View Full Version : Council Tax Reassessment
With the up and coming election, (to be announced on Monday, so I am lead to believe), the council tax payments by us are to be reassessed.
The following is the worrying bit....
The last check was carried out in 1991 when the average UK house price was £73,000 . It is now just under £180,00 0.
The BBC's John Andrew said only homes which had risen in value by more than the national average would be moved into a higher tax bracket.
So that is most of us then :mad:
Time to put the cross in another box when the time comes methinks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
With the up and coming election, (to be announced on Monday, so I am lead to believe), the council tax payments by us are to be reassessed.
The following is the worrying bit....
So that is most of us then :mad:
Time to put the cross in another box when the time comes methinks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
I quite like the idea of having to pay more tax since i'm obviously rolling in spare dosh!
gary_580
01-04-2005, 23:37
With the up and coming election, (to be announced on Monday, so I am lead to believe), the council tax payments by us are to be reassessed.
The following is the worrying bit....
So that is most of us then :mad:
Time to put the cross in another box when the time comes methinks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4399433.stm
How can MOST have gone up by more than the national average?? Its an average of the increases.
Funilly enough i was reading what happened in Wales. something like 58% stayed the same, 8% went down a band and the other 34% went up a band. And the government say that is not a cash raising exercise. ******** to that Tony!!
In places like Cardiff 64% went up a band
MetaWraith
01-04-2005, 23:43
I quite like the idea of having to pay more tax since i'm obviously rolling in spare dosh!
A new member with only 5 posts and already well into the type of sarcasm that can be found sprinkled throughout this forum. :) You'll fit right in.
Welcome btw.
Maggie's arrogance over the Poll Tax cost her the Government.
Tony appears not to have picked up on this and I sincerely hope he will go the same way. Enough.
Maggie's arrogance over the Poll Tax cost her the Government.
Tony appears not to have picked up on this and I sincerely hope he will go the same way. Enough.
Well Labour or Tory these taxes were always on the cards to be updated eventually....Even the Tories can't deny it makes fiscal sense..even if I don't like it...
Drat! I no sooner get ahead of the game then something pulls me backwards. :(
Maggie's arrogance over the Poll Tax cost her the Government.
Tony appears not to have picked up on this and I sincerely hope he will go the same way. Enough.
I think Tone believes he is untouchable. And anyway, it seems to me he cares less and less about this country and it's people, and sees himself as a potential "President of Europe".
Anyway, that aside I think the Council Tax is ludicrous. We are supposedly paying for services out of this money, yet those services are all too often short of the mark. But unlike other services that we pay for (gas, electricity etc) there is no option to go to a different supplier. So, at the end of the day they will charge what they like, and us poor mugs have to pay it.
Anyone know what impact this reassesment will have on the bands. Is it they will go up proportionally dependent upon what the national average increase in house value is? Or that they won't change. It doesn't seem very clear from that report (it is late mind you and my mind is rapidly failing) - how was it done in Wales?
andygrif
02-04-2005, 01:12
With the up and coming election, (to be announced on Monday, so I am lead to believe), the council tax payments by us are to be reassessed
These will affect Council Tax bills for 2007 onwards as I understand it.
How can MOST have gone up by more than the national average?? Its an average of the increases.
I am glad you said that. I did laugh when I read it first time!
In places like Cardiff 64% went up a band
I think it is important to note that there is a difference between the banding of your house and the cost of your council tax. The annual budget will stay the same, so this isn't a way of taking more money, although it's very likely that more in the South East of England will have a higher than average number of changes in the banding of homes.
I can't believe I'm being that pragmatic about this....our coucil tax is terrible here. I got the council to send me the figures. When I moved in this house in 1997 the annual amount was under £700 pa. It's now well over £1,700 pa.
Maggie's arrogance over the Poll Tax cost her the Government.
And of course the Lib Dems would like a local income tax precept...which is in effect a Poll Tax. Funny how it all comes around again isn't it?
Anyway, that aside I think the Council Tax is ludicrous. We are supposedly paying for services out of this money, yet those services are all too often short of the mark. But unlike other services that we pay for (gas, electricity etc) there is no option to go to a different supplier. So, at the end of the day they will charge what they like, and us poor mugs have to pay it.
Whilst I agree very much with what you're saying, it is extremely important to know that the largest reason for inordinate council tax increases over the last few years has actually come from Central Government.
Departments have been de-centralised under Labour, forcing local government to take over responsibility for many roles. However, Cental Government has not provided the funding for this to happen, hiring of staff, etc etc etc. That's one reason why Counil Tax now offers such poor value for money. And that's why essential services are being slashed.
here, last October, they decided to cut our refuse collections in half. Now we have recycling one week, refuse the next. the current targets for recycling is set at around 10%, yet we have our household waste collections cut by 50%. Go figure!
Anyone know what impact this reassesment will have on the bands.
I guess we won't know until the numbers are in (safely after the election of course).
And of course the Lib Dems would like a local income tax precept...which is in effect a Poll Tax. Funny how it all comes around again isn't it? Fundamental difference is ability to pay. Income Tax is based, er, on income ( ;) ) whilst the Poll Tax was based on residence.
I guess we won't know until the numbers are in (safely after the election of course).
Cynic! ;)
I think Tone believes he is untouchable. And anyway, it seems to me he cares less and less about this country and it's people, and sees himself as a potential "President of Europe".
Anyway, that aside I think the Council Tax is ludicrous. We are supposedly paying for services out of this money, yet those services are all too often short of the mark. But unlike other services that we pay for (gas, electricity etc) there is no option to go to a different supplier. So, at the end of the day they will charge what they like, and us poor mugs have to pay it.
Perhaps we should privatize all the services you get from the local council :erm:
We've still not sorted the other botched privatizations yet (bloody central trains), come on.
Flubflow
02-04-2005, 04:08
The people it will hit hardest are those just above the benefits level who moved into a cheap house on the lowest tax band in a rundown area many years ago but which has recently been massively "regenerated" and hence pushed up the value of houses in that area so much above the new average that it jumps up a couple of tax bands. The same people in the same old house will suddenly end up paying much much more for exactly the same old services as before. The goverment recognise that this is going to be a sticky problem and have already tried to avoid possible anarchy by introducing a "transitional relief" (which merely gives you chance to sell your children so you can afford to pay when the "transition" is over and the full wack kicks in).
It really is a bizarre tax. The value of the local services you pay for use of is not directly related to the equity of the building you own or rent. It can be, if you are very selective in your logic, but it mostly isn't.
And of course the Lib Dems would like a local income tax precept...which is in effect a Poll Tax. Funny how it all comes around again isn't it?
Whilst I agree very much with what you're saying, it is extremely important to know that the largest reason for inordinate council tax increases over the last few years has actually come from Central Government.
Departments have been de-centralised under Labour, forcing local government to take over responsibility for many roles. However, Cental Government has not provided the funding for this to happen, hiring of staff, etc etc etc. That's one reason why Counil Tax now offers such poor value for money. And that's why essential services are being slashed.
Excellent point. I guess this yet another stealth tax by our Government. I recall looking at my Council Tax bill a year or so back, and seeing that the contribution to the Police had gone up by 45%... whilst Police services were being cut back :confused: . Oddly enough I debated this with a copper at the time, who was stood by the roadside with a camera (I explained that I would happily pay 1000% more if crime were being effectively tackled, but objected to paying a penny for someone to stand by the road taking photos).
