Council Tax Discussion Forum

[Mickey]

s you may recall, I am against increasing IT and believe EVERYONE should contribute to a tax replacing CT - so something like the Poll tax Unfair question I know but

[alastair]

nly if it's in accordance with ability to pay.

_________________
Alastair (SAACT)

[Margie]

hat's a bit like asking how you want to be robbed by a conman or a thief is it not?

_________________
Margie of PACT

[christine]

ickey, why are you against a rise in Income tax? Surely Income tax must be the ultimate means test, and if we consider any tax to be fair, this must be it. I know people complain about paying income tax but you have to earn to pay it.

_________________
Christine
Founder Isitfair

[Mickey]

Quote: Surely Income tax must be the ultimate means test No - this is where I disagree - it takes no acount of wealth, pocessions, outgoings, commitments Say a young couple, one works, one brings up kids until they are of school age ( I don't agree with fobbing them off onto someone else at the earliest opportunity). Modest income, but mortgage, kids clothes to buy, travel to work costs, prescription charges, eye sight test charges, etc. etc. Compare to pensioner, own house, lots of pocessions aquired over lifetime. This person may have more DISPOSABLE income than younger person with higher weekly income. Can't just compare weekly income - too simplistist

[christine]

erhaps it would be better if we went back to the old system where a family received marriage allowance and child allowance (for each child). The administration and cost of the credit system is an absolute nightmare. My feeling is that this Government uses them as feel good payments. It makes people feel that they are being given freebies. No more than under the previous payments. Any over payment is un-recoupable, whereas if it goes through the Inland Revenue compensation either way is easily dealt with.

_________________
Christine
Founder Isitfair

[Mickey]

Quote: where a family received marriage allowance Why should a married couple receive an allowance?

[Mo-East Devon]

h the age we live Mickey - perhaps cohabitating allowance would be more appropriate to 2006!

_________________
MO

[Archie White]

ickey You have a point. I think that we need a whole range of taxes to approach the impossible goal of absolute fairness (even if we could agree on what constitutes absolute fairness) – including income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax (or, better, a capital transfer tax), corporation tax, VAT, etc etc. But most taxes are more suitable as national taxes. In my view only an income-based tax (whether nationally or locally set) is suitable as a tax for local government funding. (No space here to elaborate on this). Or, of course, we could simply raise all national taxes pro-rata, and fund local government entirely by central government grants - at present 75% of local government funding, on average, is funded by central government grants. Council Tax is grossly unfair. It bears no relation to income, or even to other disposable assets. The Poll Tax was even worse. People on £10,000 a year or less (in today’s money) paid exactly the same as those on £100,000 or more. How can that be fair? A fair Poll Tax, related to ability to pay, would be indistinguishable from an income-based tax. By the way, I agree with you about the marriage allowance – and I say this as a happily-married man 90% of the time. Why indeed should people get an allowance just for being married? In fact, two people living together, both with jobs and with no children, can certainly live more cheaply than single people. It is, of course, a different matter if one partner stays at home to look after young children or elderly relatives – but then the appropriate benefit is some form of child allowance or carer’s allowance, not a marriage allowance as such. Archie

[Mickey]

completely agree that CT is unfair but I can't agree that IT should be used to replace CT. YES - someone on £10k would pay the same as someone on £100k but a. they use approximately the same services so should pay the same b. the difference in incomes is already taken into account by the existing IT rules I believe EVERYONE should pay toward local services to establish a sense of community/belonging/responsibility. If EVERYONE paid for local services perhaps they would maybe be a bit more interested/critical of local 'politics' (for want of a better word). There are too many people living on benefits because its an EASY option for them (I'm not including those who have no choice in this vast generalisation !) - they would love local services to be paid out of other people's IT. - they need to realise they are part of the community with responsibilities - including having a say in local services and PAYING for them I believe a way of doing this would be to bring back a tax like the poll tax And I must repeat because the point seems to get ignored Higher income does NOT necessarily equate to higher ability to pay and I wish peopel would stop assuming this