Council tax bands-its wrong

[Flyfisher]

The so-called poll tax was certainly unpopular, but I've never heard a good explanation of why it was unfair. Surely a household of,say, 6 people would be using more local services than a household of, say, two people - so isn't occupancy a fairer measure for assessing council tax than property values?

Still not as fair as a local income tax though.

Is suspect you're right about all parties being rather wary of altering the current system though. :lol:

 

[LadyArowana]

The so-called poll tax was certainly unpopular, but I've never heard a good explanation of why it was unfair. Surely a household of,say, 6 people would be using more local services than a household of, say, two people - so isn't occupancy a fairer measure for assessing council tax than property values?

Still not as fair as a local income tax though.

Is suspect you're right about all parties being rather wary of altering the current system though. :lol:

Yes, it's strange that you can get a "single person discount" if only one lives there, but you don't pay more if the place is stuffed full and it's all one household. Sadly they don't give a special "single person who only visits for a few weeks a year" discount, wonder what I could run about and do tomorrow to get a bit of value for money....?

 

[Feltwell]

The so-called poll tax was certainly unpopular, but I've never heard a good explanation of why it was unfair. Surely a household of,say, 6 people would be using more local services than a household of, say, two people - so isn't occupancy a fairer measure for assessing council tax than property values?

Still not as fair as a local income tax though.

You're quite right, in terms of the charge being proportional to level of services used then adult occupancy is a measure you can use, but it's not a very good one. Social care is the biggest spend in pretty much all local authorities, a one occupancy house where that person receives extensive social care will be vastly more expensive to the local authority than a multi-occupancy house with no children where there are no social care requirements and everyone is in employment. To link payments to that degree would be socially wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start! I am also a supporter of a local income tax based system.

I think the popular objection was primarily because it was a move away from a system that whilst flawed what you paid was connected in some way at least to your wealth, to a system where it was not connected at all. Benefits were available but I seem to remember you had to be on an extremely low income to get them. The effect was that a family of 4 on a modest income ended up paying the same as a family of 4 on an extremely high income. It was replacing one unfair system with another.

The main problem with poll tax was how badly it was implemented and how quickly it lost credibility. For starters, the actual amount charged proved in many areas to be considerably higher than the pre-implementation estimates, causing many supporters to switch sides. The number of people who didn't pay it was staggering - the BBC reported that up to 30% of former ratepayers were not paying the poll tax in some areas. Such was the scale that the awarding & enforcement of court orders for defaulters was impossible and the whole thing fell into tatters very quickly.

 

[Flyfisher]

20 years on and no-one of any party has had the guts to touch this political hot potatoe again and make any meaningful reforms :roll:

Speaking of potatoes, I happened to be in New York around the time of the US elections when Dan Quayle was running for re-election but got himself into a bit of trouble with spelling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI

His opponents had great fun putting out posters with a photo of Quayle and the strapline "Don't forget to vot".

Of course, nobody on PPUK would take advantage of such an easy mistake. :wink:

 

[Feltwell]

:lol: I knew that looked wrong when I typed it but I couldn't be bothered to check. I've been up since 4am, that's my (weak) excuse!

 

[Bayliss]

An UPDATE to my letter to the VOA :

Received a letter today confirming that they are about to conduct a review of the council tax band of my home. They add that the review should be complete within two months.
So whilst the bumph sent along with my council tax bill from the council strongly leads one to believe that home owners who think that the banding is wrong can only appeal within the set criteria, this is I believe rather misleading. Or maybe I am thick

 

[LadyArowana]

An UPDATE to my letter to the VOA :

Received a letter today confirming that they are about to conduct a review of the council tax band of my home. They add that the review should be complete within two months.
So whilst the bumph sent along with my council tax bill from the council strongly leads one to believe that home owners who think that the banding is wrong can only appeal within the set criteria, this is I believe rather misleading. Or maybe I am thick

Maybe they are related to the TV licence operatives who take the attitude that one is clearly breaking the law by not having a licence, and suggest that you buy one, but the actual regulations are somewhat different.......

 

[Bayliss]

Today received letter from the valuation office following their review of my house banding revaluation application. I had sent three examples of houses in my immediate vicinity which were banded one grade below mine and yet are larger houses. One of the examples they dismissed as it is apparently much smaller than my home 81m2 as opposed to my 121m2. Likewise the second home is in my comparison list is 91m2 and the last one is due for a re-banding as it was rebuilt in 2004. Their own examples are said to be comparable to my own home and banded the same, so hard luck mate. No right to appeal but I am going to have a measure up as I do not believe their measurements.

 

[robgil]

Ac cording to this we should be band B but we are band D.

http://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/092F453C-C08A-451A-8F11-35E53338FBD8/0/Howismypropertyvalued.pdf

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/default.asp?calculate=true

our hpouse was worth 43k in 1991.

Council tax in most countries would be illegal. Personally I believe it to be nothing more than criminal.

 

[robgil]

Today received letter from the valuation office following their review of my house banding revaluation application. I had sent three examples of houses in my immediate vicinity which were banded one grade below mine and yet are larger houses. One of the examples they dismissed as it is apparently much smaller than my home 81m2 as opposed to my 121m2. Likewise the second home is in my comparison list is 91m2 and the last one is due for a re-banding as it was rebuilt in 2004. Their own examples are said to be comparable to my own home and banded the same, so hard luck mate. No right to appeal but I am going to have a measure up as I do not believe their measurements.

