Uk Council tax,. Reform. Needed?
Discussion
randlemarcus said:
Cool!edh said:
Stop falling for the disinformation... LVT doesn't tax gardens,
To which disinformation are you referring? Labour's infamous Garden Tax proposal made them very popular when it was floated but before it sunk along with Corbyn's chances of getting the keys to Number 10.A study on LVT by Oxon Council found that the random tax (LVT) 'winners' involved house plots that have little or no garden space in areas with strict planning dept overlords, while the random tax (LVT) 'losers' were in houses with large grounds in locations where maximum development is permitted by easy going town hall planning dept shinypants.
"Get yer LVT postcode lottery ticket here! Roll up! Payup!"
PorkRind said:
But i dont see why someone whos worked their balls off should be taxed any more than anyone else who owns a house , despite its size etc, if theres only 2 there why charge H category or whatever it is and screw them over.. Thats just socialism and we all know how popular that is.
So should we have a low tax band for people that "worked their balls off"?In my experience it is a fallacy that high earners exclusively 'work their balls off'. Some will, and some low earners will 'work their balls off'. At least the high earner working his balls off has the option to decide NOT to work his balls off (and presumably earn less and pay less tax) - it is entirely his/her choice.
Aside from the bickering on this thread, I do think there is a current imbalance between taxes paid on wealth and those paid on income.
There seems to be a perception that higher earners are 'rich' and therefore ripe for more taxes, but lower-income / higher net worth people are not 'rich' and therefore should be protected.
It's an imbalance that has been primarily caused by asset price inflation since the mid-80s, but more recent UK government policies on pensioner welfare have played a small part too.
I would prefer more emphasis on wealth taxing than income taxing - LVT, as discussed on this thread only partly deals with this imbalance.
There seems to be a perception that higher earners are 'rich' and therefore ripe for more taxes, but lower-income / higher net worth people are not 'rich' and therefore should be protected.
It's an imbalance that has been primarily caused by asset price inflation since the mid-80s, but more recent UK government policies on pensioner welfare have played a small part too.
I would prefer more emphasis on wealth taxing than income taxing - LVT, as discussed on this thread only partly deals with this imbalance.
edh said:
You only "lose" as you put it, if you apply for and get planning permission to build. No PP, no extra LVT.
That's a little disingenuous. The value of the land is in large part determined by the likelihood it will get pp. So the LVT 'loser'/land banker will lose regardless of whether he actually gets pp and builds or not; that's the point as you know.fblm said:
edh said:
You only "lose" as you put it, if you apply for and get planning permission to build. No PP, no extra LVT.
That's a little disingenuous. The value of the land is in large part determined by the likelihood it will get pp. So the LVT 'loser'/land banker will lose regardless of whether he actually gets pp and builds or not; that's the point as you know.The pp issue also relates to neighbouring plots; such decisions can and will alter land values and hence the LVT around the developed site, in a direction depending on the development and timing.
As taxes go LVT is one of the better ones, or perhaps that should be least worst. Having paid for my ''land'' from what was left of my egregiously taxed income though, I'll be fvcked if I'm going to support switching from income to wealth taxes.
edh aside, who clearly understands LVT, it's interesting that those supporting it now tend to be on the left who on the whole don't appear to. Labour's last dalliance with the idea priced their ''LVT'' on 3% x 55% x property value, not land value, which misses the point entirely. Unless the point is simply to soak everyone who dares live anywhere nice. On the one hand the left say house prices are pricing the poor and elderly out of their communities, on the other they are apparently ok with taxing the asset rich/income poor, aka pensioners, out of their homes and communities. Who vote. So it isn't going to happen.
edh aside, who clearly understands LVT, it's interesting that those supporting it now tend to be on the left who on the whole don't appear to. Labour's last dalliance with the idea priced their ''LVT'' on 3% x 55% x property value, not land value, which misses the point entirely. Unless the point is simply to soak everyone who dares live anywhere nice. On the one hand the left say house prices are pricing the poor and elderly out of their communities, on the other they are apparently ok with taxing the asset rich/income poor, aka pensioners, out of their homes and communities. Who vote. So it isn't going to happen.
