Poll tax riots

[Goring Gull]

Anyone remeber theses, anyone on NSC join in?

 

[Mr Popkins]

im up for a big debate today an what better subject that this!

the poll tax was more or less a fair system, everybody had to contrbute something ,which in my book is fair.

there could have been a few things that could have been done different .i didnt agree with students paying 20%.

but all in all a fair tax.

start the slating of me NOW!

 

[looney]

Yes it was "fair", but so many objected it for so many reasons which made it unworkable.

Policies that dont work get governments thrown out, see labour for details.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Do you think Labour will really lose the next election?? I just can't see the British people voting in IDS who is an utter goon

 

[Mr Popkins]

thing was with the Community Charge (lets give it its correct name) that before it people payed rates, based on the rateable value of their property, people living on thier own benefited from the poll tax ,but large families of people of 18 ended up paying more. it was a big change to the system ,which people just couldnt stomach but it was,what was needed.

 

[Marc]

Do you think Labour will really lose the next election?? I just can't see the British people voting in IDS who is an utter goon

its the lesser of 2 evils and I dont either of them running the country especially Tony Bush, thats the reason I dont vote because there is hardly any decent candidates out there and even if there was a decent one he/she would never get anywhere.

And besides the good people from Florida have learned that even if you do vote it counts for nothing as its rigged to hell!

 

[Goring Gull]

Depends where you live as well, when i was living in Goring there was no way anyone but the tories would get in, Daily Mail, and Telegraph teritory.

 

[Dave the OAP]

they used to say that about Hove being bluer than a deep blue , blue thing, painted blue.

Popkins...this is getting very scary, we agree again. I thought the Poll Tax was a fair way of local taxation, but the "poor " students wouldn't have it because they needed money for sex, drugs and beer. The poll tax riots was again another anarchist excuse/way of smashing up public property but having a "cause" to hang the vandalism on. It was Poll Tax then, Globalisation now, Iraq last week, fox hunting a year ago......what do you recon next?

 

[tedebear]

hang on a sec there peoples - educate me for a minute - what is the poll tax please??

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Surely the best form of taxation is one that takes money from people who have done nothing to earn it?

These days that should mean taxing the windfall profits that house owners are making.

If you bought a house for £70,000 ten years ago, it would be worth £170,000 now.

In 1993, a £70,000 house was "affordable" - with a mortgage - if your earnings were £23,333 a year (assuming "affordable" houses cost about three times annual earnings - the traditional ceiling used by building societies).

Anyone earning £23,333 a year in 1993 would now be earning £34,724 (assuming earnings have gone up in line with the Average Earnings Index).

Someone earning £34,724 today can "afford" a house costing three times as much ... ie £104,000.

But the owner of what was an affordable house in 1992 will only sell it now for £170,000 - a real profit of £66,000 in ten years.

That profit (£6,600 a year) should be taxed.

Of course, there are big regional differences - it's worse in Brighton, as we all know.

But something needs to be done or home ownership will become impossible for anyone who can't inherit wealth.

If nothing is done... look forward to housing riots in ten years or so.

 

[Mr Popkins]

they used to say that about Hove being bluer than a deep blue , blue thing, painted blue.

Popkins...this is getting very scary, we agree again. I thought the Poll Tax was a fair way of local taxation, but the "poor " students wouldn't have it because they needed money for sex, drugs and beer. The poll tax riots was again another anarchist excuse/way of smashing up public property but having a "cause" to hang the vandalism on. It was Poll Tax then, Globalisation now, Iraq last week, fox hunting a year ago......what do you recon next?

never talk about politics of religion,they say, well at least we agree on one of them!

 

[Dave the OAP]

but LB, its all relative

Your house isn't actually worth that much more, because all other house prices have gone up in line, therefore to get something the same or better than what you have you have to pay that much more.

To a certain degree this is all a ploy by the capitalist banks to make us borrow more money!!!!

Tede

Poll tax was a replacement for the rates which was a tax based on the value of your house, like the council tax is now. It was based on individuals not the property

 

[Highfields Seagull]

The poll tax was a crap regressive tax whereby those earning barely above poverty would have to pay the same as millionaires. Now in my mind there is something inherently wrong in that.

One of the main reasons behind it was that Thatcher thought high spending Labour authorities would have the highest poll tax levels, people would blame those authorities for the high tax and vote them out. This plan slightly backfired when everytone blamed the government instead.

I could never get my head round why local taxation can't also be based on levels of income - a sort of local income tax.

Well why not? - Anyone?

 

[Goring Gull]

Surely the best form of taxation is one that takes money from people who have done nothing to earn it?

