Council Tax hikes.

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by Sasaferrato, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. Afaik he paid £3m for a small flat. I know nothing of the property market there, but assuming it is still a tax haven in six years then I guess it will sell for the same or more?
     
  2. 8ball

    8ball Most Ignoreable Poster 2016

    Fair enough. Different interpretation of ‘cheap digs’.
     
  3. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    The argument is that income is a piece of piss to fiddle, the value of a house much less so.

    Alex
     
    coley likes this.
  4. The39thStep

    The39thStep Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

    My council tax in Portugal is 500 euros a year, bins are emptied five days a week.
     
  5. 8ball

    8ball Most Ignoreable Poster 2016

    Wow - how small are these bins! :eek:
     
    HoratioCuthbert likes this.
  6. The39thStep

    The39thStep Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

    I'm in the countryside so the bins are those big green communal things. They have recycling bins in the towns but not here.
     
  7. 8ball

    8ball Most Ignoreable Poster 2016

    Does that mean your stuff doesn’t get recycled?
     
  8. The39thStep

    The39thStep Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

    I haven't a clue .
     
    8ball likes this.
  9. 8ball

    8ball Most Ignoreable Poster 2016

    I sometimes wonder how much most of us have a clue on that front, no matter the colour of the bins.
     
  10. Fez909

    Fez909 toilet expert

    Yeah, this is just an IHT debt, if you will. No problem with that, at all. The more IHT, the better. It's inheritance that causing the inequality, not existing wealth per se. Higher IHT = win.

    But it's still not as useful as 100% IHT. It might be more paletable in the short term, though. No one visibly loses their own welath - they just fail to acquire other people's wealth in as great a quantity as they might otherwise.
    The rich would cease to exist in the form they currently do given 100% IHT. Imagine everyone currently alive now is dead, all their wealth passed to the state as IHT. Their children, while no doubt wealthy still, in comparative terms, would not have the "bank of mum and dad" (and granddad, and great granddad, etc) to fall back on. Where is the capital coming from to purchase the houses of the poor forced to sell? Without the inherited wealth, it becomes a lot trickier. And the wealthier you are, the more your kids will "lose".
    From each according to his ability, to each accoridng to his need.

    The family of 5 might need/use more, but that doesn't mean they have the means to pay more. Those who do, should.
    Income does not equal wealth. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, Starbucks had an income of below zero, while being one of the richest corporations on the planet. The two assertions in the previous sentence are not independent.
     
    crossthebreeze likes this.
  11. xenon

    xenon Carne Por la Machina

    I haven’t read the whole of this thread. I live in a band a. I am not philosophically opposed to paying more council tax if it spent on social care and social amenities. Let’s go from there. Other questions arise of course. Things I’d rather not pay for et cetera and so on.
     
    Rutita1 likes this.
  12. xenon

    xenon Carne Por la Machina

    I must admit I don’t quite understand the banding. This is a one bedroom flat. It’s not a complete shit hole. But yet it is band A..
     
  13. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    SpookyFrank, AnnaKarpik and kabbes like this.
  14. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    He’s living off his savings, not taking money out of his house.

    Let’s out this another way

    Who should pay the most tax:

    1) Young couple who have £600k debt, earning £80k between them
    2) Old man with £1.5m in assets, living off his savings

    Still 1 ?

    Alex
     
  15. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    Ban trusts, ban people moving assets into companies - you’d literally never Manage it without breaking all sorts of other stuff.

    This is why they property value tax is so attractive - someone either owns it and pays the tax or forfeits the property. Simples.

    Good luck dodgers.

    You deal with the aging granny in the million pound house by letting them defer payments until death, then put a charge on the property.

    It was unearned wealth, why should they be able to hand all of it down ?

    Alex
     
    Wolveryeti likes this.
  16. Dogsauce

    Dogsauce Lord of the Dance Settee

    Mine (and most in the area I lived in) went up - and landlords blamed council tax even though there was no actual justification at all. I think as usual the actual reason was 'because we can get away with it'.
     
    Sue likes this.
  17. Dogsauce

    Dogsauce Lord of the Dance Settee

    Posh areas pay less council tax usually - there are less demands on the authority in nicer areas from crime, poverty etc. It's why successive right-wing governments have loaded more of this burden on local authorities rather than central government, it means 'their' kind of people people pay less. Let the poor pay for their own fecklessness and immorality etc.
     
  18. MickiQ

    MickiQ Well-Known Member

    Yes but Starbucks will pay business rates on their shops won't they?, How much corporation tax they pay or don't pay isn't that relevant to a debate on how local services are funded. Aren't we discussing how individuals pay towards those services? There are only 2 ways you can tax private citizens and that's tax on what they have or what they earn and either way you'll get opportunities for people to fiddle it and have injustices like the little old lady living on a meagre pension.
     