Here's a long list of right wing support for LVT
https://goldagainstthesoul.wordpress.com/2017/10/1...
tends to be the (old liberal) free market / right not the rentier capitalist centrist
https://goldagainstthesoul.wordpress.com/2017/10/1...
tends to be the (old liberal) free market / right not the rentier capitalist centrist
fblm said:
BlackLabel said:
Where I am more than 50% of council tax revenue now goes towards servicing the local authorities’ debt. I’m sure that’s the case elsewhere too.
Something will have to change soon however I doubt any reforms will leave us better off.
And 1/3 goes on their pensions! (even more in Scotland)Something will have to change soon however I doubt any reforms will leave us better off.
There have been a number of factors impacting the equity in pension funds from dividend tax credit elimination to sub-prime mortgage farcical where equity were artificially boosted leaving pensions on contribution holidays, to the bank bail out etc. etc.
These have cumulatively damaged the equity market and the pensions which rely on them leaving big holes to fill.
A lot of public service employees are still on the old defined benefit schemes which the taxes need to supplement.
JagLover said:
It is quite common to pay both?, they do in America for example.
Sadly for the opening poster the only likely "reform" in the short term is something like an extra band that may leave him paying more.
Yeah, AMerican friends pay local (municipal), state and federal taxes.Sadly for the opening poster the only likely "reform" in the short term is something like an extra band that may leave him paying more.
Roman Rhodes said:
PorkRind said:
But i dont see why someone whos worked their balls off should be taxed any more than anyone else who owns a house , despite its size etc, if theres only 2 there why charge H category or whatever it is and screw them over.. Thats just socialism and we all know how popular that is.
So should we have a low tax band for people that "worked their balls off"?In my experience it is a fallacy that high earners exclusively 'work their balls off'. Some will, and some low earners will 'work their balls off'. At least the high earner working his balls off has the option to decide NOT to work his balls off (and presumably earn less and pay less tax) - it is entirely his/her choice.
Liokault said:
That's exactly what we want comrade, tax incentives to encourage high earners to slack off and join the low achievers.
You seem to be confusing financial success with effort expended.If you think all of the high earners got there through hard work you must see fluffy bunnies and unicorns on a daily basis.
Rovinghawk said:
oyster said:
I would prefer more emphasis on wealth taxing than income taxing
I was already taxed on the income to accumulate this wealth- now you think it should be taxed a second time?Rovinghawk said:
0ddball said:
You seem to be confusing financial success with effort expended.
If you think all of the high earners got there through hard work you must see fluffy bunnies and unicorns on a daily basis.
Would not not agree that effort & success have a very high correlation?If you think all of the high earners got there through hard work you must see fluffy bunnies and unicorns on a daily basis.
NDA said:
0ddball said:
I would agree that success and people of nefarious personality have a high correlation.
You must have some strange friends then. The wealthy people I know are as honest as the day is long - without exception actually.Not all successful people are criminals.
or...
not successful due to lack of a 'nefarious personality'
According to research by Oxonian Declan Clowry published in the Indy a couple or three years ago, people living in well off areas have seen greater reductions in crime than those living in poorer parts of the country.
Obviously this means that successful wealthy people are increasingly heading off to council estates to commit crime due to being annoyed by Council Tax hikes.
0ddball said:
Rovinghawk said:
0ddball said:
You seem to be confusing financial success with effort expended.
If you think all of the high earners got there through hard work you must see fluffy bunnies and unicorns on a daily basis.
Would not not agree that effort & success have a very high correlation?If you think all of the high earners got there through hard work you must see fluffy bunnies and unicorns on a daily basis.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff