I can hear the arguments starting already. As an adult I would use roughly the same amount of council services living in my flat as I would living on my own in a much larger property. However under the current Council Tax system I am expected to contribute, not on my use of the services, but on the value of my property.

This strikes me as inherently (spell check) unfair. Can someone explain to me why if I live alone I am expected to pay the same for my council services as the flat next door which has two adults living in it ?

My rubbish is collected by a private company, yet I still have to pay the council for refuse collection, even though I already pay for it through my rent.

I say bring in a charge relevant to the amount of people living in a property. Surely that would be a fairer way to judge things than the current system.

As I understand it this was basically how the Poll Tax worked. I was too young to remember how that worked for definite but I do remember the riots that ensued. Will any party be brave enough to re-install a taxation system like this or has the legacy of the PT forever stopped it in its tracks.

im sure this system is how the poll tax worked? or just as unfair, i really dont know why there isnt the same level as discontent as there was for the poll tax
i dont know how councils can justify the charge rising year after year, soon itll be more than my wage :(
it should go on what you can afford AND what services you use........not on whether you have a sea view or a conservatory...........its tantamount to legalised robbery now with the snoopers and databases and more and more things in your home theyre gonna start charging for.

I remember the Poll Tax well, living at the time in a small pit village ( a bus journey to access anything remotely akin to "services" apart from refuse collection etc ) the ability to pay was NOT, to say the least, a consideration. My rates went from £72 / year to over £1000 under the "fairer" poll tax system. The argument was that under the rating system, the more you paid for your house, the more you paid in rates. Unfair?...possibly but at least you knew that the 7 bedroom mansion you had your eye on was gonna cost you to live there. That small dwelling with the peeling paint and funny smell .... crappy pavements and busted bus shelters with the dodgy characters lurking around?? well same as the mansion really .... but I bet those in the mansion got more for their services though.

.

My rubbish is collected by a private company, yet I still have to pay the council for refuse collection, even though I already pay for it through my rent.



The amount of local spending on refuse collection is miniscule compared to the big spenders ie education and social services - both of which you probably don't use.

And this must be the third or fourth thread on the subject in the last year.

How can it be fair to base a local tax on something beyond your control. That is how the present rating system works. Someone decides that property values have increased, potentially there is an impact on your rates.
The 'poll' tax system is much fairer, and was hounded out by those who would have dodged it anyway.
I pay a high rates bill, but the Fire, ambulance, etc don't come to my house any quicker than anyone else. Based on a reasonable ability to pay, I believe the poll tax was fairer.

How can it be fair to base a local tax on something beyond your control. That is how the present rating system works. Someone decides that property values have increased, potentially there is an impact on your rates.


Disagree. The valuations are still based on house prices from around 1990 - and the vast majority of houses are still in the same council tax band as in the 90's.

Based on a reasonable ability to pay, I believe the poll tax was fairer.

There in was the rub with the old system - it wasnt based on ability to pay. I remember appealing the huge increase in my own billing - at no time were earnings taken into account, but I was still expected to pay - A fair system seems the solution ... if only "fair" was taken into account by the policy makers

My rates went from £72 / year to over £1000 under the "fairer" poll tax system.


They'd have gone up that much under a revised rate system, if the rates had been retained. The Community Charge was not the reason that the total take for local councils went up; it was just a redistributive measure, on the grounds that council costs should be paid per person, not per house.

To be frank, I still can't see why anyone thinks them being paid per house is a sensible idea.

The poll tax was much worse than council tax. If you feel that the level you are taxed at should not be related to your assets and earnings, then it is your view of what fairness is (i.e.whatever is best for me is most fair) which is wrong.

shouldnt council be work out in % to house value rather then bands?
House A is worth £80k paids £800 a year (1% of house value)
House B is worth £500k paids £2.5k a year (0.5% of house value)
if council tax is work on say 0.8% of house value
80k paids £640
500k paids £4000
wouldnt that be fairer?

Just think about the services you get.

An old widow in a mansion, pays far less than a family of six on a council estate under the poll tax.
She has a robbery, half her gold plate is stolen, result? an inspector, twenty coppers and a full scale investigation.
The people on the estate have their car stolen, all their gear nicked, result? a crime number for the insurance.

