Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

Adrian wrote:
Ideally, I'd levy CGT on house value increases in the same way that it
applies to all other investments

wince
I can certainly see - and don't necessarily disagree with - the concept,
but... ouch...

£8,800/year tax free, 20% on anything above that or 40% for higher rate tax
payers.

So - a not completely atypical example...
You bought your house 10 years ago for £150,000. It's now worth £400,000.

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

John B ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But you just plain can't afford to because you're going to have to
find 40% of £162,000 - £64,800 - just to pay Gordon. And that's on top
of all the other costs of moving house. You can't take it out of the
house sale proceeds, because you've got to buy another house with them.

Imposing it retrospectively would be unfair as well as politically
impossible - I don't think even I'd choose that route.

OK, so you introduce it on any property bought after say 1st Jan 2007.

The end of December is going to be ****ing *chaos* in the housing market,
as everybody tries to complete any sale that they're even *contemplating*.

What then?
Prices utterly collapse, massive negative equity.

However, imposing it ongoing would be a different story: a large part
of the reason that house prices have shown the kind of insane rises
that they have is because they're seen as a tax-free investment.

Do people buy houses as "investments"? Or because they need to live
somewhere and don't want to fund somebody else's retirement by paying 'em
rent on their nice tax-free investment.

Don't forget that any house that isn't your primary residence - any holiday
home, any buy-to-let - is already subject to CGT.

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

On 14 Jul 2006 03:48:57 -0700, "John B" wrote:


But you just plain can't afford to because you're going to have to find 40%
of £162,000 - £64,800 - just to pay Gordon. And that's on top of all the
other costs of moving house. You can't take it out of the house sale
proceeds, because you've got to buy another house with them.

Imposing it retrospectively would be unfair as well as politically
impossible - I don't think even I'd choose that route.

However, imposing it ongoing would be a different story: a large part
of the reason that house prices have shown the kind of insane rises
that they have is because they're seen as a tax-free investment.

Um no, it's entirely down to our nationalised planning system restricting
supply since the 1947 T&C planning act and other pieces of insane central
planning, such as English Nature having the power to object to development
within 5km of sites of alleged scientific interest.


Sort out the supply problem and the market will take of the rest.



greg
--
If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness,
and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you
want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look
Do you go to the top or to the bottom?

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

On 14 Jul 2006 09:24:13 GMT, Adrian wrote:


But you just plain can't afford to because you're going to have to find 40%
of £162,000 - £64,800 - just to pay Gordon. And that's on top of all the
other costs of moving house. You can't take it out of the house sale
proceeds, because you've got to buy another house with them.


Quite, it would also do wonders for labour mobility.

The CPRE (Council for the Protection of Residential Estates) and it's land
owning bankrollers are pushing hard for capital gains tax on home sales
ATM.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../01/do0102.xml


Personally I could be persuaded of the merits of say an annual £1000/sq ft
levy on all members and funders of the CPRE who live in properties than
the median size of average residential property built since 1970.


I am sure Max Hastings living in a 3500+ sq ft manor in Berkshire wont mind
at all.



greg

--
If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness,
and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you
want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look
Do you go to the top or to the bottom?

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

On 13 Jul 2006 08:11:15 -0700, "
wrote:

Although I do not normally subscribe to class-warfare type causes [...]
I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the
following reasons:

1. Their drivers are so often appallingly bad at driving, which results
in
(a) road-hogging
and (b) poor parking, both causing much inconvenience for others;
2. Their journey (e.g. 200 yards to take Annabelle to prep school) is
so often totally unnecessary
3. They do use more fuel and cause more pollution

You'll know when they intend to tax such beasties when the tax
specifies so high and so wide. It just aien't so: the proposed hate
tax is based on the g/km figure. As poster Adrian correctly said,
plenty CTs come below the 225g/km while enough smaller vehicles exceed
it. Issue here is that one target of hate (CT) is being used to slip
in tax rises. Issue 2 is how the media don't bother/are too dim to
explain this. Issue 3 is incitement: I'm no fan of CTs but the bile
being spewed against them is not nice to see. First they came for the
Tractors, then they came for the cyclists, ... This is not intelligent
politics but barrow boy stuff.

I've sent another missive, this time to politics.guardian.co.uk on
this. My previous to the BBC web site elicited a zero response.

--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

Colum Mylod ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I do agree that Chelsea tractors ought to pay more for the
following reasons:

You'll know when they intend to tax such beasties when the tax
specifies so high and so wide.

groan
Don't go there. Just don't. Really. Trust me on this. DO NOT GO THERE.

marks thread ignore

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Taxing land value is desirable because otherwise the price of land
would just increase more. I can't think of a good reason to tax the
value of the buildings, but ISTR council tax assessment for houses
in London is based on footprint rather than value.

The council tax bands are defined by London boroughs (or at least the
ones I found on a Google search for "council tax bands London") as based
on value, like everywhere else in England.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Taxing land value is desirable because otherwise the price of land
would just increase more. I can't think of a good reason to tax
the value of the buildings, but ISTR council tax assessment for houses
in London is based on footprint rather than value.

The council tax bands are defined by London boroughs (or at least
the ones I found on a Google search for "council tax bands London")
as based on value, like everywhere else in England.

Council Tax bands are allocated by the Government's Valuation Agency not
by Councils.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

Higher congestion charge for thirsty cars
 

wrote:
Neil Williams wrote:
John B wrote:

True. However, the fact that they'll contribute an extra £650-ish each
a year to TfL coffers is no bad thing - it partially addresses the
outrageous anomaly that Council Tax stops at Band H...

Why is that an outrageous anomaly? Such people don't throw away
substantially more rubbish, or use more other council services, than
those in lower bands.

If you want a local income tax you may as well do it properly, that
said.

Neil

Neil, your argument against banding is intellectually correct: a Band A
property does not inherently require less Council services than a Band
H property. That being so, why should there be any distinction based on
property value?

Moreover, why should there be a distinction based upon earnings either?
Does a high-earner necessarily use more Council services than a
low-earner?

I suppose the solution is to have a flat tax per person to represent
their use of council services. Now where have we heard that one?