hugh wrote
Rod Speed wrote
hugh wrote
John Williamson wrote
Tony Bryer wrote
Jgharston wrote

Here in the UK the populous threaten revolution at the very hint
of a mention of the suggestion of a revaluation after 20 years.

Yet a tax based on what your house would have been worth in 1991 (even if it wasn't built then) sounds like
something out of the Monster Raving Loony Party's manifesto. It seems lost on the average Mail reader that *on
average* a revaluation
will not affect anyone's council tax, subject to the revaluation
not being used as an excuse to increase spending.

Ah, but it*will* be used as that excuse. That's what Daily Mail readers realise that some others don't want to
admit.

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.

Its got nothing to do with your income.

Exactly

Everything to do with the higher value propertys paying more tax.

Why should someone pay more tax just because their property has gone up in value.

Essentially because thats the inevitable consequence
of attempting to have the more wealthy pay more tax
than those who can only afford to live in a slum hovel etc.

You seem not to understand the difference between fixed and liquid assets.

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.