Hide accused of playing race card

**Ixion** · 21st August 2009, 16:32

Originally Posted by short-circuit

So you don't think that the capital value of the property owned should come into the cost of rates?

A poll tax would be premised on the basis that everyone is equal and clearly thats not so.....

"I live in a mansion but I only use one shithouse"?

I think not.

If you have a "in some way" progressive central government tax system (ie rich pay more than poor) then that takes care of the "from each according to his means" bit.

The rich need to pay more toward the cost of central government and CG services. It would be impractical to fund a health system , f'instance, on a flat tax basis. Because the sick are usually poor (cos they're sick, duh) and can't afford to pay much.

But as I noted I don't believe that local government should be involved in such areas at all. And for local government services , where most services ARE universal (as you note, the rich man's dunny contains about the same amount of shit as the poor man's ), a per head or per family unit system is both more efficient and fairer. ]

More efficient because it better signals people as to the actual cost of services. At present many members of society make extensive use of services for which they "appear" to pay nothing .Of course there is no free lunch, the services are paid for somewhere. But the nexus between supply of the service and payment for it is too remote to be observable by the consumer. So many people have an interest in demanding ever higher service levels, comfortable in their (admittedly mistaken) belief that *they* do not have to pay for them.

It should be inherent in the organisation of society that every person willing to do their best to contribute to society has the wherewithal to afford all such local body services . So "affordability" is not an issue as far as I am concerned. The poor man may have less left after paying his poll tax , to buy toys like motorbikes ,but he should have sufficient to pay for all the necessities of life. Note that I said "anyone willing to do their best to contribute". That may not include all the "poor". I have no brief to provide shirkers with a life of unearned indolence. When we do have a Communist government they'll be packed off to labour camps right smartish

Nor do I consider that any tax system , or any government , should indulge in taxation for the purpose of "punishing" the rich. It is no crime to be rich , if it be obtained by honest toil.

**MisterD** · 21st August 2009, 17:30

Originally Posted by short-circuit

You'll need to do better than that

Better than what? I was merely an making an observation that communism isn't exactly noted for the provision of desirable toys or exciting engineering. Look at what they did to Skoda - previously one of Europe's greatest and most innovative engineering firms...