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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

I like the idea, but the main proviso:

Nation of individuals and all that. 😐

I suppose we could make those with cancer pay the full price for the NHS as I did not even go to the doctor last year but hold on they are too ill too work and cant pay do we let them die then?

I think you need FAR more than one to claim it is generally unreliable. You have shown that it is not perfect not that it is unreliable. No one has claimed it is perfect. Your second point seems to act as if the bands are revalued every year which is incorrect. Secondly did the price of rich peoples’ houses not rise at the same or a higher rate? Was it really only the houses of those on low wages that fuelled the housing market and the rest did not alter in price?

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?

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.

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?

At last, some common ground then.

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:

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

😀 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 😀

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

Says the man who claims, quote :

"Fairest ever tax ……….. scrapped in the name of a bunch of soap dodging workshy scum…"

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 "let's try to win the next general election".

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 absolutely gutted mate 😀

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 there are two essential interpretations of the word "fair"…

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!

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

Just an example of how you pay more than the rich is Bono. 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.

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

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!