Those who happen to be householders, although by no means necessarily owner-occupiers (but never council tenants), are arbitrarily required to be the only people who pay local taxes as such, based on a highly speculative valuation of an asset which might not be theirs to sell, and which, even if it were, they could not sell unless they were then expected to live up a tree or something.
And see how the Poll Tax is still thoroughly mythologised. It is held up as somehow the "real" reason why the Tories ditched Margaret Thatcher, thereby deflecting attention from the real reason indeed, namely that, far too late, she had finally woken up to the reality of European federalism, and therefore had to go. Lest we forget, the Tories went on to win, unexpectedly, the General Election after the Poll Tax's introduction.
In Scotland, where it was introduced a year early by popular demand and where there was never a riot against it, the history of thing has been allowed to be written by those who shouted, and shout, the loudest: Tommy Sheridan, and the fundamentalist wing of the SNP. Lest we forget, Scotland was the only part of the country where the Tories experienced a net gain in seats at the General Election after the Poll Tax's introduction.
Throughout the country, the fantasy of "people unable to pay" still holds extraordinary sway. In fact, anyone in that position had it paid for them through the benefits system.
And so forth.
Let there be a flat fee, payable to the council, for registration as a local government elector, and let such registration itself be made voluntary, with the fee paid through the benefits system where necessary, so that nobody would be disenfranchised on grounds of poverty.
The National Trust and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution not only survive, but thrive, providing services universally on this basis. So would the BBC, with its Trust elected by and from among the license-payers, and with the license fee itself made voluntary.
And so would local government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You want to make Council Tax voluntary? Seriously?
ReplyDeleteIt would be a flat fee, a subscription, in return for the right to vote and stand in local elections.
ReplyDeleteThe poor would get it paid for them through the benefits system, so it wouldn't be a wealth-based restriction of the franchise.
The National Trust and the RNLI do not restrict their services to subscribers. Nor would the BBC, if it moved, as it should, to something like this. And nor would local government.
But the National Trust and the RNLI do not restrict democratic participation on this basis. So should the BBC. And so should local government.
So every adult living at an address could pay it individually and thus get one vote each?
ReplyDeleteEr, but the National Trust do make you pay for their services if you're not a member. And considerably more people want their bins emptied than want to see Knole House or whatever.
ReplyDeleteSo are you advocating payment on demand of services? Or just rather large unfunded council services?
Yes, because it wouldn't be property-based.
ReplyDeleteI'd do the same for the BBC, because the subscription would not be based on television ownership, either.
Around 30% of ppl vote in local elections. If only 30% pay this fee (which itself is laughably high), your finances are screwed
ReplyDeleteIf the BBC doesn't get enough subscriptions, I can't watch EastEnders.
ReplyDeleteIf my local council doesn't get enough subscriptions, my granny dies through lack of social care
Do you think those are analagous?
"So are you advocating payment on demand of services?"
ReplyDeletePerish the thought.
"Or just rather large unfunded council services?"
Perish the thought.
Everyone would have access to the services determined by representatives elected by and from among those who paid the bills, as anyone would be free to do, but no one would be compelled to do.
According to the RNLI's accounts, it raised £47.3m in voluntary income in 2006-07. Obviously, the vast majority of people contribute nothing to the RNLI.
ReplyDeleteTotal local government council tax revenue in England in 2007-8 (not the same year, I admit) was £29.8bn - that's 24% of total local government spending, the rest of which comes from central government grants. How close do you think you could get to raising that amount of money per year through voluntary contributions - even with the undoubted incentive of voting in council elections?
I think most people would pay it, actually. They wouldn't have the Council Tax to pay, for one thing. The rest are not the sort of people you'd want voting or standing in local elections even if they were so inclined, which they are not. And I don't just (if at all) mean the poor.
ReplyDeleteMost of care for the elderly is comes out of central government grant anyway. And it's the sort of thing that could expect increased discretionary spending under this system: people care about it, and old people, never mind their middle-aged offspring, are extremely likely to subscribe, just as they are to vote.
Who says it would have to spend that much, Doppler? And if it did, then the people deciding that it did would be drawn directly from among those paying for it to do so.
ReplyDeleteMost people aren't in the RNLI because most people never have cause to think about lifeboats. But most people do have cause to think about, for example, the emptying of the bins. And you wouledn't want people who didn't voting or standing in council elections. Not that they do or would anyway.
"But most people do have cause to think about, for example, the emptying of the bins. And you wouledn't want people who didn't voting or standing in council elections."
ReplyDeletePerhaps not. But I for one would still want them paying for the emptying of the bins.
Why?
ReplyDeleteIf they pay, then they are entitled to a say. This way, if they chose not to pay, then they would choose to have no say.
But the health of the rest of us would still require their bins to be emptied, of course. That is not really a service provided to individual households as such. It is a service to the whole community.
Fascinating to read these people who can't get their heads around the idea that the present levels of local government spending are not fixed by some iron law of nature.