As for the Poll Tax, well that's really ancient history. But I guess the Tories are always a soft target. The fact is that this Government has had 8 years to sort out whatever they inherited; in apparently doing so, we are now more highly taxed, with chronically declining services. I don't know if the Tories would do any better (they certainly couldn't do worse!), and the Lib Dems just concern me in general, but the bottom line is that the good old homeowner is hit again.
__________________
Perhaps we should privatize all the services you get from the local council :erm:
We've still not sorted the other botched privatizations yet (bloody central trains), come on.
I'm not sure that is the best answer, but in some cases it might work. At least with privatised industries you have the option of choice in many cases (electricity for example), and also the opportunity to know that someone somewhere is answerable if and when things go wrong.
The trains certainly aren't a good example of privatisation, although I'm not so sure they wee that efficient before privatisation either!
Refuse collection has been hit on earlier in tis thread. Maybe that is an area that would benefit from privatisation?
I guess it would be less of a problem if one could actually get some kind of "value for money". What I am trying to say is that, to quote an earlier example, when refuse collection is cut by 50% there is no explanation or justification; and yet I would bet that the cost of this reduced service was not reduced in line?
These will affect Council Tax bills for 2007 onwards as I understand it.
That is correct, the news report does say that, I assume you did read it.
I am glad you said that. I did laugh when I read it first time!
Lets all hope you are still laughing come 2007 when your reassessed bills drop on your mat.
So that is most of us then
What was mean't by that is we are all likely to be hit with higher bills, I cannot see many properties being downgraded or staying the same, whether it is the national average or not.
This council tax reassessment cannot be blamed on the government, it is a process that is being done because it is due; valuations on properties have changed. Our own property has gone up substantially in value and no doubt we will be paying more, we have a Conservative ruled council which has just increased council tax by 5%, we also have a Conservative ruled county council which is rushing around putting up speed cameras everywhere.
Fact is people have been enjoying a market with low interest rates, demand for property has been high, property prises have risen this therefore cannot be blamed on the government.
:erm:
Excellent point. I guess this yet another stealth tax by our Government. I recall looking at my Council Tax bill a year or so back, and seeing that the contribution to the Police had gone up by 45%... whilst Police services were being cut back :confused: ... Me too. Which Police region are you in?. Oddly enough I debated this with a copper at the time, who was stood by the roadside with a camera (I explained that I would happily pay 1000% more if crime were being effectively tackled, but objected to paying a penny for someone to stand by the road taking photos). Non starter as an argument as speeding revenue returns a £20m surplus to the Treasury, after the local Police have recovered their costs.
As for the Poll Tax, well that's really ancient history. But I guess the Tories are always a soft target. The fact is that this Government has had 8 years to sort out whatever they inherited; in apparently doing so, we are now more highly taxed, with chronically declining services.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure that is true. The NHS, for example, is improving in many areas with initiatives like NHS Direct and walk in centres. I don't know if the Tories would do any better (they certainly couldn't do worse!) Highly debatable given the record of the last Tory Government. and the Lib Dems just concern me in general, but the bottom line is that the good old homeowner is hit again. We're all hit, regardless of income (although the low paid are disproportionately hit) by indirect taxation, my big gripe with Labour's tax policies.
What I'm still interested in is what impact revaluation will have on the tax bands. That's a crucial point really.
__________________
SMHarman
02-04-2005, 09:49
I quite like the idea of having to pay more tax since i'm obviously rolling in spare dosh!
You can the tax you pay is the compulsory minimum - there is no law that says you cannot pay more. :angel:
Me too. Which Police region are you in?. Non starter as an argument as speeding revenue returns a £20m surplus to the Treasury, after the local Police have recovered their costs.
Thames Valley.
Re speeding revenue, I think that is a seperate issue, but somehow relevant. That revenue should go not to the Treasury, but to the Police to provide more policing full stop. That way, maybe the Council Tax contribution would be reduced or even cut?
SMHarman
02-04-2005, 09:51
How can MOST have gone up by more than the national average?? Its an average of the increases.
Funilly enough i was reading what happened in Wales. something like 58% stayed the same, 8% went down a band and the other 34% went up a band. And the government say that is not a cash raising exercise. ******** to that Tony!!
In places like Cardiff 64% went up a band
How does that work? Surely house prices bell curve from an average point - so most should say the same - I'll concur with your opinion on that one.
Thames Valley. This is kinda interesting. TV has among the highest crime rates in the South East (which as a region has a lower than average crime rate) but the Police are rated by the public significantly higher than in other regions. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/southeast04.pdf
Re speeding revenue, I think that is a seperate issue, but somehow relevant. That revenue should go not to the Treasury, but to the Police to provide more policing full stop. That way, maybe the Council Tax contribution would be reduced or even cut? Wouldn't disagree except to say the funds should go towards policing and accident prevention. I wouldn't bet on CT being cut if this happened mind you as councils are already over burdened in other areas such as education and social services. And £20m over 335 councils (or however many) isn't going to go very far.
Flubflow
02-04-2005, 10:38
This council tax reassessment cannot be blamed on the government, it is a process that is being done because it is due; valuations on properties have changed. Our own property has gone up substantially in value and no doubt we will be paying more, we have a Conservative ruled council which has just increased council tax by 5%, we also have a Conservative ruled county council which is rushing around putting up speed cameras everywhere.
Fact is people have been enjoying a market with low interest rates, demand for property has been high, property prises have risen this therefore cannot be blamed on the government.
:erm:
Yes it can.
The value of the home you live in (own or rent) has nothing to do with useage of, value of or ability to pay for local services. By revaluing, the government are perpetuating this flawed idea (especially since very few properties will have gone down but if some did then certainly not low enough to drop a tax band).
Anyway, you will only pay more if yours has increased greater than the new average that they work out after all the revaluations have been done (greater enough to take it into the next tax band). There will still be the same number of tax bands and the same countil tax rate on each band as before (except for usual increases you get anyway). That's assuming of course that the councils don't use the oppurtunity to do some stealth fiddling with the tax bands in a way that allows them to rake more in.
Yes it can.
The value of the home you live in (own or rent) has nothing to do with useage of, value of or ability to pay for local services. By revaluing, the government are perpetuating this flawed idea (especially since very few properties will have gone down but if some did then certainly not low enough to drop a tax band). I'm no great fan of CT but it does take into account useage as single people for example pay less, and second homes attract lower charges too.
Anyway, you will only pay more if yours has increased greater than the new average that they work out after all the revaluations have been done (greater enough to take it into the next tax band). There will still be the same number of tax bands and the same countil tax rate on each band as before (except for usual increases you get anyway). That's assuming of course that the councils don't use the oppurtunity to do some stealth fiddling with the tax bands in a way that allows them to rake more in. So, bands are being raised in line with average house price increases then - thanks! That is pretty crucial to the revenue debate I would have thought.
Gotta sign off for a bit now. Later!
This council tax reassessment cannot be blamed on the government, it is a process that is being done because it is due; valuations on properties have changed. Our own property has gone up substantially in value and no doubt we will be paying more, we have a Conservative ruled council which has just increased council tax by 5%, we also have a Conservative ruled county council which is rushing around putting up speed cameras everywhere.
Fact is people have been enjoying a market with low interest rates, demand for property has been high, property prises have risen this therefore cannot be blamed on the government.
:erm:
So what has the value of your property really got to do with the amount you pay. We will obviuosly be paying more after 2007 but will the benefits been seen. Or is this again subsidising the private sectors pensions etc.
Services cost more each year so yes eventually at some point a raise will have to be made, but what are we actually paying for at the moment that will suddenly need a massive hike in 2007, which you can bet will happen. I live in a reasonable area i'm not rolling in cash i constantly try to be careful with my money, try to keep my domestic bills down etc etc. I work hard, pay the tax man each month, do overtime because of my jobs needs so am always paying the price for doing that each month.
So why is it that because of all this i'm going to be paying alot more on council tax because of my hard work and because the property market has risen, that someone in a property that is valued less will pay less, but will recieve exactly the same services!:confused:
__________________
You can the tax you pay is the compulsory minimum - there is no law that says you cannot pay more. :angel:
Sorry mate you've lost me on that one
__________________
Well Labour or Tory these taxes were always on the cards to be updated eventually....Even the Tories can't deny it makes fiscal sense..even if I don't like it...
Drat! I no sooner get ahead of the game then something pulls me backwards. :(
Fiscal sense, you sound like you've been brainwashed by Tony's EU police.;)
Flubflow
02-04-2005, 11:32
I'm no great fan of CT but it does take into account useage as single people for example pay less, and second homes attract lower charges too.
So, bands are being raised in line with average house price increases then - thanks! That is pretty crucial to the revenue debate I would have thought.
Gotta sign off for a bit now. Later!
Single people do not automatically pay less. Everyone within each band is charged the same. Some single people can get a deduction if they fit certain critera for a valid CT benefit claim but so can a household full of adults. It's not actually whether you are single it is the total household income. It's just that if you are single and on a very low income then obviously you are more likely to get a reasonable amount of benefit.
One of the things I find hard to relate to is that the more your house is worth, the more you pay. It doesn't necany more essarily follow that you use the services any more or any less. The approach seems to be that someone owning a more valuable house can afford more, which would be grossly unfair. At the end of the day, the cost of services should either be based on usage or spread evenly across the board; it should not be based on wealth, be it real or apparent, as that is nothing to do with it. If I buy dinner, I don't pay more because I earn more than the next customer; if I go to the cinema I don't pay less than someone better off than me. So why should services be any different?
One of the things I find hard to relate to is that the more your house is worth, the more you pay. It doesn't necany more essarily follow that you use the services any more or any less. The approach seems to be that someone owning a more valuable house can afford more, which would be grossly unfair. At the end of the day, the cost of services should either be based on usage or spread evenly across the board; it should not be based on wealth, be it real or apparent, as that is nothing to do with it. If I buy dinner, I don't pay more because I earn more than the next customer; if I go to the cinema I don't pay less than someone better off than me. So why should services be any different?
Basically it's another way of getting money out of people, they can dress it up anyway they may. The house prices have risen, "so we'll have some of that thank you".
There was talk of the goverment wanting a piece,(40%) of the profit you make on the sale of your house, which has come from somewhere but you can bet it's something they would love to do and are definitely thinking about.
greencreeper
02-04-2005, 13:40
Got a booklet here...
"The Services You Are Paying For"
Schools and other learning services - well I don't use them
Social services - wouldn't go near the place
Police - ah! I use them - for crime numbers
Leisure - neither the time nor the money
Fire - only once used the fire service in 28 years of life
Roads - those will be the things full of pots holes then, that are tricky to cross because of a lack of pelican and toucan crossings
Streetscene - ah! The new initiative. They introduced a £50 litter charge. Then removed all the litter bins. Then a few months later installed fancy new litter bins. Money making? Nah.
Child and youth services - most of them want putting down
Public transport - :rofl:
Other, including environment health and community safety - that'll be why I live in red light zone with crack and smack dealers at the end of the street most nights
Council Tax is value for money! :erm:
Other, including environment health and community safety - that'll be why I live in red light zone with crack and smack dealers at the end of the street most nights
Come on mate be fair... Do you think that kind of convinence comes cheap? ;)
You're asscessment of public services is pretty astute. Except luckily I haven't needed to use the fire service yet.
I wouldn't mind so much about schools, but I never even went a state school either. My parents had to slaughter themselves to send me somewhere at least halfway humane. I wouldn't send my enemies or murders to a state school these days, not around here anyway. They'd get eaten alive.
ian@huth
02-04-2005, 14:27
Houses within each council area are put into one of eight bands (A to H) according to their value. Very simplified the way that council tax is calculated is that the council works out what revenue it needs for the coming financial year including things like county council and police precepts. This figure is adjusted in several ways by reference to a central government assumed rate and the contribution from business rates. Business rates are paid into a national pool and then redistributed back to loacal councils. It is a rather complex calculation. What it ends up with is a figure to obtain from domestic council tax.
Council tax is based upon Band D properties. Bands other than band D are worked out as a factor of the band D figure ranging from Band A paying two thirds of the band D figure to band H paying double the band D figure. The council works out how many properties are in each band and converts them to Band D equivalents so that for example 1 band H property equals 2 Band D properties. The council then has a total Band D equivalent figure for their area and divide the revenue they need to collect for the year by this band D equivalent figure which gives the sum payable by a band D household. The sum payable by other bands are then worked out from this with a band A household paying two thirds of the figure and a band H household paying double.
When the properties are revalued it remains to be seen whether the band multipliers stay the same or are altered. Revaluation of properties doesn't alter the revenue that councils require it just means that some households will pay a bit more than now and some will pay a bit less.
greencreeper
02-04-2005, 14:27
Come on mate be fair... Do you think that kind of convinence comes cheap? ;)
Fair point, though no rent boys. Typical :rolleyes: :p:
You're asscessment of public services is pretty astute. Except luckily I haven't needed to use the fire service yet.
I used it because a load of chavs set fire to the big green bin used by the cafe I lived above at the time. The fence went up too. I guess it's down to a failure of "Child and youth services" :D
One of the things I find hard to relate to is that the more your house is worth, the more you pay. It doesn't necany more essarily follow that you use the services any more or any less.
But thats the tax system, same with income tax, the more you earn the more you pay, doens't nessacaraly mean you'll use the services more.
At the end of the day, the cost of services should either be based on usage or spread evenly across the board; it should not be based on wealth, be it real or apparent, as that is nothing to do with it.
If you spread it evenly over the population thats great, after all they all use the services, but what if you do that and 15% of the population can't afford to pay it, as happened with the poll tax. Maybe when these people get paid for their bank holidays they'll be able to pay! :angel:
Me283, I really can't get you, I've not worked out if you really don't understand the taxation system (or other issues, like in the bank holidays thread) or if you deliberately come out with these comments to get a reaction from other forum members. :confused:
__________________
Come on mate be fair... Do you think that kind of convinence comes cheap? ;)
:rofl:
One of the things I find hard to relate to is that the more your house is worth, the more you pay. It doesn't necany more essarily follow that you use the services any more or any less.
But thats the tax system, same with income tax, the more you earn the more you pay, doens't nessacaraly mean you'll use the services more.
Yes, but that's why the Lib Dems are talking about introducing a *local* income tax because it's based on what you can *afford* to pay.
I've mentioned this before in other threads, but my mother lives in a flat that, when she bought it, back in 1981, cost £25,000 . It's now worth at least a quarter of a million (if not more), *ten times* the original price, but she's now a pensioner. (And she doesn't want to be forced to have to move out of home she's lived in for almost a quarter of a century)
This council tax re-banding is liable to end up causing her to have to pay a much bigger proportion of her income in tax than someone half her age who is pulling down £25,000 a year.
