Fully agree on the call by Dave coppard to bring back the poll tax , this tax when introduced was seen as obscene when in reality once people had stopped having a tantrum and if we had been retained it the majority would possibly be paying far less than than they do now in council tax .

Poll tax as stated is and always was in the long term the fairer option, the argument that your grown up children living at the property have to pay is a silly one why shouldn't they ? if they are in work and most pay a pepper corn rent if any to their parents why should they not pay their fare share of property tax .

Rather than whingeing about a few quid in retirement, why not look back positively on the fact that you were fortunate to grow to pensionable age in an economic period where you didn't start your career with £30k of education debt, had access to employment and were gifted property ownership. Then look what you've left the generation of today to face, that's unfair. They will be most likely be paying their Council Tax on someone else's property!

Irks me how people want the country's tax system to operate solely around them without any thought for others or what they've had.

As I tell my daughters 'Life isn't fair! So you have to get on with it and make the best of it that you can!'.

1. The poll tax was not based on income, it was a flat charge on each resident.

2. It took no account of special circumstances and millionaires were charged the same as paupers.

3. It lacked proper discounts for those in need.

4. It was a complete failure

The council tax is much better than the rates, where properties of equal value could be charged differently, but it requires a revaluation and more bands for higher value homes. It is still based on values calculated in 1993.

What planet is the letter writer living on?

Rather than winge move to a smaler house. That's what I'm doing, Poll tax was so regressive.

I think this is a complete and utter no brainer really. Why should people who have a higher income, pay more for the same services as people who earn less or on benefits ?

I already pay for National Insurance and Income tax,yet because I work and earn a good wage have to pay for prescriptions,dental treatment and glasses etc.While people on benefits are fully funded in these areas! Also improvement grants are only givern to people on benefits.I do actually go to work to fund my own lifestyle and costs not to subsidise people who can't be bothered to get themselves a higher income.

There are two people living in my household and we both work hard and earn a good wage.Why should we pay more than six people living in a house of low wage earners and benefit claiments? We do not use as many facilities as a six person household so where would the fairness be?

Perhaps the writer has hit upon a good point.....the introduction of the poll tax was the catalyst for the removal of Mrs Thatcher, so maybe the re-introduction of the poll tax could be the catalyst for the removal of Dave "Iggle Piggle" Cameron. Just a thought?

The funding of Local Authority spending is supposed to reflect the needs and provision of that authority. We all use bins and they are collected regardless of income or property size. We all had an education etc so the costs are generally equal to the property size. Council tax is a blunt tool because it is not progressive at the top end, only at the bottom through rebates. There is no single form of tax that can properly reflect property and wealth in one go. It could be argued that local income tax or local VAT might be better and the Poll tax was also better for some, it would be for me. However a combination of income tax, VAT and council tax may collectively reflect a balance.

In my view the best way forward is to have a couple of extra higher bands to collect more and a more generous income/needs based rebate system.

Or dispose of councils and council tax and transfer the whole thing to central government and fund from general taxation. That might save a fortune if local democracy is not delivering value for money. This looks quite attractive at the moment.

But no system is perfect.

Failed to to re-read what he'd written before hitting Submit..

Read the last two lines.

"...should be reinstated, as was the way under Margaret Thatcher when the poll tax was introduced.

And it should be based purely on the income of the people who are living in the property."

If it WERE based on purely the income then it WOULDN'T BE 'as was' when Thatcher did political suicide by introducing it.. Everyone can say 'should be this..' or 'should be that' Why invoke Thatcher if you don't want what she wanted? She wanted pure monetarism.

It helped her to lose her job, the hate of the people and the hate of many other Conservatives (obviously a majority as they put in the grey man - and here we are now with Cons propped up by people who wouldn't put the Poll Tax in.

Tell you what - lets let the Welsh govt have tax powers and experiment with Wales by putting the Poll Tax in its pure state as you seem to like... Times are different now. Hwyl fawr

Or Roger we could do it the other way and have a local income tax and no central government tax. Central government would be financed from local government. This would enhance local government powers and responsibilities decreases central government controls in every area bringing democracy closer to the people.

