20 Years since the Poll Tax riots in Trafalgar Square

  • This topic has 104 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by  SST.
Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 105 total)
  • 20 Years since the Poll Tax riots in Trafalgar Square
  • Pigface
    Member

    Looking back this was a pivotal moment when a pi$$ed off country told the government of the time it had had enough.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8593158.stm

    Some interesting comments under the story, what chances of this happening again?

    nasher
    Member

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

    uplink
    Member

    I read somewhere

    Thatcher's biography?

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    I was there.

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

    Fairest 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!

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    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…

    Premier Icon Rio
    Subscriber

    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. πŸ™„

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

    allthepies
    Member

    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 πŸ™‚

    ScottChegg
    Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Member

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

    I agree that it is fair that I should pay the same as multimillionaire land owners like the Duke of Westminster. Can we make PAYE fair and we should all just get a tax bill irrespective of our earning as well. I mean why should a person on mimimum wage pay less than say a Billionaire?

    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?

    Premier Icon lunge
    Subscriber

    [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]

    Junkyard
    Member

    [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] a bunch of soap dodging workshy scum…? [/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!

    Talkemada
    Member

    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 Β£5,999,999.99 a year. I think that's perfectly fair! πŸ˜€

    Junkyard
    Member

    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?

    BillyWhizz
    Member

    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?

    Premier Icon lunge
    Subscriber

    [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.

    Premier Icon Lord Summerisle
    Subscriber

    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 πŸ˜•

    grumm
    Member

    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. πŸ˜₯

    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? πŸ˜‰

    Talkemada
    Member

    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! πŸ˜€

    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.

    Junkyard
    Member

    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.

    uplink
    Member

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

    BillyWhizz
    Member

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

    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?

    grumm
    Member

    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.

    BillyWhizz
    Member

    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.

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

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    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 πŸ˜€

    and that this will somehow make us happy.

    Because ultimately, it doesn't really.

    grumm
    Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Member

    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.

    [quote]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." [/quote]

    mudshark
    Member

    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.

    jonb
    Member

    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.

    Talkemada
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon ChrisL
    Subscriber

    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. πŸ™‚

    Premier Icon Rio
    Subscriber

    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.

    uplink
    Member

    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?

    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?

    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?

    Eh? Which is it – personal sacrifice or obtaining nicer things?

    yunki
    Member

    eat the rich

    konabunny
    Member

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

    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.

    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.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 105 total)

The topic ‘20 Years since the Poll Tax riots in Trafalgar Square’ is closed to new replies.