Does that sound fair?
Houses within each council area are put into one of eight bands (A to H) according to their value. Very simplified the way that council tax is calculated is that the council works out what revenue it needs for the coming financial year including things like county council and police precepts. This figure is adjusted in several ways by reference to a central government assumed rate and the contribution from business rates. Business rates are paid into a national pool and then redistributed back to loacal councils. It is a rather complex calculation. What it ends up with is a figure to obtain from domestic council tax.
Council tax is based upon Band D properties. Bands other than band D are worked out as a factor of the band D figure ranging from Band A paying two thirds of the band D figure to band H paying double the band D figure. The council works out how many properties are in each band and converts them to Band D equivalents so that for example 1 band H property equals 2 Band D properties. The council then has a total Band D equivalent figure for their area and divide the revenue they need to collect for the year by this band D equivalent figure which gives the sum payable by a band D household. The sum payable by other bands are then worked out from this with a band A household paying two thirds of the figure and a band H household paying double.
When the properties are revalued it remains to be seen whether the band multipliers stay the same or are altered. Revaluation of properties doesn't alter the revenue that councils require it just means that some households will pay a bit more than now and some will pay a bit less.
You don't work for the government in your spare time?:)
__________________
Yes, but that's why the Lib Dems are talking about introducing a *local* income tax because it's based on what you can *afford* to pay.
I've mentioned this before in other threads, but my mother lives in a flat that, when she bought it, back in 1981, cost £25,000 . It's now worth at least a quarter of a million (if not more), *ten times* the original price, but she's now a pensioner. (And she doesn't want to be forced to have to move out of home she's lived in for almost a quarter of a century)
This council tax re-banding is liable to end up causing her to have to pay a much bigger proportion of her income in tax than someone half her age who is pulling down £25,000 a year.
Does that sound fair?
To be honest, again i can't see why the amount you earn should justify the amount you pay. This leads again to the scenario of why should Mr Bloggs who lives at the end of the street pay less than me because i earn more!! We are going to be using the sames services, live in same street, etc etc.
Flubflow
02-04-2005, 17:06
You don't work for the government in your spare time?:)
__________________
To be honest, again i can't see why the amount you pay should justify the amount you pay. This leads again to the scenario of why should Mr Bloggs who lives at the end of the street pay less than me because i earn more!! We are going to be using the sames services, live in same street, etc etc.
But it is not as vulgar as the idea that people who live just yards from each other can have huge differences in CT based purely on the value of the home they own or rent. It is also flawed logic to assume that all people in lower value homes can't afford to pay more and people in higher value homes can. It is the people paying the tax, not the house.
The reason why someone who earns less should pay less is because they can't afford it and you can. That's how TAX is generally supposed to work. i.e. you take form people a percentage of the value of what one earns.
To someone on the the low end of the earnings scale (but just above the benefits level) £100 to them might have the same impact on their standard of living as say £600 does to you. It's not perfect either but I'd rather have that than what we have now. Then again I'm biased because I'm not earning low enough to claim any significant deductions in the form of CT benefits and I my CT charge is higher than people located only 30 seconds walk from me.
Having read through posts since my last visit (decorating's coming on nicely thanks) it's obvious that people don't like CT or indeed the Poll Tax. So...... why no real discussion about local income tax (based on earnings, cheaper to adminstrate, easier to collect)? Graham, you are excused ;) (EDIT; Think you too Flubflow; sorry been skim reading!) Punky, sorry, seem to remember we've had this discussion. If it helps, Casualty is on :(
Oh, and on tax use generally. Think of it like insurance. Not everybody claims on their insurance, but it's there when they need it.
Yes, but that's why the Lib Dems are talking about introducing a *local* income tax because it's based on what you can *afford* to pay.
To be honest, again i can't see why the amount you earn should justify the amount you pay. This leads again to the scenario of why should Mr Bloggs who lives at the end of the street pay less than me because i earn more!! We are going to be using the sames services, live in same street, etc etc.
But how else can you determine how much people pay for local services?
Should everyone pay the same? That would be fair, but that was the problem with the Poll Tax, the rich paid proportionately less than the poor.
So if everyone should pay the same, it can only realistically be worked out as proportion of income since house prices are not a measure of wealth, certainly not for people who have been living in the same place for decades.
The only other way would be to somehow measure the amount of service each person uses, but that would be impractical. (I recall hearing about a scheme in the USA, I think, where they charged for rubbish collection based on the weight of what you threw away, but that ended up with people having to padlock their bins to stop neighbours dumping rubbish in someone else's bin!)
But how else can you determine how much people pay for local services?
Should everyone pay the same? That would be fair, but that was the problem with the Poll Tax, the rich paid proportionately less than the poor.
So if everyone should pay the same, it can only realistically be worked out as proportion of income since house prices are not a measure of wealth, certainly not for people who have been living in the same place for decades.
The only other way would be to somehow measure the amount of service each person uses, but that would be impractical. (I recall hearing about a scheme in the USA, I think, where they charged for rubbish collection based on the weight of what you threw away, but that ended up with people having to padlock their bins to stop neighbours dumping rubbish in someone else's bin!)
Yep thats right, but the point i'm personally trying to make is i live live in an reasonable area reasonable paid job, the problem is i can keep my hose hold running within in my budget but the amount of tax we are now paying extra already and with this council tax hike in 2007 my yearly cost of living pay rise is hardly covering this as it is. But because the house i'm in is going to be rebanded as it will have a higher value, does this mean because it is worth more now that somehow i can roll out the spare cash to cover this or that i'm somehow in a position to keep accepting tax raises and being able to afford them. I'm not going to able to downgrade to a smaller or cheaper property that will make any difference to this as most propertys are worth more now.
I keep hearing poor and rich being used surely nowadays, is this term irrelevant, what about in between. The term poor we always associate with other countries that genuinely have poor people or poor economies. Obviously we are in this position because of the taxes we pay,(thought i would put that in before someone else points it out to me) but there are more and more people taking out of the system so it's getting left to fewer people to keep the system going. this is what bugs me.
Yep thats right, but the point i'm personally trying to make is i live live in an reasonable area reasonable paid job, the problem is i can keep my hose hold running within in my budget but the amount of tax we are now paying extra already and with this council tax hike in 2007 my yearly cost of living pay rise is hardly covering this as it is. But because the house i'm in is going to be rebanded as it will have a higher value, does this mean because it is worth more now that somehow i can roll out the spare cash to cover this or that i'm somehow in a position to keep accepting tax raises and being able to afford them. I'm not going to able to downgrade to a smaller or cheaper property that will make any difference to this as most propertys are worth more now.
Surely your move into a higher band will be dependent on where the new bands are set after this exercise?
Hose hold? Was that a Freudian slip?! ;)
the point i'm personally trying to make is i live live in an reasonable area reasonable paid job, the problem is i can keep my hose hold running within in my budget but the amount of tax we are now paying extra already and with this council tax hike in 2007 my yearly cost of living pay rise is hardly covering this as it is. But because the house i'm in is going to be rebanded as it will have a higher value, does this mean because it is worth more now that somehow i can roll out the spare cash to cover this or that i'm somehow in a position to keep accepting tax raises and being able to afford them. I'm not going to able to downgrade to a smaller or cheaper property that will make any difference to this as most propertys are worth more now.
Which is, in itself, a good argument for a local income tax since it would be based on what you can afford to pay, not on some artificial banding based on the value of your house.
