PDA

View Full Version : Re-assessment of house values for council tax banding.


Malissa Fawthort
2nd Apr 2005, 12:56
House values are being re-assessed to enable adjustments to council tax banding. Whatever “they” say about some going down, some staying the same and some going up, you can bet your boots that the band divisions will not increase in line with the increased assessment of house values, resulting in the overall effect of a considerable increase in costs to the majority of householders, and a considerable increase in revenue.

In reality, the situation is that – regardless of how much your house may have increased in value – it is still the same house, receiving the same services from the same council/government. Therefore, these services should cost the same (given the normal rate of increase due to inflation and any possible increased local-specific increases due to changes in provision of services). What should happen – surely - is that when they re-assess the house values, they should also re-assess the boundaries of the bands proportionately. Hands up all those who think that will happen.


Can anyone explain the logic to me, apart from saying it’s another way to introduce an extra slice of taxation?

Sailor Vee
2nd Apr 2005, 13:22
The main thing here is that wages have not 'doubled' in the same period. So how can 'they' justify a re-assessment that follows these lines?:confused:

As stated, this is yet another version of a stealth tax, this time enabling local councils to charge a **** site more.:(

Glad I moved to a country where this doesn't apply.:cool:

Jerricho
2nd Apr 2005, 13:24
saying it’s another way to introduce an extra slice of taxation?

Nope, that sounds about right,

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 14:06
But why shouldn't the cost of services provided increase in line with the increase in house prices? :rolleyes:

Wingswinger
2nd Apr 2005, 15:14
Because not all of us want all of the services. I have no need of a lesbian outreach counsellor, for example.

Rollingthunder
2nd Apr 2005, 15:21
A flawed system. Value of real estate really has nothing to do with the cost of council services which should be on a cost plus something basis with rises based on inflation not on the somewhat artificial value of the houses themselves.

Sailor Vee
2nd Apr 2005, 15:23
Airship

But why shouldn't the cost of services provided increase in line with the increase in house prices?

The argument against this is that the average house price has doubled since the last valuations were taken, wages certainly have not, nor has the quality of the services, (in fact most of the services have worsened). But the amount taken for the services is gauged against the value of the property, and not what the occupant earns.

Would you expect to have an increase for services that is way over inflation/the rpi? (About 40 to 45% above).

This is especially true for the pensioner households, who have no way of meeting increased payments using this method.

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 15:38
Value of real estate really has nothing to do with the cost of council services...artificial value of the houses themselves. Nothing artificial about house prices when the house is sold though. That's real money coming in after all...! :ok:

Sailor Vee, But the amount taken for the services is gauged against the value of the property, and not what the occupant earns. So when someone sells their property, should they go "Oh drat, that's so much more compared to how incomes have risen, I can't accept it..."?! :confused:

I'm not sure how one separates council taxes with capital gains, income, worth and tax benefits etc. in order to see the bigger picture... :}

Malissa Fawthort
2nd Apr 2005, 16:04
Nothing artificial about house prices when the house is sold though. That's real money coming in after all...!
So when someone sells their property, should they go "Oh drat, that's so much more compared to how incomes have risen, I can't accept it..."?!

Yes airship, but you seem to forget that when you sell your house you usually need to buy another one --- at its vastly inflated price –-- so you gain little or nothing. In fact you also get hit with estate agents' fees, valuers' fees and solicitors’ fees.
I'm not sure how one separates council taxes with capital gains, income, worth and tax benefits etc. in order to see the bigger picture
Council taxes are - allegedly - to provide the income to allow the provision of services to the occupants. Furthermore, you also seem to forget that we are already hit for those other taxes.

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 16:18
...when you sell your house you usually need to buy another one --- at its vastly inflated price –-- so you gain little or nothing. Unless you take the profit and move across the Chunnel...



Council taxes are - allegedly - to provide the income to allow the provision of services to the occupants... Yup, just like road tax...

acbus1
2nd Apr 2005, 16:24
But why shouldn't the cost of services provided increase in line with the increase in house prices?
I typed this reply when the thread was young.....it's raced ahead whilst I was single finger punching, and I'll be blowed if I'm not going to post now.............

Council tax pays for services.....education, fire, police, refuse, social services etc.

(a) -- Council tax increases, therefore, should correspond to the increases in the cost of providing those services.

(b) -- House price increases are related to supply and demand in the housing market and the cost of borrowing.

(a) and (b) are not related.

See?

-----------

Now consider that Council Tax has increased at a massively greater rate than inflation for many years, that services have become poorer, that staff levels have soared, that job descriptions have become ever more ludicrous in their stupidity, that jobs are guaranteed for life and that pensions are the best there is and you can see where all the money is going

You can also see the mindset of the thieves setting Council Tax levels and, as per the subject of this thread, specifying the tax bands of various housing types.

Daylight f%^*%£g robbery.


There, I feel better now. :O

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 16:33
But can't all the people who are engaged in providing these services and do not own property aspire to acquire the same difficulties nevertheless? In which case there is every reason why council tax inflation should increase to match house price inflation. In fact, I believe that Tony recently made it clear that he wants to help 1st time buyers get on the ladder...

B4N, I have to go feed the cats their fish...

Malissa Fawthort
2nd Apr 2005, 16:51
You don't have to OWN the property to pay council tax ..... you just have to LIVE in it, so they DO all have the same "difficulties". This makes the disproportionate increases even more unfair, as those who cannot afford a house still have to pay the same as those who do own their house, unless of course they are on income support or some such thing.

Anyway, who says that just because you work as a dustman or a policeman etc, you do not own a house? Is there some new law against it that I have not heard of?

Greenie from Hell
2nd Apr 2005, 17:03
But why council tax inflation should increase to match house price inflation .

Approx 4 years ago, I purchased a new car, which cost me £18,000. Today, this car is valued at around £9000, has my vehicle tax dropped by 50% over 4 years? has it fu&k.

I believe that Tony recently made it clear that he wants to help 1st time buyers get on the ladder...

If Tony was so eager to help first time buyers, why not set the point at which stamp duty starts at a more realistic level?, or even abolish it totally for first time buyers. Around here, £120,000 would buy you a garage, or enable you to put down a deposit on a house.

GFH

PilotsPal
2nd Apr 2005, 17:39
My parents' house (way out in the sticks) falls one band higher than my house in London. Theirs is a large country house in a very small rural village with big outbuildings and land around it. Mine is a terrace with about 90' of rear garden. The whole system is flawed.

I really liked the poll tax system which was based on a set amount per adult individual but that was deemed totally inequitable.

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 18:04
You don't have to OWN the property to pay council tax ..... you just have to LIVE in it, so they DO all have the same "difficulties... Not the same difficulties, no. Those who don't own their own homes don't have the "problem" of getting more out of their homes than they can get out of their 9 to 5 jobs. UK home ownership is about 70% now. If the majority are subject to increasing taxes, well that sounds fair, even liberal. But I'll wager that the majority of people who are engaged in providing the services in question to households don't come anywhere close to the 70% threshold. And I didn't say
that just because you work as a dustman or a policeman etc, you do not own a house? Is there some new law against it that I have not heard of?

If Tony was so eager to help first time buyers, why not set the point at which stamp duty starts at a more realistic level?, or even abolish it totally for first time buyers. Around here, £120,000 would buy you a garage, or enable you to put down a deposit on a house. Unless those council tax rises are going directly into wages, then maybe Tony (or should that be Gordon?) should ensure that the government remains neutral on whether people buy or rent their homes. Unless of course, the intention is merely to fuel house price inflation. Increase the feel-good factor. And get reelected. :}

anoxic
2nd Apr 2005, 21:28
I can't see that what house you live has to do with the price of anything. Why should I pay more for a bottle of shampoo because I have an extra bedroom? Why should you pay less for a chair because you only have one toilet? Trying to price local services this way is just as ridiculous. The whole argument for any connection to your house is totally specious and illogical. If funds are needed for local government, let central government provide them from income tax already collected, god knows I pay enough of that!

airship
2nd Apr 2005, 21:43
Why should taxes for local services be priced any differently compared to income taxes? Where what you pay for a bottle of shampoo, whether or not you have one chair or an outside toilet, has relevance to wealth and to the taxes you eventually pay...

Malissa Fawthort
3rd Apr 2005, 08:46
airship --- either you are 'avin' a larf and winding us up, or you live in some strange tropical place where some peculiar bug has bitten you and the result is that your powers of thought and reasoning have been devastated. ;) :E

Why should taxes for local services be priced any differently compared to income taxes? Where what you pay for a bottle of shampoo, whether or not you have one chair or an outside toilet, has relevance to wealth and to the taxes you eventually pay...
Income tax takes into account how much a person earns and causes him/her to contribute towards the nation’s coffers in a manner which is reasonable for his/her relative wealth for the most part (although there are probably instances where the extremely wealthy do not pay proportionately as much as the less wealthy). Once a person has contributed to the nation’s revenue appropriately for their income, why on earth should they then have to pay more for something because they are earning more than someone else.

