Forum menu
So what they'r...
 

[Closed] So what they're saying is the poll tax was fairer?

 mt
Posts: 48
Free Member
 

Everything should be free and we should tax the rich to pay for it.


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 11:07 am
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

To be honest that just sounds like the usual "raise taxes on group X (where X is a group I do not belong) to pay for stuff"

Pretty sure there is a broad consenus and agreement that the rich should pay more than the poor - even this lot have a higher rate tax band for example and Council tax is tiered to the value of your home.

If you wish to argue otherwise then do so rather than make a weak attack on what I said.

You could also do with better defining what constitutes "wealthy"

anyone not like me apparently 😉
We could be here all day doing that and i get your point [ as i am sure you get mine] but it will do as a word for now. According to the article it is apparently band E council tax.


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 11:52 am
Posts: 3729
Free Member
 

Pretty sure there is a broad consenus and agreement that the rich should pay more than the poor -

Well it is also broadly the case that the rich already pay more tax than the poor.

According to the article it is apparently band E council tax.

Well that's one of the worst definitions I've come across. I mean I could move to a smaller, cheaper house and pay less in council tax than I currently do (even if the single discount were removed). I'd still use exactly the same sevices and be just as "wealthy"


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 12:05 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

Well it is also broadly the case that the rich already pay more tax than the poor.

I think we can assume we can all do basic maths. Do you agree with the principle that they should pay more as percentage as well?

Well that's one of the worst definitions I've come across

Feel free to discuss with the authors your displeasure.

Are we debating whether they should pay more or where we start to make them pay more?

PS You would have less assets so you would be less wealthy but your income may be unaltered. I dont care i sue them interchangeably tbh [ it annoys the economists] but there is a difference between income and wealth.


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 12:13 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Council tax is tiered to the value of your home

but there is a difference between income and wealth.

But you have to accept that this creates anomalies - for example I have an old friend who lives in a tied house as a nature of his job - the house by nature of its location and history would be worth a fortune on the open market, and he pays through the nose for council tax, but it bears no relation whatsoever to his wealth or income.


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 12:29 pm
Posts: 3729
Free Member
 

I think we can assume we can all do basic maths. Do you agree with the principle that they should pay more as percentage as well?

Yes I do and given that broadly the poor are in receipt of more in benefits than they contribute in taxes then that would appear to already be the case. I've seen figures that seem to indicate the contrary but I've never see the calculation to back them up as they don't appear to make any sense give the tax rates that they would be paying.


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 12:51 pm
Posts: 13594
Free Member
 

Yes I do and given that broadly the poor are in receipt of more in benefits than they contribute in taxes then that would appear to already be the case. I've seen figures that seem to indicate the contrary but I've never see the calculation to back them up as they don't appear to make any sense give the tax rates that they would be paying.

Inequality is still rising though, so we're not redistributing enough:

[img] [/img]


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 1:03 pm
Posts: 1617
Free Member
 

Another comment on the bin men is that the cost up stream is the quantity of waste. I would imagine a single person would throw a lot more away than a family of 4, obviously there may be exceptions to that.

The two of us throw away one supermarket bag of waste a week. We quite often don't bother butting the bin out every 2 weeks in winter and put it out once a month as it's nice and cold outside.

Personally I think council tax and VED should be scrapped. Put the council tax onto income and have a bit syphoned off to the councils and put the VED onto fuel tax s it's the fairest way - the more fuel you use the more tax you pay.

Te problem comes when people have second homes as which council gets the tax? only way round that is you have to register all property and pay more tax but couples may try and register one person at each home to avoid. But I guess you can do that now to save 25% if you want to take the risk.


 
Posted : 17/03/2014 1:05 pm
Posts: 13594
Free Member
 

Just got the council tax breakdown brochure through with this years bill. Cambridge City Council (pop 140k isn) spend £33m on refuse collection, a long way off being profitable!

EDIT: Ah that figure is for Cambridgeshire County Council, so a lot more people....


 
Posted : 20/03/2014 7:52 pm
 gogg
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

Sounds like Cambs need to raise their game??

Of course all those Student Takeaways generate a lot of rubbish.


 
Posted : 20/03/2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 13594
Free Member
 

I'd be amazed if any council made a gross profit on refuse collection.


 
Posted : 20/03/2014 8:07 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Here's a wild question

would you be willing to change to communal bins (emptied more regularly if appropriate, and presuming alternatives in place for disabled/elderly etc) - say at the end of the street, or replacing a parking space in the street, if it meant a reduction in your council tax?


 
Posted : 20/03/2014 9:25 pm
Posts: 13594
Free Member
 

That's the norm in Portugal.


 
Posted : 20/03/2014 10:45 pm
Page 2 / 2