Vague_Boy Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Great idea, let's all campaign for this. I'd love to fork ouk out more every month for nothing in return. A good example of "less is less": When council tax was first introduced, most people had standard metal bins. The bin men would collect them once a week and put them at the edge of the pavement. Once the bin had been emptied, it would be brought back by another bin man. Now you, the council tax payer, have to do the fetching and carrying, but with no reduction in your council tax to offset it. And lord help you if you align that bin without a perishing micrometer so that it meets the "waste executive's" exacting positional standards. And now there's talk oi bins only being emptied every fortnight. But the important thing is that the public sector bureaucrat's index-linked pensions have survived (y'know, index linked pensions, exactly the kind of pension you can't have any more). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Most places in Sheffield are Band A council tax. Band A properties are those which were worth less than £40k in 1991. However most of the houses in Sheffield are supposedly 'worth' a hell of a lot more than what they were comparatively in 1991. Anything over £90000 now should have its council tax band increased, if it is band A. All properties should be re-banded. Advantages of this would be to encourage people to price property realistically, people with expensive property would pay a fair amount of tax. Council revenue would increase and cuts need not be implemented. What do you think? You may as well just call it a massive hike in council tax and be done with it, because it has exactly the same effect. It has no advantage other than to increase income for the council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If there Band A property is worth what a band C property should be worth due to inflation, then surely they should be paying the higher rate. You have some funny ideas about value and worth. There is no such thing as 'should be worth'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 A local income tax would be fairer, the value of your house tells nothing about your ability to pay a tax, service based wouldn't be fair as it's impossible to administer and goes against the premise of general taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYBABTU Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 the council can go fornicate with themselves. we have a small business with a warehouse in Attercliffe and we pay them £ 1000 PER MONTH in rates - and we dont even get our sodding bins emptied - we have a skip every fortnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazyec Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The bands are a guide to the relative worth of a property. The relative worth of a property will have increased across the board i.e. if a "Band A" house was worth 40K in 1991 and is now worth 65K (say) then the "Band B" house will have increased by approx. the same percentage (and "Band C" and "D" etc.). So the band differentials remain the same - even if houses had been valued at £1, £2, £3 in 1991 they'd still be in their relative Bands. And Council Tax increases every year by more than inflation, for every band, so I'm afraid I miss the point of revaluing everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I might be wrong, and do please correct me if I am, but I thought that houses are re-banded anyway when they are sold (if the sale value takes them up a CT band or more, relative to previous sale value) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaBird Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 On the current system we have in this country without adding an extra band or two at the top end any house currently in Band A will still be in Band A as the system is not run on a property value. It would need a couple of top end bands adding and then allocating a value range to each band and then revaluing all properties again in the entire country and moving them into the relevant band for that price bracket. The only way to change this to stop anyone from saying they pay too much or too little is to adopt the american system of paying property taxes on a property value. As the property value rises the tax property tax also rises - BUT if the property value falls the property tax also falls along with it. In the figures worked out are also costings per 1000 of value toward schools, roads, emergency services and so on. So you pay to these along with your property taxes for the services you receive in your local area. Each year your property is re-assessed and given a relative value via the local govenment office and your taxes are based on that evaluation. I'm not saying that this is the way to go but this is one way so that everyone pays equally. Just as a side note...... in Florida if I rent out my property to a tenant I as the owner pay the property taxes but if I rent my property here in the UK the tenant pays it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The only way to change this to stop anyone from saying they pay too much or too little is to adopt the american system of paying property taxes on a property value. As the property value rises the tax property tax also rises - BUT if the property value falls the property tax also falls along with it. And there's the rub. Who is to say what a property is worth? (and please don't suggest putting the work in the hands of estate agents - they haven't got a clue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I might be wrong, and do please correct me if I am, but I thought that houses are re-banded anyway when they are sold (if the sale value takes them up a CT band or more, relative to previous sale value) No it doesn't. The property band should stay the same. The bands are based on what the property was worth in 1991. In 1991 their value was based on size, location and so on. Now 20 years later things have changed. Some areas are now more desirable to live in than they were and others less. Take Shalesmoor for example. That was in 1991 not a nice place to live at all. Now its far more desirable and has been cleaned up. Arguably all the property there should be in a higher Ctax band to reflect this but it isn't. Another good example is the new tower on Arundle Gate. These "luxury apartments" are being sold for about £120k+ but they are all Band A because 20 years ago nobody wanted to live in the town centre. Although curiously everything from the 12th floor upwards is Band C to reflect the cleaner air and lack of noise. Really all new builds should be subject to new banding but they aren't because you can't run a two tier system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.