I SHARE the concern expressed by Mr Walter (Letters, May 13) about the unfairness of the council tax system. If he had read my letter of February 12, he would also have seen that I anticipated that someone (and I guessed it would be him) would propose a local income tax.

Let?s get it straight. Tax policy needs to be set on certain very simple principles. First, all tax is bound to be unfair ? people exist in a huge variety of different circumstances, and no universal system of tax can impact equally on all.

Second, it follows that the least objectionable tax system is one which imposes the lowest level of tax needed for the minimum necessary purposes of government ? be it central or local.

Third, services that are necessarily enjoyed ? or at least received ? by all must be paid for by all and provided with the maximum possible efficiency and economy, these qualities not being judged by the provider but by independent audit.

Fourthly, those services which are open to individual choice should be self-supporting by appropriate charges related to the service alone.

There is an overwhelming case for local services to be funded by those who use them, not just by those who own a house loaded with a totally spurious value, and irrespective of the number of people living in it.

Indeed, Mr Walter (probably unwittingly) is in fact making that very proposal by seeking a local income tax, which if he and his party had spent five minutes considering it, would have been instantly consigned to oblivion.

The idea that taxes should be levied on the basis of the ability to pay is an interesting one ? if I put £20 worth of petrol in my car of which £12 is tax, should I get a reduced price compared with my neighbour who earns twice as much as me? Would his scheme apply to VAT as well?

Come off it, Mr Walter: tax is never fair, it is only excessive. A basic standard levy on all adult residents for common services is fairer, with provision for relief in genuine cases of hardship. Optional services should be self-financing, with provision perhaps through DHSS for those whose sole state resources are insufficient to permit a reasonable enjoyment of them.

Geoffrey M Stowell

The Down, Bere Alston

MR Walter refers to ?one inaccuracy? and ?a glaring omission? in my letter published on April 22. There is a need to set the record straight.

Firstly, Mr Walter seems to have misread my letter concerning the ability of elected representatives to influence the police precept element of the council tax.

My letter commented that ?it is not clear to me how such increases get approval by local elected representatives?.

This remains the case. I have separately written to the police concerning their plan for 04/05 and their cost increases.

To date, I have had a specific response to my concerns on the policing plan and expect a reply on costs in due course. It is quite clear from previous correspondence with West Devon Borough Council that the Council has to collect tax on behalf of five bodies in total.

Concerning the supposed omission ? the overall amount and the burden, Mr Walter may or may not be aware that I have been in correspondence with our local MP on this subject and we have exchanged views.

There are a number of ways to reduce the tax burden and to improve fairness, but I suspect that this is a complex matter which requires serious input by a number of people. One thing, though, is becoming abundantly clear. Expecting a minor party to exert influence on our behalf in Westminster seems unrealistic. This is something we can all influence.

C D Park

Westlake Farm House

Lifton

l This correspondence is closed ? Editor