[Closed] 20 Years since the Poll Tax riots in Trafalgar Square

I read somewhere that if we had the poll tax we would be better off than we are today!!!!

I read somewhere

Thatcher's biography?

I was there.

Was only when I saw it on the telly afterwards I realised how bad it had been though.

[u]Fairest[/u] ever tax (everyone contributes the same to their local public services) scrapped in the name of a bunch of soap dodging workshy scum...

Also goes to show what happens when the police fail to keep control of a public order situation and fail to contain a bunch of rabble rousers!

Zulu - a fair tax is in raised proportion to the ability to pay.

*wanders off to make 'rabble rouser' badge*

wwaswas - fancy coming out for a forum curry sometime, we'll all chip into the kitty in proportion to our ability to pay, as apparently thats fairer...

a pivotal moment when a pi$$ed off country told the government of the time it had had enough

So the electorate (30M+ people?) vote in a government that has poll tax as a central policy, and then 3000 people riot in Trafalgar square because they don't agree. Isn't democracy wonderful. 🙄

Now we have council tax which is fairer because??? ❓

I was in that London on the day although for a different purpose (visiting a jobs fair) and remember walking back to Waterloo station to see a dustbin launched through the air and onto a parked car. Took a bit of a detour at that point 🙂

Alan B'Stard had the best policy. Make it a proper Poll Tax, if you want to vote, you pay the tax.

Simple, yet effective.

Fairest ever tax (everyone contributes the same to their local public services) scrapped in the name of a bunch of soap dodging workshy scum...

Some of you seem to think that the poll tax was actually popular and only 3000 people objected. Non paying/objecting was probably the single biggest act of civil disobediance since the war. The council ta is [broadly] fairer because as general rull you find richer people in more expensive houses iirc.I think you need mor emoney to pay the mortgage or something but await your great insights into that as well.
Will you two be the only ones crying tears of genuine sadness when fatcher dies?

[troll]I use the same roads, the same hospitals and the same local amenities as the millinaire in the mansion (actually, he uses private health care so is arguably less of a drain) and also the same as the guy on mimimum wage in the council house (actually, he has council housing, so he is more of a drain). So why should we all pay different amounts of tax? And if we do pay different amounts, why should the rich guy pay more when he uses less resources?[/troll]

[trolling]Is it because we outnumber him and we would just rob all his possesions and burn him in his sleep because we are [quoting z-11] [b]a bunch of soap dodging workshy scum...[/b]? [/trolling]

The council tax is [broadly] fairer because as general rule you find richer people in more expensive houses iirc.I think you need mor emoney to pay the mortgage or something but await your great insights into that as well.

Pleasure!

i) Retired
ii) Widowed, house paid off by insurance
iii) Divorced, woman stays in house with kids as part of settlement
iv) Tied house - living in the house goes with the job, often particularly relevant in low paid agricultural work
v) inherited
vi) rural areas in general often have higher house prices and lower wages

You appear to think that granny mildred, who worked hard all her life to pay for her house and then retired on a modest pension, should pay the same as a houseful of three working adults with an income of ten times hers!

Yeah, thats progressive taxation for you!

Hmm, how about a tax based on your value to society, rather than how much your job pays?

So, Nurses, Firemen, Police, Doctors, Teachers, Bin Men, Care Workers etc pay low amounts, as they are working to provide such services, and Bankers, TV Celebrities, Football Players etc pay the highest?

A kind of 'Useful' tax, the more useless you are, the more you pay?

With this system, Jonathon Ross would have to pay £5,999,999.99 a year. I think that's perfectly fair! 😀

whilst neatly avoiding the issue of all your sceanrios paying the same as the duke of westminster under your "fairer "sysytem.
I said as a general rule richer people live in more expensive houses that is what you need to refute to negate my point.
Your flat rate tax is not a progressive tax either is it? I never claimed council tax was progressive did I?

I do think it's wrong that if you work hard, save hard, generally make sacrifices in life so that you can afford a more expensive house, then you're hammered because "if you can afford a house like that, you can afford to pay more in rates and taxes"

Same seems to apply if you save up and put your money into a more expensive bike or car - it's assumed that you must have "load of money".

Do people not realise that sometimes to buy these things people make personal sacrifices and do NOT go out drinking, smoking, eating out, even going to the movies?

[troll] any answers to my question? You can decide yourself if the owner of said mansion is self made and built his forture for himself or said owner's wealth is "old money"/inherited[/troll]

Edit, Billy Whiz, good point, well made.

whilst neatly avoiding the issue of all your sceanrios paying the same as the duke of westminster under your "fairer "sysytem.

aahhh the policies of jelousy

Sorry,Junkyard - are you now saying that my system is unfair as it doesn't take account of income, or are you saying that the current system is fair, because it doesn't take income into account?

I just gave you six everyday common exceptions where your 'general rule' doesn't apply, how 'fair' is a system if it fails to account for the exceptions?

Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis 😕

I do think it's wrong that if you work hard, save hard, generally make sacrifices in life so that you can afford a more expensive house,

What about if you never worked hard or saved hard or made sacrifices in life but still can afford a more expensive house because you were born into wealth?

Good to see Thatcher's legacy of lauding selfishness is still going strong. 😥

aahhh the policies of jelousy

Maybe if you didn't have to pay so much tax you could have afforded a private education and learned to spell properly eh? 😉

Do people not realise that sometimes to buy these things people make personal sacrifices and do NOT go out drinking, smoking, eating out, even going to the movies?

Then buy a less expensve house/car/bike, and you'll have more money for Coke and Hookers! 😀

Nice big houses, nice cars, nice bikes etc are luxury items; you don't 'need' them, so don't moan if you get taxed.

As for 'working hard'; some of the toughest jobs, physically and mentally, are also some of the lowest paid. It's not about how 'hard' you work, it's about how much your labour is valued in monetary terms. You getting more money for a nice bike or car means some other poor sod, somewhere, isn't perhaps getting what they 'deserve' for their efforts, as their job isn't 'valued' as highly.

of course we do but do you not realise that someone who owns a $40 k car and $500k house [generally] has more money than someone who has a 20k car and a 150k house? They did all you said but they also earned more and are more wealthy - granted this wealth may be tied to assetts but they are still wealthier than someone in a less expensive home.

I believe there's rebates available for a lot of the people Z11 claims are affected by the council tax

[i]"Nice big houses, nice cars, nice bikes etc are luxury items; you don't 'need' them, so don't moan if you get taxed."[/i]

Why would you want to quash peoples drive to succeed? Would you rather people didn't strive to obtain nicer things through personal sacrifice?

Are you in favour of everyone who turns up getting a "just for turning up medal" as well? Not just the people that train hard, make sacrifices and succeed at whatever they're trying to achieve?

Would you rather people didn't strive to obtain nicer things through personal sacrifice?

I'd rather we weren't indoctrinated to believe that we must constantly strive to obtain nicer things and that this will somehow make us happy.

[i]I'd rather we weren't indoctrinated to believe that we must constantly strive to obtain nicer things and that this will somehow make us happy.[/i]

OK you clearly have your own issues going on here. Good luck with that.

Talkemada is bang on. Spend a higher proportion of your income on coke and hookers. Then, due to the fact that they're both illegal, your'e shelling out a lot less of your hard-earned on tax. And also having a lot more fun

Its a win/win 😀

and that this will somehow make us happy.

Because ultimately, it doesn't really.

OK you clearly have your own issues going on here. Good luck with that.

Thanks for your concern, but isn't that essentially how we got into this current financial mess in the first place? People being sold a dream they couldn't afford.

If you measure your quality of life by how much stuff you've got you're unlikely to ever be satisfied.

BillyWhizz - seems to be you who has your own issues going on [ no not just your rudeness and your inabilty to explain your view]. You seem to need to prove your worth to people by striving to succeed and achieve... like a small 5 year child needing to know they are the fastest? why the worry about what you are worth? Do you just measure your success by what nice things you have manged to buy?

the winner of the rat race is still a rat.