  19. Fez909

    Fez909 toilet expert

    I mentioned starbucks because it's an example of how income can easily be fudged to avoid paying tax.

    An example might be opting to receive renumeration via shares, or some other method, rather than cash.
     
    MickiQ likes this.
  20. sim667

    sim667 Licking windows on the 303 bus.

    This would effectively be a second income tax though, which we already pay.

    Personally I think there needs to be more housing tax bands introduced, and I would like to see a system where an adult on their own doesn't pay a mere 25% reduction from say 4 adults living in a house together. But then I would say that as I'm a single adult living on my own.

    £1800 (with single occupancy discount) on a 3 (2.5 bed really) house. My local services are pretty dire.
     
  21. coley

    coley Well-Known Member

    What Is actually wrong with 'means testing?' apart from the savings realised being spent on bigger and better council offices/ layers of beauracy/ investigating teams/ etc, etc.
    Money raised being spent on frontline services? Don't be such a naive silly billy.

    The future is 'supported living' i.e., when you can't cope and your family has 'moved on' then you will be 'supported' to live in your own home, some stranger will come in, check you are still breathing, breezingly enquire if you have taken your medication, ask if their is anything you need (usually as they are leaving)
    That's your future, if you don't have a supportive family, or the money to provide for your latter years.

    Yes, I imagine their are isolated instances when the above doesn't apply. But for the majority this is the future.
    As for IHT? the current figure is about right, most WC won't have to worry about it and for those in the richer suburbs of the SE? Please consult those Solicitors of choice of the newly rich, 'Haddaway and Shyte'
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  22. Wolveryeti

    Wolveryeti Young Lethargio

    Which is of course a massive cop-out. If they could do it in the 11th century, they can do it now:
    Domesday Book - Wikipedia
     
  23. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    I assume this is a joke but just incase.

    Were there a lot of bvi shell corporations in the 11th century ?

    In the 11th century your weath was measured in serfs, head of cattle and land ownings.

    Can you see why this was relatively easy in the 11th century and hard now ?

    Alex
     
  24. My local Sainsbury’s pays less business rates than the small toy shop on the high street had to, until it closed last year. This is in Surrey, a council that is supposedly suffering, yet is happy to lob around sweetheart deals to large corporations...
     
  25. Wolveryeti

    Wolveryeti Young Lethargio

    You think it was easier as an invading and hated foreign force to go round and carry out manor-level valuations for a whole country, with iron-age technology and (at best) horses as the best means of transport? :D

    And of course I bet nobody at all tried to conceal their assets or made life difficult for the notaries.

    Granted, with shell companies and similar obfuscation you have to use your brain and actually show determination to collect tax owed in the first place. The US has shown how it's done by e.g. blackmailing all those Swiss banks to hand over details on offshore accounts held by US citizens.
     
  26. MickiQ

    MickiQ Well-Known Member

    When you say Sainsbury, do you mean a superstore or one of those pretend corner shops they have? I would expect an out of town supermarket to pay less per square metre than a shop on the High St but if the headline figure is actually lower then it's no wonder town centres are dying.
     
  27. MickiQ

    MickiQ Well-Known Member

    True but back in the 11th century if you thought someone was lying, you would just chop their heads off and set the manor on fire, life was a lot simpler back then.
     
    alex_ and jusali like this.
  28. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    I’m pretty sure the tax collectors manual in those days could be written on one a4 sized piece of vellum.

    Count the pigs, chickens, goats, cows, horses and serfs.
    Measure the fields.
    Count the rooms in the houses
    If you think they are fibbing, torture them.

    Alex
     
  29. 1927

    1927 Funnier than he thinks he is.

    Thats still the manual they use when assessing the tax for Vodafone and Starbuck's. "Oh you have no pigs, chickens, goats etc, no probs, carry on, you don't owe us a penny"
     
    alex_ and MickiQ like this.
  30. agricola

    agricola a genuine importer of owls

    Yes, it probably was a lot easier for the Domesday notaries to collate what they required for the Book than it would be nowadays.

    Having something - a cow, an ox, a bit of land, a right to do something on a part of land - recorded was the only way to ensure that your family kept hold of it; that is why so much evidence still remains from the post-1066 English state, often in minute detail and why it was so litigious. The only thing that the Book wouldn't have captured is easily disposable / moveable wealth, which (at least in terms of significant sums) would probably have been concentrated in very few hands (and almost all of them would be Norman by that point) and which wasn't really taxed in and of itself at that time anyway.

    Basically during Domesday there were clear incentives for the state to be told of a person's holdings, wheras now we have clear incentives for the state to not be told of a person's holdings.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice