Basher
Member
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 332
As we see the council tax rise year on year, what do members think about re introducing the poll tax again with a couple of amendments to how it levied?
As we see the council tax rise year on year, what do members think about re introducing the poll tax again with a couple of amendments to how it levied?
As we see the council tax rise year on year, what do members think about re introducing the poll tax again with a couple of amendments to how it levied?
I would agree that a local income tax is fairer, but do you pay for where you live - or where you work - or a little in both areas, because you utilise some facilities in each area.Despite the fact that it would result in a rough doubling of what I pay, I would support a local income tax as being a fairer option.
I think that the fairest way to rate local tax would be by the area of land that the owner or tenant has the exclusive use of. We constantly hear that property prices are too high in some areas preventing those with less funds buying or even renting them. The one thing that a council knows is the total land area occupied by the dwellings within its boundaries. That can't easily be disputed by those living in the properties. Land area is finite, it cannot be created nor can it be taken away. So a council has a predetermined income irrespective of whether there are small houses sitting in vast plots or tower blocks built to the edges. There is no incentive for councils to build smaller dwellings other than to address the need to accommodate those living in the area. Similarly, those who deny large areas of land to others will pay for the privilege.I don't think either system is really 'fair'.
The problem with the poll tax is, as Julian Cope said, that 'the man in Lambeth Palace pays the same rate as the man who has a flat in Acre Lane'.
And the problem with the council tax is, as Basher has already said, if you're lucky to have bought when the market was low, in what was then a cheap area (e.g. Hackney), you've got a low banding, whereas if you bought when the market was high, in an area that has got worse, then you've got a high banding (and the bandings have never changed).
I think he'd do a great job. I mean the strange thing is it wouldn't even surprise me if this was mooted in the current climate.Chris Grayling to be put in charge of its implementation: might be the only way to secure his defenestration.
I would agree that a local income tax is fairer, but do you pay for where you live - or where you work - or a little in both areas, because you utilise some facilities in each area.
However, it would be desirable to set a maximum rate of local income tax that could be set by councils. In the past, some councils have been over-extravagant with what are often little more than vanity projects for council leaders. Also, as I have commented elsewhere - if central government requires councils to do certain tasks /services, the central government should pay the full costs of those tasks. The present shower lie about "reducing tax" when they only mean "reducing income tax"; VAT and council taxes have been increased.
As we see the council tax rise year on year, what do members think about re introducing the poll tax again with a couple of amendments to how it levied?
Presumably your question relates to Wales or Scotland. "Poll tax" was effectively re-introduced in England in 2013.
As we see the council tax rise year on year, what do members think about re introducing the poll tax again with a couple of amendments to how it levied?
I’d happily go for poll tax.
I’ve never understood why people should pay for local services based on the value of their home. Why on earth should a single person in a high-value house pay more than a large family in a less valuable property?
Poll tax any day for me - in my view much fairer.
I think the poll tax also has the advantage that every adult has to pay something for the local services they receive, so when they go to vote there is an awareness for all of a link between cost and benefit. The Rates and the Council Tax bill comes to just one person in the property and hits that person hard whilst others in the household don't feel the blow. I agree that in some ways a local income tax would be a better way of raising money, but the problem for me with that is that too many people would not be paying towards their local services but could still vote about them.I’d happily go for poll tax.
I’ve never understood why people should pay for local services based on the value of their home. Why on earth should a single person in a high-value house pay more than a large family in a less valuable property?
Poll tax any day for me - in my view much fairer.
I’d happily go for poll tax.
I’ve never understood why people should pay for local services based on the value of their home. Why on earth should a single person in a high-value house pay more than a large family in a less valuable property?
No, it wasn't. Council Tax is more like Rates than Poll Tax, being based on the notional value of the property rather than based on the number of adults living there (though there is the single person discount - did Rates have that?)
there is a lot of talk about parents staying in their four bedroom houses on large plots long after their children have left the family home. This is one of the aggravating issues in the shortage of housing stock. They can of course continue to do that but they would be paying more than they need to.
However, it was the restriction in support for the very poorest to a maximum 80% of liability that actually led to the riots.
You shouldn't use any tax system as a "punishment" for what could be regarded as bad behaviour from a social point of view.
It comes from the assumption that there are no reasons why such a couple stay in their large family home, so they need to be penalised to encourage them to move.
How about incentives to help them downsize, such as stamp duty exemption
Back to the thread. Other posters have pointed out the pros/cons of both main options, i.e. tax on the person or tax on the property. How about doing something radical and do both. I.e. a property based council tax charge, AND a personal based poll tax. So a household pays more if it's a bigger house, AND pays more if there are lots of people living there. Set it so that your "average" household of two adults living in an average house pay the same as they do today. So if there are 3 adults, they pay a little more than a house with 2. A house with 1 pays a little less. 2 adults in a big house pays more than 2 living in a small house. Avoids all the downsides of a local income tax and more proportional to local service usage, i.e. more people means more garbage, more use of local services, etc., but there's also the "wealth" element of the property based tax.
Can we please keep draft political ideas of this forum? It is draft because it nearly brought down a government, it changed the PM, and cause riots..
Here a PPB about it