Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Government Starts To Cannibalise Its Host.


 Share

Recommended Posts

I do so love the words regressive and progressive when applied to taxation.

The poll tax made sense in that every adult paid something towards what local government spent. Due to the fact only part of local government spending was funded by the poll tax any change in local government spending was magnified at the poll tax level, hence showing up high spending authorities. Everyone paid something and the prolifigate councils were shown up. As everyone paid something everyone was liable to get pissed off withe the prolifigate councils. That made sense, except to the lefties.

The problem with the poll tax is that people (tenants) who are paying someone a market charge (in rent) for access to local services are also being forced to supply those very same services. So the tenant pays for services twice and the landlord collects a charge in his rent for services he has no hand in providing

This gives the owners of real estate an unearned welfare of value they don't provide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem with the poll tax is that people (tenants) who are paying someone a market charge (in rent) for access to local services are also being forced to supply those very same services. So the tenant pays for services twice and the landlord collects a charge in his rent for services he has no hand in providing

This gives the owners of real estate an unearned welfare of value they don't provide

The landlord supplies the tenant with a property. The landlord charges a rent for the property. If a poll tax is in operation the council chase the tenant for the poll tax. If a council tax is in operation either the rent charged by the landlord includes the council tax and the council chaes the landlord for the council tax or the rent charged by the landlord does not include the council tax and the council chases the tenant. Either way the tenant pays in the end. It might as well be gas or electricity. They could be included in the rent or paid for directly by the tenant.

With the council tax the charge is per property, with the poll tax the charge is per person. Guess who/what uses the council services?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government starts to cannibalise its host.

I just got a rates bill for a small outlet I run. Not very profitable but it keeps two people in work and pays circa £15k in VAT and about £5k in other taxes. (not to mention those two people would likely be unemployed and on the dole rather than earning a wage and paying tax themselves)

It has been exempt from rates for well as long as the unit has been there. It is absolutely tiny at about 5-6 square meters. Today I get a letter saying the council is now going to charge rates on it at a cool £4,000 or so per square meter!!! Rateable value apparently £20,000 which means they want some £8-9k more out of me.

Well no thanks it isn’t worth the hassle and I would be making a loss.

I am quite pissed off with this, not just for the loss of some small income but for the retardedness of the situation. This £8-9k they are trying to squeeze out of me will likely cost them £40k in lost taxes and benefit payments.

Before any smart **** says someone else will lease the unit and pay the taxes, not likely, there is already two similar empty units nearby. Plus many more on most high streets.

Will be calling them today and if they don’t reduce it 80-90% will pack up and leave within a week or two.

Small Business Rate Relief on an office this size should substantially reduce what you have to pay. Perhaps you should find out about all your options first and then come back for a rant if it is still too high? Otherwise its a bit premature isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The landlord supplies the tenant with a property.

Part of the so called 'property', is an access to local services - the property is a peice of space which is the route through which services can be accessed. Ergo, the landlord sells the tenant access to local services.

This is why people who own real estate can make private charges for things they don't supply - like:

Police forces

Roads

Hostpitals

Schools

Forcing tenants to supply local services is like forcing fairground goers to supply the rides to the fairground owner and pay an entrance fee.

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do so love the words regressive and progressive when applied to taxation.

The poll tax made sense in that every adult paid something towards what local government spent. Due to the fact only part of local government spending was funded by the poll tax any change in local government spending was magnified at the poll tax level, hence showing up high spending authorities. Everyone paid something and the prolifigate councils were shown up. As everyone paid something everyone was liable to get pissed off withe the prolifigate councils. That made sense, except to the lefties.

The effective cap was 300,000 or whatever in 1990 (I don't remember either) but so what? We still have the same bands and the amount charged for each band has gone up. So silly house price inflation has put more nominal house prices way above what was ever envisage, does that mean that the people liveing in those houses are going to use way more services?

Clearly we should have a poll tax equivalent for businesses. Why should someone in a larger shop unit or business premisses pay more for services than someone using less space? After all their demands on services are the same. But of course they aren't, so let's base the tax on type of business, square footage, etc etc. And because reality gets in the way of ideology we'll charge businesses that make higher profits more. Next thing you know we've got a progressive tax system.

There is a reason why poll taxes never work, unless they are set at rates that are too low to achieve anything. Because human beings have a profound, ingrained sense of fairness. You can try and poke fun at mythical "lefties" all you like, in the real world away from out dated theoretical right-wing ideology poll taxes are dead in the water. Politicians know this. It's been tried and it failed, back in 1381 (try this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Tyler ). As Einstein once said, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly we should have a poll tax equivalent for businesses. Why should someone in a larger shop unit or business premisses pay more for services than someone using less space? After all their demands on services are the same. But of course they aren't, so let's base the tax on type of business, square footage, etc etc. And because reality gets in the way of ideology we'll charge businesses that make higher profits more. Next thing you know we've got a progressive tax system.