These days that should mean taxing the windfall profits that house owners are making.

If you bought a house for £70,000 ten years ago, it would be worth £170,000 now.

In 1993, a £70,000 house was "affordable" - with a mortgage - if your earnings were £23,333 a year (assuming "affordable" houses cost about three times annual earnings - the traditional ceiling used by building societies).

Anyone earning £23,333 a year in 1993 would now be earning £34,724 (assuming earnings have gone up in line with the Average Earnings Index).

Someone earning £34,724 today can "afford" a house costing three times as much ... ie £104,000.

But the owner of what was an affordable house in 1992 will only sell it now for £170,000 - a real profit of £66,000 in ten years.

That profit (£6,600 a year) should be taxed.

Of course, there are big regional differences - it's worse in Brighton, as we all know.

But something needs to be done or home ownership will become impossible for anyone who can't inherit wealth.

If nothing is done... look forward to housing riots in ten years or so.

Agree totally, or the Rich/poor divide will get bigger causing more and more social problems.

 

[Mr Popkins]

I could never get my head round why local taxation can't also be based on levels of income - a sort of local income tax.

Well why not? - Anyone?

that is a good point made ,what they could do is take more tax,directly from your pay packet and give it to the local council, there would have to be a seperate part on you pay slip showing you how much you have payed.
then unless you were self employed it would be v hard to get out of paying .

 

[Lord Bracknell]

but LB, its all relative

Precisely, dave. It's relative to the perceptions of the people who are likely to be rioting.

 

[Yorkie]

How can it be profit Lord Bracknell? You still need a house to live in. If you sell a house then you have to buy another house.

The only time a profit is made is when you sell a larger house and move into a smaller house.

Property sold when someone dies is already covered by inheritance tax.

 

[looney]

Do you think Labour will really lose the next election?? I just can't see the British people voting in IDS who is an utter goon

Dont know. Govs tend to get thrown out for big f*** ups, ERM crisis, Winter of discontent, Barber boom etc etc.

Blairs come close, petrol crisis and iraq but has got away with it. Well thats my theory which is often wrong.

I thought you could never get an election result of 2 left or rightwing parties coming first and second. But look at france! That is if you consider the frog NF "Rightwing".

There is also the factor that longterm govs tend to become jaded and corrupt, and that a lot of people I talk to are pissed of with all the tax rises.

I would guesss blair would win with a slim majority or a minority gov but that veiw may change as events unfold.

ie sept 11 really f***ed the US democrats as it shot Security to the top of the agenda and lefties tend to grovel to a nations enemies/foreigners in general, Yanks are accutley aware of this and I think theres a growing awarness here to. a major terrorist atack could unseat him.

IDS=Goon is your opinion not fact.

I would agree with Robin Cooks ex-wifes assesment of Blair, Shallow, Vein and nieve. But that is our opinions.

 

[London Calling]

I remember as a student looking into the various ways of local taxes, one of the main reasons suggested at the time was: the disruption it would cause and it would probably p*ss off so many people (aka the reality of the poll tax).

It would also mean that the Government would have to collect the tax and pass it back to the LA's, which the LA's don't like, because of the existing and potential Govt abuse of this system.

I personnaly like an Income Tax, it has wealth distribution potential, it should be complemented by a Tourist Tax.

However, what party would dare introduce new taxes.

LC1

 

[looney]

Surely the best form of taxation is one that takes money from people who have done nothing to earn it?

These days that should mean taxing the windfall profits that house owners are making.

If you bought a house for £70,000 ten years ago, it would be worth £170,000 now.

In 1993, a £70,000 house was "affordable" - with a mortgage - if your earnings were £23,333 a year (assuming "affordable" houses cost about three times annual earnings - the traditional ceiling used by building societies).

Anyone earning £23,333 a year in 1993 would now be earning £34,724 (assuming earnings have gone up in line with the Average Earnings Index).

Someone earning £34,724 today can "afford" a house costing three times as much ... ie £104,000.

But the owner of what was an affordable house in 1992 will only sell it now for £170,000 - a real profit of £66,000 in ten years.

That profit (£6,600 a year) should be taxed.

Of course, there are big regional differences - it's worse in Brighton, as we all know.

But something needs to be done or home ownership will become impossible for anyone who can't inherit wealth.

If nothing is done... look forward to housing riots in ten years or so.

Wrong, my late foster father worked for a small business then did a buy out with the other 2 workers, it was a poorly paid craft business and had to shut. Then the Callahan gove hit him with 90% tax on "unearned " income. He and millions of other working class then went and voted for Thatch and the rest they say is history.