mj.scuba Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 More plaudits due for the coalition Government as they pledge not to undertake a council tax revaluation, which would have been a costly exercise in itself and would have also seen many already financially squeezed householders paying more tax they can ill afford. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11401602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Do you think they'd change the bands as well? Are there any properties less than 40k now (band A) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Since a '1991 valuation', like 'rateable value' before it, is just a comparative measure for tax purposes, I always thought the idea to visit every house and revalue it was a futile waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escafeldia Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Another New Labour policy into the trash can. I still don't know whether the rumours and leaks about the 20th October review are being trailed by the Government or whether it is the Labour crowd working on the basis of "throw muck and some of it will stick". A Council Tax re-evaluation would be a complete disaster in todays financial climate. Good on 'em for kicking it into touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Just heard some guy moaning about this on the radio. His argument in favour of the argument for revaluations basically boiled down to two points: 1. House prices in some regions have increased more than in other regions. 2. Some houses have been improved, which hasn't been reflected in the '1991 valuation'. That was basically it. Well, since council tax is a regional tax anyway, where the tax for region A is collected from homes in region A, based on their 1991 valuation in region A, what difference does it make if house prices in region A have moved independently of regions B, C and D? The second point can only be small. When we had a small extension we had to submit planning, and some guy from the council came to look to see if our council tax banding would change. The number of houses that slipped through this system and need to be revalued can't be that great. The second point got me chuckling about the whole system though. If you want to improve your house by spending £20k, it takes say £30k of earnings to pay for it, so there's £10k in tax right there. Then there's the £3k in VAT, not to mention the tax that the builders have to pay on their labour. To cap it all off, they want to put you in a higher council tax band so they can take more tax off you, all for the privelege of paying lots of tax in the first place. It's tax all the way down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Do you think they'd change the bands as well? Are there any properties less than 40k now (band A) Exactly. People whooped like idiots when house prices increased by 100%, 150% or even 200%. Time to re-band houses based on the current level of house prices and see how happy they are then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Exactly. People whooped like idiots when house prices increased by 100%, 150% or even 200%. Time to re-band houses based on the current level of house prices and see how happy they are then! Exactly. People have seen the value of their house increase 50, 100, 200% in real terms on the back of no actual investment in their property. Surely this should be taxed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Exactly. People have seen the value of their house increase 50, 100, 200% in real terms on the back of no actual investment in their property. Surely this should be taxed? The purchaser will pay stamp duty on that...what about people whose property has increased mainly due to investment by the owner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Exactly. People whooped like idiots when house prices increased by 100%, 150% or even 200%. Time to re-band houses based on the current level of house prices and see how happy they are then! Do I spot a bit of jealousy here...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 The purchaser will pay stamp duty on that...what about people whose property has increased mainly due to investment by the owner? If the property has been improved through over investment then I have no problem with them reaping the rewards. But the rise in house prices in the main has little to do with investment in houses, and more to do with a lack of supply. My house for example has probably quadrupled in value from when I bought it 18 years ago. This has been achieved on the back of very little investment from myself. While having more money when I sell would be lovely, I can't say that i've earned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.