Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GordonBrownSpentMyFuture

If House Prices Are Not Overvalued...

Recommended Posts

The LibDem's recent plan for £1m-property tax has understandably come under a lot of criticism and it certainly appears ill-thought out.

I recall hearing an interview with Cable or Clegg where they stated (something along the lines of)"it's unfair that someone living in a £350,000 house is paying the same rate of council tax as someone living in a £3.5m house".

Their suggestion is to tax homes worth over a £1m.

My suggestion is to re-value ALL properties in the UK and create new council tax bands that clearly reflect the new, inflated, actual, never-to-be-reduced value of property. The data that's being used is nearly 20 years out of date and clearly does not reflect the true value of modern property.

According to DirectGov: Council Tax - who pays and how much the valuation bands (in England) are:

A up to £40,000

B over £40,000 and up to £52,000

C over £52,000 and up to £68,000

D over £68,000 and up to £88,000

E over £88,000 and up to £120,000

F over £120,000 and up to £160,000

G over £160,000 and up to £320,000

H over £320,000

Well, considering there are NO PROPERTIES in bands A to C (maybe even D?) in our new wealthy modern UK I propose we scrap the current valuations of A to D, make band E the new A, shift everything else down, and introduce the remaining letters of the alphabet into the council tax valuations.

There would then be steady increments for those who own homes valued at over £320,000 until we reach the end of the scale where Band X would be "over £2m - 2.5m", Band Y "over £2.5m - £3m" and Band Z "over £3m".

Of course, it might take a while to do this but, long-term, the extra council tax that would be generated would help chip away at our swelling national debt.

Moreover, our council tax bands would accurately reflect the true value of property in the prosperous 21st century UK.

I'm surprised the government hasn't done it before now. Surely they don't still believe that 1991 prices are a true and accurate record of what a property is really, actually worth and every rise since then has been some sort of bubble?

And to think that 18 years ago you could buy a property that cost UNDER £40,000. How undervalued were they!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bands are based on historic prices and allow comparative wealth tax. There is no need to revise the figures whatsoever as they are effectively meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LibDem's recent plan for £1m-property tax has understandably come under a lot of criticism and it certainly appears ill-thought out.

I recall hearing an interview with Cable or Clegg where they stated (something along the lines of)"it's unfair that someone living in a £350,000 house is paying the same rate of council tax as someone living in a £3.5m house".

Their suggestion is to tax homes worth over a £1m.

My suggestion is to re-value ALL properties in the UK and create new council tax bands that clearly reflect the new, inflated, actual, never-to-be-reduced value of property. The data that's being used is nearly 20 years out of date and clearly does not reflect the true value of modern property.

According to DirectGov: Council Tax - who pays and how much the valuation bands (in England) are:

Well, considering there are NO PROPERTIES in bands A to C (maybe even D?) in our new wealthy modern UK I propose we scrap the current valuations of A to D, make band E the new A, shift everything else down, and introduce the remaining letters of the alphabet into the council tax valuations.

There would then be steady increments for those who own homes valued at over £320,000 until we reach the end of the scale where Band X would be "over £2m - 2.5m", Band Y "over £2.5m - £3m" and Band Z "over £3m".

Of course, it might take a while to do this but, long-term, the extra council tax that would be generated would help chip away at our swelling national debt.

Moreover, our council tax bands would accurately reflect the true value of property in the prosperous 21st century UK.

I'm surprised the government hasn't done it before now. Surely they don't still believe that 1991 prices are a true and accurate record of what a property is really, actually worth and every rise since then has been some sort of bubble?

And to think that 18 years ago you could buy a property that cost UNDER £40,000. How undervalued were they!

:lol: Imagine the smug dinner party conversations! 'Our council tax is now worth £500k a year!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LibDem's recent plan for £1m-property tax has understandably come under a lot of criticism and it certainly appears ill-thought out.

I recall hearing an interview with Cable or Clegg where they stated (something along the lines of)"it's unfair that someone living in a £350,000 house is paying the same rate of council tax as someone living in a £3.5m house".

Their suggestion is to tax homes worth over a £1m.

My suggestion is to re-value ALL properties in the UK and create new council tax bands that clearly reflect the new, inflated, actual, never-to-be-reduced value of property. The data that's being used is nearly 20 years out of date and clearly does not reflect the true value of modern property.

According to DirectGov: Council Tax - who pays and how much the valuation bands (in England) are:

Well, considering there are NO PROPERTIES in bands A to C (maybe even D?) in our new wealthy modern UK I propose we scrap the current valuations of A to D, make band E the new A, shift everything else down, and introduce the remaining letters of the alphabet into the council tax valuations.

There would then be steady increments for those who own homes valued at over £320,000 until we reach the end of the scale where Band X would be "over £2m - 2.5m", Band Y "over £2.5m - £3m" and Band Z "over £3m".

Of course, it might take a while to do this but, long-term, the extra council tax that would be generated would help chip away at our swelling national debt.

Moreover, our council tax bands would accurately reflect the true value of property in the prosperous 21st century UK.

I'm surprised the government hasn't done it before now. Surely they don't still believe that 1991 prices are a true and accurate record of what a property is really, actually worth and every rise since then has been some sort of bubble?

And to think that 18 years ago you could buy a property that cost UNDER £40,000. How undervalued were they!

As the real drops start to show in the housing market there will be a council tax strike on a wide scale IMO. The only way to prevent state collapse will be to tax the rich until the pips squeak. Property "wealth" will become something only encountered in history lessons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bands are based on historic prices and allow comparative wealth tax. There is no need to revise the figures whatsoever as they are effectively meaningless.

