In article ,
Mark wrote:
and there's a case for taxation according to the use made of the
services.

Really? So those with no children shouldn't pay for education of other's
kids? etc?

A lot of people do seem to believe that because they don't understand
that education benefits the whole society - a fact that seems to
escape the current Tory government and the last Labour one.

Lots of services may not be used by an individual at any point in time, so
is given as a reason that they shouldn't have to pay for them. Or that
they're paying an unfair proportion of them.

And also it's completely impractical to measure everything so that
people pay for only the things they use.

Quite.

Poll tax missed the former, and hit the latter; rates and council tax
hit neither. Perhaps the lib-dems are right about local income tax.

It would be a fairer way. But for some reason indirect taxation seems to
be preferred to direct.

It's less politically sensitive. Local income tax might be fairer but
any change would be used to sneak in an overall increase.

Which is, of course, what happened with the poll tax. The average family
in the average house paid more than before - in many cases a lot more. And
the poorer the family, the larger the increase.

--
*Monday is an awful way to spend 1/7th of your life *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.