johnfromyorkshire.bsky.social
Looking for a better future for the forgotten regions of England. https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/author/johnhall/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1kWHOLlDUdWvxVlBmSy2KZhJdwKzOm3ERA7iUKmDQc8_PGARjmpoIVFbs_aem_kpVJ2anHcYsA4A2bkZsiXw
54 posts
443 followers
272 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
A step towards One Yorkshire, a huge opportunity that was rejected by the Tories in 2019. Better and stronger together. An integrated transport must be the priority, a necessity to underpin a boost to our regional economy. Well done.
comment in response to
post
This proves the One Yorkshire proposal rejected by the Tories in 2019 was a missed opportunity. Stronger together. Priority must be our broken transport system. Let's get our people moving again.
comment in response to
post
Trump would be wise not to take this guy on.
comment in response to
post
York is the ancient capital and is neutral and would be acceptable. A great historic city to bring leaders of industry. Sheffield needs investment it has good accessibility and connectivity but has not got what it deserves.
comment in response to
post
The short answer is Yes. Yorkshire people will manage their own affairs much better from say York, than disinterested politicians in Westminster & Whitehall.
comment in response to
post
Casey Payton is right, She says "I think local and regional policymakers are aware of the issues in some ways, probably much more aware of the issues than the national government is"
This, and why we at the Yorkshire Party champion regional governance. Without it we continue to be a dived country.
comment in response to
post
This is an article on a suggestion for a fairer system not a policy document as you appreciate. Inland Revenue is best placed to collect taxes. All people who benefit from council services would be in the system, with a sensible minimum and maximum contribution based on income. Assessment for some.
comment in response to
post
The 2% is still a fairly sizable amount in cash terms to a council struggling for funding. Monies are also written off. The main benefit of the propossl is fairness, better budget control, removing the stress particularly from hard pressed families juggling their budget. Non-payment issues looming
comment in response to
post
The inland revenue would be responsible to collect the tax alongside PAYE and income tax as they hold all the records. Yes, it would be part of the balance of a national taxation policy, but paying according to your income as you do PAYE is fairer and much easier and less costly
comment in response to
post
It would not be a locally based tax system as this is one of the main problems. Centrally collected alongside PAYE and income tax, fairly distributed to the regions who would be responsible for spending allocation where best needed.
comment in response to
post
We do have a few dodgers I agree. I suspect the Inland Revenue could have a band for those people who obviously have a good life style but are having problems proving where their income comes from. An assessed payment. These peope should not stop a fairer system for all. The present system is dire.
comment in response to
post
The current system is unfair It would be folly to tinker with it. AI will shortly revolutionise the Tax system and prevention of tax avoidance and fraud. It would make sense for taxes to be collected by one system, leaving the local councils to allocate the funds according to the regions need.
comment in response to
post
It is designed for families that struggle on a low income to pay less. Spread the burden. All working people and people not working who currently pay tax from a non earned income would pay according to their means.
comment in response to
post
The funds would be collected centrally by the Inland Revenue. Funds would be allocated according to their needs and spending decisions left in the hands of the councils. A centralised collection system does not equate to centralised decision making. Far from being undemocratic.
comment in response to
post
You have read it wrong. The tax is collected by the Inland revenue, one big pot and distributed fairly to avoid that problem.
comment in response to
post
But it does. The tax would be a nationwide tax based on income. The regions are funded according to their needs. At the present time the unfair council tax only covers around 52% of expenditure, a lot comes from the central government currently.
comment in response to
post
They have investment income and somehow have plenty in their current account. These people are known by the inland revenue. A reasonable tax would be levied. Those proving difficult could be assessed.
comment in response to
post
They would still pay more. No system is perfect. What has come out of this is the system now is broken Millionairs in Westminster paying less than a Motor Mechanic in Gateshead.
comment in response to
post
The poll tax was a poor ill thought out policy. It relied on individuals to register. It was a flat rate, rich paid the same as a minimum wage earner. The council was responsible for collection. Totally different.
comment in response to
post
This would also be an option. It still leaves councils having to administer the system locally, arrears, track and trace people,
comment in response to
post
People usually downsize to release capital or to move to a smaller manageble house. People who are reluctent to move for family or neighborly reasons will usually stay. There are too many other reasons not to make this change. Doing nothing should not be an option.
.
comment in response to
post
I would be interested if you would elucidate.
comment in response to
post
You may be surprised but I actually believe in regional governance, however how can a deprived region starved on infrastructure investment be in a position to raise local taxes to fund their region. High council taxes from a low wage economy does not work.
comment in response to
post
I propose a fair allocation. I do not have enough information at hand to say more than that. Would you have any suggestions?
comment in response to
post
It would not be a local tax this is the problem. Poor areas deprived of infrastructure spending need more, so the local council levies heavy taxes. This is why millionaire bankers in Westminster pay less than a factory worker in Gateshead.
comment in response to
post
This is a tax on the individual who benefits from council services. It is not regional but central, just as income tax is now. The councils receive a settlement as per its needs. Council tax only amounts to an average of 52% of the total, central government contributes a fair amount of the total.
comment in response to
post
Please explain further.
comment in response to
post
Yes Tim, I prefer STV, fairly straight forward and one the electorate can get behind. It seems to scare our politicians as does regional governance.
comment in response to
post
Labour should refer to their publication.
"that no matter how well-intentioned the powers-that-be are, the one size fits all solutions of the past, imposed from the top, cannot work to the benefit of people everywhere" no one-size-fits-all "
@teamlabouruk.bsky.social
labour.org.uk/wp-content/u...
comment in response to
post
Leeds is the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system, so that is a considerable investment needed. But I will assure you other Yorkshire towns and communities will do better with a Yorkshire government than a London administration.
comment in response to
post
This would have been a priority for a Yorkshire Regional Government but not for Westminster/Whitehall. The sooner Yorkshire is allowed to run its own affairs the better.
comment in response to
post
Have a great day. Remember first going to the Cutty Wren Folk Club in 1965. Good that it is still going strong. Best wishes.
comment in response to
post
I will go with Whitby, Robin Hoods Bay and Runswick Bay.