Fire at the mansion?
Result three fire engines and the top man coordinating
Fire at the estate?
One engine, with the local yobs throwing stones at the firemen.

Poll tax is absolutly unfair and unequal.
Let us get back to the rates when everything was a fair value.
If not that, then a form of income tax, based on the ability to pay.

The poll tax was much worse than council tax. If you feel that the level you are taxed at should not be related to your assets and earnings, then it is your view of what fairness is (i.e.whatever is best for me is most fair) which is wrong.

You dont explain why people should pay more for the same sevice just because their house is more valuable. That is what seems unfair.

This strikes me as inherently(sic) unfair. Can someone explain to me why if I live alone I am expected to pay the same for my council services as the flat next door which has two adults living in it ?



You aren't, you should get single persons discount and pay 25% less :huh:

You dont explain why people should pay more for the same sevice just because their house is more valuable. That is what seems unfair.

Why don't you go and research exactly how the poll tax worked and exactly how the council tax works, and then see if you think the poll tax was fairer when you understand the two systems.

Just think about the services you get.

An old widow in a mansion, pays far less than a family of six on a council estate under the poll tax.
She has a robbery, half her gold plate is stolen, result? an inspector, twenty coppers and a full scale investigation.
The people on the estate have their car stolen, all their gear nicked, result? a crime number for the insurance.

Fire at the mansion?
Result three fire engines and the top man coordinating
Fire at the estate?
One engine, with the local yobs throwing stones at the firemen.

Poll tax is absolutly unfair and unequal.
Let us get back to the rates when everything was a fair value.
If not that, then a form of income tax, based on the ability to pay.

Or council tax the old lady visits the doctor once, doesn't use the school or have the police round to check on little Johnny ASBO every week.

The family on the estate with 6 kids use up alot of resource (one to one for the kids with Atention Dumdf**k disorder)

The kids are always at the doctor or hospital (knife wounds etc)

They have shed loads of rubbish (McCanes chip wrappers, Netto Pizza)

And they pay half as much as the old lady.

Poll tax would have been fair and would have stayed had it had some element of the ability to pay. This then becomes more of a local income tax.

which is how it should be... Local Income tax would be a much fairer system. Any idea how much 'extra' would need to be taken out of wages if this was implemented?

It also stops the problem of students (like me :D) earning £750 a month and not paying any council tax, despite the fact I'm fairly sure we produce more rubbish than most households on our road. I've not had any need to use any other local services though, so maybe thats why...

Damn right it should.

Been ages since I've had a good riot...

In all serious, the reason that council tax is so blatantly unfair is that it discriminates against private renters, who often have to pay the full rate despite being in no position whatsoever to benefit from the value of the house they live in.

The poll tax was much worse than council tax. If you feel that the level you are taxed at should not be related to your assets and earnings, then it is your view of what fairness is (i.e.whatever is best for me is most fair) which is wrong.

It should either be flate rate or based on earnings. Either would be fairer than the current system based on how much your landlords house is worth.

The poll tax was much worse than council tax. If you feel that the level you are taxed at should not be related to your assets and earnings, then it is your view of what fairness is (i.e.whatever is best for me is most fair) which is wrong.


Council tax is not based on assets and earnings. People who've been on income support all their life live in homes in the D and E bands.

A local income tax would make a lot more sense. The one thing the community charge had in favour of the council tax was that everyone got a bill; today, if there are six working adults in one house, they only get one bill between the six of them.

Maybe we should switch to the Hungarian system instead.

which is how it should be... Local Income tax would be a much fairer system. Any idea how much 'extra' would need to be taken out of wages if this was implemented?

It also stops the problem of students (like me :D) earning £750 a month and not paying any council tax, despite the fact I'm fairly sure we produce more rubbish than most households on our road. I've not had any need to use any other local services though, so maybe that's why...

If you are student earning that much a month which more than me, then you are wasting all the money I have paid in taxes over the last 55 years ,so that you can pretend to be studying. I hope that you pay tax.

As for the council tax, yes it did mean that some households paid more but they were the households with more than one wage earner or with residents over 18, so the tax was divided between them.
As for the post about paying council tax as a percentage of property value
the fact that a house bought in 1990 for £30k is now worth £100k is of no benefit the owner unless they sell it. To tax some one on a value is unfair.
If that is the case then all my Rembrandts and Picasso's', gold coins and antiques (IF ONLY) have also increased in value but I am not taxed on those until I sell them.

A local income tax would make a lot more sense. The one thing the community charge had in favour of the council tax was that everyone got a bill; today, if there are six working adults in one house, they only get one bill between the six of them.

If there were six working adults in one house, it would seem to indicate that they were living in overcrowded conditions. If they choose to live like that to save money (probably because they have to) that's their choice.

Speaking for myself, I work hard, and yet we are a family of three who need to share a three bedroomed house with another couple in order to have any chance of saving anything. I envy those people who can afford to live in a house on their own and pay the council tax bill for the premises. If they ever find it gets too much for them, they always have the option of sharing or renting out rooms.

If you are student earning that much a month which more than me, then you are wasting all the money I have paid in taxes over the last 55 years ,so that you can pretend to be studying. I hope that you pay tax.

How am I wasting your tax? I don't set the system. I work 20 hours a week, which is a reasonable part time occupation. My basic pay works out to £500 a month, with commission between £250 and £750 per month on top. These are pre-taxation, I'm not sure what it works out to post tax, I'm on the wrong tax code at the moment.

My lecture time works out to around 15 hours per week in the average week. I only work every other saturday, so I have weekends and evenings (only work mornings as well) to catch up on any extra work.

Its hardly pretending to be studying. I do find my course easy (although not enjoyable). What I'm saying is that I should be paying for my use of local services through a local income tax.

And yes, of course I pay tax. I have since I got my first job at 16, why wouldn't I? (although, as it happens, I'm owed a rebate from the tax office at the moment for over-taxation :D)

Maybe we should switch to the Hungarian system instead.

Only on Granville Road...............

I prefer the ethos of the community charge (poll tax) to council tax. My real preferred option would be a local income tax - but I fear thats a very remote possibility.

Here are some examples, you judge which is fairer:

Using an assumed level of costs for Band D council tax, and half that per person for 'poll tax', and assuming that no one qualifies for benefits:

A couple, with young children, one parent works, living in a band D property
Council tax - £1000 Poll tax - 2 x £500 = £1000 (both pay cos they are classed as a couple, and thats not fair either but is for a different thread!)

A couple, both working with 2 adult children both working full time - same house
Council tax - £1000 Poll tax - 4 x £500 = £2000

A single person, pensioner or working
Council tax - £750 Poll tax - 1 x £500
(75% single person)

There is also an issue that the single person paying £500 is earning the same or more than the one earner in the couple with young children - thats where local income tax would be much fairer.

Not everyone who lives in a band D property is well off, not everyone who lives in a band A property is poor. Qualifying for benefits is a different issue. We could debate the council tax/poll tax issue for ever and never agree.

I prefer the ethos of the community charge (poll tax) to council tax. My real preferred option would be a local income tax - but I fear thats a very remote possibility.

Here are some examples, you judge which is fairer:

Using an assumed level of costs for Band D council tax, and half that per person for 'poll tax', and assuming that no one qualifies for benefits:

A couple, with young children, one parent works, living in a band D property
Council tax - £1000 Poll tax - 2 x £500 = £1000 (both pay cos they are classed as a couple, and thats not fair either but is for a different thread!)

A couple, both working with 2 adult children both working full time - same house
Council tax - £1000 Poll tax - 4 x £500 = £2000

A single person, pensioner or working
Council tax - £750 Poll tax - 1 x £500
(75% single person)

There is also an issue that the single person paying £500 is earning the same or more than the one earner in the couple with young children - thats where local income tax would be much fairer.

Not everyone who lives in a band D property is well off, not everyone who lives in a band A property is poor. Qualifying for benefits is a different issue. We could debate the council tax/poll tax issue for ever and never agree.

Where did you get your poll tax calculations from?

Where did you get your poll tax calculations from?

You didn't spot the word "assumed?"

You didn't spot the word "assumed?"

Oh, assumed. :hihi: How silly of me not to have realised.

Oh, assumed. :hihi: How silly of me not to have realised.

It's about the only sensible way to work, if you want to compare like to like. The average house is supposed to be in Band D.

It's about the only sensible way to work, if you want to compare like to like. The average house is supposed to be in Band D.


