Rates changes .. rip-off or overdue

Thriftylady

marcais wrote:

There is, but I disagree with caps, but you also need a fairer system in order to make sure that only those who can afford it are paying more than whre the cap was set.

If you assume that the council sets an amount that they need to raise through council tax/rates, then by saying "Nobody shall pay above £x" , what you are effectively doing is passing the burden of those who would pay above the cap onto those who are below the cap.

I agree that a cap system isn't fair, and I understand that the money has to come from somewhere, but since they aren't currently proposing a fairer system based on ability to pay, it seems that it might be the lesser of two evils. e.g. my parents are retired, bought their house 40 years ago for something like £3000 and couldn't in their wildest imaginations ever have imagined that it would be worth what it is today (around £200k), and hence what their rates bill would be. Luckily for them, they can afford it. But had they bought their house 40 years ago somewhere like the Malone Road, it might conceivably be worth £1m or more and they would be looking at a rates bill which would eat up their entire annual income. How would they be meant to live? Or alternatively, why should they have to sell the house where they have lived their whole married lives and raised their family? I know people are going to say, correctly, that cases like this will be rare, but just because it will only affect a handful of people doesn't mean that its ok.....

marcais

I've just got married, taken out a 25-year mortage and have my first child on the way.

If, in 15 years time, I can no longer afford to keep up repayments on the house because interest rates shoot up should the bank be forced to keep my repayments low because I have lived there all my married life and raised my family there?

No. I'll have to accept that circumstances have changed, the house is now beyond my means and that I would be better served selling up and moving to a property that I can afford.

Thriftylady

marcais wrote:

If, in 15 years time, I can no longer afford to keep up repayments on the house because interest rates shoot up should the bank be forced to keep my repayments low because I have lived there all my married life and raised my family there?

No. I'll have to accept that circumstances have changed, the house is now beyond my means and that I would be better served selling up and moving to a property that I can afford.

Valid point, but I don't think its really the same thing. You've chosen to enter into your mortgage and you know the score - that you have to keep the repayments up and if you can't, you have to sell the house. In the example I used, people are effectively being punished for house price rises. And if there were a sudden house price crash, I don't think we would see a reduction in our rates bills because suddenly our properties aren't worth as much....

marcais

I understand your point and I have some sympathy with it, but it is limited, and the only reason there is any at all is that I don't think the new system they have come up with is entirely fair as the sole criteria it looks at is house price.

I think my comparison above is fair. I may have chosen to take the mortgage, but rates are something you have to consider when looking into buying a house.

As I've said, I'm not convinced that the new system is the best way to raise revenue, but I do think it's entirely fair that people over here start paying the going rate for their services. The cost of these services is comparable to the cost of similar services in the rest of the UK, so the cost we pay for them should be comparable.

I have just moved into a 4-bed detached house. My rates next year will be about £1250. The last property I lived in in England was a 2-bed apartment. My council tax for that was just over £1100, and that was 5 years ago, so it's probably well over £1500 for the same property now.

So even though my rates next year will be more than double what I was paying on the 5-bed terraced house I've just left, it still is much less than I would be paying in council tax on the same property in many areas of the UK.

irishjohn

I moved back here from England in 2005 after 30 years away. In England I experienced Rates just as here with water rates as an extra. At that time (1970s - 1980s) housing in England was much more expensive than in N Ireland so I lived in a relatively small house - 2 up 2 down.

Then the Poll Tax replaced Rates, with every adult resident in the house and working expected to contribute to the charges for local services, seemed fair to me - it meant the family next door would pay more than me but after all when you take all local services into account they were all benefitting. But the country felt differently - they protested and won the day. The result was the Council Tax, rates by a different name. Still based on the property and its value, but in bands, so it didn't matter if you were one pound above the bottom of your band or one pound below the top you paid the same. However there was a silver lining to that cloud, as a single person living alone I was entitled to a 25% discount so the family of 3 working adults next door paid £1000 in total but I was allowed to deduct £250 and pay only £750. I did not however get the same privilege with water - same charge as Mr Next Door and family.

So here I am in Northern Ireland, and I have enjoyed a year of lowish rates for a bigger cheaper house and no extra water charges - but all will change and I have to go along with it. But I will get a water meter fitted as soon as possible and I will vote for he who proposes a local income tax to replace rates so everyone pays according to their income.

I have only one fear - If I am to believe the local hearsay - are there enough people in real jobs doing real work and being paid real salaries to carry the large proportion of those who are unable to work and live on benefits? I hope so and I also hope those who wish to govern take a much harsher approach to those who claim benefits and ensure only those who are entitled get the benefits.

And I also hope - as I watch house prices rise, that wages will rise accordingly.

Our food may cost a little more but believe me - from experience - its better by far!

I say give us full integration - treat us just like another English county and apply the same rules etc to here!

If not, then once my caring responsibilities which brought me back have gone I will be off again away from it all

Thriftylady

marcais wrote:

I think my comparison above is fair. I may have chosen to take the mortgage, but rates are something you have to consider when looking into buying a house.

thats exactly the point I was making, albeit from the other side of the argument, that with mortgage rates you should take into account that interest rates may rise, therefore if an interest rate rise makes your mortgage unaffordable then thats your own responsibilty. On the other hand I don't think anyone who is now in their 70s would ever have imagined that some day their house would be worth £XXX,XXX, so they didn't have the option of planning ahead for a tax that they had no idea would ever be introduced...

However, I actually agree with you on most of what you have said. It is only fair that we pay for our services like everywhere else in the UK, and we have got off lightly up until now. But then again, I don't think that property prices are a particularly fair way of charging, because so much of it is dictated by location. Does that not effectively make it a tax on living in a 'nice area'?

And for that matter, if suddenly a lot of people living in valuable houses decided they couldn't, or wouldn't, pay the tax and would downsize instead, would that not create an excessive demand for less valuable houses, thereby pushing the value of the less valuable houses up? (if you see what I mean)

darrenfinlayson

we dont earn as much as they do on the mainland

irishjohn

thats why i want full integration - so that everything becomes the same - although I suspect those living in Northern Scotland, and rural areas of England and Wales could say the same

We must not lump the mainland as one big equal mass

Parisien

Marcais, was merely referencing the abnormal expenditure this country makes on defence compared to others; because its money wasted which would normally be spent on central subvention to local councils/education/health etc.

Its just another indirect tax, so Tony et al get out of taxing us directly and loosing office at the next election.

I still think we are being shafted......and for what?

IvanOpinion

I suppose there could be pros and cons on the old 'ablity to pay' (or as some people phrase it 'willingness to pay'). DW doesn't work, we are married therefore she incurs half of all debts, I could claim I don't pay her enough to cover her portion of rates therefore she has no ability to pay and should not have to pay.

The biggest problem at the minute is every one of our pathetic and useless political parties in Northern Ireland is trying to champion the 'poor'. They are trying to rule as many people as possible out of the need to pay category and, like everything else it will be approximately 1-in-3 of households in NI that foot the entire bill. Yet it is often those that have been granted exclusions are the ones that are demanding more and more services ... and why not they expect everybody else to pay.

Therefore I think that rates should really be made up of 4 elements
- value and size of house (as currently)
- element related to income (as currently)
- number of people in house
- usage of services
- ablity to pay
I am happy to see CORE services being supplied generically but all those services that have spawned out of 'I have nothing better to do with my time therefore I will write loads of letters complaining about everything' should be paid for by the consumer of those services.

Ivan