Surely your move into a higher band will be dependent on where the new bands are set after this exercise?
Hose hold? Was that a Freudian slip?! ;)
That is actually the new name for house, delete house insert hose. Remember i told you first;)
andygrif
02-04-2005, 22:10
Our own property has gone up substantially in value and no doubt we will be paying more, we have a Conservative ruled council which has just increased council tax by 5%
The increase in the value of your house is irrelivant.
What will be relevant is the percentage increase against the national average. If you live in an area where house prices have risen at a rate lower than the national average then it is likely that your banding will not increase or be lowered.
we also have a Conservative ruled county council which is rushing around putting up speed cameras everywhere.
Fact is people have been enjoying a market with low interest rates, demand for property has been high, property prises have risen this therefore cannot be blamed on the government.
For the points I raised earlier, a large number of central government roles have been shipped out to County and District councils, with no money from the government to do so. So your speed cameras, increased parking charges, descreased local services are all indicitive of of this.
So you can plonk the responsibility right in Downing Street.
Single people do not automatically pay less. Everyone within each band is charged the same.
Yes you do. If you live alone you get a 25% discount on the full CT amount, irrespective of income.
Having read through posts since my last visit (decorating's coming on nicely thanks) it's obvious that people don't like CT or indeed the Poll Tax. So...... why no real discussion about local income tax (based on earnings, cheaper to adminstrate, easier to collect
But there is a large hidden cost in local income tax. First if you're a middle-earner, you'll pay more. So where is the incentive to work hard for that pay rise?
Second, and most important, is the admin cost. If you take somewhere like London as an example, and a small business there. The chances are that this little company has staff commuting from someting like twenty boroughs. Each one has a different income tax precept, and each member of staff has to have their salary docked and money sent to the relevent places. Small businesses will have to employ more staff to handle the admin.
In addition, in the transition, every borough or district will have NO MONEY for over a year, as income tax is paid annually, but your counil tax is paid annually in advance (with allowances for paying monthly up to ten months). How's that going to work?
The increase in the value of your house is irrelivant.
What will be relevant is the percentage increase against the national average. If you live in an area where house prices have risen at a rate lower than the national average then it is likely that your banding will not increase or be lowered.
For the points I raised earlier, a large number of central government roles have been shipped out to County and District councils, with no money from the government to do so. So your speed cameras, increased parking charges, descreased local services are all indicitive of of this.
So you can plonk the responsibility right in Downing Street.
Yes you do. If you live alone you get a 25% discount on the full CT amount, irrespective of income.
But there is a large hidden cost in local income tax. First if you're a middle-earner, you'll pay more. So where is the incentive to work hard for that pay rise?
Second, and most important, is the admin cost. If you take somewhere like London as an example, and a small business there. The chances are that this little company has staff commuting from someting like twenty boroughs. Each one has a different income tax precept, and each member of staff has to have their salary docked and money sent to the relevent places. Small businesses will have to employ more staff to handle the admin.
In addition, in the transition, every borough or district will have NO MONEY for over a year, as income tax is paid annually, but your counil tax is paid annually in advance (with allowances for paying monthly up to ten months). How's that going to work?
Now the point about the middle earner is what i'm trying to get accross.
But there is a large hidden cost in local income tax. First if you're a middle-earner, you'll pay more. So where is the incentive to work hard for that pay rise? And if you're low paid?
Second, and most important, is the admin cost. If you take somewhere like London as an example, and a small business there. The chances are that this little company has staff commuting from someting like twenty boroughs. Each one has a different income tax precept, and each member of staff has to have their salary docked and money sent to the relevent places. Small businesses will have to employ more staff to handle the admin. Collection of CT, particularly in inner cities, is not cheap. And often not effective. IT will collect at source of earning, so very effective.
In addition, in the transition, every borough or district will have NO MONEY for over a year, as income tax is paid annually, but your counil tax is paid annually in advance (with allowances for paying monthly up to ten months). How's that going to work? I'm guessing they've thought of that.
(and I'm self employed so pay upfront too)
georgepomone
02-04-2005, 22:50
Hi All,
just thought I'd join in, I have a friend who bought an ex-council house.They were sold off because of damp problems and couldn't be let.He lives just outside of Colwyn Bay. You can tell the state it was in as it was Band "A" when he bought it. He hasn't much money but has spent on it sealing and dry lining. It's now quite a nice little place. He has just been informed the house is now Band "C". Now these houses are what you you call in the very low price bands. In fact they are still selling for very near what he paid eight years back but they have still been rebanded. He has of course appealed as you are able to do. It will be interesting to see what this brings when England gets done. Done being the operative word.
George.
ian@huth
02-04-2005, 22:59
Hi All,
just thought I'd join in, I have a friend who bought an ex-council house.They were sold off because of damp problems and couldn't be let.He lives just outside of Colwyn Bay. You can tell the state it was in as it was Band "A" when he bought it. He hasn't much money but has spent on it sealing and dry lining. It's now quite a nice little place. He has just been informed the house is now Band "C". Now these houses are what you you call in the very low price bands. In fact they are still selling for very near what he paid eight years back but they have still been rebanded. He has of course appealed as you are able to do. It will be interesting to see what this brings when England gets done. Done being the operative word.
George.No matter what the price is now or what it was 8 years ago houses are still allocated to a band based on what their value would have been in April 1991.
No matter what the price is now or what it was 8 years ago houses are still allocated to a band based on what their value would have been in April 1991.
"this revaluation is about updating the values last taken 14 years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4400271.stm
ian@huth
02-04-2005, 23:11
"this revaluation is about updating the values last taken 14 years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4400271.stmI do know about the revaluations that are taking place. I was responding to a post that was talking about someone who has already had his house rebanded. This rebanding would be nothing at all to do with the nationwide rebanding which is just starting to be done.
Excellent story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4396151.stm)
Good on you Liz ;)
ian@huth
02-04-2005, 23:16
You can get the current council tax band and history for any property at http://www.voa.gov.uk/council_tax/cti_home.htm
zoombini
02-04-2005, 23:49
Because I'm in a house that is still under the previous national average AND on a council estate I would expect to still be in band A.
However, 500 yards away there is a nioce new estate with much higher priced houses.
I'm betting that mine will rise. :(
It will just be another excuse to screw us for more cash & give us less services.
greencreeper
03-04-2005, 02:14
The interesting points are that it's a national average, which means that some (many) will have their house valued higher than that of the regional or immediate locality's average; and that the valuation will be done by computer, which means that a house that is falling down could be given a high value.
The nature of taxation as applied by the Council Tax system cannot be totally fair - it can only be more or less fair depending on how it is calculated. Seems more sensible to me to remove CT completely and increase other taxes, such as income tax.
But thats the tax system, same with income tax, the more you earn the more you pay, doens't nessacaraly mean you'll use the services more.
If you spread it evenly over the population thats great, after all they all use the services, but what if you do that and 15% of the population can't afford to pay it, as happened with the poll tax. Maybe when these people get paid for their bank holidays they'll be able to pay! :angel:
Me283, I really can't get you, I've not worked out if you really don't understand the taxation system (or other issues, like in the bank holidays thread) or if you deliberately come out with these comments to get a reaction from other forum members. :confused:
__________________
:rofl:
Oh I understand it very well thank you. But what I actually said is that it is unfair. Using income tax as an example, the more you earn, the more you pay; and if you earn above the higher limit, you even pay a higher rate. Thus, the incentive to work hard and earn more is... you get to pay more tax. And that's fair, do you think? I think not, as you don't actually get any more or less for your money.
On the subject of Council Tax, it's even more preposterous. The assumption that because your home is worth a certain amount, that you can afford to pay a realative figure is ridiculous. The ability to pay is not linked to the size of the home. Many very rich people live in relatively small homes, whilst a lot of people work hard and stretch themselves to buy the biggest home possible. Size of home is not necessarily linked to wealth.
And as for a regional Income Tax... don't make me laugh!
Flubflow
03-04-2005, 13:00
Yes you do. If you live alone you get a 25% discount on the full CT amount, irrespective of income.
You're right. Sorry. I was sort of confusing things with the "second adult rebate".
How can MOST have gone up by more than the national average?? Its an average of the increases.
Funilly enough i was reading what happened in Wales. something like 58% stayed the same, 8% went down a band and the other 34% went up a band. And the government say that is not a cash raising exercise. ******** to that Tony!!
In places like Cardiff 64% went up a band
\
I am also angered about the increases, but the only point that I would like to pick out there is Cardiff.
The council tax in Cardiff is cheaper than many lower cost houses in the valley areas. My own area Torfaen are one of the dearest, the council is also very much strapped for cash but are able to buy property here there and everywhere on a whim.
I can see that a large area like Cardiff can carry out tasks like rubbish collection at a cheaper rate than a rural area, but on the other hand houses are generally twice the price in that area. The Welsh Assembly has been a very bad idea from start to finish, all its done is create jobs for the boys and waste lots of tax payers money. :mad:
andygrif
04-04-2005, 00:42
And if you're low paid?
Under the LibDem's plan they will be better off. The reason for this is that the people on low incomes generally are the group with the lowest turn-out to the voting booth. So a cynic might suggest they are buying votes.
The middle earners are less likely to vote LibDem, so they're the ones that will get hit hardest, as usual.
Collection of CT, particularly in inner cities, is not cheap. And often not effective. IT will collect at source of earning, so very effective.
Have you read my post? By putting the onus on private companies, the cost of admin is far higher. The reason for this is that there are thousands of small companies all likely to have to employ one or two extra staff to process the different local precepts in Income Tax. How is this more efficient than employing 20-30 people in one office at the council?
I'm guessing they've thought of that.
No they haven't, there is no mention of this in their plans so far.
(and I'm self employed so pay upfront too)
No you don't. If you're a sole trader (i.e. not a Ltd or PLC) you filled out your Tax Return this January in relation to income you had in in the 2003/4 tax year.
If you're paying Corporation Tax (AFAIK) you pay your employees' tax contributions at the end of your own declared company tax year.
I would suggest that when your local LibDem bod comes round you ask them to explain their ideas to you in full...and ask them about the points I have raised. Watch 'em squirm!
And if you're low paid?
Under the LibDem's plan they will be better off. The reason for this is that the people on low incomes generally are the group with the lowest turn-out to the voting booth. So a cynic might suggest they are buying votes.
Gosh, what a cynical bunch of b*ds they must be! After all, it's not as if any of the other parties would even *think* of doing such a thing...!!!
The middle earners are less likely to vote LibDem, so they're the ones that will get hit hardest, as usual.
Again, not something the other parties would do, is that...
I'm guessing they've thought of that.
No they haven't, there is no mention of this in their plans so far.
[...]
I would suggest that when your local LibDem bod comes round you ask them to explain their ideas to you in full...and ask them about the points I have raised. Watch 'em squirm!
Actually I'm more interested in your reaction to:
Quoting from http://www.axethetax.org.uk/pages/how.html
"Local income tax would work very much like national income tax.
"Councils would set their rate for local income tax and this would be added to the national rates of income tax. The Inland Revenue would administer and collect LIT, with national income tax, through the PAYE system, passing the money to councils depending on their rate.
"How would LIT be administered?
"All the assessments of an individual's taxable income and all the collection would be handled by the Inland Revenue, just as with national income tax. Indeed, we aim to make the administration of local income tax as similar to national income tax, as is practical. By using the existing national income tax system, including PAYE, Liberal Democrats believe we can save over £300 million on bureaucracy, reaping the benefits of economies of scale.
"However, some changes are needed, as individuals will pay different LIT rates, depending on where they live. To ensure the right amount of tax is charged, there are 2 options. Both use the PAYE system. One option involves linking different LIT rates to tax codes. The other involves abolishing the existing codes in favour of an end-of-year reconciliation process. In the White Paper prior to legislation, Liberal Democrats would set out the 2 options and consult with taxpayers, employers and other stakeholders on their preference. The two options are briefly described in the FAQ sheet in Annex 1, and we will shortly be publishing more detail for pre-manifesto consultation."
So actually it's *not* going to put the onus on small businesses to administer (which would be a pretty silly thing to do, ie duplicating infrastructure that already exists!)
If you're going to slag something off, it's better to do a bit of research first.
scrotnig
04-04-2005, 03:01
End of year reconciliation process? Sounds rather like they expect individuals to estimate their own tax liability each week or month and put the money aside ready to pay it in one lump sum at the end of the year.
Please tell me they don't mean that, and that if they do, they don't seriously think it would ever work?
Gosh, what a cynical bunch of b*ds they must be! After all, it's not as if any of the other parties would even *think* of doing such a.......(snip).
Graham, I hate to take you to task, but what am I supposed to do now you've responded in such an impressively detailed fashion? Hmmmm :( :)
One point though andygrif. Bone up on your self assessment payment rules. Payment now includes a forward assessment, hence my upfront coment. And I should know, what with paying it and all that.
__________________
End of year reconciliation process? Sounds rather like they expect individuals to estimate their own tax liability each week or month and put the money aside ready to pay it in one lump sum at the end of the year
Nah, it's a reference to the Yuetide bonding which CF members will undertake come December to heal the rifts caused by the past year's posts and counterposts :) Beware the mistletoe!
SMHarman
04-04-2005, 09:27
If you're paying Corporation Tax (AFAIK) you pay your employees' tax contributions at the end of your own declared company tax year.
A company has to pay the tax taken from the payroll to the inland revenue within 15 days of that payroll run - it also has to pay the employeees NIC at that time too.
The companies corporation tax is paid after the year end, but if it is big enough to pay a dividend then the tax paid on that (advanced corporation tax) is paid at the time the dividend is paid.
However as you point out the need to ire all these extra staff to manage these burdens reduce the taxable profits of small businesses to a point they no longer exist. Also before a small business even thinks about its taxable profits it has a fairly hefty business rates charge to pay the council - that is regardless of whether it makes a profit.
scrotnig
04-04-2005, 09:46
Actually, I don't know why we are concerning ourselves with the LibDem proposals, since they have absolutely no chance of forming the next government.
andygrif
04-04-2005, 10:35
So actually it's *not* going to put the onus on small businesses to administer (which would be a pretty silly thing to do, ie duplicating infrastructure that already exists!)
If you're going to slag something off, it's better to do a bit of research first.
There's nothing in their plans that says the extra work will not be a burden on companies. More complex taxation issues equals more work for companies. You've taken a couple of lines from their own website, that don't address the issue and then accuse me of not doing my research? Frankly I find that quite offensive.
Any changes to the tax code system will require more staff, upgraded payroll systems and a whole nunch of hassle.
And you have chosen not to address the issue of payment in advance.....
One point though andygrif. Bone up on your self assessment payment rules. Payment now includes a forward assessment, hence my upfront coment. And I should know, what with paying it and all that.
