wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Not quite the only thing wrong. When I paid rates it was ~£200/year, council
(poll) tax is now ~£1500.
We get screwed again.
Even ASDA tried to screw me today (again), Kit-Kats - were £1 for 8x2's last
week, £1.59 this week, they stay on the shelf (only a 59% increase). Magnums
were 6 for £3 last week, £4.50 this week, they stay on the shelf (only a 50%
increase). However, Bachelors cup-a-soup were £1.08 each or 2 for £1.50 last
week, 50p each this week, they didn't stay on the shelf (by bucketfulls).
Youngs fish in parsley, £4 this week, £3 other weeks, they stay on the shelf
(only 33% increase) they can **** off. Yet, as you peruse their wares, you
notice that most folks just dump what they want into their trucks not giving
a **** as to the cost, so, either there's a lot of money around or folks
couldn't care less what they pay. In which case, what chance have we got?

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
wrote :
Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Yes, it seems lost on the Daily Mail that for a given tax take a
revalation *on average* leaves no one worse off. Not revaluing
leaves some people paying more than they should. And adding a
couple of extra bands for higher-value properties would leave 95%
of people paying less.

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

brass monkey wrote:
Not quite the only thing wrong. When I paid rates it was ~£200/year

Rates *is* council tax reviewed regularly and charged as X-percent
of property value.

council (poll) tax is now ~£1500.

Council Tax != Poll Tax. Council Tax is one-per-property regardless of number of occupiers(*). Poll Tax is one-per-person regardless of value of property occupied. Both taxes are regardless of income of occupier(@).

(*)Bodged with a 25% deduction for a sole occupier.
(@)Council Tax Benefit is not a deduction of council tax, it's an benefit,
ie, an /income/ used to pay your council tax bill, in exactly the same way
that Child Benefit is an income, not a deduction in the price of children's
food and clothing.

JGH

On Oct 14, 12:06*am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

brass monkey wrote:

Even ASDA tried to screw me today (again)Snip Yet, as you peruse their wares, you
notice that most folks just dump what they want into their trucks not giving
a **** as to the cost, so, either there's a lot of money around or folks
couldn't care less what they pay. In which case, what chance have we got?

I buy what only I need and what will keep until I use it and don't have
a choice. I already buy the cheapest brand for most things.

Maybe that's why I have spare cash on payday and others don't. Then
again, I don't have the kids pestering me for Brand "X" fish fingers as
advertised on TV (Accepting no substitute).


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that. Start with exceptions like
children. And that to some extent costs of council services are
property-size dependent. And we are positively frugal in terms of waste
where others have overflowing bins every week/fortnight - and never take
things to the tip or separate out recyclable things. And on and on ...
Of course, there are bound to be some things where we get more than some
others, but not many at present.

--
Rod

harry wrote:

So why does it rot if the bag is damaged?

For the same reason that a jar of sauerkraut rots if you remove the lid.

CO2 gets out, air gets in.

The first is not relevant. Silage is not preserved by CO2. OTOH your
brain appears to run entirely on CO2. No use of oxygen there.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
wrote :
Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Yes, it seems lost on the Daily Mail that for a given tax take a
revalation *on average* leaves no one worse off. Not revaluing
leaves some people paying more than they should. And adding a
couple of extra bands for higher-value properties would leave 95%
of people paying less.

Ah, that's good to know, I feel much better only paying 6 times my old
rates.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed regularly
and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on which you pay
rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to save
arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its own would be
worth given current planning policies. If total value (excluding your own
home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax) exceeds a certain amount
you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on Income Tax
by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your income based on the
increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political control
via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963. Pre 1963
house/land prices were relatively stable. The quality and size of private
housing was good. After 1963 when land was not taxed more,one was poured
into land and not enterprise creating house/land price bubble. The political
power and influence of landowners made sure the restricted planning system
created an artificial land shortage keep land prices even higher. A
propaganda machine went into motion saying the UK is tiny and short of land,
which in fact is total lies. The UK is EMPTY with only 7.5% of the land
settled. 0.6% of the population own 70% of the land - a land monopoly exists
which has never been addressed. The landless then lose big time paying
extortionate rents artificially hyped housing. The gainers are those who own
land.