That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing."

Taxing assets seems wrong to me - e.g. council tax - only income or expenditure should be taxed. Indeed expenditure is the simplest/cheapest way to tax and also gets a share of dodgily earn't money.

It's people's ambition and drive that make the big advances in this world. If everyone was happy with mediocraty we'd still be living in the stone age.

Drive and ambition is something to be encouraged, it often creates oportunity and improvement for the people just prepared to go with the flow.

Oh and taxing rich people more, especially a greater percentage, is not fair. They are in the minoriy though so we get away with it and try to convince ourselves that because they have more they should pay more. Take this to the logical extreme and compare yourself to the rest of the worlds population and start writing cheques.

Why would you want to quash peoples drive to succeed? Would you rather people didn't strive to obtain nicer things through personal sacrifice?

Eh? What do you mean by 'success'? Nurses/Firemen/Doctors etc 'succeed' at saving peoples' lives; I'm sure there's far, far more personal sacrifice in their jobs, than sitting in an office pressing keys on a computer. And without them, society would suffer immeasurably. TV Celebs, Footballers and most Bankers, let's face it, are of little value to society other than their ability to generate wealth. Actually, looking at it, it does seem that the more useless your 'job' is, the higher the monetary rewards.

Seems to me, the primary reason to earn loads of cash, is so you can feel better about yourself, and pride yourself on being more 'successful' than the next man. Nothing wrong in wanting nice things, but it's the voracious greed for wealth that is totally disproportionate to need.

Maybe if more people stopped desperately trying to keep up with the Joneses, and actually used what they've got to it's maximum potential, then they might actually be 'better off'.

So, you're fortunate enough to have a good job, a career that is economically rewarding. You have more than your simple needs, and a fair amount of comfort and luxury. You have to accept there is a further price to pay; to help pay to readdress the inequality of wealth in other areas. Stop moaning, and start enjoying your life, because you are bloody lucky to be in the position you are.

I use the same roads, the same hospitals and the same local amenities as the millinaire in the mansion (actually, he uses private health care so is arguably less of a drain) and also the same as the guy on mimimum wage in the council house (actually, he has council housing, so he is more of a drain). So why should we all pay different amounts of tax? And if we do pay different amounts, why should the rich guy pay more when he uses less resources?

I remember that they had a go at explaining this in an episode of The West Wing. I think I can remember the general gist of the argument but given what this thread is currently like I think I'll pass on trying to explain it to you all, as any flaws in my memory or my explanation of it will no doubt cause me to be flamed to a crisp. 🙂

The main reason some people didn't like Poll Tax was because it made them pay tax when they didn't before, and had little to do with whether it was "fair". Poll tax probably isn't fair (few taxes are), but no-one seems to have come up with a valid reason why current taxes are more fair, unless you consider an arbitrary figure based on your house and your postcode to be a good basis for taxation. Personally I can't see why a large family on low income scraping by so that they can have a big enough house should pay the same tax as a rich person in an apartment, but I guess as it wasn't Thatcher's idea it's "fair".

btw council tax was John Major's idea, and he was a Tory too, you know.

btw council tax was John Major's idea, and he was a Tory too, you know.

eh? - Isn't just the same as the rates that preceded the poll tax?

BillyWhizz - imagine the poll tax was a flat 500 quid a year. How is it fair that Granny Geraldine on 8,000 a year pays 6.25% of her income in tax to the local council for local services but Lawyer Larry on 60,000 per year gets everything the same for just 0.83% of his income?

You might have half an argument for a flat proportional tax, but arguing for a switch from a progressive tax to a regressive one is just barking.

Would you rather people didn't strive to obtain nicer things through personal sacrifice?

eat the rich

arbitrary figure based on your house and your postcode to be a good basis for taxation.