I didn't realise it had changed, I was freelance up until 95...and it seems it all happened a year or two after that looking around at the IR website. But there's nothing I can see about paying in advance, just at the end of the tax year you're currently in. You're telling me you paid in January this year for the 2005/6 tax year?
A company has to pay the tax taken from the payroll to the inland revenue within 15 days of that payroll run - it also has to pay the employeees NIC at that time too.
You are right, I stand corrected.
Actually, I don't know why we are concerning ourselves with the LibDem proposals, since they have absolutely no chance of forming the next government.
Good point...someone asked I guess!
I didn't realise it had changed, I was freelance up until 95...and it seems it all happened a year or two after that looking around at the IR website. But there's nothing I can see about paying in advance, just at the end of the tax year you're currently in. You're telling me you paid in January this year for the 2005/6 tax year? I pay tax at the end of January and July - not sure whether both includ forward payment or just July. I just pay the bills. Payment is both historic and predictive (the forward element of my bill has been reduced due to anticipated drop in earnings. Sympathy please all!)
It is inconceivable that the Lib Dems haven't thought through implementation of LIT over CT. I take on board that they may not have published their plans but I have no doubt that they would not be planning to leave councils destitute for a year.
Scrotnig, the Lib Dems won't win the election, but they can still be influential, especially as Labour like nicking policies off other parties (sadly mainly the Tories). As things stand with the Tories campaign disapeearing down the pan, it looks like another significant Labour majority, the latest poll suggesting the Tories will gain just one seat (to add to the one they gained last time!). But who knows what (dirty) tricks they've got up their sleeves once the date is officially announced tomorrow. And if that margin were to narrow, hey, we could get a hung parliament which would increase LD influence by a huge scale. Unlikely I grant but....
Also debating alternatives to CT, which no-one seems to like, seems a pretty healthy pursuit!
ian@huth
04-04-2005, 11:08
Actually, I don't know why we are concerning ourselves with the LibDem proposals, since they have absolutely no chance of forming the next government.Maybe not, Labour appear to be odds on favourites. There is a chance though that it could be a hung parliament in which case the LibDems could have a big say in what happens for the next few years.
scrotnig
04-04-2005, 11:09
Maybe not, Labour appear to be odds on favourites. There is a chance though that it could be a hung parliament in which case the LibDems could have a big say in what happens for the next few years.Naah, whoever they went into a coalition with would simply humour them to keep them quiet.
So actually it's *not* going to put the onus on small businesses to administer (which would be a pretty silly thing to do, ie duplicating infrastructure that already exists!)
If you're going to slag something off, it's better to do a bit of research first.
There's nothing in their plans that says the extra work will not be a burden on companies.
There's nothing you've posted that I've seen that says there *will* be an extra burden on companies that they don't have to do already.
More complex taxation issues equals more work for companies.
Why? The information being passed from the companies to the Revenue is exactly what was being passed before. I don't see what extra work that will entail for them.
You've taken a couple of lines from their own website, that don't address the issue and then accuse me of not doing my research? Frankly I find that quite offensive.
Before you start getting offended, I suggest you look at what was actually written:
Originally Posted by andyl
I'm guessing they've thought of that.
No they haven't, there is no mention of this in their plans so far.
You make categorical statements that "they haven't thought of that" and that "there is no mention of this" which is clearly not the case as I pointed out.
Any changes to the tax code system will require more staff, upgraded payroll systems and a whole nunch of hassle.
But *why* should the tax code system *need* to change? And even if it does, what difference is there between that and the annual changes which happen after each budget?
And you have chosen not to address the issue of payment in advance.....
Oh dear, now you imply that I'm trying to dodge an issue that I can't answer.
Sorry, but it just wasn't relevant to the points I was discussing.
However so what? If you're already paying Council Tax in advance, you're not going to be worse off if it's based on your income, even if it's the income from a previous tax year since most people's income isn't going to change massively year on year.
I'm sure that if someone's income *has* changed majorly (eg through redundancy or retirement) there will be systems put in place to cope with this, it's not exactly rocket science.
The government has been accused of a "massive climbdown" after it emerged the revaluation of homes for council tax in England could be delayed.
That sounds about right, but I am sure they won't wait too long in increasing revenue for councils.
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4254972.stm)
The government has been accused of a "massive climbdown" after it emerged the revaluation of homes for council tax in England could be delayed.
That sounds about right, but I am sure they won't wait too long in increasing revenue for councils.
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4254972.stm)
I cyncally predict higher government percentages will go to Labour marginal councils. The proportion of council tax the government pays back to councils has decreased year on year (this is money from business rates). Yet they cap councils who try to make up the shortfall. So now we have to pay a lot more for school busses (a great way of keeping cars on the road) and dinners.
I haven't read all of this thread, even though I was the OP, but I have a question for anyone who may be able to answer it, but firstly I am going to go back over the "local tax" for as far as I can remember...........
When I purchased my first house about 25 years ago, it had a rateable value dependent upon the condition of the house itself, i.e. if it never had central heating, the rateable value was lower.........therefore we paid "rates" applicable to this.
Then along came Mrs Thatcher, who scrapped the rating system and in her wisdom introduced the "Poll Tax", based upon services that you used, which actually made no difference to me whatsoever apart from the fact that my contribution annually tripled.
The Poll Tax was then scrapped as being unfair, so the "Community Charge" was introduced which also made no difference whatsoever, and now we have the aptly named council tax, which is what it has been all along, but.......and here is my question(s)
Why can't we pay for things like schooling, roads, parks, libraries etc through income tax say 1% per person extra annually ?
Then for services such as the Fire Brigade, Bin Collection, plus whatever else we use, we pay as and when we use them, similar to how the private sector would operate and just scrap the Council Tax.
Waits to be shot down :disturbd:
I haven't read all of this thread, even though I was the OP, but I have a question for anyone who may be able to answer it, but firstly I am going to go back over the "local tax" for as far as I can remember...........
When I purchased my first house about 25 years ago, it had a rateable value dependent upon the condition of the house itself, i.e. if it never had central heating, the rateable value was lower.........therefore we paid "rates" applicable to this.
Then along came Mrs Thatcher, who scrapped the rating system and in her wisdom introduced the "Poll Tax", based upon services that you used, which actually made no difference to me whatsoever apart from the fact that my contribution annually tripled.
The Poll Tax was then scrapped as being unfair, so the "Community Charge" was introduced which also made no difference whatsoever, and now we have the aptly named council tax, which is what it has been all along, but.......and here is my question(s)
Why can't we pay for things like schooling, roads, parks, libraries etc through income tax say 1% per person extra annually ?
Then for services such as the Fire Brigade, Bin Collection, plus whatever else we use, we pay as and when we use them, similar to how the private sector would operate and just scrap the Council Tax.
Waits to be shot down :disturbd:
one alternative is here (http://www.libdems.org.uk/community/issues/counciltax.html)
Do you have a unitary council authority or a 2 tier system?
Our County Council does schools, libraries, social services, fire service and quarry allocations and is the waste disposal authority. Whereas our District council does Planning, leisure, some green area maintainance, public loos and waste collection. It also is the collecting authority for Council Tax.
Then you will get Parish and Town Councils who deal with public halls and amenity spaces.
Do you have a unitary council authority or a 2 tier system?
We have Cambridge City Council (http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/portal/) & Cambridgeshire County Council (http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/), so I assume it is a 2 tier system
Why can't we pay for things like schooling, roads, parks, libraries etc through income tax say 1% per person extra annually ?
