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

[Milzy]

Totally unfair. Many are asset rich not cash rich. So many boomers will have to down size. Is there enough smaller homes for them to buy? Will the big expensive houses sell? You can’t expect an even transition.
People who invested instead of peeing it up against the wall get screwed over.
There’s more fair ways to take tax. There’s 5 adults in some of these houses.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Can we have a link to what this is actually about?

 

[AuroraSaab]

The mooted 0.48% property tax? A flat annual charge based on current value.

This is the most current article I could find on the plan, which presents it as a bit of a done deal tbh.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/andy-burnham-950-council-tax-34357943.amp

He's said elsewhere that people in the north are paying too much and those in the south not enough. I'm not sure what the solution is but this doesn't sound like it, for the reasons Milzy mentions.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Isn’t this all speculation?

 

[Bromptonaut]

The mooted 0.48% property tax? A flat annual charge based on current value.

Not sure that tallies with the £1300 Milzy mentions.

The 'asset rich/cash poor' unfairness thing goes back to the General Rate which preceded the Community Charge.

It may be a real trap but it's not insoluble.

 

[BoldonLad]

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.

 

[BoldonLad]

The mooted 0.48% property tax? A flat annual charge based on current value.

This is the most current article I could find on the plan, which presents it as a bit of a done deal tbh.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/andy-burnham-950-council-tax-34357943.amp

He's said elsewhere that people in the north are paying too much and those in the south not enough. I'm not sure what the solution is but this doesn't sound like it, for the reasons Milzy mentions.

If, as claimed in the article, 75% of households are going to benefit, then, either Council Services are going to take a big hit, or, the other 25% are.

 

[PurplePenguin]

If this replaces council tax, won't that make some councils very wealthy and some very poor?

 

[Psamathe]

To me it raises questions about what Council Tax is for. My understanding is it's to pay for Council provided services and if it is then comparing North to South I don't see as particularly relevant. I agree "those with broadest shoulders" contribute more.

People vote for and elect local Councillors to determine local (Council Tax) rates and spending.

Burnham's "There are people here in Greater Manchester who pay a much higher council tax than people living in much larger homes in London." would seem to be looking at Council Tax as a national tax rather than something more local.

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.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If, as claimed in the article, 75% of households are going to benefit, then, either Council Services are going to take a big hit, or, the other 25% are.

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.

If this replaces council tax, won't that make some councils very wealthy and some very poor?

Yes. There'll be some redistribution I expect.

 

[BoldonLad]

To me it raises questions about what Council Tax is for. My understanding is it's to pay for Council provided services and if it is then comparing North to South I don't see as particularly relevant. I agree "those with broadest shoulders" contribute more.

People vote for and elect local Councillors to determine local (Council Tax) rates and spending.

Burnham's "There are people here in Greater Manchester who pay a much higher council tax than people living in much larger homes in London." would seem to be looking at Council Tax as a national tax rather than something more local.

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.

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

 

[Bromptonaut]

Burnham's "There are people here in Greater Manchester who pay a much higher council tax than people living in much larger homes in London." would seem to be looking at Council Tax as a national tax rather than something more local.

The Council sets the tax rate for Band D. All the others are a fraction or multiple of Band D.

A pound on Band D in Westminster, where much of the property is in the higher bands and very little in Band A, produces vastly more than a pound in Manchester.

That creates the perceived(?) unfairness where a Band C house in Rochdale pays more in Council Tax then a mansion in Kensington.

 

[BoldonLad]

To me it raises questions about what Council Tax is for. My understanding is it's to pay for Council provided services and if it is then comparing North to South I don't see as particularly relevant. I agree "those with broadest shoulders" contribute more.

People vote for and elect local Councillors to determine local (Council Tax) rates and spending.

Burnham's "There are people here in Greater Manchester who pay a much higher council tax than people living in much larger homes in London." would seem to be looking at Council Tax as a national tax rather than something more local.

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.

As we probably all remember, Thatcher tried to reform Local Government Taxation (ie replaced rates with so called Poll Tax). IMHO the individual person tax was more fair, but, not fair enough, a local income tax would have been more fair, IMHO. But, the real sticking point was ease of collection, I know individuals who have not paid their Poll Tax to this day. At least, Andy appears to have learnt a lesson from Thatchers error, and, is taxing the property (hard to move or hide a building).

 

[BoldonLad]

If this replaces council tax, won't that make some councils very wealthy and some very poor?

I think that is possibly already the case, but, it may change which ones are which. Except those of course who have committed follies with Construction Companies and Energy Companies (Nottingham, Croydon for example).

 

[BoldonLad]

Why choose an odd number like £271,000?, as an example, why not £270,000, or £300,000?, does £271,000 have some special significance?