UK General Election 2005

and newnight said that those are the 3 options....

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by Damien

and newnight said that those are the 3 options....

In a slightly more roundabout way, yes.

Originally Posted by bob_builder

It is like the Poll Tax

No it's not because the Poll Tax levied the same charge against everybody, regardless of ability to pay
__________________

Originally Posted by bob_builder

People will have a choice... at the general election!

They can choose to pay:
less tax - same level of public services (with less bureaucracy) - Conservative
more tax - same level of public services (with more bureaucracy) - Labour
a lot more tax - better public services - Liberal Democrat

Not actually true as I understand it. All three parties are looking at roughly the same tax take, it's just how they plan to get it that differs.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

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.

No. The number of people in a household is irrelevant. Ability for each adult individual to pay is far more important. What has how you live got to do with anything in relation to provision of public services (I mean you could argue that those who share a house als share expenses so they're better off than those who live alone; but it doesn't matter because charges should be levied against an individual's circumstances).
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

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).

Sorry I don't understand that point.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

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.

Have you posted details about the dog thing?
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

IIf 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.

That's just ridiculous.

As I said, my understanding is that all 3 parties are looking at roughly the same overall tax take; this proposal looks to be just trying to make recovery of that take more equitable by ensuring those who earn more, pay more. Surely administration costs will also be much lower.

This from The Guardian incidentally:

"Labour attacked the Liberal Democrats yesterday over their economic proposals, in preparation for the party's "alternative budget" today.

Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, argued that switching from council tax to a local income tax would mean "a couple on average earnings" of £41,000 losing £208 each year.

But those figures are based on a dual-income household in which both the man and the woman earn the average wage. In fact, the median household income for the country is £21,700 . The Liberal Democrats say such a household would gain £461 a year.

Vincent Cable, the party's treasury spokesman, has also promised to raise the threshold at which stamp duty is levied from £60,000 to £150,00 0, lifting more than 400,000 buyers out of paying the tax."
__________________

The aim of Lid Dem local income tax policy as stated by a local council spokesperson (following an anti Council Tax protest by OAPS):

""The next Liberal Democrat Government will abolish council tax and replace it with a system of local income tax. So those who could afford it would pay more for local services and those on very low incomes would pay little or nothing."

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by andyl

Not actually true as I understand it. All three parties are looking at roughly the same tax take, it's just how they plan to get it that differs.

As I understood it, although the Lib Dems were looking to reduce the tx paid by people on lower incomes they were also looking to increase their overall tax take to pay for more investment in schools and hospitals. (I seem to remeber a higher income tax bracket at 50% was being discussed.)

Although relating specifically to Scotland this is an interesting read regardless of which side of the fence you're on ... http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=149422005


My selective quote is: "As council tax takes no account of salary, the elderly who choose to keep living in their family house pay the same as a millionaire living in similar-sized accommodation - as a result, pensioners have led the protest against council tax.

THE Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party have the same solution: a local income tax to shift the burden on to fewer, but richer shoulders. The results, however, would hit Middle Scotland hard. Working couples would feel the pain most. A couple paid the national average wage, using the Lib Dem figures, would instantly face a 23 per cent council-tax increase. For many others, council tax would instantly double."
__________________

Originally Posted by bob_builder

As I understood it, although the Lib Dems were looking to reduce the tx paid by people on lower incomes they were also looking to increase their overall tax take to pay for more investment in schools and hospitals. (I seem to remeber a higher income tax bracket at 50% was being discussed.)

That's pretty much it. The new national income tax rate band would see earnings above £100k pa (and only earnings above 100k) being subjected to a 50% rate. Richer would pay more, poorer pay less. The overall tax take - the tax generated for the nation - would remain the same.

[punky]

Paul M: I'm not joking about a dog tax. It was mentioned on the Politics Show on BBC1, do a search for dog tax and Lib Dems.

Originally Posted by http://www.wellslabour.org/libdem.php

The Liberal Democrats also have plans to introduce a further 40 taxes. These include:

A new 50% income tax rate; a water tax; a dog tax; a parking tax; smoker's tax; a new homes tax; a business land tax; a development tax; an exchange and capital flows tax; a higher landfill tax; a waste tax; a plastic bag tax; a pesticide tax; an overseas territories tax; a double whammy inheritance tax; an energy tax; a pensions tax; an airport tax; a congestion tax; and a new tax on 4x4 vehicles.

Originally Posted by andyl

No. The number of people in a household is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. If people share a house, and they have to pay council tax (which excludes 95% of rented accomodation), then the council tax is divided between the residents, not multiplied (like with income tax)

Also, people can choose their council tax, in the sense that can select the house in the banding they can afford.

Sorry I don't understand that point.

They are two ways you can apply "worst affected" with this new tax system. You could say the rich are worst affected, because they will pay substantially more than what they did before. You could also say the poorest will be worst affected, because although they won't pay as much more as the rich, poor people outnumber rich people, so a greater proportion of British people will be paying more under this new system.

They idea is not to burden the poorest people in society with taxes.

That's just ridiculous.

Well, I thought it made sense if a government wanted to be fair and ethical. In fact if a government wanted to be fair and ethical, why do I have to subsidise everyone's kids through school? Because if only people with kids in school had to pay, they sums wouldn't add up. A tax is designed to be unfair, unethical, and designed to get as much money out of us as possible.

Lib Dems say "on average" people will be better off. Great if you are in a situation like me, or you are "average", but there will be a lot of poorer people. Struggling nurses, teachers, who won't be better off.

