Lib Dems to scrap council tax

Not sure if it would suit me - I don't currently pay any council tax but if the Lib Dems scraped it in favour of a hike in income tax of up to 3% then I'd be 1,020 a year worse off in one fell swoop. Also, given the number of people I live with then they would generate up to an extra 3,000 a year from the same household. - compare this against the current council tax for the house of 1,200 and as a household we'd be very much worse off. Can't see how that would be fairer - I wouldn't see any increase in the level of council services being provided, would I?

In message of Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Dudley writes

Maybe not. But you're receiving the benefit of council and local services without currently paying for them (on your own admission). Is that fair?

DF

And I pay 1400 a year council tax because I decide to spend all my income on a nice house. Instead, if I decided to share with a bunch of other people and spend my money on fast cars and fast women I would easily save over a grand in council tax but still have the benefits of all the council services. Is that fair ?

Council services are provided to each person, not to each house, and therefore should be billed on a per person basis, not a per house (and especially not a per house value) basis.

Sounds like Maggie's Poll Tax?

Not quite, because a local income tax would be directly based on ability to pay.

Best Regards, Alex.

Does that mean I get a big rebate because I don't have kids so don't use the local schools, and I'm not old either so I should get a rebate for all the old person services they don't provide me - and what about all the other council services I *DON'T* use - can I have a rebate for all those too. Actually, the only council services I do use are bin collection and as I suspect that it would be near on impossble to seperate my waste from everyone elses in the house then I'm sure my house colleagues wouldn't mind me sharing their rubbish allocation

Seems like a very good reason why I don't pay for council services - I DON'T USE THEM!

So you don't use roads or street lighting? And avoid all your local parks? And whether you use them or not, aren't you even a little bit reassured that the Fire Brigade, Police and Ambulance services are available (let's not make this into a debate on how bad these particular services are though in your particular area).

Whilst it might make you personally worse off, is it really fair that a pensioner has to pay 1/4 of their monthly state pension so that you can chooose not to use the services in your area?

In message , Doug Ramage writes

That wasnt linked to income though.

In message , Alex Butcher writes

NO.

Income tax, local or otherwise, is linked only to income, NOT ability to pay.

'Income' is not the same as 'ability to pay'.

OK, but it's more related to ability to pay than the poll tax was, or the council tax is. x% of nothing is nothing.

Best Regards, Alex.

I accept your use of the word 'more', in replacement of your original word 'directly'.

BTW, as food is the staple of life, do you think food should be priced by ability to pay?

OT, but I do happen to believe that in a society that claims to be civilised, no-one should want for shelter, essential medical care, or nutritionally-adequate food if they are unable to work and earn enough to pay for it, or have already contributed to society for many years.

Of course, that view is both utopian and old-fashioned, I know. I also seem to be in the minority these days, so it's not even logical for me to hold such views.

Best Regards, Alex.

It already is, to some extent. Most people have a choice of several shops and several hundreds of types of food they can buy. No shop owner can force them into buying the food the shop owner has decided they need at the price the shop owner sets, just because they happen to live in the area covered by that shop.

I don't use any of them either. I'm 24, single, with no kids. I use bin collections only, and I even had to pay 20 for the bin in the first place.

As for schools, we all went to school didn't we.

You're currently playing nothing is it, while I pay 1400.

You cannot defend it as fair.

Interesting concept of fairness that you have. I think the idea is that fairness as concept doesn't just include you/your household.

Thom

Utter c**p - you do use them directly or indirectly. Roads, consumer protection, education, police etc. etc. If you have no kids you benefit from schools directly (assuming you went to school yourself) and indirectly. The indirect benefits are enormous (unless you never use services or products provided doctors, accountants, engineers, chemists, nurses and so forth).

Thom

"Thom Baguley" wrote

Perhaps not ... but then again perhaps fairness *should* relate the amount paid for a service/goods to the level/value of the service/goods obtained.

Surely it cannot be "fair" for people to pay for something that they don't get value from? Just because someone else does get value from it? That sounds like subsidy to me, *not* fairness. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with subsidies in certain cases - but please don't call a subsidy "FAIR"!!! :-(

"Thom Baguley" wrote

What are the Road Tax / petrol&diesel taxes for again??

OK - accepted on this one :-)

see below under schools

The one time I'd expected police to arrive at my door (alarm centre calling police due to monitered alarm being tripped), they didn't even turn up at all. So what am I paying for again?

... and I was told it was effectively my parents paying for this through

Ermmm - does that mean these services&products should be free at point of receipt? I think we normally pay for them again, don't we? (even if it is through taxes again long after the education of providers has finished)

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Tim said

There are only two justifiable versions of taxation.

2) Everyone gets a fixed amount to live on, and the government takes all the rest that you earn.

Anything else is a fudge. 8>.