Petition to reform Council Tax

[A17]

3 hours ago, scottbeard said:

The big sticking point to it is the current value of property.  They suggest that the government builds its own equivalent of Zoopla...that doesn't sound like a great basis upon which to base a tax: firstly due to the monstrous complexity and reliance on algorithms, and secondly because it means that you don't pay a % of what you house is worth, you pay a % of what you house last sold for x some kind of inflator.  Works great if you live on an estate of 200 identical houses, but what if you live in a unique little cottage in the Scottish Highlands that you bought 50 years ago?  Frankly the value will be even more made up that Council Tax bandings.

It sounds like the USA. A percentage of the property value sounds great in principle, but in reality it leads to a huge expensive bureaucracy of continual revaluations and appeals. Who has built an extension? Who has had a pool installed? Whose neighborhood has gone uphill? Who got a bargain on a house because it hadn't been updated in 50 years and what does that mean for their neighbors?

I am also naturally wary of campaigns where they promise that 75% of the population will pay less than they do currently. Under their proposals I would pay nearly £700 more per year for my modest one bedroom flat in London.

[reddog]

11 hours ago, Jim Bexley said:

It’s not delayed, the proposal suggests a capped increase of £1200 for existing properties:

 

The Proportional Property Tax (PPT) is a single flat rate tax charged annually at 0.48% of a property’s value. So for example, a property valued at £200,000 would pay £960 each year. Those in valuable properties will have any increase capped at £1,200 per year on what is currently paid. When that property is sold the future owners will pay the full rate of 0.48%.

I agree that a percentage tax on properties is a good idea, however why cap it at such a low level?  Maybe don't cap it at all? 

 

 

[skinnylattej]

15 hours ago, GeneCernan said:

I honestly don't see why this is always so complicated, just tax income like they do to pay for everything else. 

Job done.

Because poor people do not pay income tax as they have very little income, and rich people don't pay income tax because (I don't want to be banned).

[NobodyInParticular]

20 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Not really

1 they are half baked and hugely favours those with multi million £ homes especially those who move frequently.

2 Council tax should be about local services these go to people not houses. The poll tax was a much better way of letting people pay for these, more democratic and an incentive for the votors to root out incompetence.

On that basis all tax is for services, but we don't tax regressively for healthcare, so I'm not sure why we should for education. Most progressive would be a local income tax unless there is an intention to use property taxes for other reasons such as incentivisation of behaviour or the fact that you might be able to hide income but less so property. 

On the poor widow issue, that's a concern. Maybe I'll end up in that sort of situation eventually and I probably wouldn't want to move to somewhere with a less nice view, different neighbours, and so on, but equally we don't seem to modify other parts of tax policy to enable this. 

In terms of moving frequently, given the cost of removals and so on, people won't be doing it at the drop of a hat, but making it cheaper and a workforce better able to respond to demand is a hood thing. Stamp duty is a poor way to gather tax, although just suspending it rather than phasing it out over five years is distorting. 

[NobodyInParticular]

1 minute ago, skinnylattej said:

Because poor people do not pay income tax as they have very little income, and rich people don't pay income tax because (I don't want to be banned).

I don't think taxing income is insurmountable, but houses can't be hidden for tax purposes. One issue might be that if income in an area falls it'd be screwed. 

[skinnylattej]

17 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

I don't think taxing income is insurmountable, but houses can't be hidden for tax purposes. One issue might be that if income in an area falls it'd be screwed. 

I agree that houses cannot be hidden, but ownership can be hidden.

My preferred option would be to tax energy, gas oil, petrol, diesel and electricity generated from non-renewable sources. 

[14stFlyer]

I am a yes for this. I do not like the implementation (including the arbitrary cap), and there needs to be clarity on valuation, but the concept that housing usage should be taxed to stop housing being abused as a wealth store is in my view a good one.  It works (with some issues of course) in Denmark. 

[dugsbody]

21 hours ago, The Spaniard said:

Do you in general support these proposals to reform Council Tax?

https://fairershare.org.uk/

It's another London tax.

London subsidises all these backward places instead of funding our NHS instead. They send their workers to London to steal our jobs, put pressure on our services, increase our housing costs. It would be far better if people from Bolton stayed in Bolton and enriched the local area instead. It's unfair that London takes their best and brightest. London needs to regain control of our borders.

Edited February 15, 2021 by dugsbody

[14stFlyer]

😊 

[winkie]

4 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

It's another London tax.

London subsidises all these backward places instead of funding our NHS instead. They send their workers to London to steal our jobs, put pressure on our services, increase our housing costs. It would be far better if people from Bolton stayed in Bolton and enriched the local area instead. It's unfair that London takes their best and brightest. London needs to regain control of our borders.

London is not a seperate entity, it is part of a whole, it is where the money and power is......people are and have always been attracted to it and been encouraged to live and work there to better themselves, therefore only right as a united kingdom the spoils are shared so that all can benefit and prosper...

[erat_forte]

Imputed rent on the unimproved site is the best way to tax it. That way it is not tied to price bubbles, it is not affected by improvements, it is pretty much entirely dependent on planning permission, services and local amenities.

[NobodyInParticular]

1 hour ago, skinnylattej said:

I agree that houses cannot be hidden, but ownership can be hidden.

But someone will still have to pay the bill. 

1 hour ago, skinnylattej said:

My preferred option would be to tax energy, gas oil, petrol, diesel and electricity generated from non-renewable sources. 

Already done surely? 

[NobodyInParticular]

41 minutes ago, winkie said:

London is not a seperate entity, it is part of a whole, it is where the money and power is......people are and have always been attracted to it and been encouraged to live and work there to better themselves, therefore only right as a united kingdom the spoils are shared so that all can benefit and prosper...

+1. London has its own network effects but also gains from its hinterland. It also gains from a hinterland that extends outside the UK, but it's often proved to be difficult to tax foreigners living abroad, although the non-dom rules don't help... 

[NobodyInParticular]

56 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

It's another London tax.

London subsidises all these backward places instead of funding our NHS instead. They send their workers to London to steal our jobs, put pressure on our services, increase our housing costs. It would be far better if people from Bolton stayed in Bolton and enriched the local area instead. It's unfair that London takes their best and brightest. London needs to regain control of our borders.

Lexit? I think Yorkshiremen would probably want Lexit to mean Lancashire leaving as well as t'London. 

[iamnumerate]

21 hours ago, Si1 said:

'I don't care about the broader good, I want to live in a big house on my own so no I won't pay it'

Yadda Yadda. Selfish nonsense.

I'll support it.

Very true.

 

The problem being of course that the losers will hate whoever does it but the winners will not change their votes.

[iamnumerate]

2 hours ago, dugsbody said:

It's another London tax.

London subsidises all these backward places instead of funding our NHS instead. They send their workers to London to steal our jobs, put pressure on our services, increase our housing costs. It would be far better if people from Bolton stayed in Bolton and enriched the local area instead. It's unfair that London takes their best and brightest. London needs to regain control of our borders.

That is a joke isn't it.

The best way to make London cheaper is to reduce housing benefit and if people can't afford they can move.

(I would be very happy for the savings to spent elsewhere).

[dugsbody]

2 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

That is a joke isn't it.

The best way to make London cheaper is to reduce housing benefit and if people can't afford they can move.

(I would be very happy for the savings to spent elsewhere).

Yes, it was a joke. I understand the mutual benefits of redistributive policies and allowing people to have more freedom of move rather than elites deciding who gets to live where.

On housing benefit, I agree with your comments. Housing benefit is a subsidy for low wages. If businesses cannot afford to pay people enough to live in a particular place, they need to raise prices and pay them more, or don't run that business. Or even better, let rents fall to a price that reflects what people can pay rather than what the government can pay.

On the other hand, there are people who have their entire life in a community. Family, friends, children at school etc. Suddenly removing housing benefit and forcing them out of their community is quite harsh. 

 

 

[iamnumerate]

5 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Yes, it was a joke. I understand the mutual benefits of redistributive policies and allowing people to have more freedom of move rather than elites deciding who gets to live where.

