money meltdown !!!!

[Hotman]

Surely MK, a fairer system is everyone paying a fixed %age of what they earn - no personal allowance, no age related benefits (they should have saved for pension), no benefits (should go to work), no incapacity (should have health insurance).

Therefore, say 30%, someone on 10k pays £3k, someone on 100k pays 30k. Proportionally equal.

 

[Hotman]

surely the fairest way is to charge households on actual annual income,thus mr and mrs slightly older would indeed pay slightmore more than mr and mrs average.

Why should I pay more than someone who earns less but creates more litter, uses public libraries etc and also benefits from concessionary rates (and is more likely to (ab)use ) council facilities?

All men are equal? :unsure: i don't use the facilities, why should i pay for some asylum seekers to use a gym for 50p?

 

[Hotman]

At some level, those in high income brackets are able to get those rewards as a result of the labour of those at the bottom, and the rise in inequality in the UK and US suggests that, in de-regulated markets, that wealth is not 'trickling down' as most neo-liberals claim it should.

Employment is a contract, you give me agreed services for an agreed pay. Anybody who applies themselves can better themselves, and not need to rely on redistribution - the redistribution implied via market rates is sufficient.

 

[Hotman]

any incentive for full time low paid working folk will need to be funded from higher earners which i believe is fair play

however

those on the dole, in particular if they have claimed longer than 12 months should be forced either into any job or do menial tasks for the community.


getting back to the original thread.

during 1998 i sold my 3 bed terrace for £59,995 allowing anyone earning 20k to easily afford this gaff,august 2006 this property was resold for a the crazy sum of £169,995 meaning the new owners would need an annual income of 57k to make ends meet.

back in 98 if anyone had told me i would be faced with 3% stamp duty i would have laughed in their face,yet amazingly myself and thousands of average people have been forced into paying massive amounts in stamp duty whilst loony labour happily collected the cash without adjusting the duty range to be compatible with property values.

I suppose it is marginally better than their lifestyles being funded by the higher earners.

 

[Hotman]

Well actually it dosnt really work like that .

The higher earners don't get taxed as mauch in reality , due to legal tax dodges , assited by well paid accountants . A Good exmaple is theres say an animal farm in rual England run deliberatly at a loss so the tax cahrged on the earnings is considerable less then what the person is actually worth .

the rest of the money is off shore , or routed in overseas banks to avoid where the person lives.

Ive had a few of teh tax "breaks" explained and they really do become more lucrative the more you earn . How odd ;)

Because the tax you pay is higher, because you've contributed more to the economy through your efforts and the society through tax

 

[MK Shrimper]

Surely MK, a fairer system is everyone paying a fixed %age of what they earn - no personal allowance, no age related benefits (they should have saved for pension), no benefits (should go to work), no incapacity (should have health insurance).

Therefore, say 30%, someone on 10k pays £3k, someone on 100k pays 30k. Proportionally equal.

Quite agree a local income tax is the fairest way of raising local revenue though obviously being a bleeding heart lefty I can't agree with the "no benefits" shtick. While those who abuse the system need to be penalised we all need that safety blanket there of the state.

 

[graysblue]

last year this insane goverment blew 200 million of our dosh on ....translaters.

for me this dosh could have easily been better spent ie 600 extra coppers paid for the next 10 years.

windfalls for every school

how about putting it into the NHS

£200,000,000 wasted.

 

[Reg Martin]

last year this insane goverment blew 200 million of our dosh on ....translaters.

.

is that because so many of them are scottish?:)

 

[Hotman]

i believe teeside deserves more than one green for that last post

 

[graysblue]

Why should I pay more than someone who earns less but creates more litter, uses public libraries etc and also benefits from concessionary rates (and is more likely to (ab)use ) council facilities?

All men are equal? :unsure: i don't use the facilities, why should i pay for some asylum seekers to use a gym for 50p?

how do you know they use/do those things?

 

[Hotman]

how do you know they use/do those things?

Irrelevant. If they were charged the same as those without "concession 1" status, it would reduce my council tax, and in turn my subsidy of their lifestyle. Then the users will pay their fair dues for the services.

 

[graysblue]

carl,

do you think the 200 million spent on translaters was cash well spent?

simple maths tell me the council tax will never be reduced simply because there are too many hangers on.

 

[Hotman]

carl,

do you think the 200 million spent on translaters was cash well spent?

simple maths tell me the council tax will never be reduced simply because there are too many hangers on.

I'd have made it 201 million.

Or told them to use babelfish.altavista.com.

 

[graysblue]

I'd have made it 201 million.

Or told them to use babelfish.altavista.com.

my opologies ,i dont understand your response

simple yes or no would suffice

 

[osymandus]

Because the tax you pay is higher, because you've contributed more to the economy through your efforts and the society through tax

Well actually more to do with you pay sod all in tax really , and more in back handers allegedly .

 

[steveo]

Well actually more to do with you pay sod all in tax really , and more in back handers allegedly .

carl, they just don't get the more you earn the more you pay thing. They are just on the the more you own the more you should pay agenda until you are paying enough to subsidize the person who doesn't work and contributes nothing. For them that's fair. I've had this argument many times but they still think the bloke who stays at home trying to summon some mythical weirdo who apparently lived a million years ago, should be subsidized by the bloke who goes out every day and works hard for a living.

 

[graysblue]

any working person should contribute toward council tax,even if they were charged at 1% NETT pay ie youngster living at home takes home 10k per year so would be liable to contribute £100 toward the council tax.

 

[canveyshrimper]

any working person should contribute toward council tax,even if they were charged at 1% NETT pay ie youngster living at home takes home 10k per year so would be liable to contribute £100 toward the council tax.

Which was exactly the point of the poll tax, only it wasn't administered in a fair manner.

 

[Hotman]

any working person should contribute toward council tax,even if they were charged at 1% NETT pay ie youngster living at home takes home 10k per year so would be liable to contribute £100 toward the council tax.

Why shouldn't people on benefits also pay?

 

[graysblue]

Which was exactly the point of the poll tax, only it wasn't administered in a fair manner.

agreed


the tories completely messed up .