Are you therefore saying that if someone earns £60000 per year he/she should pay 3 times as much for a bottle of shampoo as someone who earns £20000 per year? Because that is exactly the same as paying more for services through your council tax just because you happen to live in (not own) an expensive house. It also depends - of course - on where you live in the UK. If you sold your 7 bedroom mansion on 15 acres in the middle of Wales or in the far north of the country, you might (if you are extremely lucky) be able to buy a one-bedroom flat in Chelsea. So the cost of the property bears no relationship to your actual standard of living or your ability to pay extortionate rates of council tax, based on your property value.

Wingswinger
3rd Apr 2005, 09:01
I really like the poll tax system which was based on a set amount per adult.......

Yep. It was fair. It fell because millions of people who were hitherto getting something for nothing suddenly had to pay for it. They're back to getting something for nothing while the rest of us stagger around under an increasing weight of taxation.

We need a complete reform of the entire tax system. Top to bottom, left to right. It is a means of raising revenue for government so that it can provide the framework of civilisation and some services, it is not so politicians can indulge in social engineering.

UniFoxOs
3rd Apr 2005, 09:13
It's all a bit immaterial anyway. The bands haven't risen in line with inflation. Houses are re-banded when they change hands. Eventually every house will be in the top band and we'll all be paying the same.

PilotsPal
3rd Apr 2005, 09:15
Council employees are among the elite group of those whose pensions are paid on a generous defined benefit basis and funded from the public purse. I'm sure they don't lie awake wondering what they will do if their employer fails and most of their accrued pension won't be forthcoming.

In my local authority, jobs in the Cleansing Department are always sought after because part of the job gives access to the three large waste disposal tips. Believe me, anything that has or might have any kind of resale or scrap value is very carefully picked out and put aside for later trading.

High Wing Drifter
3rd Apr 2005, 09:29
All said and done I think we generally get a good deal in Surrey. The streets are very clean, the flora is well managed, traffic calming is sensible, waste disposal is pretty well serviced, crime is low, the rivers clean, plently of parks, lakes and general green spaces, the play areas are clean and well managed, the local municipal 9 hole par 27 golf course is still challenging if you only bring a 9, P, S and putter. In addition good use is made of brown fields, plenty of sports facilities. There are one or two perplexing road works, but as the roads are generally in good nick I assume most of those are preventative. If needs be I wouldn't mind paying a little more to keep things ticking over nicely. The trunk road system is now so good that I can go for a 30 mile bike ride and only see a handful of cars in the lanes, very pleasant.

Council employees are among the elite group of those whose pensions are paid on a generous defined benefit basis and funded from the public purse
Yes, but most earn quite a low wage. So you either pay more in salary and let them p*ss it up the wall, or you accept that this is one group of people who are going to be less of an economic burden in their later years.

Loose rivets
3rd Apr 2005, 09:46
It is and always has been, manifestly unfair.

When I was first married, my rates were £500 ish, and I used to sit on my garden wall and chat to a man--with a broom and little trolley--who kept the roads pristine. Lads with mowers trimmed the side-walk lawns and two chaps kept the towns pavements level.

By the time I sold the house, the rates were £3,000 ish and the friendly faces were gone. I would run out of the house waving my arms to try to stop contractors from mowing the turf clean off the earth...they hit the trees so that the bark was damaged and the trees died and fell into the road. Nobody leveled the footpaths. You had to take your garbage nicely bagged into piles...OR ELSE! Call a cop?...you could, but you may as well not bother. Very little property crime actually went to court. (Too busy prosecuting 33mph speeding criminals, while kids screeched round the town without challenge.)

It's bewildering. For reasons that I don't understand, a house can rise 3000%, and then some "£$^%"£^ comes round and says that you must now pay more than you used to earn in a year, if you want to continue living in your own home. The fact that you have grown old--and just want to live peacefully within the financial bracket that you have leveled off at–seems to escape them.

