Anyone Contested Their Rate Bill and Succeeded?

saverbuyer

marathonic wrote: »

It's fair because, for the most part, those that can't afford a bigger house are those that are unlikely to be able to afford rates bills if they were split evenly based on number of households without factoring in house value.

It's also fair because someone that can afford those big houses know the associated costs well in advance of making the purchase.

I pay rates that are probably in the top quartile of the city in which I live. I knew this is what I'd be paying in advance of purchasing my house and am happy to pay for it as opposed to the potential alternatives. What do the councils do if someone in a 2-bed flat in the worst part of town can't afford their bill? Do they chase them through courts or withdraw services? It wouldn't be long before I'd see their refuse dumped along the sides of the roads around town.

Any first world economy should have those that can afford the finer things in life pay a little towards the basic cost of living of those that can't afford them - be it through higher income taxes or higher rates bills.

Exactly this. I don't begrudge paying 40% tax. I wont begrudge paying more in rates. It's only fair I pay more. Broadest shoulders and all that. Why someone thinks it's fair someone in a small terrace house should subsidise me is beyond me.

saverbuyer

x12yhp wrote: »

We will likely look to contest our value, just in case the cap does come off. Having just had it valued for mortgage purposes, the rateable value is nearly double what the mortgage company would be willing to lend on!

You'll have to look at comparable properties. What it's worth now isn't a valid reason to revalue. I'm assuming it's in the sticks. These were valued big in 2005 and crashed big.

waltsalt

saverbuyer wrote: »

Exactly this. I don't begrudge paying 40% tax. I wont begrudge paying more in rates. It's only fair I pay more. Broadest shoulders and all that. Why someone thinks it's fair someone in a small terrace house should subsidise me is beyond me.

In what way would they be subsidising you? That would only be the case if you got more out of your Rates services than they did yet they had to pay the same amount. Are you am excessive Rates services consumer?

saverbuyer

waltsalt wrote: »

In what way would they be subsidising you? That would only be the case if you got more out of your Rates services than they did yet they had to pay the same amount. Are you am excessive Rates services consumer?

So. The amount to be collected from rates is fixed.

A rateable value is assigned to each property based on its value in 2005.

The larger your rateable value, the more you pay. Up to the cap.

So. Anyone with a rateable value over the cap pays proportional less. 6 houses with a rateable value of 100k each pay more than one house with a value of 600k.

Ergo they subsidise them as the amount that needs to be collected is fixed.

Rates aren't a consumption tax BTW. It's go nothing to do with service utility. It's a tax based on house value in 2005.

qwert_yuiop

You might as well complain about too much tax on cigarettes. Smokers pay thousands in excess tax throughout their shortened lifetimes, and see no return on investment. They pay non-smokers pensions for them, and don't get to lift their own. It's just not fair.

(I never took up smoking either. Too much of a money saver.)

Tansy_1980

Cotta wrote: »

Where on this site is this? I've had a look but can't even get into the general vicinity?

If you google LPSNI +your property address it should come up. Since the council boundaries changed it's much more difficult to just search the valuation database. You can try browsing using this link, but I find it easier to just google the address and land directly on the entry I need.

waltsalt

saverbuyer wrote: »

So. The amount to be collected from rates is fixed.

A rateable value is assigned to each property based on its value in 2005.

The larger your rateable value, the more you pay. Up to the cap.

So. Anyone with a rateable value over the cap pays proportional less. 6 houses with a rateable value of 100k each pay more than one house with a value of 600k.

Ergo they subsidise them as the amount that needs to be collected is fixed.

Rates aren't a consumption tax BTW. It's go nothing to do with service utility. It's a tax based on house value in 2005.

They are not subsidising anything. There isn't a magic total that needs to be collected whereby a capped house with the value of £600k would hamper meeting said goal yet six £100k houses would contribute more. If the £600k house wasn't built the odds are there would be no house at all. So the Rates contribution would be less rather than more.

What is your logic on the variance on the regional rate then if house price is the be all and end all of how much we all should be paying for the services we consume but do not pay to consume?

qwert_yuiop

If said house were not built aforementioned occupant thereof would be forced cohabit with resident of one of said smaller houses.

If the other house, and others like it, didn't exist, calculations for required funds would be based on needs associated with a lower population and fewer houses.

Write to your mp and insist on a local income tax. You could always demand a cap on income tax. Would that be fairer?

waltsalt

If you feel so strongly on the matter you should not avail of your 20% reduction on your bill and pay the full amount.

qwert_yuiop

waltsalt wrote: »

If you feel so strongly on the matter you should not avail of your 20% reduction on your bill and pay the full amount.

Who's that for ?