Would taxing property values be fairer than the Council Tax?

wotsthat

cells wrote: »

Stamp duty tax is no longer fit for purpose due to evasion or shell companies. Plus it is a major break on people moving which isn't good.

it should be abolishednd moved onto council tax. If you increase council tax by some 20% it does away with the need for stamp duty

Again making it a regional tax would help greatly.

Why do people who suggest that a tax be abolished always suggest it be replaced with a tax that raises the same amount of money and relates to the same taxable unit.

Why not abolish Stamp Duty and give the government £7bn less - they'll only spend it you know?

System

CLAPTON wrote: »

as it's a tax and has a distributive objective then one doesn't expect usage of services to have any effect.

But that's the way they try and sell it. Councils send out literature explaining "Where does your money go ?" "Your services" , "Value for Money in Blogshire" etc.

They don't say things like "Taking your money in order to redistribute it" or "Paying for poor people who don't live in nice big houses like you".

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

the amount of revenue generated is a political decision based on the spending needs.
whether we have more or fewer bands has no bearing on the revenue collected.
the number of bands will of course affect who pays what amount.

I think you misunderstand. For any given level of CT set, normally cited as the amount payable by a Band D occupier, the creation of extra higher bands will generate more notional revenue. How that extra notional revenue is allocated would be a political decision; you could allow LAs to pocket the cash and spend it, or you could use it to reset CT amounts for the lower bands.

I was simply pointing out that in relation to the suggestion that CT "could just do with a couple more bands such on top", that you would likely need to carry out a revaluation to accomplish that object, and that in so doing you would create extra revenue capacity which would allow you to offset the impact on other bands.

Which, oddly enough, is exactly what they did in Wales when they carried out their revaluation in 2005. They created a new higher Band I.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

I think you misunderstand. For any given level of CT set, normally cited as the amount payable by a Band D occupier, the creation of extra higher bands will generate more notional revenue. How that extra notional revenue is allocated would be a political decision; you could allow LAs to pocket the cash and spend it, or you could use it to reset CT amounts for the lower bands.

I was simply pointing out that in relation to the suggestion that CT "could just do with a couple more bands such on top", that you would likely need to carry out a revaluation to accomplish that object, and that in so doing you would create extra revenue capacity which would allow you to offset the impact on other bands.

Which, oddly enough, is exactly what they did in Wales when they carried out their revaluation in 2005. They created a new higher Band I.

council tax isn't set by determining the level 'D' tax.

it is set by the amount of tax they wish to collect and that determines how much each tax band will be.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

council tax isn't set by determining the level 'D' tax.

it is set by the amount of tax they wish to collect and that determines how much each tax band will be.

You continue to misunderstand.

I wrote "For any given level of CT set, normally cited as the amount payable by a Band D occupier". I didn't say that CT was set by determining the band 'D' tax, I said that the level of CT set was cited as the band D tax.

Which it is.

See for example the Wikipedia page on Council Tax which considers the geographical variation of CT rates by citing the band D tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax

Or this government document here, that reports on average CT bills in England over a number of years, and does so by citing the Band D tax.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80716/average-band-d-council-tax-1993-2012.pdf

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

You continue to misunderstand.

I wrote "For any given level of CT set, normally cited as the amount payable by a Band D occupier". I didn't say that CT was set by determining the band 'D' tax, I said that the level of CT set was cited as the band D tax.

Which it is.

See for example the Wikipedia page on Council Tax which considers the geographical variation of CT rates by citing the band D tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_Tax

Or this government document here, that reports on average CT bills in England over a number of years, and does so by citing the Band D tax.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/80716/average-band-d-council-tax-1993-2012.pdf

because we have fixed bands then it may well be a convenience to quote the 'D' band

however it has no actual significance :one could quote any band with exactly the same effect.

in practice of cause, quoting the 'D' is very misleading when making comparisons between poor and rich areas which is why it is so loved by the Conservatives

wotsthat

antrobus wrote: »

I wrote "For any given level of CT set, normally cited as the amount payable by a Band D occupier". I didn't say that CT was set by determining the band 'D' tax, I said that the level of CT set was cited as the band D tax.

You said creating new top level bands would generate more revenue. I understand in Wales the revaluation and a new higher band has shifted the burden of council tax payment towards those living in bigger houses.

You mention that total revenue has increased. That's not a function of the revaluation - it's because the Welsh Government decided to increase council tax at the same time.

The_White_Horse

you should be taxed on the gain you have made.

someone who bought in 1970 for £30k and now sits in a home worth £500k should pay tax on the £470k gain. Someone who bought it for £500k last week with a £455k mortgage should not pay the same.

Anyway, the whole thing stinks - the poor should be taxed more because they are the burden we need to support. The country needs to get rid of these people - they are no use and a burden and there is NO point to them. Why support these people?

AndyGuil

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you should be taxed on the gain you have made.

someone who bought in 1970 for £30k and now sits in a home worth £500k should pay tax on the £470k gain. Someone who bought it for £500k last week with a £455k mortgage should not pay the same.

Anyway, the whole thing stinks - the poor should be taxed more because they are the burden we need to support. The country needs to get rid of these people - they are no use and a burden and there is NO point to them. Why support these people?

This already exists for non-primary residence. It won't work on primary residence as supply will dry up.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

It seems to be an increasingly anachronistic measure of wealth, especially given that you don't pay the tax on the house(s) you own, just the one you live in (holiday homes yadda yadda).

If you want to tax me for being 'rich' (rather than having a high income), tax me on my asset value not on the value of one of my assets.

The thing about Vodaphone not needing to have the bins taken out from outside my house is a good one but rather undermined by the fact that the vast majority of money that the council spends comes from central rather than local taxation.

You do have to pay council tax on a second home but councils can give you a discount if they want to. Many don't - eg Cornwall scrapped the discount and I think the max discount is now 50%.

Of course if you are the proud owner of a BVI company which owns a £25m London mansion and you just don't bother ringing the council to tell them who the occupant is...