There is a reason why poll taxes never work, unless they are set at rates that are too low to achieve anything. Because human beings have a profound, ingrained sense of fairness. You can try and poke fun at mythical "lefties" all you like, in the real world away from out dated theoretical right-wing ideology poll taxes are dead in the water. Politicians know this. It's been tried and it failed, back in 1381 (try this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wat_Tyler ). As Einstein once said, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Well a business does pay more business rates for a larger premises than a smaller one. Then they pay on top for services such as rubbish collection etc.

The poll tax was fair, the problem was that some people see the only fair tax to be ones that others pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly the same happened to a farming friend of mine. He has a barn that has been sublet into little units. Rates exempt, he rents them for not a lot to some local small businesses. So the man shows up, re-evaluates them and demands £26K per annum off him - approximately £10K more than the rent. The tenants can't afford to double their rent, so they leave. The man still demands £26K. So the farmer pulls the roof off with a JCB, and the man is satisfied. Value add all the way.

Why was the farmer approached for the rates? He would surely be classified as the property owner, the rates should have been directly charged to the small businesses individually. After all Cells the OP was presented with the rates bill, not the owner of his outlet freehold.

Unless of course the farmer was subletting previously designated business premises or undertaking some other practice without adequate legal advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll tax was fair, the problem was that some people see the only fair tax to be ones that others pay.

It isn't remotely fair that people who pay owners a fee to be at place X, are also forced to provide the atractions and services of place X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't remotely fair that people who pay owners a fee to be at place X, are also forced to provide the atractions and services of place X.

Whoever is at plae X pays for the services of place X. The payment may be included in the rent or paid directly but whoever is in place X pays for those services. With the poll tax the services are charged per liable person in place X and they pay directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The payment may be included in the rent or paid directly but whoever is in place X pays for those services. With the poll tax the services are charged per liable person in place X and they pay directly.

Yes i know this, and i'm telling why It is unfair and abusive

In general - the people enabled to charge for a service should be the people tasked with providing it.. In this particular case, the people enabled to charge for the value of local services are the owners of region in which the services apply.

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes i know this, and i'm telling why It is unfair and abusive

In general - the people enabled to charge for a service should be the people tasked with providing it.. In this particular case, the people enabled to charge for the value of local services are the owners of region in which the services apply.

Say that place X can be rented out for £100 per week inclusive. Furthermore plaxe X attracts a charge of £20 from the council for services. The landlord takes £100 from the tenant, pockets £80 and passes on "20 to the council. It does not matter whether there is 1 person liveing at plaxe X or 2 or 3, the council gets £20 per week. Now say that the landlord rents the place exclusiive of the council tax, the tenanTs) pay £80 per week and pay the council £20 directly. No change really. Id could be one person paying £20 or two people each paying £10 or three people each paying £6.6666.

If on the other hand we have a poll tax set at £10 per head, the one person renting flat pays £80 rent to the landlor and £10 to the council. If two people rent it they pay £80 to the landlord and £10 each to the council. If three people rent it they pay £80 to the landlord and £10 each to the council. The people in the propert use the services, not the property so why should the charge be per property rather than by person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If on the other hand we have a poll tax set at £10 per head, the one person renting flat pays £80 rent to the landlor and £10 to the council. If two people rent it they pay £80 to the landlord and £10 each to the council. If three people rent it they pay £80 to the landlord and £10 each to the council.

Which is a completely abusive way to spread the cost. Some of the people involved have already paid other people (who hold an exclusion on the service) for access to the service - and some are actually receiving payment for access, not because they are providing anything, but simply because they hold an exclusion.

So, A is charging B for the existence of service X. And at the same time B is expected to chip in equally to help provide X.

It's a bit like a hotel manager gathering all guests, shareholders and staff into a big conference and telling them that in the interests of fairness they should all make an equal contribution to the services provided in the hotel and surroundings

There isn't even much of an real debate about this - people who are enabled by exclusion to charge for the existence of something, must be the ones who bear the any cost in providing it. The whole poll tax thing was a deliberate attempt to twist and distort market logic, not to use it.

The people in the propert use the services, not the property so why should the charge be per property rather than by person?

No matter how many people collect the service from one place they are already paying a market price for their slice of access. If they are overusing the service the landowner has agreed for, that's an issue between the gov and the landlord. But in each case the landlord is collecting a market payment for the existence of those services

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing whether rates should apply to person or property surely misses the main point: that rates don't actually pay for any local services.

Personally I'd prefer a highly hypothecated tax system, where (as far as possible) you pay for those services that you use, and can opt out where you feel you can get a better deal (e.g. in rubbish collection).

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing whether rates should apply to person or property surely misses the main point: that rates don't actually pay for any local services.

Personally I'd prefer a highly hypothecated tax system, where (as far as possible) you pay for those services that you use, and can opt out where you feel you can get a better deal (e.g. in rubbish collection).