Land Valuation Tax, fixed yearly on an annual land value assessment, will
redress the problem in a very much more elegant and fair manner and reduce
or even eliminate destructive and unfair Income and Sales Taxes if
implemented fully. Land cannot be taken offshore so the tax cannot be
avoided.

wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Good point. You are getting there. It also takes into account the building,
which is CAPITAL. Taxing a building is daft, like taxing your washing
machine. The building depreciates, the LAND appreciates - a house price is
the land and building value rolled into on. The building (CAPITAL) is
similar to a car - drops in value.

harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Anyone who says that knows NOTHING of economics and how a society
functions. Only idiots go for it, as Thatcher and your do.

Poll taxes have failed everywhere they have been implemented.

polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that.

Toll booth society's do not work. Look at USA cities. Sprawl of homes and
the only break is a highway and sports fields - no parks because no one
wants to pay for them. Awful places to live.

Owain wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:04 am, "brass monkey" wrote:
Ah, that's good to know, I feel much better only paying 6 times my
old rates.

And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.

They do? Daily Mail tell you that? Those in Council Houses would rather
buy their own homes but are prioced out of the market because an artificiual
land shortage created to keep the landed rich. Get wise to the world.

Look at your own Scotland. The amount of land owned by a few up there,
excluding others, is quite shocking. Look at the root of the problem not
symptoms.

On 14/10/2012 11:56, Doctor Drivel wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that.

Toll booth society's do not work. Look at USA cities. Sprawl of homes
and the only break is a highway and sports fields - no parks because no
one wants to pay for them. Awful places to live.

For clarity, I am not arguing in favour of such a system. Merely
pointing out that the Poll Tax as implemented was NOT like that.

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 11:56, Doctor Drivel wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that.

Toll booth society's do not work. Look at USA cities. Sprawl of homes
and the only break is a highway and sports fields - no parks because
no one wants to pay for them. Awful places to live.

For clarity, I am not arguing in favour of such a system.

I saw that. I am adding value.

Merely
pointing out that the Poll Tax as implemented was NOT like that.

The Poll tax is a silly non-starter and not worth considering.

On 14/10/2012 12:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly
and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on which you pay
rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to save
arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its own
would be
worth given current planning policies. If total value (excluding
your own
home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax) exceeds a certain
amount you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on
Income Tax by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your income
based on the increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political
control via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963.

Quite right too - a ****ty tax if ever there was one. AIUI, it was based
on the rent you might have raised had you, instead of living in the
house, rented it out.

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done. I can see it
now: you do two hours in the garden, or you do the washing up, and the
tax man says - hey you could have employed someone to do those jobs, so
we want the income tax and NI that would have resulted from such
employment.

Big Brother would have been proud of you, drivel.

Lots of taxes are effectively like that. E.g. road fund. You pay a tax
which is, more or less, based on every vehicle doing an average mileage.
Maybe you only do 10% of that mileage - so you are in a sort of way
being taxed on what you might have done. And, inasmuch as it is a tax,
the TV licence.

--
Rod

On 14/10/2012 12:00, Doctor Drivel wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:04 am, "brass monkey" wrote:
Ah, that's good to know, I feel much better only paying 6 times my
old rates.

And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.

They do? Daily Mail tell you that?

They do - well I'm not sure about TVs, but I am about other things. My
wife is a Community Psychiatric Nurse and recently visited a new patient
to assess her. She was accompanied by a Social Worker from the same team
(purely so someone else in the team was familiar with the patient). The
SW proceeded to offer the patient a new suite, new cooker, new bed and
other items, despite the fact that she had a perfectly good, although no
longer perfect suite, the cooker just needed a good clean and she
already had a new bed, it just wasn't assembled, so the matress was on
the floor!