7006 fan
3rd Apr 2005, 10:04
Here's an argument I have had many times and not yet been able to reconcile.
Single person earning 30k, buys big house (lives alone) in a more rural location, no street lights etc, generates 3 'Tesco' bags of rubbish every week, say house is band F.
Family of 5 earning 30k, live in a 3 bed house (three children one of which is say 6m old, generate 1-2 wheely-bins of rubbish per week, live in a town with street lights and locally available; facilities sports centre, library and so forth. Family receives child benefit for each child, also additional tax credits due to income and size of family. Say house is band C/D. 3-4 times the demand on services (doctor, social, education etc) yet Band C/D pay less than Band F but for more services.
Local income tax could work, possibly a local 'person tax' to reflect lifestyle choices.
I agree, the value of a property should not set the amount of local service charge because of the reasons outlined above.
of course we must also not forget that higher value houses attract high amounts of, what I consider to be the most hated 'tax' -next to Inheritance Tax (why should a family whose parents strove hard all their life to provide for their children end up being clouted by a tax set at 40% -assume this figure is based on the assumption that only higher rate tax payers are likly to benefit from inheritance), but if the family live in a Council house they get an automatic right to occupy and then sell a couple of years down the line and pay nothing!!!:*
anyway, the tax I was referring to was Stamp Duty -up to 3% for doing what?
S*D ALL

:* :confused:

finalchecksplease
3rd Apr 2005, 10:09
Rest assured that this exercise will increase the council tax for most of us, that’s the reason why they want to do it in the first place: higher income to spend on worse services.
I’m all for a “continental” style tax system where the council tax is taken out of your wages (so more difficult for most to dodge it) and it’s in relation of what you earn. Of course this system has it’s downfalls as well (self employed might cook the books a bit).
It would also make people realize how much indirect taxes one pays in the land of Gordon B, in saying so I know it will never happen….
One seems also to forget that people who own houses (that have gone up a lot in value) paid for them with earnings they paid taxes on already and when they pass away the government again takes it cut via inheritance taxes …

Better get of my high horse for the day

mary_hinge
3rd Apr 2005, 10:28
Pound to a pinch that the re-banding will add half a dozen extra levels: at present, certainly in this area, council tax in this area is capped at around band “H,” set at a property value of £320 K. What’s the betting we soon see a band “N” at £1 Mill.

Half the value increase on my property, and many others, is not only due to house inflation but also on-going improvements for which we have already paid 17.5% VAT!

A local tax, similar to State Side is, in my opinion, the fairer option.

airship
3rd Apr 2005, 10:31
Malissa, I can be highly cantankerous sometimes. And yesterday was one of them. :O
My rates for 2004 were only €288 (£198) so I shouldn't complain.

Solid Rust Twotter
3rd Apr 2005, 10:33
Sounds like any governments wet dream: Tax people for paying tax... :(

lexxity
3rd Apr 2005, 14:38
Council tax is a bloody disgrace, what do we actually get for it, the average citizen, gets their bins (we have three varieties at the mo') emptied if they're lucky (better not overfill it though, or you'll get a red sticker and a telling off), bugger all policing (in the borough we live in we have two massive, shiny new police stations, but no extra officers to fill them!), the fire brigade (which, touch wood, we will not have any need of, but obviously they still need money) and pot-holed roads, uneven pavements, no state nurseries except on the council estates, to get a place you have to be on benefits, overworked, understaffed doctors surgeries, one NHS dentist in the town. Our rates now our over a grand a year, so when they out it up, which they will, can I expect to see an improvement in the services my money "pays" for?
Can I f£$k.

Wingswinger
3rd Apr 2005, 17:57
Therefore privatise the lot.

High Wing Drifter
3rd Apr 2005, 18:20
7006fan,

If you recall nearly everybody protested (the riots aside) about poll tax because it meant that they were paying more than standard rates. This relatively fair system was demolished and replaced by council tax, all part of living in a democracy (or at least the silhouette of one).

The only logical replacement is to assume that a large house means more people and hence more services.

