Council Tax Revaluation
Discussion
I guess we will be seeing a lot more of this type of scheme to claw back money...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jul/19/mps-...
I have also thought that the introduction of changing unleaded fuel to E10 but keeping Super unleaded/99Momentum/V-power at E5 will have the motorists whp are concerned their vehicle will break down and die using E10 will start buying premium which gives the treasury a bigger profit
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/jul/19/mps-...
I have also thought that the introduction of changing unleaded fuel to E10 but keeping Super unleaded/99Momentum/V-power at E5 will have the motorists whp are concerned their vehicle will break down and die using E10 will start buying premium which gives the treasury a bigger profit
Plenty of deprived areas have since been gentrified since 1993, those houses back in the day could be valued in the hundred thousands now it may well be millions. I expect Councils are gagging to squeeze the lemons until the pips pop.
Central Government deprive local councils of cash and then allow those same councils to squeeze locals to make up the difference in losses.
Central Government deprive local councils of cash and then allow those same councils to squeeze locals to make up the difference in losses.
crankedup5 said:
Plenty of deprived areas have since been gentrified since 1993, those houses back in the day could be valued in the millions now, not hundreds of thousands. I expect Councils are gagging to squeeze the lemons until the pips pop.
Central Government deprive local councils of cash and then allow those same councils to squeeze locals to make up the difference in losses.
Didn't you read the article? Apparently it's all about helping the less fortunate, not taxing even more out of the rest of us. Apparently.Central Government deprive local councils of cash and then allow those same councils to squeeze locals to make up the difference in losses.
To quote from the article:
"Successive governments have shied away from significant changes to council tax – introduced in 1993 after the debacle of Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax – fearing a backlash from the people who would lose out"
It would be so stupid to make the same mistake again.
"Successive governments have shied away from significant changes to council tax – introduced in 1993 after the debacle of Margaret Thatcher’s poll tax – fearing a backlash from the people who would lose out"
It would be so stupid to make the same mistake again.
Biggy Stardust said:
crankedup5 said:
Plenty of deprived areas have since been gentrified since 1993, those houses back in the day could be valued in the millions now, not hundreds of thousands. I expect Councils are gagging to squeeze the lemons until the pips pop.
Central Government deprive local councils of cash and then allow those same councils to squeeze locals to make up the difference in losses.
Didn't you read the article? Apparently it's all about helping the less fortunate, not taxing even more out of the rest of us. Apparently.Central Government deprive local councils of cash and then allow those same councils to squeeze locals to make up the difference in losses.
We know they sit in their gloried temples thinking about mechanisms fo financial extraction from people that strive, and then hand it over to the element that find life just to taxing to work.
The Council Tax bands are way out of date, and are based on the housing market in April 1991.
It would sensible to bring this up to date. It does not necessarily follow that the price per band will change, only the bands should relate to more recent local market conditions.
I think the introduction of additional bands would be sensible to reduce the gap between the existing bandings.
Council tax uses house value as a proxy for wealth.
It is crude, and doesn't make the distinction between wealth in annual income, or just property wealth. But crude also means simple, and easy to collect. And easy to predict, and fairly straightforward to give targeted support to families that need it.
That said: the publics' appetite to have public money spent on them usually outstrips what they pay in taxes. (Collectively of course.)
So: throw in possible reforms to adult social care (aka protect the baby boomers inheritances), watch as business rates income from high street retail collapses, and where have you got left to turn to fund services?
Stealth or transgression taxes might seem more frequent, and are much maligned, but they just don't have the sheer income raising ability or the stability needed to fund public services.
I am well aware it was poll tax that did for Thatcher, but it was sleaze that did for Major, and that doesn't seem to have stopped anybody recently.
As with all things political, you just have to wait for the consequence of doing something to become less than not doing something.
So the pips might squeak a bit (and I would be one such pip being squeezed) but I suspect more pips will do a lot more than squeak if the wheels are allowed to fall off public service delivery.
It is crude, and doesn't make the distinction between wealth in annual income, or just property wealth. But crude also means simple, and easy to collect. And easy to predict, and fairly straightforward to give targeted support to families that need it.
That said: the publics' appetite to have public money spent on them usually outstrips what they pay in taxes. (Collectively of course.)
So: throw in possible reforms to adult social care (aka protect the baby boomers inheritances), watch as business rates income from high street retail collapses, and where have you got left to turn to fund services?
Stealth or transgression taxes might seem more frequent, and are much maligned, but they just don't have the sheer income raising ability or the stability needed to fund public services.
I am well aware it was poll tax that did for Thatcher, but it was sleaze that did for Major, and that doesn't seem to have stopped anybody recently.
As with all things political, you just have to wait for the consequence of doing something to become less than not doing something.
So the pips might squeak a bit (and I would be one such pip being squeezed) but I suspect more pips will do a lot more than squeak if the wheels are allowed to fall off public service delivery.
Tlandcruiser said:
Council tax prices should reflect property occupancy rates too
They do to a certain extent. A sole occupier can have a single person discount and students, carers and people with mental health problems can be disregarded. There used to be an exemption for empty properties, but that's been discontinued and local authorities can set their own discounts now. Some offer a temporary exemption or discount and some offer nothing. Any property empty for more than two years has a premium charge applied. It leaves some people feeling hard done by, but the idea is to dissuade investors who hold empty properties for years as it's better than money in the bank.
I've seen mansions left to rot as they're owned by oligarchs or Sheikhs as part of investment portfolios. The problem is, they're owned in the names of offshore companies who don't pay and no enforcement action can be taken against them. There are certain boroughs especially that could make money by cracking down on investors hoarding unoccupied properties and evading council tax payments.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff