Andy Burnham £1,301 charge on table for people living in homes worth £271k.

[PurplePenguin]

I read that as 75% of households in Hartlepool will benefit. Of course they will. Houses are cheap over there. Presumably the extra taken from households in the south will be redistributed to the north because otherwise Hartlepool et al will be on bi annual bin collections if their contributions are reduced.


Yes. There'll be some redistribution I expect.

Not sure I like that then! Pay more, get less. I feel like my council is mostly on top of stuff and I don't really have any complaints. Does it really need to be levelled down?

 

[Psamathe]

Same here with the Range Rovers (other expensive motors are available). Of course the Land Rovers etc may be on PCP deals, and, the houses may be rented or mortgaged

Which raises the question about how these plans would impact rental prices. My (maybe wrong) understanding is currently for rental properties it's the tenant who pays Council Tax. These would in effect make it the responsibility of the landlord to pay the new charge which would undoubtedly mean a rent increase (offset by tenant not paying Council Tax but risks some landlords increase rents by more than the new tax amounts). Such changes could risk skewing rents further potentially having a negative impact on the economy.

 

[Ian H]

Basing taxation to pay for services on the value of a single asset seems a bit daft, same daftness as a "Window Tax". As I cycle around my local area most rides I'll pass houses where the value of Range Rovers parked on a driveway is likely higher than the value of the house.

Taxing SUVs adequately is another subject in need of attention.

 

[Psamathe]

Basing taxation to pay for services on the value of a single asset seems a bit daft, same daftness as a "Window Tax". As I cycle around my local area most rides I'll pass houses where the value of Range Rovers parked on a driveway is likely higher than the value of the house.

Taxing SUVs adequately is another subject in need of attention.

When I used to live in France they had a "Wealth Tax" (ISF) and that was based on your total asset value ie incl. car(s), house, land, etc. There were a few weird exemptions eg some works of art but mostly it was asset vale. Which makes me wonder why this new proposal is based on a single asset and in effect it becomes a Council Wealth Tax but with loads of exemptions (ie everything except house exempt).

 

[Milzy]

If that £1300 annual charge is to replace Council Tax, I will take it!

How are they going to value the Social Housing?, in fact how / who is going to value all of the houses, not another Council Tax drive by exercise, or, just use Google Earth maybe?

Isn’t it a dis-incentive to improve or even look after property, let it deteriate and lose value,?pay less tax.

Houses are only worth what people would be willing to pay. They always over value everything and don’t take into account curb appeal, more parking spaces etc.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Which raises the question about how these plans would impact rental prices. My (maybe wrong) understanding is currently for rental properties it's the tenant who pays Council Tax.

Yes, it will put rents up in some regions surely. For homeowners the extra cost might be offset by the suggested removal of stamp duty when buying your next property but those who will never be home buyers won't see that benefit.

 

[AndyRM]

There's a pretty simple solution.

Stop being greedy c*nts.

 

[C R]

Isn't the problem that council tax conflates two things, a property tax that should be paid by the owner and payment for council services that should be paid by the occupant?

 

[BoldonLad]

There's a pretty simple solution.

Stop being greedy c*nts.

Is that any way to speak to your (alleged) lefty, wokist fellow forumites? 😂,

 

[No Ta Doctor]

Isn't the problem that council tax conflates two things, a property tax that should be paid by the owner and payment for council services that should be paid by the occupant?

I don't see any reason why either of those has a logical "should" about it. The council needs funding for the services it provides and the programs it attempts to deliver. There's no reason this funding should come from people living in the council area or people who own buildings in the council area. It's up to us to decide where we think the money should come from.

An additional note: The first moves during austerity were to cut council funding from the central Westminster budget. The effect was that councils were blamed for shoddy services rather than the government. It's the council that closed your library, it's the council that don't have enough carers to wipe your nan's arse, it's the council that don't fix your potholes. But it was the government who took away the money they could have used to do so.

Anyway, rich people in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea should definitely be paying for special needs education in Solihull. Not because of where they live, but because they're rich. I've no idea whether a property tax will fix this.

 

[Electric_Andy]

rich people in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea should definitely be paying for special needs education in Solihull

I don't agree. What if you are both Doctors working under extremely stressful conditions, working shifts and maybe 50 hours a week, and bring in 200k/year? And you just get taxed more for everything because "you're rich" and deserve to be giving it away? Plus you're also paying for SEN education in your own local authority area. That's using a sticking plaster to solve the problem, which the rich are paying for. It should be the government and council balancing their books better to pay for it. They need to work smarter to reduce the burden of the most deprived, so the less deprived aren't picking up the bill.

And while we're on the subject, let's actually look at why these deprived areas are so-called. They are deprived of what? The term now more commonly used is "underserved". Again, underserved how? And by whom?

 

[Psamathe]

I don't agree. What if you are both Doctors working under extremely stressful conditions, working shifts and maybe 50 hours a week, and bring in 200k/year? And you just get taxed more for everything because "you're rich" and deserve to be giving it away? Plus you're also paying for SEN education in your own local authority area. ...

It could get complex if you try and tax based on contribution to society.

eg what it you're a Water Company CEO who decided to turn our rivers into open sewers on several million £ a year?

To me generally "those with broadest shoulders" seams a viable system. Your Doctors on 200k/year will still have a lot higher disposable income than many at the lower end of the income scale.

Another consideration is we are a society and those high income individuals living in central London will also be making use of services and production from those other regions of the country with higher need and lower tax revenue.

 

[No Ta Doctor]

I don't agree. What if you are both Doctors working under extremely stressful conditions, working shifts and maybe 50 hours a week, and bring in 200k/year? And you just get taxed more for everything because "you're rich" and deserve to be giving it away? Plus you're also paying for SEN education in your own local authority area. That's using a sticking plaster to solve the problem, which the rich are paying for. It should be the government and council balancing their books better to pay for it. They need to work smarter to reduce the burden of the most deprived, so the less deprived aren't picking up the bill.

And while we're on the subject, let's actually look at why these deprived areas are so-called. They are deprived of what? The term now more commonly used is "underserved". Again, underserved how? And by whom?

Ah yes, the mythical savings due to rooting out inefficiencies and waste. Like councils haven't been squeezed for every penny since 2008.

Do you know the Vimes theory of economic unfairness, also known as Boots theory? From the Discworld books by Terry Pratchett?

"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

This applies to councils and governments too. UK services and infrastructure have been squeezed and squeezed by lack of investment for decades, buildings are crumbling (literally), youth services are gone, arts initiatives that improved the lives of people involved with them axed because they weren't critical services, all chasing savings that will be more expensive in the long run.


PS - if you think that doctors pulling in six figure salaries are a special class because their work is stressful, long hours and important, then feel free to legislate for specific tax breaks for them. Nurses, emergency services and teachers don't get anywhere near six figures.

 

[Electric_Andy]

Ah yes, the mythical savings due to rooting out inefficiencies and waste. Like councils haven't been squeezed for every penny since 2008.

Do you know the Vimes theory of economic unfairness, also known as Boots theory? From the Discworld books by Terry Pratchett?



This applies to councils and governments too. UK services and infrastructure have been squeezed and squeezed by lack of investment for decades, buildings are crumbling (literally), youth services are gone, arts initiatives that improved the lives of people involved with them axed because they weren't critical services, all chasing savings that will be more expensive in the long run.


PS - if you think that doctors pulling in six figure salaries are a special class because their work is stressful, long hours and important, then feel free to legislate for specific tax breaks for them. Nurses, emergency services and teachers don't get anywhere near six figures.

I can only think of the boots analogy applying to housing i.e. having enough for a deposit on a house, rather than renting. But if we're talking about deprived areas then lots of places will be social housing, and lots will be cheaper rent due to the area, and those who own outright have presumably got beyond the boots analogy ceiling.

Regarding Drs, that was simply an example. I'm not sure how a teacher getting less, when they have more holiday and are not responsible for whether a person lives or dies, has anything to do with it. My main point was, what's the point in anyone aspiring to a higher paid job if they're then being forced to hand half their wages over to cover underserved areas? I have felt this directly; I had the opportunity of a promotion but I thought what's the point as it would eventually take me into the 40% tax bracket

 

[FishFright]

I can only think of the boots analogy applying to housing i.e. having enough for a deposit on a house, rather than renting. But if we're talking about deprived areas then lots of places will be social housing, and lots will be cheaper rent due to the area, and those who own outright have presumably got beyond the boots analogy ceiling.

Regarding Drs, that was simply an example. I'm not sure how a teacher getting less, when they have more holiday and are not responsible for whether a person lives or dies, has anything to do with it. My main point was, what's the point in anyone aspiring to a higher paid job if they're then being forced to hand half their wages over to cover underserved areas? I have felt this directly; I had the opportunity of a promotion but I thought what's the point as it would eventually take me into the 40% tax bracket

Are you actually saying you turned down a promotion due to the possibility of paying more tax at some point in the future ? Even though you'd actually have a higher take home pay ?

Put your own arm around your own shoulder , walk to a quiet place and then have a quiet word with yourself.