Council tax is the system fair, I believe that all properties should pay the same?

Question

Is it fair, When someone go's to work all his life and has manage to buy a lovely home should be finedfor doing so by paying more than his nieghbour because he did not bother to work and lived off the state for most of his working life, because he/she chose not to.
If you look at it right we all get the same services from the local goverment so we all pay the same, not more because you worked hard to get what you got, and not sat on your backside most of your working life. it should not be worked out by the size of your property it's so unfair.

Answer 1

It is unfair I have often thought about this, it would just be fairer to be taxed on what you earn.

Answer 2

I believe the old system, despite being unpopular was a fairer way of council contributions. Why should a family of 3 for instance pay the same as a family of 6. Per person the smaller family pays more, but yet would use less amenities, waste for instance. Under Maggie Thatcher's original poll tax the only losers were the losers (those who refused to work) Unfortunately there will always be people who want everything for nothing, whist people like me work 65 hours per week only to spend the odd evening off watching my scrounging neighbours take delivery of there brand new leather sofa's. I say bring back the poll tax, X-amount per person over 18 per house, regardless off wealth or stature. If you cannot afford to pay follow my example and get a job

Answer 3

Taxing by the size of property is manifestly unfair, since all residents of a borough use its services (street lights, dustbins, police, etc), but when Mrs. Thatcher tried to extend the tax to all, to be fairer, her opponents branded it a "poll tax" without understanding the term and it sparked riots. No one has been able to explain why such a tax would be unfair when the needy already get help, and many of those not currently paying, because they live in someone else's house, can afford to run cars, have expensive holidays and so on (good luck to them), but they whinge about not being able to afford taxes. They still use the services though. Perhaps property should be taken out of the equasion as it smacks of envy.

Answer 4

Of course you are right, there is no connection between the value of your home, and the local authority services consumed. It also ignores the number of adults in the home consuming those services. It has most of the faults of the old rating system. Moreover, as long as it is classed as a tax, you have no choice but to pay it.

The Community Charge (poll tax to the lefties), was an attempt to remedy this, firstly, by levying a charge on all adults in households who consumed local authority services, secondly, by re-defining it as a service charge and not a tax; an attempt was being made to underline the fact that we were paying for services, rather than simply handing over an arbitrary tax.

It needed further refinement, but it was shouted down by the Town Hall and Union lefties, and the lefties in the media and Labour party. Much more heat than light was spewed out. Thatcher took the flack for that but it was an honest attempt to have the services paid for by those that consume them. After all, we all pay the same for a slice of bread.

It is also worth reminding ourselves, that 75% of Local Authority spending, approx, is paid for by central government in the form of direct grant. Unfortunately, however, this Labour Government has been shifting more money from frugal Tory councils, and into high spending Labour controlled Authorities. How surprising.

Answer 5

So when the government tried to put it right by charging on how many lived in a house so using more services people came onto the streets and threw bricks at policemen.(Poll Tax).The tax system on property is totally unfair thats why I moved out the country to Turkey where I pay £27 a year.

Answer 6

Wow!...and that they say the Republicans are the party of scare approaches. -confident, the "undesirable" pays extra in taxes and that's barely honest via fact that they use a similar if not extra of the supplies and centers. Your 20-25% is BS. each plan i've got seen tiers from 12-17% and a few with an exemption for the 1st 20k(which could be the "undesirable"). spectacular now those "evil" wealthy persons are paying NO taxes in accordance to the left and those unlucky "undesirable" are additionally paying NO taxes in accordance to the excellent suited. So the place does that flow away maximum human beings human beings? properly permit's see; I pay 40 seven% of the money I make directly to TAXES, i exploit 23% of the money I make just to proceed incomes money which leaves me with 20% of MY earnings AS "income". i'm THE F*******G undesirable! next time use your head earlier you ask ignorant questions.

Answer 7

Funny thing...only the rich truly pay taxes and any cut they get on their taxes is branded as "taking money from the poor." It was never their money to begin with...they were just mooching off successful people. I am technically a member of "the working poor"...I know that if I worked a little harder or found a better job that fit my abilities that I could provide all this for myself. I take pride in the fact that I don't ask for help because I made these decisions and don't expect others to keep me going just because I show a lack of initiative. That is my problem...not theirs.

Answer 8

It's not a fine, it's called progressive taxation. If someone can afford to buy a lovely house they should be able to afford the extra council tax; their income will be a lot higher than someone on benefits.

It may not be totally fair but that's life. A local income tax would be fairer.

Answer 9

Many years ago I worked in an African country where I paid a percentage of my salary as income tax and a percentage as local tax. It seemed a reasonable enough arrangement and it meant that only those who were in a position to do so paid. Perhaps this system is too simple for our complex society?

Answer 10

Richer people can afford to pay more. Only a very small number of lower paid workers are on the scam the same as a number of rich people want to avoid paying taxes.

Answer 11

I think it would be better if people would pay according to they income. All areas should be then assessed and in areas with loads of vandalism, the price should be hightened. However, those areas could be low income areas, so this is a tough one.