SteveW

On 14/10/12 02:11, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
wrote :
Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Yes, it seems lost on the Daily Mail that for a given tax take a
revalation *on average* leaves no one worse off. Not revaluing
leaves some people paying more than they should. And adding a
couple of extra bands for higher-value properties would leave 95%
of people paying less.

That all very well iff there is a clear separation of revaluation from
increase in overall taxation.
There is also a problem of which valuation. The old rateable values were
based on nominal rental value, which was pure fiction at a time when
very little property was let at an open market rent. Sale prices are
rather irrelevant to anyone who has no intention of moving. Base a
valuation on size/facilities and you are back to rateable value,
Occupancy = poll tax (well what's so wrong with that?). Local income
tax? ...


--
djc

On 14/10/2012 07:50, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that. Start with exceptions like
children.

Who have no income and therefore could not be required to pay.

And that to some extent costs of council services are
property-size dependent.

Such as? General services provided to all are dependent upon number of
people, not property size. People don't use more street lighting,
policing, fire services, social services, roads, steet sweeping, etc.
because they have a bigger property, whereas they do when there are more
people.

And we are positively frugal in terms of waste
where others have overflowing bins every week/fortnight - and never take
things to the tip or separate out recyclable things. And on and on ...

They may have more disposable income or more people in the house and
therefore generate more waste, but that is a small proportion of the
charges levied and of course more people means more income to the
council on a poll tax basis.

The big problem with the poll tax was the way it was implemented, not
the basic idea.

For instance, at the time, I and my sister lived with my parents. When
the poll tax came in, my parents were worse off (how when they were
living in an average property and the number of people paying was
increasing dramatically?)

I was a lot worse off (fair enough), but my parents got transitional
relief for two years (IIRC) as they were paying more and so paid less
each than I did! Going from 0 to full payment didn't give any
transitional relief while a much smaller increase did - crazy!

My sister finished sixth form (in May) and was immediately chased by the
council for payment, despite her having no income and not being able to
even sign-on 'til September - the council considered her a non-student
immediately and the DHSS considered her a student until September!

Everyone paying the same for the same services is much better, with
reliefs or top-ups for those on low incomes. This has the benefit that
with everyone paying, no-one can vote for whichever party will give them
the most, without considering the additional costs that will fall on
everyone.

SteveW

On 14/10/2012 11:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Anyone who says that knows NOTHING of economics and how a society
functions. Only idiots go for it, as Thatcher and your do.

Poll taxes have failed everywhere they have been implemented.

Yes, because large numbers of people suddenly people found that they had
to pay their bit, when they hadn't had to before.

SteveW

On 14/10/12 12:46, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 12:36, Tim Streater wrote:

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done. I can see it
now: you do two hours in the garden, or you do the washing up, and the
tax man says - hey you could have employed someone to do those jobs, so
we want the income tax and NI that would have resulted from such
employment.

Big Brother would have been proud of you, drivel.

Lots of taxes are effectively like that. E.g. road fund. You pay a tax
which is, more or less, based on every vehicle doing an average mileage.
Maybe you only do 10% of that mileage - so you are in a sort of way
being taxed on what you might have done. And, inasmuch as it is a tax,
the TV licence.

No, these are 'all you can eat' taxes. You pay for a licence, it's
binary pay for permission or don't pay and be banned.

Taxes based on nominal, imputed or potential values, are just a job
creation opportunity for accountants, valuers, and lawyers. And the
anti-avoidance legislation that follows just compounds the error.


--
djc

djc wrote:
On 14/10/12 02:11, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
wrote :
Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Yes, it seems lost on the Daily Mail that for a given tax take a
revalation *on average* leaves no one worse off. Not revaluing
leaves some people paying more than they should. And adding a
couple of extra bands for higher-value properties would leave 95%
of people paying less.

That all very well iff there is a clear separation of revaluation from
increase in overall taxation.
There is also a problem of which valuation. The old rateable values
were based on nominal rental value, which was pure fiction at a time
when very little property was let at an open market rent. Sale prices
are rather irrelevant to anyone who has no intention of moving.