On housing benefit, I agree with your comments. Housing benefit is a subsidy for low wages. If businesses cannot afford to pay people enough to live in a particular place, they need to raise prices and pay them more, or don't run that business. Or even better, let rents fall to a price that reflects what people can pay rather than what the government can pay.

On the other hand, there are people who have their entire life in a community. Family, friends, children at school etc. Suddenly removing housing benefit and forcing them out of their community is quite harsh. 

 

 

I remember hearing a programme about the benefit cap and they asked a woman who was going to be affected by it, "What do your friends who work think about this?"

Her embarrassed reply was, "all my friends who work have moved away."  They of course were never on the radio being asked what they thought about this.

For every benefit recipient who is forced to move - someone else doesn't have to.

[dugsbody]

14 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I remember hearing a programme about the benefit cap and they asked a woman who was going to be affected by it, "What do your friends who work think about this?"

Her embarrassed reply was, "all my friends who work have moved away."  They of course were never on the radio being asked what they thought about this.

For every benefit recipient who is forced to move - someone else doesn't have to.

I agree again. It should never have been a policy in the first place. 

[iamnumerate]

14 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

I agree again. It should never have been a policy in the first place. 

Good I am glad we agree that over generous housing benefit is a bad idea.

[adarmo]

18 hours ago, Jim Bexley said:

Also... doesn’t this further incentivise house price ramping by the government? Bigger values = more tax.

Exactly. What many overlook is that suddenly the government can increase the tax take by dropping interest rates to the floor and coming up with more 'help' for first time buyers. 

It's also unfair on a number of levels. I might own a 500k house but have a 450k mortgage. Doris next door (never worked a day in her life and inherited her late husband's final salary) has no mortgage. One is ten times more wealthy than the other but both pay the same... i know this is also the issue with council tax too but doesn't mean it should be replicated. 

[msi]

39 minutes ago, adarmo said:

Exactly. What many overlook is that suddenly the government can increase the tax take by dropping interest rates to the floor and coming up with more 'help' for first time buyers. 

It's also unfair on a number of levels. I might own a 500k house but have a 450k mortgage. Doris next door (never worked a day in her life and inherited her late husband's final salary) has no mortgage. One is ten times more wealthy than the other but both pay the same... i know this is also the issue with council tax too but doesn't mean it should be replicated. 

I'm a leveraged debt junkie i need special help....please!

If you choose to take on a 450K mortgage, you choose to accept the additional taxation. Don't like it - sell up and go to somewhere cheaper. Isn't that the free market at work

[Confusion of VIs]

13 hours ago, msi said:

No THAT is the 'why should my tax money pay for services I don't use' argument....

No it's the what have houses got to do with Council taxes argument. 

Using housing to determine council tax liability is illogical and weakens local democracy. Big ticket national items like education, housing and social care should be paid for centrally and local services via a poll tax. this would give voters a far better incentive to both pay for improved services and to kick out incompetent councils. 

Fairness and redistribution should be the area of income tax and CGT and done in one go not the current multiple half baked layers that fail to achieve their aim and give lots of opportunities for gaming the system.     

 

 

 

[dugsbody]

27 minutes ago, msi said:

I'm a leveraged debt junkie i need special help....please!

If you choose to take on a 450K mortgage, you choose to accept the additional taxation. Don't like it - sell up and go to somewhere cheaper. Isn't that the free market at work

Must keep supporting the system that made so many older people rich. Tax the young, tax them hard!

[iamnumerate]

1 hour ago, adarmo said:

Exactly. What many overlook is that suddenly the government can increase the tax take by dropping interest rates to the floor and coming up with more 'help' for first time buyers. 

It's also unfair on a number of levels. I might own a 500k house but have a 450k mortgage. Doris next door (never worked a day in her life and inherited her late husband's final salary) has no mortgage. One is ten times more wealthy than the other but both pay the same... i know this is also the issue with council tax too but doesn't mean it should be replicated. 

True - but

a) this will make life better for your children

b) if you have to move in future you have to pay no stamp duty.  At the moment if you were to lose your job and have to move for a new job you have to pay stamp duty.