hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson

Council tax valuations

The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

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.

Then you get the situation where, like my previous home, it doesn't
change hands for ten years, by which time it had almost quadrupled
in value. the one over the road changed hands four time while I was
there, and septupled in value over the same period, before dropping
back to five times it's 2001 value. Under the current system, they're both in Band A, and both sold for about the
same price in 2001.

I know a number of people who have been in the same house for over thirty years. Are you suggesting that their
property taxes should be based on a value from the 1970s?

Why not?

Essentially because what the property tax is spent on isnt any
different for those that have owned the place for over 30 years
than it is for those who have only owned it for a year or so.

The tax is mostly spent on social services and education, not services directly related to properties

And that approach has massive downsides.

It is in fact much better to collect what is spent on stuff like that
country wide, not at the local govt level, because that approach
means that the area which dont have as much in the way of
higher valued property dont have anything like the same cash
flow to spend in those areas and they arguably need to spend
a lot more than needs to be spent in an area where the toffs live
who dont need much if anything at all in the way of social services
because they are wealthy enough to pay for what they need.

In spades with education.

Their property value now is determined by what other people can afford to pay for it, whereas they
may well could not now afford to buy it themselves.

Irrelevant to what property tax they should pay.

What is relevant?

What cash needs to be raised and how that burden should
be spread over the different sectors of the tax base.

I personally believe that it makes no sense to be rasing what the
country spends on social services and education via property taxes.

Property taxes should be paying for what those who live in
a particular area get in the way of public roads etc instead.

Tho you can certainly make a case for some level of property taxes,
just because some can arrange their affairs so they have no taxable
income and when they are wealthy, it doesnt really make any sense
that those that can do that shouldnt pay any tax at all.

Corse there arent that many can arrange their affairs
so that they pay no income tax at all, and no VAT either.

Some can tho.

Corse whether it makes any sense to be slugging everyone
property tax just because such a microscopic number than
avoid paying every other tax is another question again.

The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely "unfair".

You can say that about any tax. They all have their downsides.

But first you must define what criteria for assessing "fairness".

And thats a hell of a lot easier said than done with tax.

Agreed, but until you do calling something fair or unfair is a bit meaningless,

Not really. Most do understand the concept even when it cant be precisely defined.

but one of the first criteria to be mentioned is usually
ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.

Yes, but thats not the only thing that matters with fairness.

Many beliieve that it would be unfair if those who can arrange
their affairs so they pay no income tax or VAT pay no tax at all,
particularly when its mostly the very wealthy that can do that.

And wealth taxes are another can of worms. Why should those
who are careful savers pay a lot more tax than those who just ****
every cent they recieve against the wall at the earliest opportunity ?