Basically:

You will be worse off with Lib Dems if:

1. You rent your property.
2. You own your property, jointly with other people
3. You own your property, but earn a good wage.
4. You qualify with a council tax emeption (and their are enough of them) There are no exemptions to income tax if you are working. You can't choose what level of tax to pay.

I will only be better off under Lib Dems because I don't earn a big wage, but the house I am in is well "above my means". However if I moved out into a flat, i'd be even better off under Tory/Labour, but worse off under Lib Dems. Ok, so I would be hundreds of pounds better off with Lib Dems, if I stay where I am, because I am lucky (no other word for it really). All my mates will be screwed.

I can't explain it to you any more. If you still can't see how large, poorer parts of the nation will do worse under Lib Dems new system, then we'll have to draw a line under it and move on. If Lib Dems dropped this silly idea, then they will actually do quite well in the elections, as young professionals like teachers and nurses, are their usual fan base. They are going to push them to Labour if they push this new tax forward.

Originally Posted by punky

Paul M: I'm not joking about a dog tax. It was mentioned on the Politics Show on BBC1, do a search for dog tax and Lib Dems.





No, it isn't. If people share a house, and they have to pay council tax (which excludes 95% of rented accomodation), then the council tax is divided between the residents, not multiplied (like with income tax)

Also, people can choose their council tax, in the sense that can select the house in the banding they can afford.


.

Funny, that Wellslabour quote is word for word the same as MIchael Howard's statement on conservatives.com!!

Dog tax? Is that on the spot fines for dog fouling (the only reference I've yet found)?

Why should a tax which is not related to a house be divided by its occupants? Please explain. We all have to contribute towards society and the Lib Dems are saying if you are in a position to contribute more then you should.

People can only 'choose' their council tax where they live. What about those scenarios where one side of a street falls in one borough, the other another?

I'll come back to to your other points later - gotta go pick up the kids!

The Liberal Democrats also have plans to introduce a further 40 taxes. These include:

A new 50% income tax rate; a water tax; a dog tax; a parking tax; smoker's tax; a new homes tax; a business land tax; a development tax; an exchange and capital flows tax; a higher landfill tax; a waste tax; a plastic bag tax; a pesticide tax; an overseas territories tax; a double whammy inheritance tax; an energy tax; a pensions tax; an airport tax; a congestion tax; and a new tax on 4x4 vehicles.

They are mad - who on earth is going to vote for a party that obviously wants to tax everyone to death.

Originally Posted by Paul M

They are mad - who on earth is going to vote for a party that obviously wants to tax everyone to death.

Well some of us are prepared to pay more tax in return for better services and a more equitable society but as I said before all the three main parties are looking to secure around the same tax take, just by different means. And if 'dog tax' is fines for fouling then that just a stupid bit of politicing by the Tories.

I tell you who is mad; anyone who votes for parties that enable, encourage or ignore tax avoidance.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

They are two ways you can apply "worst affected" with this new tax system. You could say the rich are worst affected, because they will pay substantially more than what they did before. You could also say the poorest will be worst affected, because although they won't pay as much more as the rich, poor people outnumber rich people, so a greater proportion of British people will be paying more under this new system.

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.
__________________

__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Well, I thought it made sense if a government wanted to be fair and ethical. In fact if a government wanted to be fair and ethical, why do I have to subsidise everyone's kids through school? Because if only people with kids in school had to pay, they sums wouldn't add up. A tax is designed to be unfair, unethical, and designed to get as much money out of us as possible.

Eh?! The tax system should be designed to be fair and ethical, but at the moment isn't. We all use services to a greater and lesser extent and benefit from them. Just because you don't have kids doesn't mean you won't benefit from others being educated; education is vital for a lot of things, including the health of economy. Those kids are future tax payers. Should I only pay for the NHS if I need to use it?
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Lib Dems say "on average" people will be better off. Great if you are in a situation like me, or you are "average", but there will be a lot of poorer people. Struggling nurses, teachers, who won't be better off.

My partner works with disadvantaged young people who rerally struggle - and I mean struggle - to get by. They are the poorest not those with modest incomes - and they and other poor people wiull benefit from this system

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by punky

No, it isn't. If people share a house, and they have to pay council tax (which excludes 95% of rented accomodation), then the council tax is divided between the residents, not multiplied (like with income tax)

I do not know where you got that 95% figure from. The majority of people I know who rent (myself included) have to pay council tax and even those who do not have to pay it directly to the council end up paying it indirectly through higher rental charges.

Originally Posted by punky

Paul M: Basically:

I will only be better off under Lib Dems because I don't earn a big wage,

EXACTLY!!!

Ah cr@p! I'm going to have to unsubscribe.I can't take any more.

Every fecking day there's a damned announcement but not the one we want which the date.

[bob_builder]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Every fecking day there's a damned announcement but not the one we want which the date.

It is going to be 5th May 2005 unless something really BIG happens between then and now

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Ah cr@p! I'm going to have to unsubscribe.I can't take any more.

Every fecking day there's a damned announcement but not the one we want which the date.

Lightweight!!

I'd stake an arm a leg and a more delicate part of my anatomy on it being May 5th.
__________________

Originally Posted by bob_builder

It is going to be 5th May 2005 unless something really BIG happens between then and now

Bob, can you fix that?

Originally Posted by andyl

Lightweight!!

I'd stake an arm a leg and a more delicate part of my anatomy on it being May 5th.

Then I'm definitely unsubscribing.That's far too long a time for this politicking.