Would taxing property values be fairer than the Council Tax?

rash161

CLAPTON wrote: »

that's because the employees only work according to their abilities and not to meet the needs of the 'customers'

Customers who are forced to be customers under the threat of violence.

I don't think they'd have many customers if there were any competition

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

that's because the employees only work according to their abilities and not to meet the needs of the 'customers'

Good one.

On the one hand our poster believes that "each person just does what they can", on the other hand believes that people doing just what they can is sometimes just not good enough.

I believe that this is an example of an argument collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.:)

antrobus

rash161 wrote: »

...I don't think they'd have many customers if there were any competition

Competiton is what you get under capitalism. There is no competition under communism.

cells

Maybe keep the council tax but make it regional so peehaps change it to the regional tax. You have Scotland walea and 8 or so regions in England.

That way it would be a little more progressive. Eg virtually all homes in Kensington would go to the top band as average price is now over £1mil whereas virtually all homes in Dagenham would go towards the bottom band as rhe average price is 0.25mil.

that way a 150k flat in Dagenham would pay less than a 1mil flat in Kensington whereas now they are paying the same.

its also justifiable as a place lile Kensington has had and continues to have more public money spent on it. Eg the number of tube stations buolt woth public money or the number of museums kept up with publoc money ia higher in Kensington


The same would apply in all regions as all regions have expenaive and cheap bits

rash161

antrobus wrote: »

Competiton is what you get under capitalism. There is no competition under communism.

I know, capitalists can't even do capitalism properly

I'm not a Communist, I'm an Anarchist.

antrobus

wotsthat wrote: »

The purpose of a revaluation and adding bands would be to change the relative proportion of tax paid by each band. .....

Yes but it becomes increasingly bizarre to have a property tax based on values that existed in 1991(*), particularly where you have increasing numbers of properties that didn't exist in 1991. In any case a revaluation would not of itself "change the relative proportion of tax paid by each band", it could however change the relative proportion of tax paid by individual properties, depending on how the value of that property had changed relative to others.

(*Unless you're in Wales where it's 2003?)

wotsthat wrote: »

...If they just want to generate more council tax there's already a simple way to do this.

I don't particularly want to generate more CT revenue. I'm simply saying that creating some new top level bands would generate some more revenue. There might well be reasons why such a move would be expedient, and a revaluation would probably be a precondition of so doing.

antrobus

rash161 wrote: »

I know, capitalists can't even do capitalism properly

I'm not a Communist, I'm an Anarchist.

I know, anarchists can't even do anarchism properly.

cells

The idea that a reevaluation would be costly or take a long time is probably not right nowadays.

The land registry has been recording sales prices electronically since 1995. Over those nearly 20 years some 70% of the homes must have changed hands. It then also records regional price changes so even if your home was last sold 7 years ago it has a very good idea of what it is worth

Also with good streetview and satellite imagines it would be quicker and more accurate than the last time it was done with people driving down yoyr road to have a gander

cells

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.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

I don't particularly want to generate more CT revenue. I'm simply saying that creating some new top level bands would generate some more revenue. There might well be reasons why such a move would be expedient, and a revaluation would probably be a precondition of so doing.

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.