But you're right, of course: instead of the expensive council tax system, the correct approach would be an additional amount to be added (or conceivably deducted, if the council were running a surplus) to everyone's income tax.

konabunny - Member
BillyWhizz - imagine the poll tax was a flat 500 quid a year. How is it fair that Granny Geraldine on 8,000 a year pays 6.25% of her income in tax to the local council for local services but Lawyer Larry on 60,000 per year gets everything the same for just 0.83% of his income?

Or, to look at it another way (and using different characters for meximum effect), John is on £8k per year doing a low paying job, he utilises council housing, has had a couple of operations through the NHS and uses subsidised leisure services. Brian earns £60k, owns his own house, uses private medical care for any needs and is a member of a private gym. So why does Brian pay lots more tax than John when John spends much more of the public purse than Brian does?

John also sells drugs to children and rides a nicked fixie 👿

Well, it's not perfect, but as generalisations go, "rich people tend to live in more expensive houses in nicer places and can afford a large chunk of the tax burder" isn't an unreliable one.

It's totally unreliable. I know people who earn average wages but live in houses well above the national price average.

Isn't just the same as the rates that preceded the poll tax?

I'm not a tax expert, but as I understand it rates were based on the notional amount you'd get if you rented out a property. Council tax is based on bands to which a house is allocated based its market value. This makes Council tax more regressive; I believe once you're in the top band that's all you pay even if you live in a stately home.

So why does Brian pay lots more tax than John when John spends much more of the public purse than Brian does?

Because Brian can afford to. Brian's life is perfectly happy and comfortable unless he gets all bitter from reading the Daily Mail too much.

Because Brian can afford to. Brian's life is perfectly happy and comfortable unless he gets all bitter from reading the Daily Mail too much.

grum, How do you know he can? Just because he earns more does not always mean he has more disposable income.

Anyway, assuming he can, that is not the point, the point is why as a lesser drain on the systems he would be required to pay more?

Z11 and that idiotic flat tax again. 🙄

I'd like to see how you would sell it to the electorate, because last time there was a riot.

It's people's ambition and drive that make the big advances in this world. If everyone was happy with mediocraty we'd still be living in the stone age.

Drive and ambition is something to be encouraged, it often creates oportunity and improvement for the people just prepared to go with the flow.

Oh and taxing rich people more, especially a greater percentage, is not fair. They are in the minoriy though so we get away with it and try to convince ourselves that because they have more they should pay more. Take this to the logical extreme and compare yourself to the rest of the worlds population and start writing cheques.

I'd agree with drive and ambition, but for this to happen to society as a whole, there has to be a level playing field. Which there isn't. Opportunity/choice really only happens to those who can finance it.

The rich are a minority that can afford to pay more.

grum, How do you know he can? Just because he earns more does not always mean he has more disposable income.

Because anyone could comfortably live off 60k a year, even supporting a family - unless they were very extravagant.

Anyway, assuming he can, that is not the point, the point is why as a lesser drain on the systems he would be required to pay more?

It is the point as far as I'm concerned.

Do you really think that John from your example should pay more tax, probably leaving him struggling to make ends meet? Because obviously he could just go out and earn more money if he really wanted to eh? As said above that only makes any kind of sense if everyone started from a level playing field.

It's totally unreliable

Just because he earns more does not always mean he has more disposable income.

eat the rich

Is Ms Sophie Dahl rich? I'd like to eat her, she looks well fed, with all manner of lovely goodness...

[img] [/img]

It's totally unreliable. I know people who earn average wages but live in houses well above the national price average.

I started a similar thread about taxation to support Social Care earlier in the week.

I favour taxation whereby everyone pays according to their means and everyone gets the same level of state support when they need it.

Some will need it, some will not, some will choose to top up that support or even replace it totally with a private provision.

Some people will get, as a proportion of how much they have paid in, more than others, because they need it.

This generally ensures that those on lower incomes are still able to contribute, obtain quality healthcare and education, still able to eat and are still able to have some pleasure and leisure available to them.

Also it generally ensures, that those who are able to, help support a society that looks after all it's citizens.

Of course there are some who will abuse the support that society provides, but that's a different issue.

Do you really think that John from your example should pay more tax, probably leaving him struggling to make ends meet? Because obviously he could just go out and earn more money if he really wanted to eh? As said above that only makes any kind of sense if everyone started from a level playing field.

grum, Would it make any difference if i told you that Brian has worked his way up in a company from apprentise to where he is now and is from "working class stock"?
I don't belive that John should pay more, I believe that Brian should pay less. Putting my cards on the table, I'm from a way of thinking that you should be taxed on what you use. Why should someone who is minimal burden on the public purse pay for those that spend much more?

I like the idea, but the main proviso:

a society that looks after all it's citizens.

Why should someone who is minimal burden on the public purse pay for those that spend much more?

Nation of individuals and all that. 😐

Really? Totally unreliable? You're more likely to find richer people living in smaller houses in cheaper neighbourhoods? I think not.

It's unrealibilty rests on the fact that if you only need one example for it to be an inefficient method that causes undue and unfair hardship. Why should someone on low wages expect to pay extortionate tax because of market forces out of their control forcing the price of their property up ?

Why should someone who is minimal burden on the public purse pay for those that spend much more?

It's unrealibilty rests on the fact that if[b] you only need one example[/b] for it to be an inefficient method that causes undue and unfair hardship. Why should someone on low wages expect to pay extortionate tax because of market forces out of their control forcing the price of their property up ?

Is Ms Sophie Dahl rich? I'd like to eat her, she looks well fed, with all manner of lovely goodness...

+1

it is not totally unrelaible but it is less than perfect as your hypothetical scenario suggests. The person is still assett rich though.

See Junkyard, you're still letting your socialist worker propaganda get in the way of good old facts - you've acquainted residence with ownership!

I've already given you prime examples of where that does not apply, someone living in a tied cottage on an agricultural estate, they do not own the property, they are not asset rich, however the house is valuable due to its location - living there is part of the job, they may even pay a below market rent for it. I know personally of several forestry commission rangers in this situation: nice house, great location, average wages - horrific council tax bill!

So, where do we go from there?

According to you, its fair to charge public services/general taxation according to the 'perceived worth' - so next time you park the car in town, should your car parking charge be allocated on the value of your car? Ferrari, parking costs £20, Vauxhall Nova, parking costs eighty pence?

How about when you go swimming, should they set the bill by looking at your watch - nice Tag Heuer, swimming costs a tenner, Casio wearers pay a quid?

Tell you what, trailcentres could charge according to the value of your bike? cafe's based upon the cost of your shoes?

See, all perfectly fair, as a general rule someone with a bling Ti full susser can surely afford to pay a tenner more for a Swinley cycling permit than someone with an apollo, theres no flaw in the logic, thats how fairness works isn't in Junkyard?

I left school and served a 5 year apprenticeship. Then I studied (while I worked full time) for 4 years - evenings and weekends (while my workmates were out partying) in order to obtain better qualifications. I didn't do it to impress anyone, in fact I'm sure no one was watching me. I did it because I belived that it would allow me to provide a more comfortable life for myself and my family. Which it has.

When the guys (and girls) who spent their 20's partying moan about how "lucky" I am to have a good job, I remind them that where I am now is a direct result of personal choices I made 20 years ago, and that they also made choices back then.

(Of course some people do not have the luxury of even making choices, so maybe in that respect I am "lucky" to have been born where and when I was)

My original point was simply that people like me shouldn't be penalised for being careful with their money and putting it into the best house I could afford, rather than pissing it up the wall and then whining about how I have nothing to show for it.

Sadly it seems that in this day and age hard work and careful living are actually faults - not virtues. We are taught to buy on credit things that we can't afford, rather than saving for what we want. We are encouraged to buy the latest this and that, when what we already have will do perfectly well. And then when it all goes belly up we are even taught to look for someone else to blame . . . those banks and credit card companies who forced their money into our accounts to spend, taking no responsibility ourselves.