Wow. A world with an army of bureaucrats calculating micro-payments. You walked how many yards on publicly-provided and maintained pavements this week - that's 50p. You put litter in a council bin in the park last week - that's 2p. You drove x miles on local roads last week, that's £1.50. You drove y miles on motorways last week - no, that's central government who have another army of people. They'll send you a separate bill. Astonishing progress made in 1840, 1d flat-rate postage to all corners of the UK. Transformed business instead of the old hugely expensive pay whatever fee to send a letter by stagecoach/man on horse/boat etc etc.

Stars is right. Housing is enmeshed in a network of publicly-funded services, be they roads, pavements, street lighting, cleaning, policing, rubbish disposal, etc etc. We live in a highly interdependent world, only there's this myth of individualism that enables people to kid themselves that they should only pay for what they think they actually use. 21st century westerners can only delude themselves about their relations with the state because they take for granted what the state does, as they've never known anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the end of the Ming dynasty in China whereby taxes were levied so high and money was printed so quickly people downed tools and became beggars instead as it afforded them a better life style.

Indeed. I jacked in my "well paid" job with a multi national two years ago because, well, it just weren't well paid enough to be worth the unprecedented BS I had to endure from senior management.

Now I work in the woods making furniture from green wood. Can the council charge me rates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, ISTR minimum standards of space per person in the workplace: something like 40 sq ft (just under 4 sq m). That would make putting more than one person into 5-6 sq m illegal.

Is that my memory playing tricks? Or ..... ?

The actual space is a lot more than 6 sq meters, we just rent that much. Useable space is perhaps more like 12 sq meters and it isn’t two people at a time. More like 1 person and 2 people during the few busy hours

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very suprised by this. To go from exempt to paying £8-9k seems unbelieveable. Surely there must be small business rates relief and the new exemption that was introduced recently for property below a certain rateable value.

I know busineses renting offices/workshops between 300 to 700 sq ft and paying anything between £500 to £800 in SW London. I think that some property attracts higher rates than others, e.g. workshops are lower than high street shops. And do rates vary from borough to borough? where are you based?

also forgot to say is this the only property that your company rents? as that will obviously vary your rates.

It heavily depends on location, well actually it is meant to be about 40% of the rentable value of the store. They think the rentable value is £20k hence I should pay about £8k in rates. The level is above any small rates relief.

and yes its the only one we rent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well a business does pay more business rates for a larger premises than a smaller one. Then they pay on top for services such as rubbish collection etc.

The poll tax was fair, the problem was that some people see the only fair tax to be ones that others pay.

Sh!t on a stick, what is it that you right-wing ideologues don't get? When they tried a poll tax in 1377 it led to riots because it was perceived to be unfair. When it was tried again in 1989/90, against advice from lots of Conservative politicians, it led to riots. How hard do you think you have to work to p!ss people off in this country to get them to riot? Whatever you might think about the fairness of a poll tax, the vast majority of people think you are wrong. And they think you are so wrong that they will riot. As Keynes once said, when someone tried to show him up by pointing out that he'd changed his mind; "When the facts change, sir, I change my mind. What do you do?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes i know this, and i'm telling why It is unfair and abusive

In general - the people enabled to charge for a service should be the people tasked with providing it.. In this particular case, the people enabled to charge for the value of local services are the owners of region in which the services apply.

I started off drafting a rebuttal to this, but the more I thought the more I decided I agree with you that philosophically it would be better for landlords to pay council tax not tenants.

However, I suspect it would just result in rents going up by the amount of the council tax, and wouldn't make much difference to tenants in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started off drafting a rebuttal to this, but the more I thought the more I decided I agree with you that philosophically it would be better for landlords to pay council tax not tenants.

Ty - I will make sure I give your posts the same benefit of thought and reflection if i find myself disagreement with them.

However, I suspect it would just result in rents going up by the amount of the council tax, and wouldn't make much difference to tenants in the end.

I would say that a portion would almost certainly end up charged to the tenant like this, but not all. It isn't just the tenant liability for the council tax that tips things against the tenant; it is also what the tax is charged on. If the council tax were a charge based only on the value an owner receives from the surrounding community by ownership of the location, rather than being mostly based on the value of any buildings he provides, then the tenants could not have such a tax passed on to them at all.

Edited by Stars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. A world with an army of bureaucrats calculating micro-payments. [snipped lots of straw-man arguments]

I caveated my suggestion because clearly it would be silly to have a tax system that itself costs significant amounts to run. However it would be perfectly reasonable to factor out a number of service costs and adjust rateable value in proportion. e.g. grass verge outside your property maintained by council? then add 50 quid to your rates. Add some real democracy by allowing referenda on local expenditure/taxes and you have a far fairer system.

Stars is right. Housing is enmeshed in a network of publicly-funded services, be they roads, pavements, street lighting, cleaning, policing, rubbish disposal, etc etc. We live in a highly interdependent world, only there's this myth of individualism that enables people to kid themselves that they should only pay for what they think they actually use. 21st century westerners can only delude themselves about their relations with the state because they take for granted what the state does, as they've never known anything else.

So I have to pay what the state demands and accept what it provides, whether I want or need it. In what way is this better than feudal serfdom?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

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.