ChatterBank3 mins ago
Poll Tax
57 Answers
Could someone explain to me, quietly, clearly, and rant free, exactly what was wrong with the Poll Tax? Was it the principle or the application that caused so much unrest?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by woofas. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
IMO it was the principle, it meant that folk who hitherto hadn't paid for services would have had to, or would have had to pay more. I have just had a quick google and cannot find much unbiased reporting or detail. Its not clear (and I can't remember) whether those folk who truly couldn't afford to pay it would have received assistance through their benefits.
I think the issues with it were that it was introduced in Scotland before England - because scotland had had a re-valuation of properties and England hadn't, the amount charged per head were a lot larger than the equivalent charges in the South. Each individual was meant to be responsible for their own amount, however in practice it meant that households of adults would be paying a lot more even if they they had fewer services and lived in a small flat whereas someone in a large house who perhaps was using a lot of services was paying a lot less. I don't think there necessarily is a fair system other than paying for what you use, but that would mean that poor people woulddn't be able to afford to pay for schooling or the elderly may not be able to afford care.
In the end, if we want to live in a society where the strong protect the weak, then the better off need to support the poor. At the moment the system is based on the value of the house you live in, this is where the argument for a local income tax comes in!
In the end, if we want to live in a society where the strong protect the weak, then the better off need to support the poor. At the moment the system is based on the value of the house you live in, this is where the argument for a local income tax comes in!
I think that was the injustice it was trying to put right...that if you were just one or two people living in a house, then you should pay less than a house with 4 or 5 adults in it. Personally, I get that its fair that everyone pays a little towards things like schools even if you have no kids because those kids will work at things that i need, eg nurses, shop assistants and so on...what i don't get is why I should pay towards education for kids who will end up on benefits with kids themselves :-(
Taxation in this country has historically incorporated a principle of the ability to pay.
In some cases like income tax this is a strong principle with banding etc.
In some like VAT it's implicit. You buy more stuff you pay more - a few bands an zero rating.
The poll tax (community charge) as a flat tax broke this principle whereas everyone was expected to pay a single flat charge.
You can potray that as fair "everyone pays the same" or as unfair "A man in a mansion pays the same as a pensioner in a hovel"
The point is that it broke that principle of "ability to pay"
In some cases like income tax this is a strong principle with banding etc.
In some like VAT it's implicit. You buy more stuff you pay more - a few bands an zero rating.
The poll tax (community charge) as a flat tax broke this principle whereas everyone was expected to pay a single flat charge.
You can potray that as fair "everyone pays the same" or as unfair "A man in a mansion pays the same as a pensioner in a hovel"
The point is that it broke that principle of "ability to pay"
and again I get that the strong should support the weak but should they support the idle and shiftless?
We lived in the USA for a while, in New Jersey. they had brought in a scheme there where with the first child if single mother claimed benefits, she got a flat, support, daycare for the child, schooling if she needed it, real hand up stuff, which she LOST if she had another baby...then it was back to a hostel and government minimums...it was working too, the only thing was that it didn't touch the males in the problem and it does take two.
I am nor going to rant but both DH and I were from the same background. Slum (seriously) housing, outdoor toilet and tin bath stylee then council housing. Everything we have has come from our own efforts and the support of our families when we were kids. I do get that some kids aren't lucky enough to have loving stable homes and I have absolutely NO problem with the strong and advantaged supporting the weak....but the weak have to make all the effort that they can.
We lived in the USA for a while, in New Jersey. they had brought in a scheme there where with the first child if single mother claimed benefits, she got a flat, support, daycare for the child, schooling if she needed it, real hand up stuff, which she LOST if she had another baby...then it was back to a hostel and government minimums...it was working too, the only thing was that it didn't touch the males in the problem and it does take two.
I am nor going to rant but both DH and I were from the same background. Slum (seriously) housing, outdoor toilet and tin bath stylee then council housing. Everything we have has come from our own efforts and the support of our families when we were kids. I do get that some kids aren't lucky enough to have loving stable homes and I have absolutely NO problem with the strong and advantaged supporting the weak....but the weak have to make all the effort that they can.
It was supposed to be a tax borne by 'the individual'........but wasn't.
My father-in-law was made redundant but because M-i-L was working, she was informed that she had to shoulder the burden for both of them.....
A married couple I know paid every month..............then 12 months later 'she' received notice of intention to prosecute.
Mr contacted the council and asked how this could be when he paid by joint-account cheque every month; he was informed that 'his' account was twice the amount in credit whereas 'hers' was zero and in default.....
My father-in-law was made redundant but because M-i-L was working, she was informed that she had to shoulder the burden for both of them.....
A married couple I know paid every month..............then 12 months later 'she' received notice of intention to prosecute.
Mr contacted the council and asked how this could be when he paid by joint-account cheque every month; he was informed that 'his' account was twice the amount in credit whereas 'hers' was zero and in default.....
That was the problem, ummmm..........
It seemed a reasonable assumption that each individual should contribute, rather more equitable than the old 'rate' system.
However, as JtP says, *the ability to pay* was ridden over roughshod, which resulted in far more inequalities than the old system. Local Authorities were very quick to send out summonses (do you remember Cyril Mundy - The Poll Tax Martyr; he lived near the back of The Vol ?) and pretty soon found themselves mired in endless legal cases and challenges and the system became as unweildy as it was unpopular.
As I say, the principle that 'each should pay according to his means' is enshrined in the national consciousness and the way that the Poll Tax was implemented certainly seemed unfair.
It seemed a reasonable assumption that each individual should contribute, rather more equitable than the old 'rate' system.
However, as JtP says, *the ability to pay* was ridden over roughshod, which resulted in far more inequalities than the old system. Local Authorities were very quick to send out summonses (do you remember Cyril Mundy - The Poll Tax Martyr; he lived near the back of The Vol ?) and pretty soon found themselves mired in endless legal cases and challenges and the system became as unweildy as it was unpopular.
As I say, the principle that 'each should pay according to his means' is enshrined in the national consciousness and the way that the Poll Tax was implemented certainly seemed unfair.
