| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| To the people here who live under socialism...; and think it is good or great.... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 27 2008, 11:57 PM (1,463 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 08:49 AM Post #121 |
|
Admiral
|
The TV licence funds the BBC which I think is worth while. By providing the BBC with its own revenue it helps it maintain its independence from government in a way a public service broadcaster paid for out of general taxation would struggle to do. Also no one is forced to buy a TV if they dont wish to. As to the poll tax, or community charge, it was a deeply unfair tax because it hit poor households the hardest. The replacement, Council Tax, is a per property charge which takes some account of the value of a house but is still grossly unfair. Someone with a high house value but low income can be hit hard and for people sharing a house it is a nightmare as each person is jointly liable for the whole tax. Personally I would replace it with a local income tax and I have voted for a party that proposes such a system. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 09:10 AM Post #122 |
|
Captain
|
Without the TV licence to fund a public service broadcaster paid for out of general taxation it IS possible to maintain independance... We have just such an entity in our ABC.. It has been the bane of many governments over 50yrs and has had a hand in the fall of a few politicians who believed as you do ds9074. We also have the equal of the land tax you mentioned, that too works well enough as taxes go... those who own land but are otherwise disadvantaged and unable to pay the full rate are catered for with rebates. Those that pay rent instead of owning the land do not pay, other than the fact that it is factored into the rent by the owners |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 1 2008, 09:26 AM Post #123 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
OR: You vote for the candidate who wants to keep taxes low and not the candidate who wants to penalize any and all kinds of achievement. We've been here before, and you're just re-spinning this in a bad way. Technically Australia does not have inheritance taxes. Instead they have a capital gains tax on assets bequeathed from an estate. Sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 09:29 AM Post #124 |
|
Admiral
|
Whitestar, The Council Tax isnt a land tax as such it is a tax on people living in a property. So, unless you are on a very low income, you pay the tax regardless of whether you own the property or not. As to the BBC, I do think that the independent revenue of the licence fee makes it more independent and more accountable to licence fee payer than it otherwise would be. The BBC is a great institution and I see no reason to change it. As I said you can easily opt out of the licence fee by not using a television. Edited by ds9074, Nov 1 2008, 09:30 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 09:54 AM Post #125 |
|
Captain
|
So the council tax is the poll tax with a name change? No offence meant ds9074 but the statement "can easily opt out of the licence fee by not using a television." is just not realistic. In todays world, to own a TV is no longer the privilage of the well-off as it was the early days of TV, it's a right, to a window on the world. It seems to me outright blackmail to force a choice of no tax no TV. Can you imagine a tax on the internet, phones, radio? "As to the BBC, I do think that the independent revenue of the licence fee makes it more independent and more accountable to licence fee payer than it otherwise would be" Noble words but is it based on fact or opinion? You have never known any other way, take it from someone that has, it IS possible. I'm sure the BBC is as fine as you say, we have many BBC programs on our version, the ABC, high quality entertainment and documentries... the ABC is also a respected producer of high quality TV (and some low). I did not bring up the subject of "changing" the BBC, just trying to point out it IS possible to have an independent govt funded broadcaster. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 10:06 AM Post #126 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ The Council Tax is not quite the poll tax. It is paid per property not per person so doesnt rise directly as a result of having more people living in a property. As I said it is also based on a notional value of the property with discounts for people living in properties with lower values and extra payments for those with higher values. As to the BBC maybe you can create a system where you preserve independence under general taxation funding. I am just not sure what the point would be in trying to change the BBC to such a system. I fear that politicians would use it as an opportunity to gain more control. You can now watch a lot of TV programmes online, most BBC programmes can be accessed in the UK at least through the BBC website. So its not totally unrealistic to do without a television if you are strongly opposed to the license fee.
Yes actually. I've got my internet/phone bill here - "VAT at 17.5% has been added to your bill"
Edited by ds9074, Nov 1 2008, 10:06 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 10:12 AM Post #127 |
|
Captain
|
"Personally I would replace it with a local income tax and I have voted for a party that proposes such a system." Your advocating a lower tier of govt a right to income tax? I don't even agree with the one already in place never mind another grab at the working man's income. There was a time of NO income tax though I understand todays modern society could not be sustained without it... you have to draw the line somewhere or you will have a situation where govts have a legal right to a bigger share of your income than you take home. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 10:16 AM Post #128 |
|
Admiral
|
Local government sets and collects the Council Tax. Remove their power to tax in that way and yes give them a limited power to add an amount to income tax. I am not talking about unlimited power for them to tax income, the range allowed would be set by Parliament. It wouldnt be aimed at raising any more revenue than the council tax, but it would link the amount you pay to your ability to pay it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 10:27 AM Post #129 |
|
Captain
|
Hmmm, yes, I guess you could interpret that as a tax on a phone-internet line but the reality is, it is an across the board goods and services tax. Increasing the cost of the service, not quite the same as hunting you down, spying on you, forcibly walking into your home and confiscating your phone or computer. The access to television on the net is a closer comparision to cable TV than free to air.. user pays or copyright infringment comes into play, if that becomes the norm then it's back to the fifties, only those who can afford it have the privilage to a "window on the world" |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 10:37 AM Post #130 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ BBC iPlayer is free http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ but I think it is only accessible in the UK. There is also the free 4oD http://www.channel4.com/4od/index.html & free ITV catchup http://www.itv.com/CatchUp/default.html services which provide the same thing. I am not saying they replace television completely. I have a TV license. But if money was tight I would seriously consider ditching the TV and the TV license and keeping the broadband connection. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 10:37 AM Post #131 |
|
Captain
|
Thats how it starts, low range, set by law, creeping up with ammendants to the law, slowly but surely untill it hurts. That little percentage that reasonable people couldn't possibly argue becomes a giant hole in your income.. How much was the VAT when first introduced? has it risen? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 10:45 AM Post #132 |
|
Admiral
|
I believe VAT started at 15% and has risen once to 17.5%. The point about the Local Income Tax is that it would not need to rise in percentage terms. As incomes rise so local government revenue would increase. At the moment councils have to uprate the Council Tax each year to cover rising costs. It involves a costly administrative process of sending out bills, handling payments, chasing up non-payers etc. The thing about the Council Tax is that if I was earning twice as much as I am now I would still pay the same amount as I am now. So the burden of the council tax increases the less you earn until you reach the arbitary level where the rebate sets in. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 10:53 AM Post #133 |
|
Captain
|
Interesting debate DS, but getting into the early hours here down under, will have to take this up after I wake tomorrow and watch the Kangaroos rip the heart out of the English lion, or is that bulldog? OIU! OIU! OIU! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 1 2008, 09:10 PM Post #134 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
I don't really mind paying council rates - they are not all that large and go towards maintaining parks, public jetties and wharfs, roads and streets, garbage collection services and a lot of other worthwhile things , including keeping developers under control. We have the option of paying council rates in 4 instalments spread out over the year , so that is how we do it . |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 1 2008, 09:18 PM Post #135 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
I think a fairer means of calculating council taxes (rates) would be to annually assess the market value the land and the building / s on the land and to have calculate the rates based on this. If the resident has several acres of prime land and big expensive house on it , he pays more on a prorata basis than someone who has a standard block and more modest home on it. And if the building (it might be block of flats or a duplex or an appartment building say is a money earner , then a cut of rents goes to rates on top of the rates as well . Couldn't be fairer . Edited by somerled, Nov 1 2008, 09:20 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


2:12 PM Jul 11