+1

anyone that still believes that this additional and illegal tax goes toward having their bins emptied is a c0ck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+1

anyone that still believes that this additional and illegal tax goes toward having their bins emptied is a c0ck.

Where does it go? and what can they do to make you pay? how many people have actually been jailed for not paying it?

I think the mugs, the "homeowners", are made to pay more because a lot of the revenue is marked as "uncollected and uncollectable"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General re-banding would almost certainly involve whole new swathes of council jobsworths demanding to nose around your house and tick off any improvements on a clipboard.

Status quo = lesser of two evils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work was well advanced on a Council Tax re valuation but the government cancelled it after quite a lot of money had been spent because there was an election due and it was un popular. The poster who said the values themselves were irrelevent is to some degree right as they are just a way of shareing out a given tax burden. However there would be winners and losera in a re valuation as relative values have changed. With new values of course would come new bandings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't do it regularly because:

1. Revauling every house in the country costs a fortune and results in huge problems when the valuations are wrong.

2. You'd only need to revalue if the relationship between different kinds of houses changed. In practice this never happens.

If you just wanted to soak the rich, you wouldn't need to revalue, you'll just up the Council Tax for the higher property bands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't do it regularly because:

1. Revauling every house in the country costs a fortune and results in huge problems when the valuations are wrong.

2. You'd only need to revalue if the relationship between different kinds of houses changed. In practice this never happens.

If you just wanted to soak the rich, you wouldn't need to revalue, you'll just up the Council Tax for the higher property bands.

Relative values do change. I have seen it happen in more than 30 years working as a valuer.

Upping the tax on the top band doesn't soak the rich as that band is £320,000 and above. Millions of houses are worth that and I am sure their occupants would be amazed to discover that they are seen as rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relative values do change. I have seen it happen in more than 30 years working as a valuer.

Upping the tax on the top band doesn't soak the rich as that band is £320,000 and above. Millions of houses are worth that and I am sure their occupants would be amazed to discover that they are seen as rich.

Nearly every house that was valued 320K during the last valuation would be worth well over 1 million today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relative values do change. I have seen it happen in more than 30 years working as a valuer.

Upping the tax on the top band doesn't soak the rich as that band is £320,000 and above. Millions of houses are worth that and I am sure their occupants would be amazed to discover that they are seen as rich.

But council tax values are based on indexed 1997 prices.

For instance, I almost bought a new build house for £800k a few months back, but it was indexed back to an approximate 1997 valuation in band D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But council tax values are based on indexed 1997 prices.

For instance, I almost bought a new build house for £800k a few months back, but it was indexed back to an approximate 1997 valuation in band D.

Yet I'm in a band G worth no more than £500K. Silly system.

VMR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, what's the point?

You'd be slugging everyone as renters pay council tax too...

Except for those living with mummy and daddy that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But council tax values are based on indexed 1997 prices.

For instance, I almost bought a new build house for £800k a few months back, but it was indexed back to an approximate 1997 valuation in band D.

That is way off. A 800K house should be in band G. Houses worth around 250K today are in band D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Relative values do change. I have seen it happen in more than 30 years working as a valuer.

+1.

About 20 years ago our house (late 60s neo-Georgian) was on the market for roughly the same price as Mr B's folks' house - a large Edwardian semi a few miles away.

Even in the same (relatively un-modernised) condition theirs would now probably sell for at least 60%-70% more than ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm, what's the point?

You'd be slugging everyone as renters pay council tax too...

Except for those living with mummy and daddy that is.

Well, of course, but it would mean that more tax can be squeezed from those living in a £400,000 property upwards. They're going to increase our future taxes anyway so I'd rather it be this than a blanket income tax increase. They could always release some of the equity in their pwoperty to subsidise it. ;)

Many homeowners seem keen to maintain the high value of their property. Would they be so keen if the tax was so closely based on its "new" price? I doubt it. "No, no, my house is worth only £319,000..."

And has already been said, most properties valued at £320,000 in 1991 would be "worth" £1m now anyway.

I don't agree with Council Tax either but I think it's here to stay. And if it's got rid of it'll just be replaced with something else.

Anyway, my OP was tongue-in-cheek... but I still think my idea is better than the LibDem's. Not exactly a vote winner but... you know... tough choices and all that. The money has to come from somewhere and since we all love high house prices...

A property, somewhere, in 1991 cost under £40,000. Still can't get my head around that and just shows how over valued they are today by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is way off. A 800K house should be in band G. Houses worth around 250K today are in band D.

Perfectly possible that I've got the wrong letter as this was back in March and my memory is crap. But it sure as hell wasn't band H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

council tax are bands - ignore the values, they are only a guide. If you live in the worst house in the worst area, you pay least, the best in the best, the most etc.

If you actually believe that any sort of reevaluation will do anything other than increase the overall tax take from council tax you are deluded (unless it's done under the current regime where they will simply make more of their voters more Labour dependent by cutting their council tax and lifting it in some Tory areas).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
council tax are bands - ignore the values, they are only a guide. If you live in the worst house in the worst area, you pay least, the best in the best, the most etc.

If you actually believe that any sort of reevaluation will do anything other than increase the overall tax take from council tax you are deluded (unless it's done under the current regime where they will simply make more of their voters more Labour dependent by cutting their council tax and lifting it in some Tory areas).

So you don't think that introducing new bands above Band H could be a way of increasing revenue for the government to help reduce our national debt (and control HPI)?

I'm not saying it would be popular.

A house that is worth £350,000 and one that is worth £3.5m in the same geographical area currently pay the same level of council tax. Which house is "best"? Which household could afford to pay "most"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.