Surely it matters what your home was worth in 1991 , not how big it was?

Mine had no central heating , single glazing , no insulating , a crap garden , basically it was in a very poor state so obviousley worth a lot less than they think it was worth?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Council tax in most countries would be illegal. Personally I believe it to be nothing more than criminal.

I don't quite follow your logic.

Property-based taxes are quite legal and logical. Services have to be paid for one way or another.

Perhaps the application of a property-based tax calculated on notional external property values from 21 years ago is somewhat "idiosyncratic" - and I would agree with you on that - but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with levying taxes on property. It's not exactly a novel idea after all....!

 

[robgil]

Council tax in most countries would be illegal. Personally I believe it to be nothing more than criminal.

I don't quite follow your logic.

Property-based taxes are quite legal and logical. Services have to be paid for one way or another.

Perhaps the application of a property-based tax calculated on notional external property values from 21 years ago is somewhat "idiosyncratic" - and I would agree with you on that - but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with levying taxes on property. It's not exactly a novel idea after all....!

I have to disagree, a lot pof people only rent a property , so dont own it, so havent bought it.
How can their income be calculated and taxed by the value of the property they live in?

Also , a break down of your tax, some to the ploice , some to the fire engines. What if you dont use these services? You should be given the choice to opt out , but you are not.
Some of my council tax last year went towards a community centre in Stowmarket, a large town 15 miles or so away, why should I be paying for that? Our village doesnt have a community centre.

 

[robgil]

Lets also be realistic here.
This is where your council tax really goes.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/council-plumber-scoops-%C2%A322000-bonus/6504047.article

Public money is a blank cheque, always was , always will be. From politicians bonus money to councillors huge pensions http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2009/02/paying-for-your-councillors-pension.html £1 in every £5.
Guy down the road has 9 kids , cant work because they have 9 kids to support, wife wants another one, they dont pay council tax. And how come , among other things the armed forces are exempt? do they put out their own fires?

 

[robgil]

And just to get three posts in a row.
We are taking out lots of oil tanks from council propertys so they can have air source heat pumps installed and their homes insulated, who payes for that then?
I cant afford one for my home.

 

[Bayliss]

Today received letter from the valuation office following their review of my house banding revaluation application. I had sent three examples of houses in my immediate vicinity which were banded one grade below mine and yet are larger houses. One of the examples they dismissed as it is apparently much smaller than my home 81m2 as opposed to my 121m2. Likewise the second home is in my comparison list is 91m2 and the last one is due for a re-banding as it was rebuilt in 2004. Their own examples are said to be comparable to my own home and banded the same, so hard luck mate. No right to appeal but I am going to have a measure up as I do not believe their measurements.

Surely it matters what your home was worth in 1991 , not how big it was?

Mine had no central heating , single glazing , no insulating , a crap garden , basically it was in a very poor state so obviousley worth a lot less than they think it was worth?

Exactly so! although their measurements are correct,the VOA have used the size of the property to evaluate. Like Robgil I have now found and used the sale price as paid by the previous owner and then gone onto the Nationwide website calculator and the 1991 price would have been just under 35k. Now thats about two bands lower than my banding 'D'. I feel quite annoyed about all this and the flippant manner of the VOA 'investigations. I am now considering taking this further perhaps my MP.

 

[Bayliss]

And just to get three posts in a row.
We are taking out lots of oil tanks from council propertys so they can have air source heat pumps installed and their homes insulated, who payes for that then?
I cant afford one for my home.

Some nice council bungalows in Diss have just had solar panels installed, why did we bother saving hard for three years to get a deposit together and then scrape for another 25 years to pay off the mortgage. Must have been deluded

 

[MdB]

Surely it matters what your home was worth in 1991 , not how big it was?

Mine had no central heating , single glazing , no insulating , a crap garden , basically it was in a very poor state so obviousley worth a lot less than they think it was worth?

I believe it is calculated on what the house is worth now converted to 1991 prices. The condition of the house in 1991 is immaterial to its valuation now.

 

[robgil]

Were the houses not first banded and valued in 1991? My house was a wreck in 1991.
The estimated value of a house and its actual value may well be two totally different things.

My house is worth 131k , it is a band D, the cottage behind sold last year for 225k , yet they are a band C so they pay less.
So its got nothing to do with how much your home is/was worth, it has got everything to do with how much they think you are worth, which is utterly unfair ,

 

[worms]

We are taking out lots of oil tanks from council propertys so they can have air source heat pumps installed and their homes insulated, who payes for that then?

It may work differently in England, but I think Housing Revenue Account rules ensure that Housing income and expenditure is ring-fenced and separated from other Council income and expenditure.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Rob - tax is not hyopthecated, therefore we can't pick and choose the services we wish to pay for. Good job too - as you never know when you'll need the police, NHS, etc. Childless couples paying for education is right -on the basis that school is not (mostly!) childcare for families but educating the generation who will be driving the economy and paying the pensions when the childless are in their dotage.

Anyway,most of your points above seem to be about how your Council Tax is spent, and some examples that you're not happy with.... especially those bloated, overpaid and underworked Conservation Officers! :wink:

In which case, don't forget to vote on May 3rd. One benefit of paying tax is you have a vested interest in who is running your council/government. It's called democratic accountability!