"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes
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.

If their land has risen in value, as the value was community created
(economic fact) then a tax on the land must rise. But the house on the land
is exempt for any tax.

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

You do not understand land valuation taxation