The argument about living on a street without any street lighting doesn't hold much water. You live in country, you drive or walk around the place there for you are using those services. Lighting, sewers, etc cannot be attributed to the location of a house, but it is not entirely unreasonable to assume the house has as many people as it has bedrooms. The same as it is reasonable to a assume a large car pollutes more. The cost of assessing every individual in the coutry so they pay only the exact and fair anount for services used would be astronomical.

lexxity
3rd Apr 2005, 18:37
The same as it is reasonable to a assume a large car pollutes more.

and we all know what utter ballixs that is, my car has a 2L engine and barely registers on the emissions scale, but a knackered old 1.1 that is spewing out [email protected] pays less road tax based on emissions. What a joke:mad:

7006 fan
3rd Apr 2005, 19:36
HWD,
I remember the Poll Tax riots and protests, bit similar to the protests we now have about ID cards. Not that any of us should have any issue with ID cards :O as a general form, the holding of certain personal inforation could be risky (but an electronic finger-print- who could have a problem with that?)
Council Tax is certainly a pain, a local income tax/poll tax/community charge would be disadvantageous to the 'better-off', I put this in inverted commas because a lot of people who are perceived to have high incomes actually can have less disposable income due to higher outgoings.
I do not know what the answer is, collectivisation as they do with Business Rates is not an option, in my opinion. (for those who are not aware, the rates paid by offices, shops airports etc do not go to the council but straight to the Treasury, who then decide who gets what).
Privatisation is an option but that would lead to 'Ghettoisation' of certain areas.
The irony is, Governments only talk about changing these sorts of things in a 'Bull Market', when the 'Bears' are about no-one comes out to play!
And we all know what happened to the housing market following the introduction of the Council Tax (thank you Mr Lamont!).

:{

16 blades
3rd Apr 2005, 20:33
Scrap local government altogether - I've never been quite able to work out exactly what purpose local government serves, except as a job creation scheme for useless fools who are incapable of holding down a job in the real world.

Airship, your arguments are based upon the usual left-wing dogma that the world owes people a living, and that the wealthy should be made to cough up to pay for it. Council Tax is unfair, illogical and, in my opinion, untenable. God help all those Lesbian Outreach Concillors and 5-a-day co-ordinators when the Tories are back in power and they are forced to hold down a real job in the real world. And I will be laughing my tits off......

16B

PilotsPal
3rd Apr 2005, 21:26
I don't think the assumption that each dwelling has one occupant per bedroom is a very reasonable one. There are plenty of couples and widows/widowers still living in substantial family houses long after the rest of the family has moved on. Likewise many single people have two bedrooms - in fact I can't think of a single solo-dwelling acquaintance who does live in a one bedroom residence.

In fact, I know a single lady who lives in grand style in a completely gorgeous period flat with six bedrooms.

Paterbrat
3rd Apr 2005, 22:06
It follows the logic of death duties. Money that was earned by a person who paid tax upon it and then wished to pass it on to his heirs, sadly relinquished possession upon his death, the money, now considered untaxed can now be taxed once more????
The income tax office really doesn't need to justify what they do simply gather revenue from wherever they can without formenting revolt. However one has to consider the fact that if the government did not allow at least some to pass untaxed those most likely to really really raise a stink and go totaly anarchic would do so. Only when you have a certain level of wealth or are foolish enough to be living in a house that can be taxed by the council and be considered as having something you didn't wish to risk are obviously then you are a good taxeable target. The extremely wealthy can afford the brightest minds best accountants and tax specialists to bring their taxes down to the lowest possible. The lowest bands don't pay much, below that are probably on support. The hardest working middle band end up doing just that, bearing the burden. Logical not really, can the government get away with it yes. Will the present government raise taxes if they get in again yes. Will councils continue to raise taxes yes. Did I make a lot of sense not really, about as much sense as the raising of council taxes based upon the rise in value of your property, other than of course the fact that you now have more for them to take from.

LowNSlow
4th Apr 2005, 00:17
Council Charge, don't make me laugh. I pay 2,200 squids pa to have the priviledge of roads full of craters and a local school that depends upon fund raising to buy books and computers.

What I'm REALLY looking forward to is our wonderful Chancellor (Reichschancellor) passing the bill that says that we have to pay taxes on profit made selling our place of residence. OK I'm not ecstatic about paying 40% tax on selling a second home but paying 40% on the difference between the purchase price and the selling price of the house you live in is a tax worthy of armed rebellion. Stuff the Poll Tax Riots, burn down Westminster if they pass such a crass law.

My dad left the RAF in 1946 after visting enemy parts 36 times and dithering around the Empire in clapped out Stirlings for a while. When he left he bought a little house for 450 quid. Now it's worth around 130,000 ish. He's 86. If he dies and my mum sells the house she is going to be liable for the thick end of 50 grand in tax. Scandalous.

effortless
4th Apr 2005, 00:36
I do get upset at council tax but perhaps for different reasons. I think that it is ludicrous that my aged Ma and her ilk pay a higher percentage of their income in overall tax than I do. I have been a higher rate tax payer for a good part of my life and in truth I have never resented it too much. To pay 40% on over, what is it £35,000? It is not that onerous. Paying £25 per week council tax out of a £140 per week pension is onerous. Come you lot have you forgotten when the basic rate of income tax was 35%. More income tax for those of us who are earning it and less coucil tax which hits everyone I say.