The poll tax caused national protests and eventually a huge riot in London in March 1990 which was the catalyst for the downfall of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister six months later. Six hundred years earlier, a similar poll tax led to the Peasants' Revolt and eventual murder of King Richard II. In both cases the cause was the manifest unfairness of the lord of the manor paying the same as the local pauper in taxes. This was a problem not even Thatcher had an answer for and even today it lacks a satisfactory solution. So with a king being bumped off and a prime minister ending up in tears I don't think it is considered a priority on the No. 10 diary.

Yeah lets tax the poor even more whilst the filthy rich take an even bigger slice of pie. How about banning all tax loopholes/havens.

I don't think I would trust SCC to run a bath under its current leadership but that only makes them marginally worse than the Posh Boys.

The point is that it seems strange to me that SCC run the schools with money given to them by central government and spent as directed by central goverment. Whats the point?

The traffic lights, bike lanes and silly bollards and not local inventions they have to under some uninformed central government guideline applied without thought. So why do we pay for multilevel government when only one level actually dictates the spending. It very expensive to install masses of councilors to say theres nothing we can do about it.

my dad worked and had to pay poll tax not only for himself but also for my mother who didn't work and didn't receive any benefits. I wasn't working at the time and also had to pay - the same amount as a working person. and as far as i remember EVERYONE paid the same no matter their wage. What's fair about that?

Lyndy i do not remember it being like that if i remember if you worked and were over 18 you paid .Your mother was i assume a housewife whats the difference with the council tax the bill payer still pays for her .

I remember my wife and i both working in full time jobs and both paying poll tax, they brought in the council tax we had one years grace via a rebate because the price difference was greater and then ended up paying as it was back then double what we paid under the poll tax, and double what we paid under the old rates system. Own goal for the majority of joe public i thought.

Yes Roger under its present leadership! but if we turned things around the locals would be much more important and have more power and thus people would be more inclined to vote for them and we might get better representation, the central government would only deal with central issues and would not have its own tax raising powers.

Lyndy perhaps it is not fair but the poll tax was based on users, the argument would be, working or not you still are using the services, the other side is why is it fair for only people who have houses to pay. Perhaps we need a local income tax that would be based on peoples ability to pay.

£30 per month Poll Tax

£122 per month Council Tax.

I know which one of the two I consider to be the fairest!!

For those who are comparing the council tax with the old rates system. Please do not forget the stealthy introduction of privatisation of water and sewerage.

The rates included these charges but now it is a separate charge on a commercial basis with no low income relief available. It is also allowed RPI + increases for that investment they were going to make.

We were all well ripped of in the confusion of the changes as we have been again with the unitary councils.

Where are the savings that should have made and what happened to the Swimming Baths money Shrewsbury saved and earmarked. Why are they privatising everything so that we can not control the costs. They have been preset in a contract with RPI based inflators whilst direct labour costs are falling due to pay freezes and reductions?

We are paying more for contractors and suppliers to improve their profits so I can well understand why Pensioners are wondering how they reached the point where a quarter of their income is going to the Council ,when Councils are reducing the services to support pensioners.

It might make sense to the Council Leader in the Shire Hall but it makes no sense out here.

@Wayne Chetwood £30 per month, get a time machine and head back to the 1980's

I would favour a 'mansion' council tax. The cap is so low. I pay G for a 4 bed house while my neighbour only pays H for 30 beds.

The letter writer appears not to have understood the Tories' motive in introducing a poll tax - it was yet another mechanism of enuring that the rich paid less proportionately in tax at the expense of the poor.

Forget the scenario that was so often quoted of the little old lady living in a big house who would pay less - this was countered by the argument that under the heinous poll tax the little ld lady in a tiny house or flat would pay more than previously!

We need progressive rather than regressive taxes in this country. The very wealthy already have tax breaks that the rest of us can only dream of - why would we want to give them more? The simple fact is that if we could only get the wealthy to pay tax on all of their income, even at the rate of 25% (just as the ret of us have to via PAYE in most cases) then we could massively reduce local taxes for everyone.

Don't forget - we are a wealthy country. The problem we have is that 95% of our wealth is in the hands of just 5% of the population - and the disparity is widening. Until we address this with a tax system that applies fairly to all, the vast majority of us are just fighting over the scraps from the master's table.