ReplyDeleteAnd who are horrifed by any concept of accountability to the common people, as well as baffled by the suggestion that anyone would make any sort of civic contribution unless compelled to.
ReplyDeleteThey are also utterly convinced -indeed, they have never even thought about it - that everyone owns their house, so that it is part of their wealth.
The Political Class and its wannabes, hangers-on and hired help, to a tee.
At least we haven't had the line about how the only people who either would or could pay would be "the middle classes". But give it time.
So, along with the privilege of voting comes the privilege of paying for freeloaders?
ReplyDeleteHow long before the the voters decide to revisit that idea, and cancel services?
David's point about home ownership is something of a red herring, as tenants are also liable to council tax.
ReplyDeleteYou're giving people the choice between paying to receive a service, or not paying and still receiving it. In any other walk of life (say, buying music) we know that people overwhelmingly choose the cheaper option. What makes you think council tax is so different?
ReplyDeleteThat would be their democratic right. But they are not going to cancel bin collections, or care for the elderly. There are no votes in that.
ReplyDeleteRestricting things to subscribers would vost far more to administer than it could ever hope to save. And anyway, for example, next door's pile of rubbish is a problem for the whole street.
"Paying for freeloaders", if that is how you want to put it, happens anyway. Only householders pay Council Tax, not all of them do, and some of them already get it paid through the benefits system so that it does not cost them, personally, a penny. But everyone uses local government services. So no change there.
There is no comparison whatever there, Stan. Simply none.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, not all of them are. In fact, you'd be amazed how many aren't.
Among many examples, it is increasingly common for students to own properties, live in one room during term-time, rent out the others to their mates, and pay not one penny of Council Tax, on account of being students. So not merely those tenants, but those landlords, are exempt.
You are taking some mythologising yourself vis a vis the poll tax.
ReplyDeleteBefore the 1992 election you invoked, the Tories were already scrapping the poll tax. Indeed when Major took power in late 1990 he appointed Heseltine to the Department of Environment to come up with an alternative to it. Tarzan is the father of the council tax.
"Popular acclaim in Scotland" - yeah, maybe within the Scottish Tory party who were daft enough to think it would be popular.
Derek, I completely agree with you that there may be some room to cut local government spending before there is an impact on services - and of course there is no iron law of nature about it. However, cutting council tax spending by tens of billions, which I suspect would be the effect of David's proposals, would not be without its consequences for local government services.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that no elected council would want to cut bin collections, or care for the elderly, or many other services - but they can only work with the money they have.
David's entirely valid point that next door's pile of rubbish is a problem for the whole street is an example of what's sometimes described as the tragedy of the commons - and a good argument for compulsory taxation.
That would be their democratic right. But they are not going to cancel bin collections, or care for the elderly. There are no votes in that.
ReplyDeleteDavid, under your scheme, people who don't pay don't have votes. There are no political costs to cancelling the services to people who don't pay. They can't vote for you; they can't vote against you; they can't vote. If they decide to start paying tax in order to vote against you then guess what? They now qualify for services. And will begin to resent the people who get the service but don't pay.
The Aberdonian, you know perfectly well that the Scots begged for the Poll Tax, and begged for it early.
ReplyDeleteThe "we've never paid anything, so we never will" lot managed to have riots in England. There was nothing like that in Scotland. The SNP is now introducing something suspiciously similar.
In any case, this way, the "we've never paid anything, so we never will" lot wouldn't have to pay. Just so long as they didn't want to vote.
Pshaw and Lee, you still seem to be under this illusion that everyone pays the Council Tax. Only householders do, and by no means all of them.
However many people currently pay the council tax, far fewer will once you give them the option not to.
ReplyDeleteHowever many people currently vote in local elections but don't pay the tax, only a vanishingly small percentage will choose to keep the vote and start paying a new tax.
Therefore, your fee wil either be astronomical, or services will be cut drastically.
This is an opportunity for non-householders who care about their communities to contribute. Same with the BBC, also including people who don't have televisions but love Radios 3 and 4. A lot of them about.
ReplyDeleteYou are spot on about people who don't own their houses. They can't possibly sell them so why should they be taxed on their value?
You shouldn't judge everyone by your own low standrds, Tish. And what exactly do you mean by "cuts in services"? With this level of accountability, not in the sorts of things that you would have in mind, even if only for propaganda purposes.
ReplyDeleteFrank, quite right. And even for people who do own their houses, what are they supposed to do, sell them and live in a tent or up a tree? Also, see above about the growing number of student landlords, one among several examples.
Tish can feel the axe swining close to his/her cushy non-job.
ReplyDeleteRight, so paying tax based on your income (as proposed by the SNP and indeed the Lib Dems) is exactly the same as everyone regardless of their size of income?
ReplyDeleteI would like to see which economics book you got that from?
Begging for it? Aye, right!
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there are two million low-income households struggling to pay council tax in England. By definition, they have householders, and they are not on a sufficiently low income to be exempt from council tax. If you tell them they don't have to pay, surely a significant proportion of them will stop paying - because they can barely afford to pay as it is. Won't they?