7006 fan
4th Apr 2005, 08:29
LNS,

I too had heard the rumour that the 'canny Scot' was looking at CGT on owner occupation, I thought it was a sick joke created by a warped mind!!:uhoh:

Loose rivets
4th Apr 2005, 09:08
That, plus the bewildering stamp duty, should bring the housing market to a total collapse. Ho hum, why am I getting this feeling of ‘having been (there) before'?

My home went to 40% of its 1989 value in 1992. Kids all gone, but selling was then out of the question for the next ten years.

To quote myself "The fact that you have grown old--and just want to live peacefully within the financial bracket that you have leveled off at–seems to escape them."

As it happened, pulling out of that place was my call, but it was still pretty horrible after 33 years. If I had been forced out, just because of tax, it would have been terrible. For some folk, their home is all that's left. The memories of families on the other side of the globe and husband / wives departed. These people at least should be allowed that peace of mind.

Having said all this, there is quite a bit of relief for folks that do not have huge cash savings...or other property. Over 60s can hold more than under 60s. It is a form of soc sec however, so not to everyone's liking. Here, I pay $3.2k for a bungalow. No excuses...No pay. No house, and no sympathy.

slim_slag
4th Apr 2005, 09:56
£1300 per year to the inefficient thieving gits and they won't even collect my most bulky waste product (that's glass wine bottles). Local recycling skip is round the back of the village pub, which does help relieve the pain of carrying them there.

Paterbrat
4th Apr 2005, 19:23
Another term with the present government will be a dose of Animal Farm revisited. Snowball and his pals will get fatter even more of them will become the Lords and Ladies they so despised before, while the working farm animals will groan under the greater loads imposed upon them to pay for all the increased 'prosperity' and greater number of rules to protect them. Oh yes their stables will of course be re-valued and they will be it completely logical follows have to be given extra tasks to pay for their 'more valuable' sleeping places.

That Orwell chappie walked the walk and sussed those high principled talkers out well enough he really did.

Wingswinger
4th Apr 2005, 19:37
simply gather revenue from wherever they can without fomenting revolt

So let's foment one. It's time they were told enough is enough.

7006 fan
4th Apr 2005, 20:14
Let's get it on, what do we call it?
We've had the Orange Revolution (Ukraine), the Rose Revolution (Georgia), Velvet Revolution (Czechosovakia). What colour do we want, prunes are sort of brown but start off purple, start off slightly misty and furry and end up all shrivelled.
do we want to be a Collective, a Soviet, Maoist, Fascist, Communist or just a plain uninteresting UK party against anything the others offer and for everything they aren't!!! -ooops that's all three of them innit!!!

:{

I am off to find an island somewhere and be my own boss

:ok:

airship
4th Apr 2005, 20:43
effortless :ok:

16 blades, if the Tories get to form the next government, it'll be because Labour was voted out... :8

Some people seem to have an almost deific image of how they got to where they are today. And their abilities to maintain the place they have grown accustomed to occupying. What unimaginable events could ever lead to a drastic change of circumstances? Interest rates in double figures? An accident leading to a mental or physical disability? Oil @ $80 a barrel? A bird-flu outbreak in Europe?

Anyway, back to the subject sort of. If it weren't for various fiscal incentives over the years, house prices may not be what they are today. And when it had become clear all those years ago that houses had become just another asset on which huge profits could be realised because they fell through a loophole compared to taxation of other capital gains, that's when a CGT on houses might have been useful to equilibrate the situation. But it's too late now. Most people are today owner-occupiers who don't cash in to move to Wales or across the channel. Faced with the need to raise more tax revenue and perhaps eat into some of those unrealised capital gains in order to cool house prices, what government wouldn't want to reassess home values...this one already raided the pensions industry didn't they?! As for comparing houses to cars, if there ever is a house price crash, perhaps house owners could then justifiably offset depreciation...against any CGT?! ;) :uhoh:

Malissa Fawthort
4th Apr 2005, 21:43
How about they fix the “council tax” (or whatever they want to call it) at a fixed rate per person occupying the house. Yes, I know they tried that once, but – if sufficiently low then it could be sold. The extra income required by the revenue could be acquired by taxing those who earn disproportionately high wages for what they do at an extremely high tax rate. Here I’m thinking about footballers and pop stars to start with. Lee Bowyer – for example – has just been fined £200,000 and this represents just 6 weeks’ wages. Some people don’t earn that money in 15 years of working. If the figures are correct as reported in the press, he “earns” £1.7 million per year!!! This is over-shadowed by Michael Owen who receives £7.4 million. I shudder to think what David Beckham gets. Multiply even the smallest of these figures by the numbers of players on the books of the premier league clubs and you might get an approximation of the sum total of money “earned” by footballers in the UK.

Now let’s start on “pop-stars”. Charlotte Church - £5million; Cold Play - £2.5 million EACH; Will Young - £2 million. The list is very long.

Hairdresser John Frieda gets £153 million each year.

Phillip Green (boss of BHS amongst others) earned £157.7 million last year. Fer feck’s sake – he spent £5 million on a BIRTHDAY PARTY!!!

Compare all of these with the UK national average wage of £25 thousand per year.

So if they charged tax on earnings at 70% on anything above even £500,000 per year (which I imagine these poor souls could probably just survive on), that would represent an enormous increase in revenue which would go (probably) pretty much all the way to offsetting the costs of reduced “council tax” burdens on Joe Average Brit. Of course, they’d have to get rid of the loopholes that permit high earners to run off to the Caymans or the Bahamas or some equally tax friendly place, just “visiting” the UK for no more than 90 days per year. The rule should be that if you “earn” your income in the UK, it is subject to UK tax wherever you live. That would also have the added advantage of taking the “fatted calves” away from the slimy accountants who use all the loopholes in the law to protect their clients and – probably – themselves (because they will need protection after earning the vast sums they do from their clients by saving them from paying what is really due to the revenue). Before anyone gets hot under the collar, I have to say that not all accountants are slimy ---- there must surely be one or two who are not!

Bring on the revolution!!!!!!

(Just thought I'd put it all in perspective.)

Edited to say that - just for interest - if you DID earn £500,000 per year, after paying today's tax rates, you would be left with a piffling £5923.86 PER WEEK to scrape by on. Every £50000 per year earned above the original £50000 would net you a mere £2884 PER week at 70% tax. And if you DID earn $4.5 million per year, and you were taxed at 70% above £500,000. you'd have to struggle on a mere £29,000 per week to spend. Do you think you could manage?

Standard Noise
5th Apr 2005, 12:26
Wouldn't get out of bed for 29k.
Hang on, 29k a week you say, I thought you meant 29k a year.

When I lived in NI, three years ago, we paid rates of 500 quid a year and that included water. Here in Somerset, we paid 1100 in our first year and this year it's over 1200. We also pay 350 a year for water. I get no more for it, in fact I get quite a bit less for my money.
Obviously more pigs = more snouts = more cash squeezed from the honest hard working peeps to buy more swill.

under_exposed
5th Apr 2005, 12:56
Malissa Fawthort, its been tried before (highest rate at 97½% I think) and it did not work. Better to get 40% rather than get 0% when they all go off to tax havens.

A_Pommie
5th Apr 2005, 13:10
Correct me if I'm wrong, I was only young when the Tories were last in.
Didn't they do this cut waste out of public services thing before?
When what in fact happened was everybody at the coal face got sacked and remployed as contrators. But all the middle managers who do nothing but polish chairs and wait for there pension stayed employed. How did this cut waste out of public service?

PilotsPal
5th Apr 2005, 13:11
IHT is not levied on transfers between husband and wife. When one dies and property/goods/chattels passes to the survivor, there is no liability. Also IHT only bites on estates with a total value of £263k and up.

Malissa Fawthort
5th Apr 2005, 19:40
Funny --- could have sworn I'd written: Of course, they’d have to get rid of the loopholes that permit high earners to run off to the Caymans or the Bahamas or some equally tax friendly place, just “visiting” the UK for no more than 90 days per year. somewhere in my post above!!!!!

7006 fan
6th Apr 2005, 07:58
quote:

'IHT only bites on estates with a total value of £263k and up.'

