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.