General Discussion

A questionable butterfly

People

Lostit
Avawatson549
Diana Mond
deadpan
applecaremac
atttechcare
aoldesktopgolds
adobecustomercare
aolmailservice
Niajax800
Lynne
Lynne
09 Apr 2013 07:16

Just thought I would make that point as in the Margaret Thatcher thread there is a posting that,from the way I read it, implies the two are the same. They are not. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge  

DJ
DJ
09 Apr 2013 09:31

I presume you are referring to my post Lynne.  

 

No implication that Poll Tax and Council Tax are the same thing.  I know exactly what they are/were and the differences, just as I knew what the rates were that the Poll Tax replaced.  My point was that although Poll Tax was not popular with some the tax that replaced it - Council Tax - has in itself become unpopular and has increased hugely, especially during the last Labour govt. so there is never a good tax and they are all as bad as each other in their own ways.

4 Agrees
Lynne
Lynne
09 Apr 2013 09:45

Not popular with some? That's a bit of an understatement. Even the tories in the shires were up in arms about it.

And with regard to tax - however it is collected - if we don't pay it then we don't have schools, police , armed forces, hospitals etc etc.

 

(and btw it wasn't your posting I had in mind)

wondering
wondering
09 Apr 2013 11:32

Didnt the Poll tax work like this?

If just one person lived in a house... you had a lower rate..as you would have less call on services, refuse etc

Say a family of five, mum, dad and three all over 18 ..they would pay far more, as would need more services available to them. .

Maybe somehow you could opt out now of certain services of your Council Tax bill.

1 Agree
Lynne
Lynne
09 Apr 2013 12:30

If it was/is such a brilliant concept then I'll ask the obvious question.

Why isn't it in practice now?  

wondering
wondering
09 Apr 2013 12:42

Exactly...people just dont like change.

Brazilnut
Brazilnut
09 Apr 2013 15:05

the poll tax was a charge against anybody over 18 in the household, the whole amount for the property was divided equally and it was each persons responsibility who was named on the electoral role to pay it. Sounds fair doesnt it? How come when my partner lost his job and wasnt elegible for any benefit why did I the sole wage earner become elegable for his share as well as my own?????? He was threatened with court action and possible imprisonment but he had no income. Bad memories took 3years to clear that debt

wondering
wondering
09 Apr 2013 15:20

Maybe you had attitude even then. If you were not working you did not need to pay.

2 Agrees
Brazilnut
Brazilnut
09 Apr 2013 15:37

do you ever read things properly!!!!! I was working my partner was not, they made me liable for his share, even tho he had no income whatsoever!!!!!  So you did have to pay somebody elses share if they lived with you, it took me 3years to clear his debt

DJ
DJ
10 Apr 2013 13:54

Poll Tax was not charged against the property, but against those aged 18 or over who lived in each household.  So the amount charged per person was the same no matter where you lived or how many lived in a house.  It was not a property charge divided by the numbers living there.  

Brazilnut
Brazilnut
10 Apr 2013 14:08

you are right dj but it was still set by the local authority, my memory must have been playing tricks with me, but it still doesnt change what I said above I had to pay my partners tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge

 

 

DJ
DJ
10 Apr 2013 17:43

Interesting link Brazilnut.  I was in full time employment so I wasn't sure about what happened if your were not, but it states that employed people paid 100% of their charge, registered unemployed (and others) paid 20% of their charge.  So presumably your partner, when registered unemployed, only had to pay the 20% and they would have had their unemployment benefit as income.  Still don't see why you would have had to pay it though, the charge wasn't against you or your property, it was in the name of your partner.  Surely they wouldn't have been able to come after you for it, you should have refused to pay it as it was nothing to do with you.

Brazilnut
Brazilnut
10 Apr 2013 19:18

He was  registered unemployed but was not eligible for unemployment benefit, and he could nt get the income support as I was earning, it was done differently then, he didnt have 2years continuous NI contributions previous to him losing his job. They did come after me, a summons was issued to him and he explained his circumstances but they said either i paid it or he would be imprisoned, so I had no option I agreed to pay at £1 per week for him as well as paying my own

Comment Please sign in or sign up to post