We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council Tax Reform
Comments
-
seven-day-weekend wrote: »I feet the PRINCIPAL of poll tax is fairer (i.e. we all have the services; we all pay the tax). However I do think ability to pay should be taken into consideration and the poorest amongst us should be entitled to ebnefits as they are now.
Having a rate based on the value of your house doesn't take in ability to pay, either.
It would if those with little income but massive equity (the elderly folks in the 600K house for example) could bequeath a % of their house to the council on sale or death, whichever comes earlier in lieu of council tax.0 -
Those on lower incomes should work harder to earn more thereby reducing the %age.
In a block of 12 houses, my pensioner parents are the only ones paying CT. Yes, they earn enough to pay their way and have the self-respect to have done so all their lives, hence the pension.
It really grits when the benefit grabbing low life around them are the ones who cause the CT to be so high.
I earn more because I work harder/did better at school/got lucky. If earning less meant that I paid less for the things in life, what would be the incentive to earn just enough not to claim benefits?
GGThere are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those that don't.0 -
One significant benefit of a land value tax is that it makes it much more difficult to evade tax. For example your Russian tax exile when buying a £50m Kensignton mansion will pay something in the order of £4k council tax, roughly the same as my parents do in their new-build*. With a 1% tax they would be paying 500k pa with no way of avoiding it.
*One of the many unfairnesses with the current system is that my parents sold their old house (Band D) & bought a cheaper new-build. The new-build was rated on it's sale price but on the scale from 1990, making it Band G."Mrs. Pench, you've won the car contest, would you like a triumph spitfire or 3000 in cash?" He smiled.
Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it all? Not that it's any of my business," he giggled.
"I think I'll become an alcoholic," said Betty.0 -
No surprise NuLabour are floating this idea, they want to take 1% of your house over (say) a lifetime of 60 years, then the last 40% by not indexing inheritance tax. So the socialists get 100% of the value of your house - remember, to the hard left (like Gordo!) property is theft! Capatalist toffs (spit!) deserve to be bled dry...etc. etc.0
-
PasturesNew wrote: »It is easier to count people/tax income than it is to value property.
Not when people don't want to be counted it isn't. You must be too young to remember the poll tax. Councils are still trying to collect it 20 years later (seriously).
Any idiot can hide themselves or their income (for a while at least), but hiding a house requires David Copperfield.
The 1% idea is already being used in Northern Ireland, except they pay just over half a percent.
I can't see any Government daring to bring the poll tax back, it only benefited the childless rich. With people leaving home later due to high house prices, it would go down like a cup of cold sick with the electorate. Likewise this idea for different reasons. Likewise this 1% idea, for different reasons.
This whole story results only from a Conservative Press release anyway, curiously dropped on a Saturday in time for the Sunday papers. (That's just stating a fact, I don't have any allegiance with any political party).0 -
amcluesent wrote: »No surprise NuLabour are floating this idea, they want to take 1% of your house over (say) a lifetime of 60 years, then the last 40% by not indexing inheritance tax. So the socialists get 100% of the value of your house - remember, to the hard left (like Gordo!) property is theft! Capatalist toffs (spit!) deserve to be bled dry...etc. etc.
AND - if you are not totally dependent on the state and are actually earning money - stand by to be bled some more !0 -
Tax revenues fund public sector jobs and these employees now represent the second highest paid group in society (after city jobs). They also enjoy the best perks and pension terms. Why should this privileged group be insulated from economic reality. If taxes go down, the public sector fat cats should share the pain with the rest of us.BobProperty wrote: »A number of states in America use this system if not all of them. Problems are (especially at present) falling revenues for the local authority as prices fall, plus people not paying them due to repossession (and "short sales"). Some areas also have protected properties due to voter intervention from groups like pensioners where their fixed incomes were getting caned by rapidly rising prices. California and Florida come to mind.
It works OK when everything is going along nicely, but when the ups and downs of the market hit, it starts to hurt.
People speculate as to how to raise local tax. The real problem is how it is spent rather than how it is raised. The cost of public services could be slashed dramatically if public sector employees stopped treating sick leave like holiday entitlement, stopped treating early retirement as a right and were sanctioned for laziness and incompetance. From what I have been able to work out, more than 70% of public sector jobs contribute little or nothing to society.0 -
Tax revenues fund public sector jobs and these employees now represent the second highest paid group in society (after city jobs).
Do you have a cite for that - it strikes me as a very vague statement (seeing as how public sector jobs range from Brain Surgeon to just above minimum wage admin assistants)They also enjoy the best perks and pension terms.
Pension probably, perks no - distinct lack of Company Cars, Health Insurance, Share options etc in the Public Sector0 -
Tax revenues fund public sector jobs and these employees now represent the second highest paid group in society (after city jobs).
*snipped for the love of god*
From what I have been able to work out, more than 70% of public sector jobs contribute little or nothing to society.
generally can we try to keep this on topic rather than disappearing up your own !!!!!! with rants about how awful/lucky public sector employees are. If they get such a good deal become one & stop whinging.
We would all like lower taxes, that's not the point of this discussion, the question was about alternatives to council tax."Mrs. Pench, you've won the car contest, would you like a triumph spitfire or 3000 in cash?" He smiled.
Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it all? Not that it's any of my business," he giggled.
"I think I'll become an alcoholic," said Betty.0 -
Do you have a cite for that - it strikes me as a very vague statement (seeing as how public sector jobs range from Brain Surgeon to just above minimum wage admin assistants)
Fair comment. One has to do it on a like for like basis but here are some links.
http://press.iod.com/newsdetails.aspx?ref=238&m=2&mi=62&ms=Public Sector vs. Private Sector Pay
In 2005, managing directors in the public sector were paid less than those in financial services, private services and the manufacturing sector.
In 2006, the survey shows that they have now shot up to being the second highest paid managing directors, averaging £85, 000 a year. Managing directors in the financial services come out on top yet again on an average salary of £113, 450. Meanwhile, their counterparts in the manufacturing sector have seen their pay decrease by over £3,000.
http://www.onrec.com/content2/news.asp?ID=12540Public Sector Pay Outstrips Private Sector
The Hay Group research reveals that for the first time, public sector starter salaries are above those being offered in the private sector.
The harsh reality is that whilst tax has been ballooning, public sector workers have been filling their boots.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards