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

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!

Oh and on the right to vote. As the rich have corrupted every one of the people you're entitled to vote for there is no longer any point - so out on the streets you go.

What about people on very very modest incomes having to pay a stupid amount of council tax?

I have a very small flat in the city by small I mean the size of an average double bedroom. I am currently working in a year’s internship on a very low salary. Not only do I get the small amount of my salary that is over the none taxable amount taxed at 20% I also get screwed over on council tax.

I am entitled to no kind of government aid and have to borrow a small amount off my parents each month to afford to eat and occasionally go out. I see Mr Jonny Glasgow smack head with a free house, free booze and fag money and a nice BMW.

I am trying to improve my future; I feel my low income job will be worth it in the long run as it gives me experience and an opportunity to get my foot in the door. Hopefully it will pay for itself in the long run.
So people who argue for this unfair tax, do you think it is fair that I subsidies people who are clearly not helping society or themselves when I have to borrow to pay for accommodation, food and pay all my own taxes?

I am trying to improve my future.....

Is there any particular reason why you're not doing it like Mr Jonny Glasgow smack head ?

After all, being subsidised and provided with a free house, free booze and fag money and a nice BMW sounds like an extremely good deal to me.

Go for it - big house instead of a very small flat, and a nice BMW.

Ernie, are you advocating criminality?

I'm not unsympathetic to a few of the issues folk have mentioned but the thread seem to have more than a few 'persecuted middle-class' self improvers conjuring this paranoid fantasy that they are suffering purely due to millions of dole-scroungers living the high life.
The dream society you want to live in always seems to involve 'market forces' at every level (especially where they let you, personally, get ahead).
Surely then the Council tax is ideal?- as market forces decide where your level can live. Cant afford your current dwelling- move somewhere cheaper, the market will sort things out.
Plenty of people on low incomes with little hope of having aspirational lives have to live by these rules.

No of course not Flash. The free house, free booze and fag money and a nice BMW is all perfectly legal. It's paid for through the subsidies from the likes of alwyn.

I'm serious alwyn, I can't for the life of me figure out why you don't do it - you don't like paying council tax, and Mr Jonny Glasgow doesn't pay any, you live in a tiny flat, and he's got a house, I don't know what you drive, but I'm sure you'd like a free 'nice' BMW.

You're trying to better yourself - so go for it.

Good luck.

The uncomfortable truth is, that we in the UK live relatively affluent lifestyles because of the exploitation of people, resources and labour in the Third World. They struggle to survive, so that we can enjoy nice cars and 52" plasma TVs. Why are people starving? Because they are denied the same basic 'rights' that we in the West take for granted; clean water, adequate shelter, nutrition and basic health care. Why are they denied these things? Because some greedy c- decides lining their own pockets is more important than people.

There's a finite amount of wealth in the World. if it were to be distributed even slightly more evenly, then many more folk Worldwide would enjoy a decent standard of living. I'm sick of hearing people bleat and whine about how they 'work so hard' etc. Many people have no idea what real poverty is. Poverty is real; it doesn't just exist on TV.

So stop ****ing moaning, and count your blessings. Miserable greedy bastards.

I'm not saying its legal money. I'm not even saying it's a nice BMW, but there are a lot of people in this city who seem to have a huge amount more than they have contributed. You may think this is fair and expectable, people suffer for bad upbringings and low self esteem. This needs to be tackled, along with the way educational establishments often forget or discard people from these backgrounds and preventing social mobility from an early age.

I do think the currents system is very unfair on people who have very little, look at students and very low income earners. You have to live somewhere and I am in a lowish council tax band, but it is still unfair that I have to borrow to survive. Why work for low salaries when you are better off doing nothing? That is a very good question and possibly one of the reasons people who would be on a low income are now doing nothing at all. Maybe council tax should be measured on net wealth not the size of property? I agree people who earn more should pay more, but I think a proportion of that should subsidise people on a low income which in turn will help social mobility and the culture of long term unemployment.

I'm not saying its legal money.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were saying that it was all legal because that's how the system works.

So what's your point then ?

So stop ****ing moaning, and count your blessings. Miserable greedy bastards.

Basically this.