"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 01:04:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article , Andy Champ
wrote:
On 08/04/2013 16:18, Mark wrote:
I can see why the Poll Tax was popular in some circles though since it
shifted taxation from the rich to the poor.

It shifted taxation away from property owners, and spread it evenly.

Evenly meaning regardless of the ability to pay it?

Property owners are not always rich, in the sense of having an income to
pay tax with.

Not many poor people live in an expensive house. And of those that did,
most were old still living in the family home, and a rate rebate could
take care of that, as it did.

There's a case for taxation according to ability to pay;

Which the poll tax in essence didn't.

To be fair any tax has to take account of the ability to pay. After
the Poll Tax many more people refused or did not pay and I don't think
the payment levels have ever recovered to the levels they were under
the old rating system.

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

Yes.

because they don't understand that education benefits the whole society

Or they believe that if you choose to have kids, you
should be paying more for the education of them
than those who choose to not have any kids.

- a fact that seems to escape the current
Tory government and the last Labour one.

Nope, they just believe that those who choose
to have kids should be paying more than those
who choose to not have any kids.

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

Yes, with some stuff. But not with other stuff like education.

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.

That line can be used to justify no change at all.