I have 2 bikes, 1 road and 1 MTB. The road bike is 10 years old the MTB is 7 years old, but my house gets a new coat of paint every 2 years 🙂

Junkyard, why are you so keen to impose unfair tax burdens on people who cannot afford it? even if it is just one example then it's one example too many. No problem with means testing at all, but use a system that reflects ability to pay.

Putting my cards on the table, I'm from a way of thinking that you should be taxed on what you use.

How much do you use the army?

What do you propose then? I am only saying it is fairer than the Poll tax and that generally the wealth in your property is a good indication of your actual ability to pay .. Note good , generally etc. Personally I would use PAYE or non essential spending taxes [vat etc] but no tax will ever be faie for all people.
z-11 can you explain again how it is fair that your low paid agricultural worker pays the same as multi million /billion land owners like the Duke of Westminster or do you wish to gloss over the major problem in your “fair” system and just attack the current IMPERFECT system?

The rest - WORTH- was someone else’s suggestion not mine pay attention at the back will you.
I doubt you could ever get a truly fair tax system unless we do it based on income or non essential spending and neither system is perfect. I note no party has proposed the Poll Tax since are we all wrong except you again?

Eugenics
The death penalty
Noel Edmonds
All things, like The poll tax, that a reasonable argument can be put forward, but just dont work in real life.
I was homeless when the poll tax was introduced, early, in The Unimportant North British province, and I ended up paying thousands back for the period I didn't even have a roof over my head, nor, any benefits, or way of proving my non-income.
How was that fair?
Tax, should by its nature be re-distributive, otherwise society doesn't work, and you end up paying rather more to live in an armed compound to keep the poor and desperate out. theres a few of you who I suspect would probably enjoy that.

Personally I would use PAYE or non essential spending taxes [vat etc] but no tax will ever be faie for all people.

At last, some common ground then.

Z11 - & others - dream of an extreme right wing taxation system is never going to happen anyway

OK Junkyard - there are two essential interpretations of the word "fair" - we can say that we all contribute roughly an equal amount to the pot, and we all get roughly the same out - thats one interpretation of the word 'fair' - not one that is ever going to work in a society with inequalities of income or ability - however raised here as a perfectly reasonable reminder that 'fair' as a concept in taxation is a selective and fairly recent innovation centred around ability to contribute that as a concept does not extend to other areas of society or service provision.

Now, if we take the "from each according to his ability" interpretation of the word fair, we reach a situation where those most able pay more into the pot than others - an important principle to note here is that 'according to his ability' means that everyone has to contribute in whatever way they can, able bodied workshy spongers should have no place in this concept, theres always jobs to do, and if you want to take something out of the pot, you have to share your proportion of the burden by putting something in if you're able to.

so, we get there, and you ask my concept of 'fair' - and its that everyone able and working pays an equal proportion of their wage into the pot. lets say 20%! No tax relief at either end of the system, no dodges, no rebates, no offshore allowances, a flat 20% of everyones income goes into the pot. The system works, the rich pay more than the poor - thats how percentages work - but everyone pays their fair, equitable share.

As alluded to before - the West Wing had it pretty spot on:

Henry, last fall, every time your boss got on the stump, and said, ‘It’s time for the rich to pay their fair share,’ I hid under a couch and changed my name. I left Gage Whitney making $400,000 a year, which means I paid twenty-seven times the national average in income tax. I paid my fair share, and the fair share of twenty-six other people. And, I’m happy to, ’cause that’s the only way it’s gonna work, and it’s in my best interest that everybody be able to go to schools and drive on roads, but I don’t get twenty-seven votes on election day. The fire department doesn’t come to my house twenty-seven times faster and the water doesn’t come out of my faucet twenty-seven times hotter. The top one percent of wage earners in this country pay for twenty-two percent of this country. Let’s not call them names while they’re doing it, is all I’m saying.

Zulu-Eleven, that is absolutely spot on.

Despite my trolling earlier (apologies), that really is about as fair as it ever can be. Everyone pays the same percentage of there wage, those who earn more pay more, not not disproportionably more. Simple.

that really is about as fair as it ever can be

Except if the very low paid were then dragged into poverty because of it

That's a U-turn worthy of Dave and George.

😀 Hehe.......I haven't read this thread and don't intend to, but I couldn't fail to notice from the snippets of ratty's posts I saw, that he's up to his usual old mischief - with his "slightly to the right of Attila the Hun" politics.

And of course, his irrepressible hypocrisy 😀

Zulu-Eleven - Member

See Junkyard, you're still letting your socialist worker propaganda get in the way of good old facts

Says the man who claims, quote :

[i]"Fairest ever tax ........... scrapped in the name of a bunch of soap dodging workshy scum..."[/i]

Now as you well know ratty, the "good old facts" are, that it was scrapped by John Major and the Tory Party.
In the name of [i]"let's try to win the next general election".[/i]

Of course they had to drag Thatcher kicking and screaming out of Number 10 Downing Street before they could do that.

.

And you, must have been [i]absolutely[/i] gutted mate 😀

Z-11 did i miss the bit where you explained why it was fair for your agricultural worker to pay the same as the duke of Westminster? Oh yes you side stepped it and talked about an entirely new tax system excellent. I like your ducking and diving and evading of question when you have no answer it is one of your more endearing traits.

Problem with your flat rate % is the the poor pay a greater percentage of their [b]disposable[/b] income than the rich do and a huge % more than the filthy rich.

Ernie/Junkyard - water off a duck's back my children 8)

I more than adequately explained my position regards your Duke of Westminster question in the comment [i]there are two essential interpretations of the word "fair"... [/i]

Dont see how anyone can pay a higher proportion of your disposable income if its taxed at source - your disposable income is, by definition, whats left over after paying taxes and essential outgoings!

There aren't any veery rich people on this forum yet some of you are moaning about the rates, one of the last taxes the rich paid. In relation to both income and wealth the very rich pay less than you and the super rich pay almost nothing at all thanks to trusts in the Bahamas, accounts in Switzerland, investments in forestry and a host of fiscal niches that you can't afford to benefit from.

If you think wealth taxes and a highly progressive income tax system are unfair you've been conned by the rich into thinking that a system that means you pay almost all of your income in tax and them almost none of it is fair. And lets face it, you arn't going to learn about a fair tax sytem in a paper owned by a rich tycoon or a TV station "owned" by rich politicians.

I wouldn't eat posh Spice though. Stringy, tough as old boots, pumped full of chemicals and not very nutritious, I'd imagine. 🙁

In the example of the minimum wage guy and the rich guy, maybe the rich guy would never have gotten that rich if he was taxed so much when he first started working that he could barely afford his little starter home. He then turned to a life of crime and needed a lawyer who was born wealthy to keep him out of prison 😀

Just an example of how you pay more than the rich is [url= http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/08/20/100/ ]Bono[/url]. If he had maintained his affairs in Ireland he would have had to pay a derisory 12% on his royalties (substantially less than you lot pay on your income I'd like to bet). However, he felt that was too much so he moved his affairs to Holland and now pays even less.

whilst lecturing this government and us to give more money to poor people aren't the rich nice

aren't the rich nice

Searching for the Michael Foot quote on how they always find a way to look after themselves...

Searching for the Michael Foot quote on how they always find a way to look after themselves...

"We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth, and if you ask me about those insoluble economic problems that may arise if the top is deprived of their initiative, I would answer 'To hell with them.' [b]The top is greedy and mean and will always find a way to take care of themselves. They always do."[/b]

That's a U-turn worthy of Dave and George.

Z11 is just a lunatic Libertarian, The only time they want something that they can class as fair for themselves is when it comes to taxation. Everyone pay the same? Sounds a bit socialist to me.

Looking back through history you'll find it's people brave enough to get out on the streets (called rioting by the rich) to challenge the rich and their hired thugs that have brought about many of the things that make your lives as pleasant as they are. The right to vote (unless you're landed gentry in which case you had it already). Women's rights, paid holidays, the right to unionise and withdraw your labour, gay rights... . In fact if it's worth having you have it because you ancestors fought for it. Vive la révolution!