Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
The poorest in society will be better off, the richest worse off under thse proposals. That is immediately more just than the existing and previous two systems. Those between rich and poor will be affected, but not as greatly. Me, I'd tax the very rich more and protect our beloved Middle England.
|
Those just above the poorest, lest call them the poor, will be worse off if they currently share a house and therefore share the council tax between them.
Imagine this, Adam, Ben, Carla, Debbie, Frank and Eve live in a house to share the costs, as they are poor.
They've picked a property with a low council tax to help reduce costs.
They pay 800 a month, which works out at about 133 each which they can just about afford.
Lib dem idea comes into play. (all figures are used to show the example)
Carla, Debbie and Eve earn less than Adam, Ben and Frank, and it turns out they end up having to pay only 100 a month each.
Adam, Ben and Frank however have to pay out 260 a month
So, Carla and Debbie are now 33 a month better off.
Poor Adam and Ben are 127 worse off each month, they were finding it hard enough to live before, but now they have to get an extra 127.
If they try and work more hours they'll earn more, but that means their local income tax bill will go up, and they'll have no time to relax.
Next door there's Barry, now he's one of the poorest people in the country, he's currently having to find 800 a month to pay his coucil tax, with the lib dem idea, he'll be much better off.
So yes, the poorest will be better off, but the poor won't
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Damien
Howard is a prat in my opinion anyway.
|
Well, if that's your opinion of someone who successfully reduced crime in this nation, then I dread to think what low opinion you have of labour then!