Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
I'm probably being a bit thick here but I can't get to grips with how income related tax can adversely affect the poor. As I understand under these propsals those that earn more will pay more, those that earn less will pay less. It's a tax which reflects ability to pay.
|
I have already shown you numerous examples. Your view of the income tax verus council tax is too simplistic. Having income tax instead of council tax might faviour poor people, but only if there was only 1 person per house. We know that is not the case, and that is what makes income tax more of a liability.
Poorer people are more likely to share a house, or rent, and it is precisely these people that will be 'worse affect' (not in how much they'll pay, but in the relative change in what they have to pay). I would do better under Lib Dems because my living situation isn't common. If I was to just rent my own place, I would be worse off with Lib Dems.
Like I said before, a tax is supposed to raise money, not make people happy. Therefore the Lib Dems want to implement a more efficient tax that'll raise more money that its predecessor. Don't forget all the rest of the taxes that Lib Dems want to implement, like apparently, if you have a dog, you should be taxed too. God knows why they need so much money.
If the Lib Dems are so ethical and wonderful, why not give people a choice? If you do better with council tax, stick with it, and if you do better with extra income tax, choose that? That way the poor will be unburdened as much as possible, but the Lib Dems don't want that. It is about money, not ethics, and they need bank loads of it.