Tax, Council elections and payscales

[sobrique]

Socialism and Capitalism are pretty much opposite ends of an axis of the political scale.
At one end of the scale, we have Capitalism.
Conceptually, "You get what you pay for".
If you need medical care, then that's going to cost. You get paid in accordance with 'worth'.

At the other end, we have socialism. The state provides for each, according to their needs.

The USSR seems to have demonstrated that a socialist approach doesn't really work - if you provide according to needs then there's no real 'work ethic'.

By a similar token, whilst capitalism _sort of_ works (I use America as the example here) it's also often very hard for poorer people to 'get by' - hospital treatment for example, is very expensive.

The reason I'm going off on one on this subject, is that as some of you may know, there are local council elections in the next month or so. And the discussion of 'Council tax, and alternatives' are being discussed.

There's debate as to the 'best' method.
Current proposals include:

A tax based on property value for the household.

This is the way it's done at the moment. You have a nice house, you pay more towards the common good, if you live in a cardboard box, less. Oh and you pay the same amount as a couple (there's a discount for single) as you would with a 27 person family.

A tax based on property value and number of tenants. Property price linked again, but will be a little more 'pain' for familes rather than couples. Because of problems with the poll tax, this is a politically risky option.

A 'local income tax'. The council takes a cut of your wages.

I'm a capitalist at heart really. Personally I don't have kids, so have no need for schools, I have private medical insurance, and haven't been to the public library since I moved to Coventry.
I fully accept though, that these things need to exist. They're important aspects of a community, and someday I may need to make use of them.

The problem I have though, is that our taxation systems are fundamentally unfair, and contrary to a work ethic.
I've heard the comment on several occasions that it's just not worth getting a minimum wage job for a few hours a week, because you 'do better' if you're on the dole.

In an ideal world, taxation would be a 'per person' bill, for everyone in the country. After all, there's access to all the same services for ... well pretty much everyone. OK, so the better off don't typically _use_ subsidised public transport, health service or public schools, but the facility is available to them.

In fairness to those who don't earn a living, I'd be prepared to accept a 'percentage of income' based taxation.
Call it 20% (ok, it might be nearer 30, but just for arguments sake).
Now the person earning £6000 a year, will be paying £1,200 of that to the government, to use for 'public good'.
The person earning £600,000 will be paying £120,000 to the same end.
Each according to their ability to pay right?

Of course, that's not the way it is. The tax burden falls upon those with an income, because 'well, they can afford it'.

Bollocks to that. I'm getting close to the 40% tax bracket. OK, there's still a way to go, but I think I'll make it there. It may be arrogant, but I had the same opportunities as every other fucker. Went to a 'public school' (by which I mean I had a state education). Went on to 6th form college. Went to university lived on 'a few hundred a term'. Got a part time job at Uni. Got degree. Went and got a job.

I'm still paying off the debts today, 4 years later. I hear 'well, you got lucky'. Maybe I did. Maybe I was lucky enough to have parents who taught me my outlook on life. Maybe I was lucky enough to be born 'clever' or 'ambitious'.

But if you suggest I got an easy ride through education, and into a job, then you can just sod off. I have worked to end up where I am. Some days, it seemed to not be worth it. Others, I realise that I'm doing what I enjoy at a professional level. Where I am is achievable by anyone who cares to try it. Many of the people I work with didn't do degrees, but there again a few of them did.

I'm taxed a healthy amount. This is my contribution to society. I believe that a family, bringing up children well, are also providing a contribution to society. This is why I accept that tax is a percentage rather than a flat rate - after all, children are a tax all of their own. (Perhaps we need to have a 'paid parent' system - if you have kids, then you get paid as a 'carer'. More if you're good at it.).

Someday I may have a family. I want to be in a position where I can provide for them when I do.

I would support a council tax based on property value and number of tenants. I believe everyone has a 'right' to basic services, especially those that impact upon the community as a whole. I would not support a percentage taxation based on income. Community services are important, but the money has to come from somewhere.

Oh I know full well that things are never going to change. The number of voters impacted negatively (compared to positively) by my suggestion just means it'll never happen - you vote against the person hurting your pocket, which is why this uneven tax system exists in the first place.

I suppose it's easier to take the handouts and complain about the 'fat cats' than it is to actually go and do it.

That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Comments

[mavnn.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with the 'good of all' argument, which is why I would tend towards simplifying taxes as much as possible.

The reason I wouldn't go on property value personally is that it seems both harder to calculate and doesn't seem an accurate indicator of either ability to pay or resources used.

Of course, an income tax is a lousy indicator of resources used (an fact, you could make an argument for it being an inverse indicator) - but it's a very accurate measure of ability to pay.