Which for some poor souls may mean a 2 bed terrace house in this day and age! Whereas in my area a 4 bed detached with 1/4 acre noses in at c.£220k
:confused:

Why people should be taxed for the hard work and sometimes frugality of their parents is beyond me. My mother was very cautious with money and went without many things. She once told me that, when money was very tight and she was looking after my elder brother -just after WW2, she needed new underwear, she asked Dad for some money and he -quite seriously- suggested she borrow some of his pants as no-one would notice!!!
We also made a joint of lamb or beef last 4 days, last meal being a stew of the bones with veg and tatties.
Always told her she should blow it all on fast cars and holidays but she wanted to make sure her children would be provided for.
Now Bas***d Brown is taking a heafty 40% for f**k all!, no wonder he is always grinning like some over-fed Cheshire Cat!
:*

under_exposed
6th Apr 2005, 09:13
Sorry. missed that bit. However I don't think you can stop people living abroad if they wish to.

airship
6th Apr 2005, 13:19
Of course, they’d have to get rid of the loopholes that permit high earners to run off to the Caymans or the Bahamas or some equally tax friendly place, just “visiting” the UK for no more than 90 days per year... Like under_exposed said, you can't stop people living abroad. But 90 days (3 months) is an outrageously generous allowance. The government should limit this to say 4 weeks, so ordinary holidaymakers etc. aren't affected too much. And IR keep a tally on the actual number of days spent in UK. Once this allowance is exceeded, IR should reclaim (365 / total number of days in UK) X (worldwide income). But for it to really work properly, most countries would have to adopt this solution. The 4 weeks allowance would then have to be shared amongst them all... :E So in reality, said individuals who currently have the priveledge of maintaining non-resident for tax purposes residences in multiple business capitals would have to make a decision: Either pay some tax, organize their business activities around 30 days a year (perhaps even more opportunities for exec jet operators?!) or remain cloistered in Klosters for the ski season instead of Courchevel. Offshore tax-havens could soon come to resemble Alcatraz... :8 :O

eal401
6th Apr 2005, 13:58
What I particularly "enjoy" about council tax is how each and every year there is a big increase well above the rate of inflation. Yet, each and every year, the services provided are cut by the local council. How do they justify that?

airship
6th Apr 2005, 14:03
Well there's Moore's law...and the law concerning diminishing returns. I don't think councils have heard of Moore... :8

ORAC
6th Apr 2005, 14:13
I don´t think they have heard of less...... :suspect:

under_exposed
6th Apr 2005, 14:26
Airship

(perhaps even more opportunities for exec jet operators?!)

They better make sure they do not fly to the UK too often or under your scheme they will get taxed.

airship
6th Apr 2005, 14:49
Just another way to ensure quick turnarounds of aircraft and pilots... :E

Fletchers Left Boot
6th Apr 2005, 21:07
Problem with the poll tax was that it was flat rate. The shop worker in a councul house at one end of town paying exactly the same as the millionaire in the mansion at the other. It was grossly unfair which was why there were riots.

Council tax based on property is just as unfair in it's own way.

About time it was scrapped and a local income tax system set up. Pay according to your income. If you dont have income, you dont pay. If you earn a high salary, you pay more. Those on low pay, pay less.
Sounds very fair to me.

Paterbrat
7th Apr 2005, 18:11
Certainly fairer than the other two. However what about those who prefer to be supported by the taxpayer, lots of those unfortunately.

PilotsPal
7th Apr 2005, 21:22
FLB

I find the the present situation that the 6 adults living next door to me pay the same council tax that I do totally inequitable. They produce vastly more rubbish than I do for a start. The old poll tax would have been a much fairer way of making them pay for local services.

7006 fan
8th Apr 2005, 21:31
Methinks a tax based upon numbers is the answer. My property is band B, I am on my tod. Opposite me is a band B property with 2 adults and 1 child.
My 'wheelie' has, on average 3 'Tesco' bags per week, they produce enough per week to make the lid sit at 45 degrees!
Yet we both pay aboout a grand. Likely they receive some form of relief what with having a kid and all.
So for having a wheelie 1/5 full I pay the same as 3 people who fill it to overflowing!!! I realise there are other services contined in the Council Tax but....

:*

acbus1
9th Apr 2005, 08:27
Spot on 7006 fan!

As for "other services contained in the Council Tax....." don't forget that education is an enourmous chunk of that. ie Kids cost a packet.

Plus police, fire, libraries, roads, lighting, whatever are all used more by larger groups/families of peeps.

So a charge per head is just about exactly fair (or as close as it gets)!



Won't happen, then. Can't have "fair". :rolleyes: