Jobs & Education2 mins ago
Increase Council Tax For Southerners?
Contrary to what appears to be the belief of some MPs, not everybody in the South, in fact the vast majority of people in the South, are not rich, and yet some MPs want to punish Southerners for having the temerity to live in the South by increasing Council Tax Bills.
Does a mechanic in Maidstone earn more than a mechanic in Macclesfield? I have no idea, but I doubt it. Does it cost more to empty a bin in Bromley than it does in Bolton? Again, I have no idea but I doubt it.
https:/
Yes, some in the South may have benefited by their house increasing in value, but if the Maidstone mechanic has no intention of moving, the value of his house is largely irrelevant.
What about the pensioners living on state pensions who bought their houses for peanuts in the 50s and 60s?
Thoughts?
Does a mechanic in Maidstone earn more than a mechanic in Macclesfield? I have no idea, but I doubt it. Does it cost more to empty a bin in Bromley than it does in Bolton? Again, I have no idea but I doubt it.
https:/
Yes, some in the South may have benefited by their house increasing in value, but if the Maidstone mechanic has no intention of moving, the value of his house is largely irrelevant.
What about the pensioners living on state pensions who bought their houses for peanuts in the 50s and 60s?
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Maidstone mechanic would have to earn more to pay the increased costs of living there but he would be no better off and have the disadvantage of living in the south!
Council tax already reflects the property price of the valuation date, it's just another invented sensation from a rag of a tabloid.
Council tax already reflects the property price of the valuation date, it's just another invented sensation from a rag of a tabloid.
There is no justification whatsoever for basing Council Tax on property values and this article demonstrates why. Council Tax should be either a charge for services – in which case everybody pays the same (per capita) regardless of where they live or what property they live in – or it should be a progressive tax based on means. There is no rhyme nor reason to suggesting that somebody living in a three bedroom semi in Epsom should pay more than somebody living in an identical house in Scunthorpe.
In my area a Band D property attracts a tax of around £1,600 pa. The occupant of a band H property is charged twice that sum. If these monies were to be raised via Income tax those paying would have to earn £20,500 and £28,500 respectively. Quite a difference especially for somebody on fairly low incomes and the difference in those incomes is recognised by the tax system.
There is no such recognition with Council Tax. It is based on the flawed assumption that those living in more valuable properties can necessarily afford to pay more and this is flawed on a number of bases. I think most important is that the occupant of a more expensive property is usually said to be in benefit of its increase in value. This is the biggest flaw of all because those living in such properties may not necessarily own them and so see no such benefit.
Council Tax needs abolishing. Many of the things it pays for (such as education and social care) should be paid from central taxation and any increases required to cover those costs will be visited on those most able to pay. Council Tax should be reduced to charges for local services such as refuse collection and street lighting. It would also have the added bonus that the huge empires built up by local authorities (many of whose “Chief Executives” earn far more than the Prime minister) cold also be drastically reduced or even abolished altogether.
In my area a Band D property attracts a tax of around £1,600 pa. The occupant of a band H property is charged twice that sum. If these monies were to be raised via Income tax those paying would have to earn £20,500 and £28,500 respectively. Quite a difference especially for somebody on fairly low incomes and the difference in those incomes is recognised by the tax system.
There is no such recognition with Council Tax. It is based on the flawed assumption that those living in more valuable properties can necessarily afford to pay more and this is flawed on a number of bases. I think most important is that the occupant of a more expensive property is usually said to be in benefit of its increase in value. This is the biggest flaw of all because those living in such properties may not necessarily own them and so see no such benefit.
Council Tax needs abolishing. Many of the things it pays for (such as education and social care) should be paid from central taxation and any increases required to cover those costs will be visited on those most able to pay. Council Tax should be reduced to charges for local services such as refuse collection and street lighting. It would also have the added bonus that the huge empires built up by local authorities (many of whose “Chief Executives” earn far more than the Prime minister) cold also be drastically reduced or even abolished altogether.
I tend to favour it linked to income, but I recall that the Undemocratic party was suggesting this once: I went to their website out of interest, put in the figures, to be told that as a single person, living alone on one income, I should be paying a sizeable increase in tax. So I guess no one is mentally capable of figuring out the system fairly yet; at least not in the Undemocratic party.
They don't need to use more facilities. That's a failure to understand community services. If one simply paid for facilities one used there'd be no need for tax at all, and the poor can go to the wall.
One decides as a society that the community, as a whole, needs vital or other agreed services, so all put into the kitty as they can afford to. Then the kitty provides the community's needs. It's what it's there for.
It's this, "I don't use it so I ought not pay", nonsense that encourages councils to isolate a service, then refuse to provide it as they have any longer, but have the damned cheek to charge an additional fee to those still needing it, without making a corresponding reduction in the basic tax. Those not needing it think it's wonderful, but moral folk see the problem. I don't get a lower tax demand because I don't use schools.
We need to contribute as we can to the community kitty to provide services to those who need them.
One decides as a society that the community, as a whole, needs vital or other agreed services, so all put into the kitty as they can afford to. Then the kitty provides the community's needs. It's what it's there for.
It's this, "I don't use it so I ought not pay", nonsense that encourages councils to isolate a service, then refuse to provide it as they have any longer, but have the damned cheek to charge an additional fee to those still needing it, without making a corresponding reduction in the basic tax. Those not needing it think it's wonderful, but moral folk see the problem. I don't get a lower tax demand because I don't use schools.
We need to contribute as we can to the community kitty to provide services to those who need them.
OG, // "I don't use it so I ought not pay", //
No one said that. Those with expensive properties already pay more - a lot more.
//moral folk see the problem.//
They do indeed. I have no objection whatsoever to paying to care for those who need to be cared for but I do object to funding people who begrudge me my hard-earned lifestyle and think the rest of us owe them a living.
No one said that. Those with expensive properties already pay more - a lot more.
//moral folk see the problem.//
They do indeed. I have no objection whatsoever to paying to care for those who need to be cared for but I do object to funding people who begrudge me my hard-earned lifestyle and think the rest of us owe them a living.
Poll tax was much fairer than the council tax.
The only problem was the implentation(usually draconian in labout bourooughs for political reasons), there should have been some reduction for those working at the bottom of the ladder.
As NJ says, the Eimpires built on council tax need ripping down. A totally unnecessary layer.
The only problem was the implentation(usually draconian in labout bourooughs for political reasons), there should have been some reduction for those working at the bottom of the ladder.
As NJ says, the Eimpires built on council tax need ripping down. A totally unnecessary layer.
From NJ:
>>> "Council Tax needs abolishing"
I'm happy to agree with that bit.
>>> "Many of the things it pays for . . . should be paid from central taxation"
I disagree with that. Any such policy would put the money into the Chancellor's hands, risking the possibility of insufficient funding actually reaching local areas. I suggest that a far better system would be one of 'local income tax', whereby Income Tax was raised but with a guaranteed proportion of it being ring-fenced to go to the local authority in whose area the taxpayer resides.
Either way, the total amount of tax paid by everyone in this country (except the very poorest, who currently don't pay Income Tax anyway) needs to rise significantly. Far too many people are keen to complain about NHS waiting lists, under-funded schools, families being housed in shipping containers, etc but who then complain when anyone suggest that they should be the ones to pay for improvements. Income Tax needs to rise gradually, over 5 years, to a basic rate of 25% (plus a further increase to compensate for the abolition of Council Tax).
>>> "Council Tax needs abolishing"
I'm happy to agree with that bit.
>>> "Many of the things it pays for . . . should be paid from central taxation"
I disagree with that. Any such policy would put the money into the Chancellor's hands, risking the possibility of insufficient funding actually reaching local areas. I suggest that a far better system would be one of 'local income tax', whereby Income Tax was raised but with a guaranteed proportion of it being ring-fenced to go to the local authority in whose area the taxpayer resides.
Either way, the total amount of tax paid by everyone in this country (except the very poorest, who currently don't pay Income Tax anyway) needs to rise significantly. Far too many people are keen to complain about NHS waiting lists, under-funded schools, families being housed in shipping containers, etc but who then complain when anyone suggest that they should be the ones to pay for improvements. Income Tax needs to rise gradually, over 5 years, to a basic rate of 25% (plus a further increase to compensate for the abolition of Council Tax).
>>> Poll tax was much fairer than the council tax.
>>> The only problem was the implementation.
Ruddy 'eck! I'm finding myself agreeing with Youngmafbog!
Yes, the Community Charge (a.k.a 'poll tax') was basically a much fairer system and, yes, it was the lack of safeguards for those on low incomes which let it down. That's why I've suggested 'local income tax' above.
>>> The only problem was the implementation.
Ruddy 'eck! I'm finding myself agreeing with Youngmafbog!
Yes, the Community Charge (a.k.a 'poll tax') was basically a much fairer system and, yes, it was the lack of safeguards for those on low incomes which let it down. That's why I've suggested 'local income tax' above.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.