That is what the Lib Dems are proposing, ie you pay a "local income tax" based on your earnings, rather than on the value of your house.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned earlier in this thread that my mother now owns a flat that's worth over a quarter of a million pounds. It was bought around 25 years ago for 1/10th of that value.
Has her income gone up ten times in the same period? Hell no!
That is what the Lib Dems are proposing, ie you pay a "local income tax" based on your earnings, rather than on the value of your house.
And this is the reason I voted Lib Dems this year.
IMO Council Tax is the most unfair tax I've ever encountered. I'm all for a version which is based on your ability to pay. Council Tax demands have long been the bane of my life and have caused me no end of grief over the years.
That is what the Lib Dems are proposing, ie you pay a "local income tax" based on your earnings, rather than on the value of your house.
And this is the reason I voted Lib Dems this year.
That Tory spokeswoman was on the news earlier claiming that people didn't want Local Income Tax because the Lib Dems campaigned on it, but they didn't get into government! :dozey: :rolleyes:
That is what the Lib Dems are proposing, ie you pay a "local income tax" based on your earnings, rather than on the value of your house.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned earlier in this thread that my mother now owns a flat that's worth over a quarter of a million pounds. It was bought around 25 years ago for 1/10th of that value.
Has her income gone up ten times in the same period? Hell no!
I wouldn't mind betting that she votes Lib Dem then :)
Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know how this type of funding is carried out in the United States ?
Chrysalis
18-09-2005, 06:46
Fairness
Britain has an extremely unfair tax system overall. Taking all taxes, the richest 20% of the population pay 34% of their income in tax compared to 42% for the poorest 20%. Of all major taxes, council tax is the most unfair. On the other hand, income tax is the fairest tax. With personal allowances taking the poorest out of income tax, the system is progressive, with the top 10% of income taxpayers, paying 52% of all income tax. Replacing Britain's most unfair tax, with our most fair tax, makes tax overall more progressive.
Local income tax already works - in countries with different political cultures and geographies. From conservative-minded USA and Switzerland to the more progressive Scandinavian countries, local income tax is a tried and tested form of local taxation. Countries with a local income tax include America, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Finland and Denmark.
I have to say I think this was Lib Dems best policy, income tax is the fairest tax but tories and labour are both scared to raise in fear of ****ing of the rich, instead of reviewing council tax bands they should just scrap it and replace with a fairer tax.
__________________
Maggie's arrogance over the Poll Tax cost her the Government.
Tony appears not to have picked up on this and I sincerely hope he will go the same way. Enough.
Incidently how did the poll tax work? as I was only a kid at the time, was it based on number of people in house? if so that is fairer then the current.
__________________
You don't work for the government in your spare time?:)
__________________
To be honest, again i can't see why the amount you earn should justify the amount you pay. This leads again to the scenario of why should Mr Bloggs who lives at the end of the street pay less than me because i earn more!! We are going to be using the sames services, live in same street, etc etc.
Because he is more priveledged and has the ability to pay, it is unfair to expect someone on min wage to spend say %30 of their income on council tax whilst another person pays say %5.
__________________
Sorry I replied to loads of old posts, but I wonder would all these tax increases be even considered if council tax was to affect headline inflation figures.
We have Cambridge City Council (http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/portal/) & Cambridgeshire County Council (http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/), so I assume it is a 2 tier system
Yes, you will find it works much the same. Of our monthly bill only around 5% is for the district (high number of people to draw upon), 6% for the town (low number of people) and the rest is for the County Council and a big chunk for Police (enourmous number of people in this tax base). Hubby gets very aggravated about the Police precept about 11% of total. (we are band C at the moment)
BTW somewhat :notopic: County councils used to be responsible for providing traveller/gypsy camps. Mrs T removed that responsibility which is why so many set up illegal sites.
BTW somewhat :notopic: County councils used to be responsible for providing traveller/gypsy camps. Mrs T removed that responsibility which is why so many set up illegal sites.
Oh no! don't start that one up again!
I hope andyl and me283 don't see this :)
There's already an old thread covering traveller/gypsy camps, which goes into things like how all the sites aren't actually being used by travellers and many actually leave legal sites to go and set up illegal ones, and if they were law abiding then illegal sites wouldn't exist, and if the bad ones cleaned up their acts then many private sites would be happy to accept them (although on this point andyl seemed to insist that private sites must mean holiday camps which of course it doesn't)
Anyway, it was all very dull and circular.
If you ever get insomnia, go search for it, I guarantee you'll be in the land of nod before you know it :D
*sneeks off before andyl comes by tee-hee*
Incidently how did the poll tax work? as I was only a kid at the time, was it based on number of people in house? if so that is fairer then the current.
It was the same amount per person regardless of whether you both worked or not (you were also responsible for your spouses/adult childrens poll tax). So for a single pensioner (with discount) it was great. The same went for wealthy couples in huge houses it was good. However for everyone else it was horrendous. 4 adults in one house were paying more per person than the single person (in the same sized house) next door. It's only vertue was at least everyone paid "nearly" the same for services provided (as long as you were working).
__________________
In poll tax days we were in what is now a band B property paying more than we do now and that was 16 years ago.
Chrysalis
19-09-2005, 04:51
So in your opinion you think a house with 4 working adults should pay the same as a house with 1 working adult?
So in your opinion you think a house with 4 working adults should pay the same as a house with 1 working adult?
Where it was unfair (and the reason for the riots) was that there was no distinction between those in work and those who didn't. A single occupant got a 25% discount (and could be using loads of help from social services) whereas a family of four adults with only one adult in work (only using bin collection) had to pay the full whack for every one. This was around £70 per person per month (locally) back in 1989.
This is why I think local income tax is fairer at least it relates to your ability to pay.:)
Oh no! don't start that one up again!
I hope andyl and me283 don't see this :)
There's already an old thread covering traveller/gypsy camps, which goes into things like how all the sites aren't actually being used by travellers and many actually leave legal sites to go and set up illegal ones, and if they were law abiding then illegal sites wouldn't exist, and if the bad ones cleaned up their acts then many private sites would be happy to accept them (although on this point andyl seemed to insist that private sites must mean holiday camps which of course it doesn't)
Anyway, it was all very dull and circular.
If you ever get insomnia, go search for it, I guarantee you'll be in the land of nod before you know it :D
*sneeks off before andyl comes by tee-hee*
Rubbish! It was fascinating...;)
__________________
Where it was unfair (and the reason for the riots) was that there was no distinction between those in work and those who didn't. A single occupant got a 25% discount (and could be using loads of help from social services) whereas a family of four adults with only one adult in work (only using bin collection) had to pay the full whack for every one. This was around £70 per person per month (locally) back in 1989.
This is why I think local income tax is fairer at least it relates to your ability to pay.:)
But on the flip side, I recall a friend complaining that he felt aggrieved at having to pay anything, because he didn't own a house! Must have forgotten all the services that he did benefit from...
Chrysalis
19-09-2005, 18:49
Where it was unfair (and the reason for the riots) was that there was no distinction between those in work and those who didn't. A single occupant got a 25% discount (and could be using loads of help from social services) whereas a family of four adults with only one adult in work (only using bin collection) had to pay the full whack for every one. This was around £70 per person per month (locally) back in 1989.
This is why I think local income tax is fairer at least it relates to your ability to pay.:)
Ok thanks for getting me up to date, yeah thats unfair.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.