If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Local Income Tax
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hi all,
Firstly, my first post on this forum so a quick "hi" to everyone...
The Lib Dems seem to think Local Income Tax is the answer to Council Tax. I'm however struggling with the concept of paying more to (for example) have my bins collected than my next-door neighbour just because I earn more than he does. If there are people on benefits, does this mean they'll get their bins collected for free? Why's this fair when applied to such specific services?
It's akin to walking into Tescos and being charged a fiver for a tin of baked beans just because I can afford it.
What do other people think? Am I missing something about this "exciting new policy"?
Ian.
Firstly, my first post on this forum so a quick "hi" to everyone...
The Lib Dems seem to think Local Income Tax is the answer to Council Tax. I'm however struggling with the concept of paying more to (for example) have my bins collected than my next-door neighbour just because I earn more than he does. If there are people on benefits, does this mean they'll get their bins collected for free? Why's this fair when applied to such specific services?
It's akin to walking into Tescos and being charged a fiver for a tin of baked beans just because I can afford it.
What do other people think? Am I missing something about this "exciting new policy"?
Ian.
0
Comments
It's theft no matter what they do.
I would favour a "pay what you use" system like any other service or good is provided by.
It's more like you go to tesco and on the way out a guard says "fiver" even if you don't buy anything and if you don't pay him he locks you up.
In the same way they get access to food, water and electricity? (which are all surely far more essential than local services). Perhaps we should make food free for people on benefits? :rolleyes:
This brings up the issue relating to the fact that poor people can shop around for cheaper food or cheaper energy but they can't shop around for cheaper/better-value-for-money local services.
Ian.
The old fogeys tucked up in their huge houses won't pay a penny towards the services they take, and the rich will just evade it.
I personally don't think a "pay as you go" service (which is what the Poll Tax was) is inherently unfair either, really. It's a difficult one, because those who can afford to pay more should pay more but, at the same time, why should a rich person pay three times as much to have his bins emptied? If his house gets burgled he doesn't get three times as many coppers, or three times as many fire engines.
I'm sitting on the fence. I don't like the attitude that the rich should pay more simply because they are rich, but at the same time taxation and fines should be proportionate not fixed.
Or not as the case may be.
Not a bad idea actually. I'd certainly like to see a society where everyone is guaranteed the basic neccesities.
They often can't shop around for cheaper food or energy either.
Why not? People are rich because others are poor.
So they empty the bins and then I pay and if they do a shit job I can refuse to pay. You know, like they were accountable for their actions.
And when the police don't stop you getting robbed they have a certain time to catch the people responsible and get your stuff back. If they exceed the time than you don't pay them for their "service".
Fire service? Pay for it through your insurance.
Local bylaws and stuff? I don't need some twat on £30k a year to come to an agreement with my neighbours. And to those who will point out that neighbours fall out big time - guess what! They do with the councillors etc there so why not just save a few bob.
And if everyone kept their taxes, what poor people?
Yes it is simplistic, but it is the basis of it - in a world where there is enough to go round, why do some people have too much and some people not enough?
The current system is horrendously unfair in many cases (the "market" rewards scarcity not value) but it's better than any other one.
In a meritocracy it is perfectly fair that the rich get rich providing that the poor have the same ability and access to the upper echelons.
As I said on another thread - not very well acquainted with reality are you?
for example if you ever goout drinking in town, they are about, but wouldnt be if you pad your taxes
What about people who have worked hard and not been paid because their boss has appropriated it in profit?
I can't be arsed with an argument about profit being theft, because it's bollocks, but you'll just go "no its not" and around and around we go.
Profit isn't theft.
Some people are poor because they're lazy and prefer to scrounge indirectly from those who do work hard for a living. Some are poor because they aren't as capable as other people. Some are poor because they have started life with a bad lot (e.g. born disabled).
I'm sure that many aspects of society benefit from people who are capable of making lots of money and are therefore suitably motivated to do so. If wealth were equally distributed amongst everyone, regardless of their intelligence, qualifications etc. then what would motivate the truly capable and why should they even bother rising to the challenge when they know their neighbour sits on their arse all day getting the same amount of recompense?
Ian.
Of course they can.
With food in particular they can buy Sainsburys/Tescos "value" lines (e.g. unbranded baked beans) or they can rely on Heinz for all their baked-bean requirements.
Based on their energy usage they can often get better deals by shopping around the various energy retailers. Nothing to stop them doing that like everyone else.
I'm talking "poor" here rather than "poverty-stricken" which is a different matter altogether.
Ian.
Fuck me.
Jesus.
WoW. you are about as far removed from reality as you can get. What exactly would those "poor people" have been doing if they weren't working for someone else?
Would they have been producing anything?
Apart from winning it or robbing it the only way to become wealthy is by providing value to others. Say it three times fast and try to grasp the concept.
local councils personally are the most distrustworthy people in power
only reason i reckon council tax has gone up is cause of overestimaing how much theyll need, then actually having some surplus and raising their spending the next year into a horrible cycle
can someone explan why council tax has actually gone up so much, its gooing up in regions that actually get more in government grants than what they used to so it must be going somewhere
where do you think profit originates from then? Thin air?
Talk about missing the point. :rolleyes:
Simple though that is, I'd never thought of it like that before.
Mind you, if it is the case, you'd expect to see some sign of the money actually being spent (although possibly it's being spent on expensive trips to the Bahamas for the council members...I know my council is suspiciosuly twinned with Aruba).
It would go some way to explaining why Wandsworth, South London has the lowest CT in the country (supposedly) despite being surrounded by some of the highest-taxed areas in the country - they must have an honest council...
How is value added to something? That's right, through labour.
Ridiculous. Labour is a cost and reduces the value of an item.
Labour in itself is valueless. Only what it produces is valuable.
An item gains value by either becoming more useful or becoming rarer. Whether any labour is expended in this is irrelevant to it's value.
As things stand, labour which is paid for reduces the value of an item. The more people who "labour" on an item the less value it has.
If you think labour has value on it's own, go and dig a hole and then fill it in four or five times and then come back and tell me how much value you created.
The figure is estimated at around £2 Billion a year. Now could help cut our tax bill quite nicely.