+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
The bands clearly mean that people in bigger homes and/or more 'exclusive areas' pay more - but Council Tax is regressive and those in lower value homes, in poorer areas with greater state or council needs pay proportionately much more than the affluent.
The Guardian did a good summary of Council debt (40% reduction in real terms central government support to Councils from 2010 to 2020) which is hitting councils of all colours like never before. It also included this snippet:
The issue is exacerbated by the fact that worse-off areas typically have greater needs for council provision despite their smaller tax base. Richard (Partington) points to an example of how that plays out from the Northern Powerhouse Partnership: a house in Hartlepool worth £150,000 pays over £200 a year more in council tax than someone in Westminster in a property worth £8m.
Stupid system, why should a little old couple (not me) on their own on state pension who saved all there life to live in a big house (with a lawn wow rich bustards) £1 mill in ABC pay way more than a family of ten with all grown-up kids all working and earning big bucks in XYZ £150K house all using all the local services?
Tax on what you earn is fair enough but on what house you own is nonsense.
That's right - the real victims here are the Westminster asset millionaires not the residents of a massively overcrowded terrace house in Hartlepool.
Thanks for setting me right.
(By the way, I am not defending the Council Tax system at all. Income tax much fairer - combined with a deferred tax on non income wealth for those who are asset rich but cash poor).
Hardly a football thread.
Don't Billionaires own shares? If they keep a hold of them how do we tax that?
Don't many billionaires employ thousands of people?
Don't you think it's also fair that the majority that use the services pay for what they use? How many millionaires and billionaires do you see over the Royal Glam on a Saturday morning? Billionaires aren't putting a strain on the country, the masses and masses of people that need services are. If you take the kids to McDonalds for a treat do you buy all the other kids in there a happy meal because you've got the money or do you pay for your own food and leave like the rest of them do!
They also get rich on the back of working people in this country.
I remember discussing this once with a rampant Tory, who sold gas for balloons, mainly to individuals who would buy balloons from a store and he'd fill them. He was adamant that we shouldn't have an NHS, that if people fell ill and couldn't afford to get better, tough. I asked him how it would affect his business. He thought about it and said it would have an impact on what he could earn, so I pointed out that paying a bit of tax and NI means some of your customers would get better and you'd have more trade. He never agreed with it. Stupid sod.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...ich-g20-brazil
The G20 group of the world’s most powerful countries is exploring plans for a global minimum tax on the world’s 3,000 billionaires, aiming to end a “race to the bottom” that has enabled the super-rich to pay less than the rest of the population.
Leaders gathering in São Paulo for a key G20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors are preparing to discuss an internationally agreed backstop on the taxation of hypermobile wealthy individuals, amid increasing global cooperation to tackle tax avoidance.
Aiming to build on the cooperation that resulted in a 15% global minimum tax on multinational companies, which came into effect in January, the plan is being promoted under Brazil’s presidency of the G20 before a summit of world leaders in Rio de Janeiro in autumn.
I didn't say anything like that did I.
Billionaires own stock. They are rich on paper. What do you want to tax? I get taxed a percentage of what I earn, that is fair, so as a collective many of us chip in and get use of services. The rich people, who have money on paper, and don't use any of these services are expected to not only employ and pay people but contribute to services they don't use. Why?
we don't need billionaires at all.
what if billionaires were taxed at 100% of their wealth above 999 million. they would still have businesses, employ people etc.
every billionaire's existence is a failure of policy.
imagine if you observed the same behaviour in nature day a few monkeys hoarding more food than they could ever possibly hope to eat while others starve to death?