Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"ARWadsworth" wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
hugh wrote:

Feel sorry for the council tax payers who have had to pay a
supplement for the past few years but can't get/afford tickets.

Feel sorrier for all the citizens who have paid, and never wanted
tickets, or the sodding olympics, in the first place...

So it will be just me that enjoys them and will be proud to be
British.

Nothing wrong with the latter part. It's the enjoyment of e.g. the
indoor cycle races, swimming, and athletics that's a bit of a puzzle.
Each time I see any of those (thankfully infrequently), I'm reminded
of the ones I've seen previously and struggle to be sure that what I'm
watching is not, in fact, one I've seen before.

But there is also the womens beach volley ball.

--
Adam

hugh wrote:

Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.
Yes but once awarded to London the committee could have used venues
anywhere in the country.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
hugh wrote:

Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using
the facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their
premises in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.
Yes but once awarded to London the committee could have used venues
anywhere in the country.

Bill
Don't venues have to be specified in the bid document i.e. b4 the games
are awarded
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
hugh wrote:

Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using
the facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their
premises in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an
outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.
Yes but once awarded to London the committee could have used venues
anywhere in the country.

Bill
Don't venues have to be specified in the bid document i.e. b4 the games
are awarded

They were. Plan "A" was to have almost all events, apart from those like
sailing and rowing that require a *lot* of space for the course, in
newly built arenas and stadia on one site, ajacent to the accommodation
blocks and media centre.

Politics and economics have intervened, and many events will now be held
in existing facilities contrary to the original plan, but, in theory,
saving loadsamoney. The priority lanes which will be needed through
London for Olympic traffic as a result are going to make life interesting...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , Huge
writes
On 2012-03-12, Bill Wright wrote:
hugh wrote:

Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.
Yes but once awarded to London the committee could have used venues
anywhere in the country.

Which is what they've done. Where do you think the sailing is?



At the aquatic centre !

reaches for oilskin jacket

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Windmill wrote:

But we're currently paying in part for London's Olympics, which will
make a profit for London as a result of the tourism, but will do little
or nothing for Scotland.
Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises in
East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

The city of Liverpool had a new tram system designed and ready to go. The
lines were delivered and in storage. £70 million had been spent on design,
consutancy and materials. London got the Olympics and the tram system was
cancelled by HMG soon after on a trumped up excuse to save the rest of the
tram money.

Then Crossrail was accelerated and improved and another lane on the M1
causing chaos - for the Olympics. These infrastructure improvements will
bring great economic benefit to London.

Cities elsewhere are livid as they getting sweet nothing. Well something,
they decided to electrify the Liverpool-Manchester line, the oldest
inter-city passenger line in the world after 180 years. Not a new line,
just electric trains instead of diesel.

It's pathetic. It has promoted London yet again, and will improve its
economy, at the expense of the rest of the country.

all the threads
that confuses
a top poster
Oh look

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
No but there does seem to be somone doing so in the various heirarchies,
so it has to come from a central source. Also of course control messages
from people without the required privs will often be ignored as you noted.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Brian Gaff wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

You cannot rename newsgroups or indeed delete them as far as I know,

You can in fact delete them if you know how to do that, but
with most groups someone will just reverse that very quickly.

only create new ones or disconnect them from the distribution list.

You cant disconnect them either with most major news servers.

Huge writes:

On 2012-03-12, Bill Wright wrote:
hugh wrote:

Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.
Yes but once awarded to London the committee could have used venues
anywhere in the country.

Which is what they've done. Where do you think the sailing is?

I suppose sailing in the Thames would invite a cholera infection!


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

"Doctor Drivel" writes:

The city of Liverpool had a new tram system designed and ready to go. The
lines were delivered and in storage. £70 million had been spent on design,
consutancy and materials. London got the Olympics and the tram system was
cancelled by HMG soon after on a trumped up excuse to save the rest of the
tram money.

That saved them at least 700 million, if Edinburgh's bad example is
anything to go by (and it'll be over a billion by the time it's done;
I'd even place a bet on that, and I'm not a betting man).

Then Crossrail was accelerated and improved and another lane on the M1
causing chaos - for the Olympics. These infrastructure improvements will
bring great economic benefit to London.

Cities elsewhere are livid as they getting sweet nothing. Well something,
they decided to electrify the Liverpool-Manchester line, the oldest
inter-city passenger line in the world after 180 years. Not a new line,
just electric trains instead of diesel.

