milquetoast1 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? It is taxed. There's capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Also the social services will take it to pay for your care costs. This is irrelevant in a discussion about council tax though. If the value of houses has gone up by "50, 100, 200% in real terms on the back of no actual investment in their property" then the same applies for all homes including rented homes. The idea that we should revalue all houses, then come up with a new banding to apportion local taxes is pointless. An average house, paying an average tax, would still be an average house, paying an average tax. The idea that we should revalue all houses, but keep the bandings the same to extract more tax out of people, is also pointless. Everybody would be in the top band. The idea was pointless. No doubt dreamt up by people that wanted to create jobs for themselves. Scrapping the idea was the correct action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 It is taxed. There's capital gains tax and inheritance tax. Also the social services will take it to pay for your care costs. This is irrelevant in a discussion about council tax though. If the value of houses has gone up by "50, 100, 200% in real terms on the back of no actual investment in their property" then the same applies for all homes including rented homes. The idea that we should revalue all houses, then come up with a new banding to apportion local taxes is pointless. An average house, paying an average tax, would still be an average house, paying an average tax. The idea that we should revalue all houses, but keep the bandings the same to extract more tax out of people, is also pointless. Everybody would be in the top band. The idea was pointless. No doubt dreamt up by people that wanted to create jobs for themselves. Scrapping the idea was the correct action. Increases per se are irrelevant, however regional variations would have meant that it wasn't a totally pointless exercise. For example house prices in London might have risen 300% while those in Sheffield may only have risen 30%. Therefore we'd be paying less, and they'd be paying more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Increases per se are irrelevant, however regional variations would have meant that it wasn't a totally pointless exercise. For example house prices in London might have risen 300% while those in Sheffield may only have risen 30%. Therefore we'd be paying less, and they'd be paying more. I thought property value (for the purpose of council tax) was reviewed whenever a property was sold... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard 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 But apparently Labour had abandoned the idea anyway.... A Labour spokesman said the party "made an unequivocal commitment that there would be no council tax revaluation in this parliament". "This is a cynical and misleading manipulation of facts," he said. But Pickles also said . "They [councils] can raise their council tax. We are going to remove capping and allow local people to decide the level of their council tax by way of a referendum. So we are taking power away from the centre and giving it to local people," ...which should be fun for all concerned http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/24/council-tax-revaluation-hit-poorest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milquetoast1 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Increases per se are irrelevant, however regional variations would have meant that it wasn't a totally pointless exercise. For example house prices in London might have risen 300% while those in Sheffield may only have risen 30%. Therefore we'd be paying less, and they'd be paying more. Yes, but local taxes are LOCAL taxes. The local Sheffield taxes extracted from Sheffield folk is determined by the value of Sheffield houses in comparison with other Sheffield houses. An average Sheffield house will pay an average Sheffield tax. The regional movement of house prices in London, or anywhere else is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Yes, but local taxes are LOCAL taxes. The local Sheffield taxes extracted from Sheffield folk is determined by the value of Sheffield houses in comparison with other Sheffield houses. An average Sheffield house will pay an average Sheffield tax. The regional movement of house prices in London, or anywhere else is irrelevant. Are you sure? If you're right I stand corrected, but surely if it's related to the value of a property in 1991, then it must be in comparison to houses across the county. A Band A house in London is worth the same as a Band A house in Sheffield! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Increases per se are irrelevant, however regional variations would have meant that it wasn't a totally pointless exercise. For example house prices in London might have risen 300% while those in Sheffield may only have risen 30%. Therefore we'd be paying less, and they'd be paying more. Londoners do not pay for Sheffield's council tax, so this is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Are you sure? If you're right I stand corrected, but surely if it's related to the value of a property in 1991, then it must be in comparison to houses across the county. A Band A house in London is worth the same as a Band A house in Sheffield! Suppose, then, that under a revaluation, 100% of all houses in Sheffield would fall in band A, whereas 100% of houses in Westminster would fall in band G. The houses in Westminster only pay, between them, enough council tax to provide for Westminster, so Westminster's band G would be about equivalent to Sheffield's band A. They would not end up paying twice as much council tax as we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Are you sure? If you're right I stand corrected, but surely if it's related to the value of a property in 1991, then it must be in comparison to houses across the county. A Band A house in London is worth the same as a Band A house in Sheffield! The values for banding are the same but the amount charged for each band differs from area to area... as I understand it anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dell12 Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Suppose, then, that under a revaluation, 100% of all houses in Sheffield would fall in band A, whereas 100% of houses in Westminster would fall in band G. The houses in Westminster only pay, between them, enough council tax to provide for Westminster, so Westminster's band G would be about equivalent to Sheffield's band A. They would not end up paying twice as much council tax as we do. Fair enough I stand corrected. I assumed that a Band A property in Sheffield would pay the same as a Band A property in London, but it seems as if each Council are free to set set their own rates for each band. Although I suppose if there was any variation within Sheffield it might make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.