus from anywhere to anywhere in the People's republic for 10p!
There was a bus every 10 minutes!
They were never crowded (they were usually empty - most people drove. But the buses were there.
They operated at a loss. That didn't matter, because the rich 'Blues' (Tories - and if you owned a house, as opposed to living in state-subsidised housing you MUST be a 'Blue' would pay.)
But they didn't. Significant numbers of people dumped their ghouses for whatever they could get (vowing never to live there again!) At one time, all the houses in on village (apart from 3) were up for sale.
House owners moved out ... and those of us who lived there then will probably never go back.
But if the owner/occupiers move out, who is going to pay for all our subsidies?
That's how it was 40 years ago. I was there last summer and it seems attitudes haven't changed.
Property value has a large correlation to your wealth.
ie: if you can afford to own or rent a large house in an affluent area then you are far more likely to have money.
thus your tax should be higher.
Larger numbers of poor people living in the one small house or flat, do not cost more for the local council services so why should their tax be higher?
Also, a rich person can choose to live in a small flat and pay less - that is freedom of choice.
If you lived in that area for 50 years (because that's where you and your husband grew up. spent your younger years and even your older years together - and then he, daft bugger, went and died and left you to live on your own, why should you be forced to move?
Why should you be required to leave the house in which you've spent most of your life? Why should you be required to move away from your friends, just because some sodding socialist (Yes. I am going going to describe you as a 'sodding socialist' because you'r the unthinking uncaring bastard who'se going to try to move this little old lady out of her lifetime home into some sort of easy-to-chop-at box because it makes life easier for you.
She'd just have to pay tax based on the value of the house.
question is: if she could afford to pay the rates before the Poll tax came along, how come she can't afford it now?
The likelihood is that she has a pension, her husband left some savings or worst case scenario she could rent out a room.
and we must think of the numbers as well - 1 million old ladies perhaps getting a slightly worse deal compared to maybe 30 million people benefiting from the Council tax/rates system as opposed to the Poll Tax.
Of course the poll tax was unfair - it was Thatcher's crowning achievement which led to her downfall (thank god). Any system that revolves around a fixed amount that has to be paid, regardless of income is *highly* unfair and should never, ever be considered. If someone was stupid enough to propose such a system here in the US, I can guarantee this place would be burned down during the riots that followed.
As for property taxes on senior citizens, we've gotten around that problem by creating exemptions for older people, which helps them stay in their homes as opposed to being forced to move due to having pay high taxes on their residence.
Another tax I find highly unfair is the TV "license" fee, which is assessed at the same amount for every TV a person owns, regardless of income - I applaud those who refuse to pay this silly tax - some of those Youtube videos are quite entertaining...lol.
When it comes down to brass tacks, the UK needs to do what the US needs to do - tax the rich at higher rates and give more breaks to the poor in order to create a more equal society. Nothing less will do.
Of course the poll tax was unfair - it was Thatcher's crowning achievement which led to her downfall (thank god). Any system that revolves around a fixed amount that has to be paid, regardless of income is *highly* unfair and should never, ever be considered. If someone was stupid enough to propose such a system here in the US, I can guarantee this place would be burned down during the riots that followed.
As for property taxes on senior citizens, we've gotten around that problem by creating exemptions for older people, which helps them stay in their homes as opposed to being forced to move due to having pay high taxes on their residence.
Another tax I find highly unfair is the TV "license" fee, which is assessed at the same amount for every TV a person owns, regardless of income - I applaud those who refuse to pay this silly tax - some of those Youtube videos are quite entertaining...lol.
When it comes down to brass tacks, the UK needs to do what the US needs to do - tax the rich at higher rates and give more breaks to the poor in order to create a more equal society. Nothing less will do.
Any flat tax or consumption tax is unfair and economically inefficient. All taxes should be progressive. Council Tax in the UK isn't necessarily based on current value which is why the argument from the poster above about an old lady having to move out if a house because of taxes is complete rubbish.
Taxes in the US are not progressive enough. We have just had a pathetic argument in congress about marginal tax rates, after which Obama managed to raise the top rate by a smudging on thise earning over $400k and social security by 2% (which is a return to the old rate). The richest Americans are milking this country.
When it comes down to brass tacks, the UK needs to do what the US needs to do - tax the rich at higher rates and give more breaks to the poor in order to create a more equal society. Nothing less will do.
afaik: The top band in UK is 45% (recently reduced from 50%) - so that seems higher than the US
but at the bottom end, even min workers in UK have to pay around 23% - so more than the US.
and I agree about the TV licence, really is an outdated absurdity, lol
and back to the little old ladies again - as someone else mentioned, there can be various exemptions and relief systems. For instance, Council Tax has a single person discount and Council Tax Benefit arrangement - so no-one is being thrown out onto the street.
sensationalism is what that little issue is all about.
typical Tory rubbish - save the little old rich lady, but stuff the worker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