It's pathetic. It has promoted London yet again, and will improve its
economy, at the expense of the rest of the country.

Happens almost everywhere, unfortunately. The capital gets the gravy.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as
to what the UK should be called if Scotland got independence. Best
answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them
yebbut we could close the borders right?

Welsh & Scots devolution puts Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff in great
situations to English cities. The devolved countries have the power to
introduce their taxation. There was a debate on Land Valuation Taxation in
the Welsh Assembly recently. Glasgow is "re-attempting" to get Land
Valuation Taxation implemented. This is difficult to do in England as the
United Kingdom government have to pass this sort of tax.

Liverpool with derelict buildings, similar to Glasgow, attempted to get Land
Valuation Taxation through to clear up the dilapidated buildings a few years
ago. Josh Vincent of Center for the Study of Economics in the USA, went to
Liverpool to advise to local government, but Whitehall officials beat them
down.

Some people over the years in Liverpool have suggested Merseyside, in
England, be incorporated into Wales. This sounds a good idea. OK Southport,
St.Helens and New-le-Willows would want to move out and back to Lancashire,
which is understandable as they are very Lancastrian. Fine. Neston on the
Wirral, Runcorn/Widnes (Halton) can take their place.

Then Wales will have two big cities, one north and one south, and they will
have control over their own affairs, partially removing the dead paw of
London.

A great positive solution all around.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
Liverpool with derelict buildings, similar to Glasgow, attempted to get Land
Valuation Taxation through to clear up the dilapidated buildings a few years
ago.

How would Land Valuation Taxation clear up dilapidated buildings?
Knowing
the way governments operate, the revenue would just go straight to
Whitehall just as non-domestic rates does.

JGH

On 12/03/2012 21:34, Doctor Drivel wrote:
all the threads
that confuses
a top poster
Oh look

Read Brian's signature.

Andy

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Jgharston wrote :
How would Land Valuation Taxation clear up dilapidated buildings?

Because it acts as a holding cost. I remember stories about redundant
factories being bought and demolished or have their roofs removed so as
not to pay rates. In some cases this hastens the inevitable; in other
cases potentially reusable buildings are destroyed.

Here in Australia we have land tax - all properties are revalued every
couple of years and your rate notice shows the land value and rateable
value. In Victoria if you own land other than your own home whose total
value is greater than $250K (£165K) you pay land tax on a sliding scale
of 0.25%-2.25%. If you incur this tax on land that is not income
producing you cannot treat it as a taxable expense: it increases the
cost base of the land for Capital Gains purposes. So if you own ten BTL
houses all rented out, your land tax is set against the rents for tax
purposes. If you buy a piece of land and are just sitting on it, you
pay land tax, no tax relief (until you sell), an encouragement to bring
it back into beneficial use.

The one quirk is that it is a State Tax so BTL owners with lots of
properties can mitigate its effect by buying in more than one state.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Mar 13, 9:44Â*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Â*"Doctor Drivel" wrote:





"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
Tinkerer wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

Do we have to rename the newsgroup?

On the Now Show (BBC Radio 4) they asked the audience for suggestions as
to what the UK should be called if Scotland got independence. Â*Best
answer was Scot Free.

Trouble is that it wouldnt be, there'd still be hordes of them
yebbut we could close the borders right?

Welsh & Scots devolution puts Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff in great
situations to English cities. The devolved countries have the power to
introduce their taxation. There was a debate on Land Valuation Taxation in
the Welsh Assembly recently. Glasgow is "re-attempting" to get Land
Valuation Taxation implemented. This is difficult to do in England as the
United Kingdom government have to pass this sort of tax.

Liverpool with derelict buildings, similar to Glasgow, attempted to get Land
Valuation Taxation through to clear up the dilapidated buildings a few years
ago.�* Josh Vincent of Center for the Study of Economics in the USA, went to
Liverpool to advise to local government, but Whitehall officials beat them
down.

Some people over the years in Liverpool have suggested Merseyside, in
England, be incorporated into Wales. This sounds a good idea. OK Southport,
St.Helens and New-le-Willows would want to move out and back to Lancashire,
which is understandable as they are very Lancastrian. Â*Fine. Neston on the
Wirral, Runcorn/Widnes (Halton) can take their place.

Then Wales will have two big cities, one north and one south, and they will
have control over their own affairs, partially removing the dead paw of
London.

A great positive solution all around.

Can Flint move out of Wales then? AIUI, there's no ethnic Welsh living
there.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" Â*-- Â*Bill of Rights 1689- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is only ethnic Welsh in parts of the extreme west of Wales.

On Mar 13, 11:12*pm, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Jgharston wrote :

How would Land Valuation Taxation clear up dilapidated buildings?

Because it acts as a holding cost. I remember stories about redundant
factories being bought and demolished or have their roofs removed so as
not to pay rates. In some cases this hastens the inevitable; in other
cases potentially reusable buildings are destroyed.

Here in Australia we have land tax - all properties are revalued every
couple of years and your rate notice shows the land value and rateable
value. In Victoria if you own land other than your own home whose total
value is greater than $250K (£165K) you pay land tax on a sliding scale
of 0.25%-2.25%. If you incur this tax on land that is not income
producing you cannot treat it as a taxable expense: it increases the
cost base of the land for Capital Gains purposes. So if you own ten BTL
houses all rented out, your land tax is set against the rents for tax
purposes. If you buy a piece of land and are just sitting on it, you
pay land tax, no tax relief (until you sell), an encouragement to bring
it back into beneficial use.

The one quirk is that it is a State Tax so BTL owners with lots of
properties can mitigate its effect by buying in more than one state.

--
Tony Bryer, *Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia * * *www.greentram.com

Here in Malvern (UK) some local land lord has demolished an empty
"Industrial Unit" to avoid paying local council tax.
He had the rubble piled up and put a notice on top to that effect.
Was in the local papers.

On Mar 13, 5:10*am, (Windmill)
wrote:
Huge writes:
On 2012-03-12, Bill Wright wrote:
hugh wrote:

Or Yorkshire! They should have had the Olympics nationwide, using the
facilities already existing.

My main thoughts are for the small business thrown off their premises
in East London, just for a silly sport event. It's an outrage.

Bill
The Olympics are awarded to a city not a country.
Yes but once awarded to London the committee could have used venues
anywhere in the country.
Which is what they've done. Where do you think the sailing is?

I suppose sailing in the Thames would invite a cholera infection!


Tch. Don't say that, the people living there have to drink it.

Tony Bryer wrote:
Here in Australia ... all properties are revalued every
couple of years

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

JGH

In message
,
jgharston writes
Tony Bryer wrote:
Here in Australia ... all properties are revalued every
couple of years

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

JGH
It's not the revaluation in principle that is the problem - it's the
fact that it would imply be used as an excuse to manifestly increase the
total tax take.
--
hugh

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:39:51 -0700 (PDT) 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.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:39:51 -0700 (PDT) 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.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:39:51 -0700 (PDT) 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.

But as any Daly Mail reader knows, where councils are concerned, it
would be.


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

John Williamson wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
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.

Even though it's councils that set the tax take, not the Valuation
Office who do the valuations. If you have 60% of properties in
Band A before the revaluation, you'll have 60% of properties in
Band A afterwards. It's up to the council to decide that Band A
should pay £900 instead of £800.

Plus the insanity that the bands are the same across the whole
country! 60% of Sheffield is in Band A. 95% of Westminster is
in Band H. Banding should be on a council-wide basis, as the
tax is raised on a council-wide basis.

(Actually, if you're going to have a property tax, it should
be a raw percentage of the value, none of these bands nonsense.)

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

I was about to be offered a job in the Valuation Office for the
2005 revaluation, but it was cancelled at the last minute when
Gordon Brown got cold feet.

JGH

In message , John Williamson
writes
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:39:51 -0700 (PDT) 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.
--
hugh

In message
,
jgharston writes
John Williamson wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
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.

Even though it's councils that set the tax take, not the Valuation
Office who do the valuations. If you have 60% of properties in
Band A before the revaluation, you'll have 60% of properties in
Band A afterwards. It's up to the council to decide that Band A
should pay £900 instead of £800.

But in the last revaluation under the old rates system it is exactly
what happened, as it did in Wales
Plus the insanity that the bands are the same across the whole
country! 60% of Sheffield is in Band A. 95% of Westminster is
in Band H. Banding should be on a council-wide basis, as the
tax is raised on a council-wide basis.


(Actually, if you're going to have a property tax, it should
be a raw percentage of the value, none of these bands nonsense.)

Valuing a property is not an exact science - in fact there is very
little science in it at all.
The revaluations should have been no more than five years apart.

I was about to be offered a job in the Valuation Office for the
2005 revaluation, but it was cancelled at the last minute when
Gordon Brown got cold feet.

Thank goodness for that.
JGH

--
hugh

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:39:51 -0700 (PDT) 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.

But as any Daly Mail reader knows, where councils are concerned, it
would be.


Past experience tells us exactly that as do the various comments from
time to time from the LGA
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message , 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?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , John Williamson
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , 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? 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.

The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely
"unfair". But first you must define what criteria for assessing
"fairness".
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message , John Williamson
writes
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? 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.

The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely
"unfair". But first you must define what criteria for assessing "fairness".

One fair method would be to calulate that each person in a town
generates on average X kilos of rubbish per year, uses a certain anount
of street lighting as they move round, and so on, then charge each
person for what they use...

Oh, didn't they try that? It was called the Poll Tax, IIRC, and got
thrown out very quickly. Or you could charge a local income tax, but
that would be too complicated to work out....

Bring back the rates. At least they were based on a nominal rental value
for each property, which meant that bigger homes paid more rates on
average than small ones.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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 ?


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "news" with "adrian" and "nospam" with "ffoil"
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

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.


--
djc

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?

And how would you cope with rented properties?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

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

On 11/03/2012 5:50 PM, ARWadsworth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
hugh wrote:

Feel sorry for the council tax payers who have had to pay a
supplement for the past few years but can't get/afford tickets.

Feel sorrier for all the citizens who have paid, and never wanted
tickets, or the sodding olympics, in the first place...

So it will be just me that enjoys them and will be proud to be British.

Of course I will be English and not British for the Euro 2012 Football
finals.


Were you English or British when Wales trounced you at Rugby ?

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.

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.

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.

Rick wrote:
On 11/03/2012 5:50 PM, ARWadsworth wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
hugh wrote:

Feel sorry for the council tax payers who have had to pay a
supplement for the past few years but can't get/afford tickets.

Feel sorrier for all the citizens who have paid, and never wanted
tickets, or the sodding olympics, in the first place...

So it will be just me that enjoys them and will be proud to be
British. Of course I will be English and not British for the Euro 2012
Football finals.


Were you English or British when Wales trounced you at Rugby ?

English.


--
Adam

djc wrote
Adrian Simpson wrote
hugh ] wrote

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.

Because it makes absolutely no sense that someone who hasnt
moved for that long should be paying much less property tax
than someone who has only moved in the last year or so.

It reflects what the owner could afford in 1939.

You dont know that. That was the end of the depression after all.

If they stayed there all that time then : it had not *in their view*
appreciated vis a vis any alternative accommodation they could afford;

You dont know that either.

if it had they could have moved home and realised the implicit capital gain.

Or they may just prefer to stay there for various reasons.

John Williamson wrote:
One fair method would be to ... charge each person for what they use...
Oh, didn't they try that? It was called the Poll Tax, IIRC, and got

But people /weren't/ charged for what they used, they were all
charged the same idential median amount.

thrown out very quickly. Or you could charge a local income tax, but
that would be too complicated to work out....

Local Income Tax is **** easy. HMRC already have all the figures,
indexed by local authority area. If HMRC don't have your details,
your income is below the taxable allowance, so you wouldn't be
paying anyway.

(Or, you're a member of the black economy, or you're one of a
small number of HM Forces or Merchant Seamen who are known
anomolies that get dealt with on an individual basis.)

JGH

In message , John Williamson
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , John Williamson
writes
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? 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.
The reality is the whole principle of a property tax is largely
"unfair". But first you must define what criteria for assessing
"fairness".

One fair method would be to calulate that each person in a town
generates on average X kilos of rubbish per year, uses a certain anount
of street lighting as they move round, and so on, then charge each
person for what they use...

You say fair without first defining fairness.
The biggest items of expenditure for local government are social
services and education, neither of which are directly linked to
properties.
Oh, didn't they try that? It was called the Poll Tax, IIRC, and got
thrown out very quickly. Or you could charge a local income tax, but
that would be too complicated to work out....

Poll tax was unpopular simply because suddenly people who had never paid
anything found themselves with a tax bill.
Bring back the rates. At least they were based on a nominal rental
value for each property, which meant that bigger homes paid more rates
on average than small ones.

But the nominal rental values varied enormously within the same town.
Generally under the present system residents of larger homes pay more.
--
hugh

In message , Rod Speed
writes
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
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?
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, but one of the first criteria to be mentioned is usually
ability to pay and council tax pays no regard to that.
--
hugh

In message , Adrian Simpson
writes
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 ?


Adrian
Well the occupant has paid property tax for 73 years so why worry?
--
hugh