Originally posted by Black Star Uchess interesting, am opposed to local income tax as it would be even more beurocratic then the current system ..again you just replicate the job of the treasury across 100s of councils ... then top them again as some will still not make enough... it sounds 'fair' but think it would not work,
the harsh truth is most of the council staff and bailiffs ...[text shortened]... ax.. 1000s..
serve no useful purpose. we could have less tax / more services without them ..
You'd also have less local control.
A local area's elected representatives - councillors - need to be able to increase or decrease the spending in their area, as well as prioritise it, and to be held accountable for what they've decided to do.
Originally posted by Redmike You'd also have less local control.
A local area's elected representatives - councillors - need to be able to increase or decrease the spending in their area, as well as prioritise it, and to be held accountable for what they've decided to do.
i can't think of a bank anywhere that would have 1000 separate credit control depts
for each area of the country.. someone would point out this is stupid.
i think govts should tax in the most effecient way possible , then spend seperately.
some of the council staff could be put to better use regulating the poor landlors we have
Originally posted by Black Star Uchess i can't think of a bank anywhere that would have 1000 separate credit control depts
for each area of the country.. someone would point out this is stupid.
i think govts should tax in the most effecient way possible , then spend seperately.
some of the council staff could be put to better use regulating the poor landlors we have
Yes, but the government isn't a bank.
It has to balance efficiency with democracy.
The most efficient way to tax, presumably, is to have a government of a single individual who decides the tax rate - all those representatives and voting is so inefficient.