Uk Council tax,. Reform. Needed?
Discussion
Integroo said:
We need more money to fund our public services.
Have you paid the extra you said you should?Integroo said:
Those with the deepest pockets should bear the biggest burden.
They already do.Integroo said:
You may think the amount of tax currently paid by someone on £1m a year is egregious, but quite frankly that person still lives a life of great privilege, and can afford to contribute more.
Whether they can afford to is very different to whether it's right that they do so.Integroo said:
You may think the amount of tax currently paid by someone on £1m a year is egregious, but quite frankly that person still lives a life of great privilege, and can afford to contribute more.
Would you care to put some numbers on that? How much they pay now and how much you think they should pay?There are some things where charges probably should be in proportion to what you use, and some things where the cost should be distributed either evenly, or based on nominal ability to pay.
I think the problem is that council services feel like the former to many people, but encompass a lot of the latter. Plus it's hard to split them out.
Bin collection, for example, I don't particularly see a problem with that being effectively a charge on what you use. But stuff like the police should probably be spread across the population in terms of funding.
It's also how you view things. Yes, I may not have kids, but I don't mind funding the education system because 1) I received the benefit of it myself, and 2) I want others to as well, as I don't want to live in a society filled with uneducated idiots (how we're faring on that one is open to debate, of course).
I have a higher CT band than the other houses on my street because it's a bit bigger/worth a bit more, and while I don't think there's any real difference in cost to the system or ability to pay comparing my neighbours and myself, the actual difference in what I'm paying isn't that much really.
Guess I'm in the camp of agreeing it's not perfect, but I can't see them making it actively better without totally ballsing it up in some way.
I think the problem is that council services feel like the former to many people, but encompass a lot of the latter. Plus it's hard to split them out.
Bin collection, for example, I don't particularly see a problem with that being effectively a charge on what you use. But stuff like the police should probably be spread across the population in terms of funding.
It's also how you view things. Yes, I may not have kids, but I don't mind funding the education system because 1) I received the benefit of it myself, and 2) I want others to as well, as I don't want to live in a society filled with uneducated idiots (how we're faring on that one is open to debate, of course).
I have a higher CT band than the other houses on my street because it's a bit bigger/worth a bit more, and while I don't think there's any real difference in cost to the system or ability to pay comparing my neighbours and myself, the actual difference in what I'm paying isn't that much really.
Guess I'm in the camp of agreeing it's not perfect, but I can't see them making it actively better without totally ballsing it up in some way.
Eric Mc said:
markymarkthree said:
With you there, I also paid a lot less under poll tax, so that's one major tax reform which resulted in some folk paying less tax.
And it didn't work. No point in having a reform which is a disaster.If you are between 18 and 21 you pay half the national average, regardless.
If you are over 21 you pay the rate for the LA that you are registered to vote in as at the 1st February each year.
if you are not registered to vote at at any address on that date you pay the maximum national charge.
You might even solve two problems if you thin on it bit further and the consequence of much higher voter registration...
Problem is that there will not be the political will for many more years and yet again we will end up at the mercy of those that contribute the least, but have the time to riot, demonstrate, and cause a problem for the rest of us who just want to pay our fair dues and get on with life.
InitialDave said:
There are some things where charges probably should be in proportion to what you use, and some things where the cost should be distributed either evenly, or based on nominal ability to pay.
I think the problem is that council services feel like the former to many people, but encompass a lot of the latter. Plus it's hard to split them out.
Bin collection, for example, I don't particularly see a problem with that being effectively a charge on what you use. But stuff like the police should probably be spread across the population in terms of funding.
It's also how you view things. Yes, I may not have kids, but I don't mind funding the education system because 1) I received the benefit of it myself, and 2) I want others to as well, as I don't want to live in a society filled with uneducated idiots (how we're faring on that one is open to debate, of course).
I have a higher CT band than the other houses on my street because it's a bit bigger/worth a bit more, and while I don't think there's any real difference in cost to the system or ability to pay comparing my neighbours and myself, the actual difference in what I'm paying isn't that much really.
Guess I'm in the camp of agreeing it's not perfect, but I can't see them making it actively better without totally ballsing it up in some way.
I agree with you, I live alone and get a 25% discount yet a single parent with say 3 kids all under the age of 18 also gets the same 25% discount but will use a lot more of the services, if I leave my house empty for months I still have to pay 50% of the council tax. My local council is currently in talks to increase the rate to cover extra policing costs, I have no problem with this but only if we get proper police officers and not PCSO'sI think the problem is that council services feel like the former to many people, but encompass a lot of the latter. Plus it's hard to split them out.
Bin collection, for example, I don't particularly see a problem with that being effectively a charge on what you use. But stuff like the police should probably be spread across the population in terms of funding.
It's also how you view things. Yes, I may not have kids, but I don't mind funding the education system because 1) I received the benefit of it myself, and 2) I want others to as well, as I don't want to live in a society filled with uneducated idiots (how we're faring on that one is open to debate, of course).
I have a higher CT band than the other houses on my street because it's a bit bigger/worth a bit more, and while I don't think there's any real difference in cost to the system or ability to pay comparing my neighbours and myself, the actual difference in what I'm paying isn't that much really.
Guess I'm in the camp of agreeing it's not perfect, but I can't see them making it actively better without totally ballsing it up in some way.
Integroo said:
As I also said, it's a poorly implemented tax. I would replace it (and lots of other taxes) with a land value tax.
Would that include agricultural or farm land? If farmers are on the breadline already that would be the death knell!? (Oh, but I forgot all farmers drive new Velar's...........{/usual bulls
t}Marlin45 said:
Integroo said:
As I also said, it's a poorly implemented tax. I would replace it (and lots of other taxes) with a land value tax.
Would that include agricultural or farm land? If farmers are on the breadline already that would be the death knell!? (Oh, but I forgot all farmers drive new Velar's...........{/usual bullst}Of course farmland with planning permission for houses would be worth more and would therefore attract higher LVT.
edh said:
Marlin45 said:
Integroo said:
As I also said, it's a poorly implemented tax. I would replace it (and lots of other taxes) with a land value tax.
Would that include agricultural or farm land? If farmers are on the breadline already that would be the death knell!? (Oh, but I forgot all farmers drive new Velar's...........{/usual bullst}Of course farmland with planning permission for houses would be worth more and would therefore attract higher LVT.
LVT would be no more than an opportunistic grab atm, with land values as high as they are. Nor are the promises of it being a replacement tax likely to be true or remain true, the temptation to simply add it on would be too great for the average politician to resist.
Arguments around taxing value of - rather than income from - owmed capital aren't convincing to enough politicians LVT been rejected by the last n UK governments in office and for good reason.
In areas where LVT would be highest there would be opportunities and penalties with a basus outsude the landowner's influence due to random 'neighbour' factors which may be unforeseen at a historical purchase date or known at a more recent purchase date.
If a new tube line opens within walking distance of your city door, the land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. This could be unknown to the owner of the capital if the purchase was historical, or known if recent, two very different contexts..
On the other hand if an incinerator is built next to a plot, the opposite may well happen, and that's only likely to relate to a historical purchase. The result is a set of random walks (not to the tube station or the incinerator) i.e. not a rational basis for taxation.
Arguments around taxing value of - rather than income from - owmed capital aren't convincing to enough politicians LVT been rejected by the last n UK governments in office and for good reason.
In areas where LVT would be highest there would be opportunities and penalties with a basus outsude the landowner's influence due to random 'neighbour' factors which may be unforeseen at a historical purchase date or known at a more recent purchase date.
If a new tube line opens within walking distance of your city door, the land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. This could be unknown to the owner of the capital if the purchase was historical, or known if recent, two very different contexts..
On the other hand if an incinerator is built next to a plot, the opposite may well happen, and that's only likely to relate to a historical purchase. The result is a set of random walks (not to the tube station or the incinerator) i.e. not a rational basis for taxation.
PorkRind said:
Well that was it, have been looking at places further southwest, i.e Somerset/Devon as long as we've got 3-4 beds and maybe a 'granny annex' a half acre of garden, detached with stunning views and peace and quiet i'm sure i could cope in a smaller place. I was just fortunate to get the place as a do'er upper. Which is taking its time due to being listed. *facepalm*. Like i said earlier the biggest benefit here is the amount of land we have for parking loads of cars and the gf is a bit green fingered so the gardens rather nice, but the cost of doing the place up, plus hte uber tax bill is bit hard to swallow.
But your choice entirely. Under a system in which this was entirely predicatable. Life could be worse you know.................
turbobloke said:
LVT would be no more than an opportunistic grab atm, with land values as high as they are. Nor are the promises of it being a replacement tax likely to be true or remain true, the temptation to simply add it on would be too great for the average politician to resist.
Arguments around taxing value of - rather than income from - owmed capital aren't convincing to enough politicians LVT been rejected by the last n UK governments in office and for good reason.
In areas where LVT would be highest there would be opportunities and penalties with a basus outsude the landowner's influence due to random 'neighbour' factors which may be unforeseen at a historical purchase date or known at a more recent purchase date.
If a new tube line opens within walking distance of your city door, the land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. This could be unknown to the owner of the capital if the purchase was historical, or known if recent, two very different contexts..
On the other hand if an incinerator is built next to a plot, the opposite may well happen, and that's only likely to relate to a historical purchase. The result is a set of random walks (not to the tube station or the incinerator) i.e. not a rational basis for taxation.
1. Suggesting a tax would be badly implemented is not a good argument against it. Governments can foul up almost anything..Arguments around taxing value of - rather than income from - owmed capital aren't convincing to enough politicians LVT been rejected by the last n UK governments in office and for good reason.
In areas where LVT would be highest there would be opportunities and penalties with a basus outsude the landowner's influence due to random 'neighbour' factors which may be unforeseen at a historical purchase date or known at a more recent purchase date.
If a new tube line opens within walking distance of your city door, the land value will increase and with it the tax you would have to pay on it. This could be unknown to the owner of the capital if the purchase was historical, or known if recent, two very different contexts..
On the other hand if an incinerator is built next to a plot, the opposite may well happen, and that's only likely to relate to a historical purchase. The result is a set of random walks (not to the tube station or the incinerator) i.e. not a rational basis for taxation.
2. That's part of the point - the land value is generated by externalities, not the land owner's intrinsic magnificence.. If an incinerator is built, reducing land values, you'd get a tax cut.
IEA, ASI, Friedman disagree with you btw
I don't think LVT has been seriously considered since early last century, although domestic rates weren't that far off.
Paying on the value of your property is unfair.
Just because the value may of gone up it doesn't mean your real easy to get to liquid cash has also risen.
I see no problem with local income tax, just seems the fairest way, but any government that dares increase income tax is shouted down so they load us with all sorts of stealth and punishment taxes.
Just because the value may of gone up it doesn't mean your real easy to get to liquid cash has also risen.
I see no problem with local income tax, just seems the fairest way, but any government that dares increase income tax is shouted down so they load us with all sorts of stealth and punishment taxes.
turbobloke said:
edh said:
IEA, ASI, Friedman disagree with you btw
They are entitled to disagree with my view on the nonsense of a 'toss a coin' tax.I disagree with them because it's still a nonsense as shown in my post,
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff