How much Poll tax did you pay?

I agreed with the poll tax as a fair way of taxing people. It just seemed so badly implemented. They should have phased in the increases over 5 years by which time everyone would be used to it. The rioters were mainly layabouts who didn't like being asked to pay for what they had been getting for free..

Thatcher could lay waste to the Argies but when a few layabouts played up she backed down,some iron lady.

We had just bought our first house and I recall the poll tax tripled what we had paid in rates.

The old "tax them more: me less" approach. :LOL:

I too was a married householder so would have expected a rise but I believe you should pay tax based on what you use not how big your house is..

However if you read I stated it was poorly implemented and should have been phased in to there was no massive jump to any one house hold
 
Sponsored Links
The idea of the poll tax may have had some merit, but the way it was implemented and widely varying amounts was a disaster. Each year, there was an amount listed in the makeup of the charge for others who hadn't paid. Probably £30 ish. Possibly as much as £50.

So, because others didn't pay, your bill was higher. Taxing a person, instead of a fixed asset in the form of a property, was always going to make collection difficult and expensive.

Bristols lefty council levied some of the highest bills in the country, I think it went as high as £500 per person, if my memory serves me. I was living at home at the time, so they had a lot of money from our household of 3 people.

At the time, my brother was at Birmingham Poly, and the local council kept sending everyone in his digs a bill for the full amount, instead of the greatly reduced student levy.

They kept writing and phoning, asking to be sent amended bills. They never got revised bills, and were never chased for any money. So, that's one house of approx 5 students, who wanted to pay. Because of the council's incompetence, they never paid a penny in poll tax and were never chased afterwards. Imagine if this was happening all over the country.
 
I too was a married householder so would have expected a rise but I believe you should pay tax based on what you use not how big your house is..
Not really a tax then is it? If you believe that then we might as well just pay for the services we use and do away with Council tax altogether.
 
That's a pretty fair summary WhiteSpirit. A load of people decided not to pay up and there wasn't the ability to make them. No different from 20% of the people on the train refusing to pay, or 20% of the people in Sainsburys walking out without paying really. The honest subsidises the dishonest, and the dishonesty is such that it overwhelms the system.

As for winners and losers compared to the rates. Well it didn't really benefit one group over another. The top 10% earners saved, but for the other 90% it depended on how many people lived in the house, and not how much you earned.

Of course, because local government spending is mainly paid for by central government grants, the top 10% paid more that way. Also, VAT was increased to subsidise the poll tax, so those with more disposable income again would pay more.

But 20% or so simply refused to pay, expected the other 80% to cover them, and whole thing became unworkable.

But hey ho, believe what you want to believe, don't let the truth get in your way.
 
Sponsored Links
The funny thing is, is that if poll tax was kept, and most other taxes scrapped, we'd all be paying less tax now.

It's easy not to protest when it just gets taken a little bit out of your wage, a little bit out of council tax, a little bit out of fuel duty, a little bit out of vat etc.

Much easier to get people to fight tax when they have to write a check for it.
 
Of course, because local government spending is mainly paid for by central government grants, the top 10% paid more that way. Also, VAT was increased to subsidise the poll tax, so those with more disposable income again would pay more.
Completely wrong Chapeau. VAT is one of the most regressive taxes.

People on low incomes spend practically all of it on items onto which another 20% (these days) is added.
The wealthier and wealthiest in society can afford to spend more money on items onto which VAT is not added. A large house in the suburbs, a second home in the country, a flat to rent out to students...

Or it can be invested in Tarquin or Jemima's trust fund...or on the stock market...

So in effect VAT once again hits the poor far far harder...
 
Completely wrong Chapeau. VAT is one of the most regressive taxes.

Ah Ronny, you obviously started this thread asking questions but only wanting answers which fit your preconceived notion of what the community charge was all about.

Yes, it was a charge, not a tax. A charge for services provided by the council, a novel way to make individuals responsible for what they did in life and used in life. Essentially Thatcherism in a nutshell.

The whole idea was that local government was not in the business of 'regressive' taxation, or redistribution of wealth. That, in Thatcher's view, was the job of central government who raised taxes and spent a large amount of them on grants to local government to provide services.

Your fellow on £100k a year pays far more VAT than your fellow on £10k per year. In absolute terms. As the community charge is an absolute value, then it is quite reasonable to say the person on £100k a year 'made up' for the fact he might have been a winner on the community charge, because he was a loser on VAT.

Anyway, it all went tits up because a sizeable proportion of people simply refused to pay. Anarchy essentially. Thatcher was unable to instill the concept of individual responsibility into 20% of the population. It's probably still like that but we no longer have politicians who have the balls to attempt to do something about it. The other 80% of us just carry them along.
 
Try not paying your poll tax, it get's recovered the same way as any other outstanding bill ,through a debt collection agency.
 
Try not paying your poll tax, it get's recovered the same way as any other outstanding bill ,through a debt collection agency.

That's not how it happened either.

Bleeding Heck. This thread really is pulling out the youngsters who haven't got a clue what it was all about.
 
The Irony is of course that people decided not to register as voters on the electoral roll to avoid being chased for poll tax.

This subsequently meant the detractors could not vote in the next election . . .

Which Maggie won by a landslide.

This was only fair as you cant vote how a country is run if you do'nt contribute to its upkeep.

Poll tax would not work now because there are too many people off the electoral roll due to being illegal.
The last census must have been an eye opener.

I wonder what the population estimate versus registered voters ratio is?
 
Try not paying your poll tax, it get's recovered the same way as any other outstanding bill ,through a debt collection agency.
If of course you 'agree' to pay it...

This is for council tax, but the same principle applied to the poll tax!

Part 1

Now watch to the end, and see how our injustice system treats us with utter contempt!

Part 2
 
Completely wrong Chapeau. VAT is one of the most regressive taxes.

Ah Ronny, you obviously started this thread asking questions but only wanting answers which fit your preconceived notion of what the community charge was all about.
I started the thread asking how much was paid by people in relation to how much they were paying in rates, because I was having a discussion with my G/Fs dad and neither of us knew the answer. I guess it was obvious the answers would not remain as such but I only gave my opinion in reply to others.

Your fellow on £100k a year pays far more VAT than your fellow on £10k per year. In absolute terms. As the community charge is an absolute value, then it is quite reasonable to say the person on £100k a year 'made up' for the fact he might have been a winner on the community charge, because he was a loser on VAT.
Hey Chap, you're on the right, I'm proudly on the left. I'll copy and paste what I told my G/Fs dad last night...in the end we discovered we agreed on many things!
The fact is that due to capitalism's inherent income disparity there will always be a need to redress the balance slightly to give people on low incomes even a modest standard of living. I'm not saying that everyone on a low income deserves to be looked after, but I'm sure even you wouldn't let a layabout's children starve? It's unfortunate that the system allows people on benefits to have as many kids as they wish while hard working people can't afford to, but what's the alternative? Any more than two kids on benefits and they are taken straight into care at birth? I'm pretty sure that many people on benefits have got a higher standard of living than my family and me right now, with our childcare at equivalent of £35k for a five day week. I don't think that's fair, but the needy have to be looked after, or we really are going back to the dark ages. It's taken hundreds of years to get to a point where social mobility is at least a remote option. Flat rate taxation and reduction of benefits would leave a high proportion of the population literally starving. What's to be done then? Even the essentials that you talked about like a loaf of bread or a pound of potatoes or a pint of milk or a gas bill place a massive burden on the poorest, while barely making a dent in the disposable income of the richest. This is why taxation has to be progressive. I want the wealthiest to still be the wealthiest once they have paid their tax. Most of them deserve their money, but they should also have no problem where everybody has at least a modest standard of living. I think it is incredibly selfish to believe flat rate taxation is fair, and even more selfish to go to the trouble of avoiding paying their legal obligation in tax just so that they can buy a second home or a new Range Rover...
So yes, I do believe the poll tax was inherently wrong, as it takes a far far higher proportion of a low income person's disposable income, income that is vital to these people for paying bills and putting food on the table.

Also, I think 50% is a fair rate for incomes over £150k. I wouldn't push it any higher than that.

By the way, it makes me sick when I see a family getting in excess of £30000 a year in benefits (net) and then spending £300 a month or so on Fags, booze, and Sky TV.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185
I'd like to know which benefit entitles them to that?
 
So yes, I do believe the poll tax was inherently wrong, as it takes a far far higher proportion of a low income person's disposable income, income that is vital to these people for paying bills and putting food on the table.

But it didn't work that way !
 
So yes, I do believe the poll tax was inherently wrong, as it takes a far far higher proportion of a low income person's disposable income, income that is vital to these people for paying bills and putting food on the table.

But it didn't work that way !

No it Didn't work that way!
It shifted the tax burden onto the working class and meant a dustman paying the same as a noble.
A totally unfair tax that was doomed from the start and saw 20 million summoned for non payment.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top