In message , John Williamson
writes
djc wrote:
On 14/03/12 19:39, Adrian Simpson wrote:
In article , hugh
] writes
Revaluation should only take place when a property is sold IMO. That
is the only point at which the value of the property has any
relationship with your income.
Most of the houses in my street were built in 1939. Up until 5 years
ago, one of them was still lived in by its original occupant. How would
you have valued that one ?
Why not on its 1939 value. It reflects what the owner could afford
in
1939. If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in their
view* appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation they could
afford; if it had they could have moved home and realised the implicit
capital gain.

So, in your view, if people don't change homes, they should pay less,
possibly *much* less in property taxes?

I think that property tax should only pay for those services directly
and solely related to property.
And how would you cope with rented properties?

Sam way and by reducing the property tax on rented property, which
incidentally is paid by the tenant you would reduce the cost of renting
thus enabling people to save to buy their own home. Alternatively it
might get rid of this ridiculous idea called the property ladder whereby
people complain that house prices have gone up to much so they can't buy
a house which they wish to do so they can then benefit - by the prices
going up.
--
hugh