Yes, but the poll tax has been defunct for 17 years, so how can we have any idea what it would be per person now?

What we do know is that more than 70% of people were expected to pay more under the poll tax, in order to lower the taxes of the wealthiest 30%.

This was rejected vehemnetly by the majority of people, and the Tories were forced to water it down to what we have now, which the majority of people evidently found more acceptable.

Would they have found it more acceptable if they had been asked to pay even more than under poll tax? Clearly not.

Yes, but the poll tax has been defunct for 17 years, so how can we have any idea what it would be per person now?

What we do know is that more than 70% of people were expected to pay more under the poll tax, in order to lower the taxes of the wealthiest 30%.

This was rejected vehemnetly by the majority of people, and the Tories were forced to water it down to what we have now, which the majority of people evidently found more acceptable.

Would they have found it more acceptable if they had been asked to pay even more than under poll tax? Clearly not.

It was just a hypothetical amount based roughly on how community charge and council tax balanced out. Of course the actual amounts will have gone up hugely in 17 years, but when council tax was introduced, living in a band C property as we did. I seem to remember we paid about the same.

What we do know is that more than 70% of people were expected to pay more under the poll tax, in order to lower the taxes of the wealthiest 30%.

How can you "know" something which isn't true and never was?

Taxes should be based upon use, similar to utilities. The more you use the more you pay.

How can you "know" something which isn't true and never was?

I heard that information from the minister responsible for implementing the poll tax, Chris Patten. It was on a programme last night on BBC4 called Tory Tory Tory.

It is a retrospective documentary about the rise and fall of Thatcher in which every single ex Tory minister who spoke on the subject, admitted that the poll tax was an unfair and unworkable system.

So, if Chris Patten can't be relied on for information about the tax he implemented, then I'm afraid the whole thing's in the twighlight zone, which is a good place for any suggestions that the poll tax should be brought back to be.

Poll tax was like the road to hell - paved with good intentions. Thatcher's mistake was assuming that the idea would get past the Civil Service without being completely ruined.

Nice idea, but won't work. Get rid of Council Tax, yes - but give us something fairer instead. Local income tax? Local sales tax? These things work in the US, why not try them here?

I still dont see how it's fair to charge people more for exactly the same services simply because they earn more or their property is worth more.

eg. If I lived in a million pound house I would pay much higher council tax than someone living in a one hundred thousand pound house. I wouldnt gain better services but I would still have to pay more.

Under the poll tax the charge was per adult person living in a particular property. This surely is fairer as everyone pays the same amount for the same services regardless of earnings.

Everyone has 'equal' rights to 'use' the Army, the Police, the Fire Service, the NHS, etc. Should everyone then pay the same in income tax?

Everyone has 'equal' rights to 'use' the Army, the Police, the Fire Service, the NHS, etc. Should everyone then pay the same in income tax?

I think there should be a maximum contribution with income tax as there is with national insurance.

Council Tax is a tax on local services that you use directly, so surely it should be equalfor all those living within a council tax area ?

Income Tax is as a percentage the same amount of income from everyone. It funds everything (except NHS which is funded primarily by NI).

Surely it boils down to the fact if I buy a can of coke from a newsagents I dont expect to pay less for it compared to someone who earns more than me, nor should I pay more for it simply because someone earns less than me.

Hmmmm...I have two problems with that. First, poorer people already struggle to make ends meet and would have an even higher tax burden. In Victorian times, the rich perceived that they had a social DUTY to use some of their money to provide support to the poor. In modern times, if you don't use taxation to provide that help...how else do you provide it?

Second, wouldn't a US-style local sales tax overcome your 'can of coke' example?

Sales tax is an excellent idea.

When I say a maximum income tax contribution I would have no problem setting this at 2-300,000pa so it would make little effect regarding the economy, as most people who earn enough to be paying tax at that level already pay themselves via Gibralter or the British Virgin Isles and pay virtually no tax anyway.

Council Tax is a tax on local services that you use directly, so surely it should be equalfor all those living within a council tax area ?


Wrong, big style - nothing to do with the services you use.

Most local authority expenditure is on education and social services. Have a look at the council website - or when you get your council tax bill in a couple of months you'll get a very useful leaflet which shows where the LA's income comes from and what it is spent on.

Wrong, big style - nothing to do with the services you use.

Most local authority expenditure is on education and social services. Have a look at the council website - or when you get your council tax bill in a couple of months you'll get a very useful leaflet which shows where the LA's income comes from and what it is spent on.

My apologies. I have badly worded my post. What I meant to portray was that where income tax is centralised and can be spent anywhere in the UK, Council Tax is a specific local tax and is spent within that particular locality. Once again my apologies for the mistake.

True - although Council Tax is capped currently in effect - you can't pay more than the highest band. System still needs reform tho.

Yes, but what makes a flat tax fairer than a proportional tax?

Neither accurately accounts for your use of local services. Why not just get billed by the police for callouts, school for your childrens education and social services when they visit you.

That way, those who use the services that cost the most (like education) will pay the most, and those who only use the rubbish collection services will pay a few quid a year.

I don't agree with that. How about a cap on local income tax, so you never pay higher than a set maximum, but what you pay depends on your ability to pay.

You have to remember that potatoes are regressive.
There's a fixed price on them, and your ability to pay is not considered.
Therefore, the rich man's potato costs a smaller part of his income than the poor man's potato.
This is clearly unjust and regressive.

You have to remember that potatoes are regressive.
There's a fixed price on them, and your ability to pay is not considered.
Therefore, the rich man's potato costs a smaller part of his income than the poor man's potato.
This is clearly unjust and regressive.

You're not taking into account that large sections of society live off pot noodles, and when they do splash out on a burger and chips meal, the chips are generally of the variety which have no potatoes in them.

I think this restores the balance of potato to income ratio, as one section of society can opt for 'Dangleberry frog shaped crinkly chips' (Only 10% lard, may contain traces of excrement), while for another section of society, you've got your 'Whiterose intensley posh organically grown miniture Tibetan new potato's' (why not try them with Siberian Halibuts ovaries, lightly grilled in a white wine sauce?)

You have to remember that potatoes are regressive.
There's a fixed price on them, and your ability to pay is not considered.
Therefore, the rich man's potato costs a smaller part of his income than the poor man's potato.
This is clearly unjust and regressive.

Why is it 'clear' that this is unjust?

The rich man might be rich because of hard work. The rich man might be rich because he's spent many years studying to get to the top of his profession, or he may have valuable skills.

Why is it 'clear' that this is unjust?

The rich man might be rich because of hard work. The rich man might be rich because he's spent many years studying to get to the top of his profession, or he may have valuable skills.

Sorry, Thermoman, I was being sarcastic about the people who denounce various tax schemes as "regressive" because the poor pay the same as the rich, whether in real money or percentage. I'm a pensioner, BTW
Also, my apologies to the noodle-eaters and other pastafarians among us (I eat cous-cous myself), but I thought potatoes would be a neat simple example.
Restaurants, of course, practice redistribution by charging the rich exorbitant prices, while the local pub feeds the common man, woman and child at a reasonable price.

You have to remember that potatoes are regressive.
There's a fixed price on them, and your ability to pay is not considered.
Therefore, the rich man's potato costs a smaller part of his income than the poor man's potato.
This is clearly unjust and regressive.I humbly suggest you look at more worthwhile targets for your attempts at sarcasm, as this one has no merit whatsoever.

It is practically impossible to organise a system whereby every private seller of potatoes can verify the tax status of customers, and charge them accordingly.

It is easy to organise a system whereby the local government can verify the tax status of citizens, and tax them accordingly.

It's not rocket science, mate.

How can local government verify the tax status of a citizen?

Do you think that because some one lives in a band D E or F band house that they are high tax payers.
You forget that the house that was in band D might next be classed as band F but the person living there is now a pensioner on a fixed income possibly much less than they had when working. Where are they going to get the extra to pay the increase.

I know because I am that pensioner.

Paraphrase "Deck of Cards"

How can local government verify the tax status of a citizen?

Do you think that because some one lives in a band D E or F band house that they are high tax payers.
You forget that the house that was in band D might next be classed as band F but the person living there is now a pensioner on a fixed income possibly much less than they had when working. Where are they going to get the extra to pay the increase.

I know because I am that pensioner.

Paraphrase "Deck of Cards"

How do Local Council's evaluate tax? Well, perhaps as do utility companies? pay per use? Poll Tax? based upon occupancy? Trouble with that is millions leg it. Or the vacuous local income tax, not based on the ability to pay but based on income only. Rates? Where small flats are rated higher than large houses? Or Council Tax where pensioners are priced out of their homes?

Just think about the services you get. An old widow in a mansion, pays far less than a family of six on a council estate under the poll tax. Or, perhaps, we could be more realistic.
The old lady and her husband were probably careful all their lives, spent their income on their property rather than booze and holidays, and moved up the property ladder over decades until they finally live in Ecclesall or Dore. They never had big incomes, and under the council tax she is crucified. Under poll tax, 6 wage earners ands users of council facilities should indeed pay more than one old lady who is scraping by on a pension.

She has a robbery, half her gold plate is stolen, result? an inspector, twenty coppers and a full scale investigation.
The people on the estate have their car stolen, all their gear nicked, result? a crime number for the insurance. From personal experience I can assure you that the Police give the same attitude to burglaries in the West of Sheffield – in fact, a few years ago when my old parents were burgled the Police wouldn’t even turn up to examine the damage until I contacted the Chief Constable.

Fire at the mansion?
Result three fire engines and the top man coordinating
Fire at the estate?
One engine, with the local yobs throwing stones at the firemen. This is just silly – except for the stone-throwing youths, which in my mind would justify leaving the council estates to burn.

Poll tax is absolutely unfair and unequal.
Let us get back to the rates when everything was a fair value.
If not that, then a form of income tax, based on the ability to pay. No, poll tax puts the burden on earners rather on those who have been careful through their entire lives and channelled their income into their home. Rates and/or council tax are the product of politics of envy, and the awful thing about them is that those ‘posh types’ in the big houses have probably earned no more through their lives than the scrotes in the council houses, they’ve just been more responsible in how they’ve spent it.

A poll tax would mean that 5 people crammed in a council house would have to pay 2andahalf times as much as two people living in a house the size of a mantion, in rich area.

The poll tax is the worst idea by the government ever... and your an idiot for supporting it

What we do know is that more than 70% of people were expected to pay more under the poll tax, in order to lower the taxes of the wealthiest 30%.Wrong. Living in a larger house usually only means that people have saved and been careful. It doesn't mean that they have loads of cash - often far from it.


Would they have found it more acceptable if they had been asked to pay even more than under poll tax? Clearly not. The Poll tax wasn't met well by the lower classes because it meant they no longer got something for nothing - as usual.

A poll tax would mean that 5 people crammed in a council house would have to pay 2andahalf times as much as two people living in a house the size of a mantion, in rich area.

The poll tax is the worst idea by the government ever... and your an idiot for supporting it

The poll tax meant that 5 earners in a cheap house paid more than 2 non-earners in a large house. If the people in the large house were earners, they'd pay plenty.

Charging people just because they have a nice house is the politics of envy. Only an 'idiot' fails to see that.

The poll tax meant that 5 earners in a cheap house paid more than 2 non-earners in a large house. If the people in the large house were earners, they'd pay plenty.

Charging people just because they have a nice house is the politics of envy. Only an 'idiot' fails to see that.

how on earth would 2 non earners afford a big house?!?!?!? And if they were earners they woudnt pay plenty, they would pay 2andahalf times less than those 5 crammed in a council house. The poll tax is a fixed amount per head. It doesnt depend on your wealth/income.

Why do you think it was such a disaster when it was introduced?!?!?!?!?! It was one of the main reasons why labour won a landslide victory in '97 and then two more consecutive terms.

how on earth would 2 non earners afford a big house?!?!?!? Well, how’s about if they’re retired? Or if they inherit the family home?

And if they were earners they woudnt pay plenty, they would pay 2andahalf times less than those 5 crammed in a council house. The poll tax is a fixed amount per head. It doesnt depend on your wealth/income. If they were earning they’d already be penalised for their success by paying income tax at a higher rate.
Why should the poll tax depend on wealth/income? People on the West side of Sheffield pay for their own amenities unlike the slum dwellers in other parts of the city – why should I pay for somebody else’s amenities?

Why do you think it was such a disaster when it was introduced?!?!?!?!?! It was one of the main reasons why labour won a landslide victory in '97 and then two more consecutive terms. It was a disaster because it meant that the many thousands who had been enjoying a free ride at the expense of property owners now had to pay their own way – and they didn’t like it – they much preferred to carry on sponging while people who have channelled their income into their home were penalised.

Hagar your an idiot. Of course tax should depend an income. How can you expect someone earning £17,000 a year to pay same as someone earning £100,000.

And don't you dare to say that they should go out and get a better job!

And this is a pointless argument anyway because no Government is stupid enough to re-introduce the poll tax. Infact even the majority of the conservitive party opposed it at the time but Thatcher went ahead anyway.... and it was a COMPLETE DISASTER!

Hagar your an idiot. Of course tax should depend an income. How can you expect someone earning £17,000 a year to pay same as someone earning £100,000.

And don't you dare to say that they should go out and get a better job!Well, I'm not too much of an idiot to confuse "you're" and "your", but less of that.

The person who earns £100,000 a year has already paid loads of tax on that income compared to the low earner, but that is not the point (please do try to read and understand the posts before you go off on one and start calling people idiots - people in glass houses shouln't throw stones).

The point, according to this idiot, is that somebody living in a big house is not necessarily on a high income.
They may be retired and on a small pension.
They may have had the house many years since before the prices shot up and have a low income in the first place.
They may have moved into their family home when their parents died and not be on big bucks.
Whatever their circumstances, the council tax hits them according to the size of their home, NOT their income level or ability to pay.

If an idiot like me can understand that, goodness knows how to describe somebody who fails to understand it.

Wrong. Living in a larger house usually only means that people have saved and been careful. It doesn't mean that they have loads of cash - often far from it.


The Poll tax wasn't met well by the lower classes because it meant they no longer got something for nothing - as usual.

It's good the way you start out saying that people with big houses invariably have them because they've worked hard and saved, then go on to implying in the next paragraph that people in smaller houses are all lazy, ner do well spongers.

This patent prejuice does more to undermine your argument than I could.

For the record, I went on two poll tax demonstrations, and there were people of all social backgrounds involved - unless you consider everybody but the richest 5% lower class.

whats the point of arguing with you hagar?!?!?!

One minute you say that they might have inherited their home or are retired and the next you say that they are penalised by higher income tax rates?!?!?!?!

If they inherited the big house it means they came from a rich family and can afford to pay the council tax.

Wether as someone who is/are, lets say a family who are immigrants from a 3rd world counrty, and work on minimum wage WILL NOT, be able to pay the poll tax.

whats the point of arguing with you hagar?!?!?!
One minute you say that they might have inherited their home or are retired and the next you say that they are penalised by higher income tax rates?!?!?!?! . Oh dear, this is so tiring.
Has it, by any chance, occurred to you that not everybody who lives somewhere nicer than you do is in the same financial situation?
Some of them may be on good incomes – and already be paying plenty of tax.
Some of them may be retired and on state pensions.
Some may be employed and on low incomes.
Some may be on benefits – does that appeal to your embittered lefty mind?

If they inherited the big house it means they came from a rich family and can afford to pay the council tax. . Oh how blind are the eyes of the jealous underclasses.
Are all people who live in a nice house rich? I know a postman who inherited his family’s home. It had been his grandfather’s, and then his father’s, bought long ago when house prices weren’t silly. His father was a mechanic. They are not a rich family, and never have been, but he would like to stay in the family home. It’s not huge, not a palace, but the council tax is pretty severe. Should he sell his family home just to satisfy your class envy?
Don’t be so naïve as to think that a big house necessarily means a big income.

Wether as someone who is/are, lets say a family who are immigrants from a 3rd world counrty, and work on minimum wage WILL NOT, be able to pay the poll tax. Why shouldn’t they pay? If they use council facilities, they should have to pay for them. Mind you, not all of us think they should be allowed here at all.

well, i think it is most unfair, im a single working mum and pay £20 less than the neighbours who have 4 working adults in the house, but i cant remember if the poll tax was any better

well, i think it is most unfair, im a single working mum and pay £20 less than the neighbours who have 4 working adults in the house, but i cant remember if the poll tax was any betterUnder the poll tax you would pay a fraction of what you pay now and they, as 4 wage earners, would pay 4 times as much as you - it was fair, whatever the lefties and anarchists might claim.