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I'd expect a decent proportion of affluent people who barely use council services anyway to stop paying, simply because they can, and they never liked council tax anyway, and they resent paying for things they don't use.
Why just council tax? Why not do this for tax in general - make it voluntary, but restrict democratic rights to those who pay (with appropriate exemptions for those on low incomes). If it will work at a local level, why won't it work at a national level?
ReplyDeleteIf you're guaranteeing the same services whether you opt to pay or not, you are not in fact asking people to pay for services. Instead, you are asking them to pay to vote in local council elections. There is no way that anything approaching even a noticeable minority of people would ever pay thousands of pounds a year for this privilege.
ReplyDeleteOh, and anonymous: at least I post under my own name.
As a very rough ballpark figure, average council tax is around £1,100 per year per liable household. How much do you think the average voluntary fee will be, David?
ReplyDeleteOf course they were, The Aberdonian, and you know that they were. They hated the rates, as well they might have done.
ReplyDeleteRumpety, if they are that poor, then they will still get it paid through the benefits system. The individual subscription will be far lower, as the Poll Tax used to be. Did all the schools close? Were the bins unemptied? And that, remember, was in the face of widespread non-payment of a compulsory tax.
Who "barely uses" council services? Unless they send your children to private schools (which very few people do), most people use about as many council services as each other regardless of income. In fact, there is often rather better, say, street lighting in more affluent areas.
Ussio, it would never work at national level because that lacks the immediacy that is so important to this level of accountability. It's just too big.
Djinn, heaven knows. It is beside the point, and would be for local councils themselves to decide (I am dead against capping, by the way).
ReplyDeleteTish, judging people by your own standards again. And there's that Political Class disdain for local government. Give it back its proper powers and force it to be accountable in its funding, and you'd find that people cared immensely about it.
As they used to, back when it had its proper powers, and way back when the right to vote for it was restricted (albeit by other means, which I do not advocate) to those who paid for it.
"Rumpety, if they are that poor, then they will still get it paid through the benefits system."
ReplyDeleteNo, these are people who are not poor enough to be exempt, but who are poor enough that council tax puts significant pressure on their budget. This group will exist wherever you draw the line exempting people from payment, unless the exemption is very generous and the tax is very low.
How can the cost of this be beside the point? How much something costs is pretty big factor in determining how many people will pay for it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they would be. The tax itself would no doubt be lower, just as the Poll Tax used to be.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, an argument against doing this at national leevl is that, of course, councils would still be receiving central government grants for statutory services.
This is about discretionary spending. And whether or not to have a health service or an army is not discretionary spending.
Nor is whether or not to have schools.
ReplyDeleteHence the continuing central grants. Extras, on the other hand, are precisely that.
ReplyDeleteIt would vary enormously based on what individual areas wanted.
ReplyDeleteProper local government.
Like in any comparable country.
And like in this country historically.
Don't forget a lot of those rioting against the poll tax were middle class students or graduate dossers not workers or ex-workers. Bringing back the rates in all but name was paid for by a 2.5% increase in VAT. Hardly helping the poor. Interesting what you say about student landlords.
ReplyDeleteAnd all the old rates exemptions were brought back - students, clergy, &c. Whereas the very poor had had the Poll Tax paid for them anyway.
ReplyDeleteHardly anyone votes in local elections, because local government has become at once emasculated and expensive, and very unaccountable (especially since the abolition of the old committee system, which gave individual councillors real clout and made it worthwhile to button-hole them in the street or the pub or wherever).
I want it to be once more powerful, relatively inexpensive, and very accountable.
People wouldn't pay? What else would they spend the money on? Getting private companies to empty the bins and sweep the streets? I don't think so!
ReplyDeleteI'm told that in much of the South that happens anyway, with the Council picking up the tab. Can't imagine that round here, I have to say. And thank goodness.
ReplyDeleteBut you are right, of course.
You know about tendering as well as I do. That private companies get tenders in Tory areas is because they fund the local Tory party. The public sector unions fund the local Labour party in Labour areas, so the council workers get the contracts.
ReplyDeleteWell, indeed.
ReplyDeleteThe whole cumbersome business of CCT, or Best Value, or whatever it now calls itself is an expression of contempt for local government on the part of the think tank adolescents of the Westminster Village, who decide these things.
Oh yes where is Jon today?
ReplyDeleteCouncil Tax is the only direct tax that the think tank adolescents pay. They would never dream of paying income tax. They know no one so poor that they have to pay it.
ReplyDeleteDo they even pay their own Council Tax, Frank?
ReplyDeleteTheir jobs are reserved - like those in all parties, the national media, &c - for people with sufficient independent means that they can live in Central London on a pittance.
I expect that Daddy pays their Council Tax. He pays for everything else.
Oh yes where is Jon today?
ReplyDeleteNow, now. Play nicely.
ReplyDelete