er 'great' Tax on 'peace and quiet' revealed

[99Flake]

Isn't that what the lib dems proposed, and everyone laughed at them?

I have to say I agree though.

Apart from high earners already pay 40% How much more do you want people to pay? Those that earn a good living will end up paying more for things they don't use, like benefits, NHS etc. All this would is make the rich subsidise the poor (more than they are now). That doesn't sound right to me.

[monkeyville]

All this would is make the rich subsidise the poor (more than they are now). That doesn't sound right to me.

That's the price you pay for living in a civilised society.

[nichomach]

I'd rather see an income based solution, even though I'd probably lose out a bit under a system like that. As it stands, the poorer members of society pay more than the richer members for the same services, or get less for the same money, or end up excluded from some services that more affluent members of society take for granted. See http://www.ncc.org.uk/access/index.htm, "Why do the poor pay more... or get less?".

[M0nkeyb0Y]

Council Tax is unfair: I live on a terraced street, we all pay the same rate of council tax, but I'm pretty sure as a household we earn more than most on my street.

Variable Income Tax is a 'fair' tax.

[chicken]

Council tax should be based on services and quality of services in your area.

If you have a direct bus-link into a major town near your house, pay more Council tax as you're more likely to use it.

If you live in an estate with a green out front the kids can play on, mown during the summer by the council, pay more tax for its upkeep.

If you live in a terraced house with a poor-state road right outside your front door, nowhere near a park, nowhere to keep your car, pay less tax.

And finally if you put a nice conservatory on your house, then it had nothing to do with the council, you pay your tax on the materials, wages of the workers who put it up, your wage working to afford it, why should you then pay an additional tax forever from that moment on? It's your land, your work and everything involved has tax paid already. I don't see the Council helping people put up conservatories, or buying nice TVs. All this tax would achieve is to make people less inclined to work hard, make their houses nice and presentable and generally make the quality of life in country slide.

[Waka]

Um Waka, this is the complete opposite of a poll tax, in fact you are arguing to make it more like a poll tax! The poll tax was based on everyone paying the same amount - you are arguing that everyone should pay the same amount regardless of house value

Making people with higher value houses pay more is just a means of distrubuting the costs more 'fairly' across those using the services.

I can't believe they would ever bother with contents - that sounds like pure scaremongering and just isn't enforcable.

Um kalniel (!) - where am I saying it should be *more* like a Poll Tax, I'm saying it *is* like the Poll Tax - do you even know what the Poll Tax was?
It was based on the rateable value of the property (from the old 'rates') - which meant it wasn't fixed for everybody. In fact it's very similar to the current (unfair) scheme as it bears no relation to usage nor to the ability to pay.

As for rebanding properties; so some go up, some go down and some don't change; so the nett income to the local councils is the same (proabably not your exact words, but that's my understanding of the propesed excercise) - what a complete waste of money!

I repeat, what has the value of my house got to do with the amount I pay for resources?

Council tax was supposed to be a local tax, yet this shabby government has been shifting funds from the south to other cities.

W.

[Saracen]

Apart from high earners already pay 40% How much more do you want people to pay? Those that earn a good living will end up paying more for things they don't use, like benefits, NHS etc. All this would is make the rich subsidise the poor (more than they are now). That doesn't sound right to me.

Almost nobody pays 40%, unless they're in receipt of non-standard benefits.

The marginal rate may be 40%, but you have to be earning a VERY large sum indeed before the overall effective rate hits 40%. So large, in fact, that I'd bet that without exception, anyone earning that much not only has a very non-standard tax situation, but has expensive lawyers and accountants making sure their tax bill is minimised. Put it this way, looking at income tax alone, on standard PAs, you can earn £100,000,000 a year (yeah, a hundred million pounds) and STILL not hit an effective 40% overall rate.

Shocking, init?

Even if you look at Income and and NI together (as we should, if we're being sensible, since they're not charged in isolation), you have to be earning in excess of £500,000 a year before the effective rate is 40%.

With standard PAs, at 2006/07 rates, someone earning £50k per year pays 23.46% (£11,732) in income tax, and 30.1% (£15031.16) in income tax and NI combined. The reason is obvious .... tax free PAs, the introductory 10% bracket and then the standard 22% bracket).

If that person earning £50k earns another £1k, then sure, they'll pay 40% on the margin (assuming standard PAs, no chargeable benefits and therefore standard tax code), but only on the margin - it isn't an overall percentage nor, as those figures above show, anywhere near it.

And, of course, as annual income grows much above that £50k, so does the benefit of and therefore propensity to use a decent accountant, capable of inspired but perfectly legal tax accounting .... i.e. avoidance schemes.


Personally, I question whether any such thing as an absolutely fair tax exists, because what is "fair" will depend onthe perspective of whomever you ask.

Even the notorious community charge (poll tax) had aspects of fairness that the replacement council tax does not.

For instance, suppose you have two identical homes, side by side. Both a fairly large (say, 5 bed). One has a young family, both parents working and earning decent money (say £40k and £30k repsectively). In addition to that £70k income, they have various tax benefits aimed at their 4 kids. And, of course, as a family of six, they are fairly large consumers of local services. Maybe even a couple of those kids are old enough to be out at work, which would of course cut the tax benefits, but now turn that family into a four income family, not a two income one.

Yet, the "family" next door is an elderly couple that bought that house in the 1950s, when it cost a few hundred, maybe a thousand, pounds. They don't want to move because it's their home, they lived in it all their life and they're age an age where the comfort of familiar surroundings is important, and the hassle and stress of moving a nightmare to contemplate.

If you have a council tax, then that elderly couple, quite possibly with limited incomes (pensions) which very likely don't even keep place with inflation let alone council tax hikes, will struggle more and more to pay. The family next door, on the other hand, have a MUCH greater income (even if the kids aren't working), and a far greater prospect of income keeping pace with inflation and even if it doesn't, where council tax bills represent a far smaller proportion of their £70k income that it does of the pensioner's next dorr's relatively fixed incomes.

How does basing tax on property value reflect "fairly" on those pensioners? The value of a property is rather irrelevant, until and unless you come to sell it, and the pensioners don't want to move. They want to be allowedd to live and die in the home they've known all their lives .... or that maybe has been in their family for generations.

The poll tax, on the other hand, provided that anyone old enough and working contributed to the costs of local services that they consumed and benefitted from.

I'm not suggesting the poll tax was perfect, or that the implementation and marketing of it was even competent let alone good BUT it did at least have the benefit of requiring everyone earning a living to contribute towards the cost of providing the services they use.


The council tax, on the other hand, uses a very outdated valuation of an asset value which in the majority of cases says little or nothing about income or the ability to pay. Surely any "fair" tax must reflect both that EVERYONE with an income makes a contribution towards the services they get, and that the size of that contribution is based in part at least on ability to pay. Council tax fails on both criteria.

This is the basic problem with the concept of 'fairness' in terms of charging for local services. Property value does NOT necessarily imply income levels, and therefore doesn't always reflect ability to pay. But to make charges based on ability to pay effectively means a local income tax, and some people will then say ... "but I'm a single high earning individualusing far less services than the six unemployed people next door. I'm costing a lot less than they are but am expected to subsidise them while they lounge about all day". Is that not simply a penalty on success, and perhaps a disincentive on hard work?


So what's fair? Charging according to ability to pay, or charging according to the cost you impose on local authorities to provide the service you use?

And that same basic logic can be used to criticise most taxes. NI is inherently unfair because it hits low earners far harder, as a perectage of total income, than it does high earners. VAT is unfair because it imposes a huge burden on millions of businesses that have to do Custom's job for them. Inheritance tax is unfair because gordon Brown has ensured that thresholds haven't come close to keeping pace with house price rises, and because the impact is highly geographical. A semi-detached house in an outer London suburb could now be "worth" £750,000, so leaving that to your kids could imply a £186,000 tax bill even assuming there's nothing else at all in the estate. Take that same house in some parts of the country and it could be £230,000, meaning a tax bill of £0.

So, in the first case, the kids would very likely have to sell the family home if anything happened to parents just to pay the tax bill. In the second case, the kids just carry on living there with no tax bill at all. Is that fair?

Just about any tax is unfair on someone, in some way.

What REALLY annoys me about these reported proposals is not so much that there's a revaluation being considered, or that it's based on views, extra bathrooms etc ... though, SURELY the local amenities and desirability of the house is already reflected in the market value?

No, it's the notion of busy-body inspectors coming into my home, nosing around and taking photos of MY HOME for government files. Words (even ones apparently with Anglo-Saxon origins) can't express my feelings that that notion.

[kalniel]

Philosopher kings are the way forward

[greektony]

No way I would let the council into my house unless they take me to court. Why is it any of their business whether i have £1'000s worth of 'stuff' in my house? What bearing does this have in anyway on what local amenities I use? I dont know about many of you, but in a few years I intend on leaving this hell hole of a country and live somewhere where everyone isn't constantly out to screw you of all your hard earned money.

For example........ My income is taxed, I pay national insurance (although i have private health care thru work), everything i buy is taxed, petrol is stupidly over taxed, i pay car tax, council tax, my bills are taxed, and now they want to tax me more for owning some nice stuff (which as you all know I HAVE ALREADY PAID TAX ON YOU MONEY GRABBING BASTARDS - the govt that is). **** them! If Labour get another term in office it will be as laughable as when George W Bush was elected for a second term. This government really needs to stop screwing everyone out of their hard earned money. I mean seriously, what is the incentive for staying here?

[capt_cornflake]

Saracen, I have to say I find it hard to disagree with much of what you say. The only thing which may be disputed is:

What REALLY annoys me about these reported proposals is not so much that there's a revaluation being considered, or that it's based on views, extra bathrooms etc ... though, SURELY the local amenities and desirability of the house is already reflected in the market value?

No, it's the notion of busy-body inspectors coming into my home, nosing around and taking photos of MY HOME for government files. Words (even ones apparently with Anglo-Saxon origins) can't express my feelings that that notion.

Ignoring the fact that the Telegraph article rather misrepresents the whole issue, what it actually states is:

Inspectors were instructed to take photographs of the homes, logging the "convenience to local services, such as shops, bus routes, local communities".

Which implies not taking photos of the inside of your house, more the local area (which anyone could do).

Although valuations are generally recorded somewhere anyway (Not sure where (land registry maybe?), but when I had an estate agent round last week he came with a list of valuations for houses in the local area). Surely it would save everyone a lot of time and hassle, to use these where they exist, rather than creating more work.

[greektony]

capt cornflake, unfortunately the government is no doubt not quite as sensible thinking as you.

[Saracen]

Saracen, I have to say I find it hard to disagree with much of what you say. The only thing which may be disputed is:

.....


Ignoring the fact that the Telegraph article rather misrepresents the whole issue, what it actually states is:

.......

Which implies not taking photos of the inside of your house, more the local area (which anyone could do).

Although valuations are generally recorded somewhere anyway (Not sure where (land registry maybe?), but when I had an estate agent round last week he came with a list of valuations for houses in the local area). Surely it would save everyone a lot of time and hassle, to use these where they exist, rather than creating more work.

My comments weren't solely based on that terlegraph article, though. It was also coloured by press reports a few months ago.

Generally, I'm a sceptic and cynic, especially when it comes to governments. Take the ID card thing, for example. They keep saying that it won't be compulsory to carry one, or to produce it, just to have one. My attitude is that anyone believing that cobblers is naive. It won't be legally mandatory initially to carry it or to produce on demand by a suitable official, but I'll bet my boots it follows fairly hard on the heels of the primary legislation, if they ever manage to get that through, because much of the putative and proposed benefits of the system simply won't apply if it doesn't.

It's a classic governmemt stunt. You introduce something with the plausible and relatively inocuous bits first, then sneak the rest in via the back door (though ID card technology, and much more relevantly the database behind it is far from inocuous, in my view). For the biggest con job of this type ever perpetrated on the British people, look at our entry into the EEC, what the nation were told that was about, what they were caregorically promised it was NOT about, and then what's happened since.

So while I grant you that some of the inferences of photographing insides of homes is press speculation (and possibly scaremongering), there are a couple of things to bear in mind :-

- it is ALREADY an offence to impede a valuation officer, including if they say it is necessary to do an internal inspection

- they DO take photographs, and keep them on record

- they currently say they will avoid photos of things like personal items, furniture, etc and that such photos will be deleted when no longer necessary

Who defines "no longer necessary", by the way?

- photos are to enable an efficient job (i.e. valuation). Refusing the photos implies a "less efficient" job. Being a cynic, I read that as "bigger bill"

If we need to take photographs inside, we would seek the permission of the occupier first. We take care to exclude features that are not relevant to the value of the property, for example, personal items, furniture, and details of the security system. The internal photographs we hold are normally deleted from our computer system when they have served their purpose.

The bold emphasis is mine.

That quote, by the way, is from an official government website - here


I grant you that that site makes clear that the powers are not currently quite as broad as that press speculation was suggesting. But, I am a cynic, and this whole arena was part of a proposed government revamp. Thin end of the wedge, anyone?

Oh, and another very common trick. Legislation is written whereby primary legislation (Acts of Parliament) provide a potential power for subsequent action to be be by executive authority, such as by the relevant minister. So a dormant provision can be included in primary legislation, and the government can honestly claim that such-and-such a power does not exist. But all it takes to activate that provision is the will of a minister and secondary legislation that does not require a full vote by Parliament to become law.

Any wonder I'm a cynic?

[RedPutty]

Don't forget that the cost of houses is directly linked via market forces to the view and amenities they have.

Council tax is related to the cost of houses.

Therefore this would mean you are paying twice for your view/playpark/etc

Don't let them get away with it.

[capt_cornflake]

Saracen, fair enough you may have a point in this case, you've obviously looked into this more than I have.

I agree with most of your points, I personally think that most Governments are a bunch of shifty b&*%ards.

I was merely trying to point out to those who seem intent on taking the OP at face value, that it's not a tax on "Peace and Quiet" as advertised, and the stated aim at least is merely to update the information on which your tax level is based.
From the source you quote it sure doesn't look like they are necessarily going to go about it the right way, but I certainly back the aim as stated.

I'm not sure why GreekTony seems to think that the contents of his house will have any bearing on his level of council tax though, which is based solely on house value?

Don't let them get away with it.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, they have been for the last 15 years!

[RedPutty]

You are saying the guidelines for valuing houses hasn't changed in 15 years?

"council tax valuations are based on the price a property would have fetched if it had been sold on 1 April 1991. For Wales the Valuation date is 1 April 2003"

That is the current valuation method as I understand it.