What! Sale price of land are relevant in fixing land valuation rates -
whether you sell or not.

Occupancy = poll tax (well what's so wrong with that?).

You don't know what is wrong with the Poll Tax? My oh my!

SteveW wrote:

The big problem with the poll tax was the way it was implemented, not
the basic idea.

It is totally flawed in concept - a toll booth society. Those advocating it
have no idea of economics and how a society operates and runs.

snip drivel

Doctor Drivel wrote:


I saw that. I am adding value.

In the way mould adds value to bread?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

SteveW wrote:
On 14/10/2012 11:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Poll taxes have failed everywhere they have been implemented.

Yes, because large numbers of people suddenly people found that they
had to pay their bit, when they hadn't had to before.

You have no idea whatsoever.

The best taxation is no taxation. So how do we get the revenue to pay for
public services? We use common wealth, economic growth created
collectively, to pay for the services. Makes sense eh? Lots of sense.

That is resources in the ground, those who use the electromagnetic spectrum,
the seas, the sea bed, oil, gas & ores in the ground, etc. One of the
biggest forms of collectively created value that can be reclaimed is land
values. Landowners DID NOT create the value in their land. Economic growth
created by private and public economic activity soaks into the land and
chrysalises as land values. This is reclaimed to pay public service with the
knock-on effect of stopping harmful land speculation eliminating booms &
busts.

Then no Income Tax, sales Tax, Council Tax and other assorted stealth tax
tripe.

Tim Watts wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:


I saw that. I am adding value.

In the way mould adds value to bread?

I your strange world I suppose. BTE, mould added value to penicillin.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on
which you pay rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to
save arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its
own would be worth given current planning policies. If total value
(excluding your own home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax)
exceeds a certain amount you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on
Income Tax by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your income
based on the increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political
control via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963.

Quite right too - a ****ty tax if ever there was one. AIUI, it was
based on the rent you might have raised had you, instead of living in
the house, rented it out.

Your comprehension is nil. Yes. What it did was reclaim the "value" created
by community economic activity that soaked into the ground and crystallized
as land values. The higher the land value the higher the rental value.

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done.

It taxed you on the increased values that soaked into the land which you the
landowner NEVER created.

Land Value Taxation makes people free. The fruits of their labours are not
taken in the form of Income Tax (a tax on production) and Sales Tax (a tax
on transactions - a tax on trade) - what we should NOT be taxing.

You have no idea of economics whatsoever - a Daily Mail reader.

snip drivel

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:02:07 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:
That is resources in the ground, those who use the electromagnetic
spectrum, the seas, the sea bed, oil, gas & ores in the ground, etc. One
of the biggest forms of collectively created value that can be reclaimed
is land values. Landowners DID NOT create the value in their land.
Economic growth created by private and public economic activity soaks
into the land and chrysalises as land values. This is reclaimed to pay
public service with the knock-on effect of stopping harmful land
speculation eliminating booms & busts.

Then no Income Tax, sales Tax, Council Tax and other assorted stealth
tax tripe.

Did you run out of crayons this morning?

On 14/10/2012 13:24, SteveW wrote:
On 14/10/2012 07:50, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that. Start with exceptions like
children.

Who have no income and therefore could not be required to pay.

And that to some extent costs of council services are
property-size dependent.

Such as? General services provided to all are dependent upon number of
people, not property size. People don't use more street lighting,
policing, fire services, social services, roads, steet sweeping, etc.
because they have a bigger property, whereas they do when there are more
people.

And we are positively frugal in terms of waste
where others have overflowing bins every week/fortnight - and never take
things to the tip or separate out recyclable things. And on and on ...

They may have more disposable income or more people in the house and
therefore generate more waste, but that is a small proportion of the
charges levied and of course more people means more income to the
council on a poll tax basis.

The big problem with the poll tax was the way it was implemented, not
the basic idea.

For instance, at the time, I and my sister lived with my parents. When
the poll tax came in, my parents were worse off (how when they were
living in an average property and the number of people paying was
increasing dramatically?)

I was a lot worse off (fair enough), but my parents got transitional
relief for two years (IIRC) as they were paying more and so paid less
each than I did! Going from 0 to full payment didn't give any
transitional relief while a much smaller increase did - crazy!

My sister finished sixth form (in May) and was immediately chased by the
council for payment, despite her having no income and not being able to
even sign-on 'til September - the council considered her a non-student
immediately and the DHSS considered her a student until September!

Everyone paying the same for the same services is much better, with
reliefs or top-ups for those on low incomes. This has the benefit that
with everyone paying, no-one can vote for whichever party will give them
the most, without considering the additional costs that will fall on
everyone.

SteveW

Someone has to pay for children - and their costs to councils. Even if
they do not have the money in their hands.

When Poll Tax was being talked about, the idea was put forward that if
there were, say, 100 people in a town then the council would get 100 *
poll tax as income. But in reality, they got maybe 75 * poll tax because
25 were non-paying children. (Those are simply illustrative numbers.) In
an area with many children the situation might have been worse; or, if
few children, better.

So the amount of poll tax per payer had to go up to cover those not paying.

People DO use more services when they live in larger properties. On
average the amount of garden waste, the distance rubbish collection
vehicles have to drive, the amount of road and pavement, the number of
fire appliances required when they burn, the amount of street lighting
to cover the longer frontages, the amount of road salting required - all
these go up when properties are larger.

--
Rod

On Oct 14, 7:50*am, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:

On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that. Start with exceptions like
children. And that to some extent costs of council services are
property-size dependent. And we are positively frugal in terms of waste
where others have overflowing bins every week/fortnight - and never take
things to the tip or separate out recyclable things. And on and on ...
Of course, there are bound to be some things where we get more than some
others, but not many at present.

--
Rod

They could have waste collection once a month as far as I'm concerned.
It astonishes me the huge piles of waste outside some people's houses
on collection day.

On Oct 14, 11:00*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
So why does it rot if the bag is damaged?

For the same reason that a jar of sauerkraut rots if you remove the lid.

CO2 gets out, air gets in.

The first is not relevant. Silage is not preserved by CO2. OTOH your
brain appears to run entirely on CO2. No use of oxygen there.

Someone else has put up a link confirming what I said.

On Oct 14, 11:45*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"Tony Bryer" wrote in message

...









On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. *He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed regularly
and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on which you pay
rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to save
arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its own would be
worth given current planning policies. If total value (excluding your own
home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax) exceeds a certain amount
you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on Income Tax
by Tory William Pitt. *It was a tax taken off your income based on the
increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political control
via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963. Pre 1963
house/land prices were relatively stable. The quality and size of private
housing was good. After 1963 when land was not taxed more,one was poured
into land and not enterprise creating house/land price bubble. The political
power and influence of landowners made sure the restricted planning system
created an artificial land shortage keep land prices even higher. *A
propaganda machine went into motion saying the UK is tiny and short of land,
which in fact is total lies. The UK is EMPTY with only 7.5% of the land
settled. 0.6% of the population own 70% of the land - a land monopoly exists
which has never been addressed. *The landless then lose big time paying
extortionate rents artificially hyped housing. The gainers are those who own
land.

Land Valuation Tax, fixed yearly on an annual land value assessment, will
redress the problem in a very much more elegant and fair manner and reduce
or even eliminate destructive and unfair Income and Sales Taxes if
implemented fully. *Land cannot be taken offshore so the tax cannot be
avoided.

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

On Oct 14, 11:49*am, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Good point. *You are getting there. It also takes into account the building,
which is CAPITAL. Taxing a building is daft, like taxing your washing
machine. *The building depreciates, the LAND appreciates - a house price is
the land and building value rolled into on. *The building (CAPITAL) is
similar to a car - drops in value.

Not over here it doesn't. (UK)

On Oct 14, 12:46*pm, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 12:36, Tim Streater wrote:







In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly
and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on which you pay
rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to save
arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its own
would be
worth given current planning policies. If total value (excluding
your own
home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax) exceeds a certain
amount you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on
Income Tax by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your income
based on the increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political
control via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963.

Quite right too - a ****ty tax if ever there was one. AIUI, it was based
on the rent you might have raised had you, instead of living in the
house, rented it out.

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done. I can see it
now: you do two hours in the garden, or you do the washing up, and the
tax man says - hey you could have employed someone to do those jobs, so
we want the income tax and NI that would have resulted from such
employment.

Big Brother would have been proud of you, drivel.

Lots of taxes are effectively like that. E.g. road fund. You pay a tax
which is, more or less, based on every vehicle doing an average mileage.
Maybe you only do 10% of that mileage - so you are in a sort of way
being taxed on what you might have done. And, inasmuch as it is a tax,
the TV licence.

--
Rod

They should do away with road tax and put it on petrol. Then you would
pay for the wear and tear on the road. For having a big car and using
it a lot.
And save on collecting it and prevent dodging it.

In message
,
harry writes
Land Valuation Tax, fixed yearly on an annual land value assessment, will
redress the problem in a very much more elegant and fair manner and reduce
or even eliminate destructive and unfair Income and Sales Taxes if
implemented fully. *Land cannot be taken offshore so the tax cannot be
avoided.

We need land to grow food dribble.
So how much tax would you pay if you owned no land?

Dribbler and his ilk probably own no land so would live on the back of
others.

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
wrote :
Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

Yes, it seems lost on the Daily Mail that for a given tax take a
revalation *on average* leaves no one worse off. Not revaluing
leaves some people paying more than they should. And adding a
couple of extra bands for higher-value properties would leave 95%
of people paying less.

Unfortunately there never has been a revaluation which "on average"
leaves no-one worse off.

Revaluation on a regular basis would simply hike the tax regardless of
the occupants income. Those on fixed income would suffer most.
The only time value relates to income is when you buy the house in the
first place. So the logical thing to do would be to revalue on sale.
--
hugh

In message
,
Owain writes
On Oct 14, 11:04*am, "brass monkey" wrote:
Ah, that's good to know, I feel much better only paying 6 times my old
rates.

And be comforted to know your money is spent by social workers buying
colour tellies for people in council houses.

Owain

With SKY of course
--
hugh

In message , polygonum
writes
On 14/10/2012 13:24, SteveW wrote:
On 14/10/2012 07:50, polygonum wrote:
On 14/10/2012 06:21, harry wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:06 am, wrote:
Tony Bryer wrote:
The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly ...

Exactly. The only thing wrong with Council Tax is that the
value it's based on is not reassessed regularly, and that it's
set in bands instead of X-percent of assessed value.

JGH

Poll tax was the best system. Pay for what you get.

Except the system didn't work like that. Start with exceptions like
children.

Who have no income and therefore could not be required to pay.

And that to some extent costs of council services are
property-size dependent.

Such as? General services provided to all are dependent upon number of
people, not property size. People don't use more street lighting,
policing, fire services, social services, roads, steet sweeping, etc.
because they have a bigger property, whereas they do when there are more
people.

And we are positively frugal in terms of waste
where others have overflowing bins every week/fortnight - and never take
things to the tip or separate out recyclable things. And on and on ...

They may have more disposable income or more people in the house and
therefore generate more waste, but that is a small proportion of the
charges levied and of course more people means more income to the
council on a poll tax basis.

The big problem with the poll tax was the way it was implemented, not
the basic idea.

For instance, at the time, I and my sister lived with my parents. When
the poll tax came in, my parents were worse off (how when they were
living in an average property and the number of people paying was
increasing dramatically?)

I was a lot worse off (fair enough), but my parents got transitional
relief for two years (IIRC) as they were paying more and so paid less
each than I did! Going from 0 to full payment didn't give any
transitional relief while a much smaller increase did - crazy!

My sister finished sixth form (in May) and was immediately chased by the
council for payment, despite her having no income and not being able to
even sign-on 'til September - the council considered her a non-student
immediately and the DHSS considered her a student until September!

Everyone paying the same for the same services is much better, with
reliefs or top-ups for those on low incomes. This has the benefit that
with everyone paying, no-one can vote for whichever party will give them
the most, without considering the additional costs that will fall on
everyone.

SteveW

Someone has to pay for children - and their costs to councils. Even if
they do not have the money in their hands.

When Poll Tax was being talked about, the idea was put forward that if
there were, say, 100 people in a town then the council would get 100 *
poll tax as income. But in reality, they got maybe 75 * poll tax
because 25 were non-paying children. (Those are simply illustrative
numbers.) In an area with many children the situation might have been
worse; or, if few children, better.

So the amount of poll tax per payer had to go up to cover those not paying.

People DO use more services when they live in larger properties. On
average the amount of garden waste, the distance rubbish collection
vehicles have to drive, the amount of road and pavement, the number of
fire appliances required when they burn, the amount of street lighting
to cover the longer frontages, the amount of road salting required -
all these go up when properties are larger.

Butt he greater part of local council expenditure goes on education and
social services. Property related expenditure is relatively small.
--
hugh

In message , polygonum
writes
On 14/10/2012 12:36, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly
and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on which you pay
rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to save
arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its own
would be
worth given current planning policies. If total value (excluding
your own
home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax) exceeds a certain
amount you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on
Income Tax by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your income
based on the increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political
control via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963.

Quite right too - a ****ty tax if ever there was one. AIUI, it was based
on the rent you might have raised had you, instead of living in the
house, rented it out.

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done. I can see it
now: you do two hours in the garden, or you do the washing up, and the
tax man says - hey you could have employed someone to do those jobs, so
we want the income tax and NI that would have resulted from such
employment.

Big Brother would have been proud of you, drivel.

Lots of taxes are effectively like that. E.g. road fund. You pay a tax
which is, more or less, based on every vehicle doing an average
mileage.

No it's not.
Maybe you only do 10% of that mileage - so you are in a sort of way
being taxed on what you might have done. And, inasmuch as it is a tax,
the TV licence.

Tv licence is a charge for receiving TV programs, regardless of how and
how many you receive. Previously the BBC demanded what they needed to
pay the likes of Savile and all their expenses, but his government stood
up to them and said "No More - live with what you've got"
--
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
Note: LVT is a tax on the "value" of the land, not the building.
Assessed annually.

Ed balls is one of those got us into all this trouble. He is a
tosser.
Exactly how is it to be assessed?

The same way as in Australia? Our rateable values are reassessed
regularly and the rate demand has two values, rateable value (on
which you pay rates,
no upper limit) which is generally a little shy of market value to
save arguments and an unimproved land value, what the land on its
own would be worth given current planning policies. If total value
(excluding your own home) you hold in one state (it's a state tax)
exceeds a certain amount you
have to pay Land Tax on it.

http://www.chan-naylor.com.au/land-tax/

In the UK we had Schedule A Income Taxation from the inception on
Income Tax by Tory William Pitt. It was a tax taken off your income
based on the increased values on LAND you owned. A clunky land tax.

The Tories, controlled by large landowners, who had/have political
control via the House of (land) Lords, abolished Schedule A in 1963.

Quite right too - a ****ty tax if ever there was one. AIUI, it was
based on the rent you might have raised had you, instead of living in
the house, rented it out.

Your comprehension is nil. Yes. What it did was reclaim the "value"
created by community economic activity that soaked into the ground and
crystallized as land values. The higher the land value the higher the
rental value.

What a concept, eh? Taxing you on what you might have done.

It taxed you on the increased values that soaked into the land which
you the landowner NEVER created.

Land Value Taxation makes people free. The fruits of their labours are
not taken in the form of Income Tax (a tax on production) and Sales Tax
(a tax on transactions - a tax on trade) - what we should NOT be taxing.

You have no idea of economics whatsoever - a Daily Mail reader.

snip drivel
Have you noticed whenever the socialists are losing an argument they
always invoke the dreaded Daily Mail
--
hugh