In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

On 22 Jun, 12:22, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
This has never happened to anyone, ever. If you are too poor to
pay the council tax, there is a specific benefit which you can
apply for and which you will be granted that covers 100% of your
council tax payments. People who have gone to prison for repeated
refusal to pay council tax have done so purely to make an (IMO
misguided) political point).

I can see you don't understand the incidence of Council Tax bills
and the limits to Council Tax Benefit. Some people are paying an
enormous proportion of their incomes in CT with little or no Benefit
entitlement. Time for Local Income Tax!

...or time for people with very low incomes who live in enormous
homes to move to somewhere more manageable, thereby easing the housing
crisis, reducing wasted energy, and keeping themselves out of
poverty all at the same time.

Having a proportion of tax on wealth rather than income is a Good
Thing, both because it's more egalitarian (wealth is an important
component of overall standard of living, just as income is) and
because it encourages positive outcomes for society (whereas income
tax discourages people from working hard).

You're showing your ignorance again. I know some very modest homes, with
outside loos that are still in bands F or G. If you actually looked at
the figures you would see that the people who pay the highest proportions
of their incomes in Council Tax are on pretty modest incomes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 22 Jun, 13:26, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
...or time for people with very low incomes who live in enormous
homes to move to somewhere more manageable, thereby easing the housing
crisis, reducing wasted energy, and keeping themselves out of
poverty all at the same time.

Having a proportion of tax on wealth rather than income is a Good
Thing, both because it's more egalitarian (wealth is an important
component of overall standard of living, just as income is) and
because it encourages positive outcomes for society (whereas income
tax discourages people from working hard).

You're showing your ignorance again. I know some very modest homes, with
outside loos that are still in bands F or G. If you actually looked at
the figures you would see that the people who pay the highest proportions
of their incomes in Council Tax are on pretty modest incomes.

Castles with outside garderobes?

If your house was worth £120k in 1993 (band F minimum) , it's now
worth £365k - which is A Lot Of Money, however you cut it. It gives
you a *huge* amount of scope to downtrade to somewhere smaller, with
an inside loo, while also freeing up enough £££ to live the life of
Riley even before you take into account utilities and tax savings.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In article .com,
(John B) wrote:

On 22 Jun, 13:26, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
...or time for people with very low incomes who live in enormous
homes to move to somewhere more manageable, thereby easing the
housing crisis, reducing wasted energy, and keeping themselves
out of poverty all at the same time.

Having a proportion of tax on wealth rather than income is a
Good Thing, both because it's more egalitarian (wealth is an
important component of overall standard of living, just as income
is) and because it encourages positive outcomes for society
(whereas income tax discourages people from working hard).

You're showing your ignorance again. I know some very modest
homes, with outside loos that are still in bands F or G. If you
actually looked at the figures you would see that the people who
pay the highest proportions of their incomes in Council Tax are on
pretty modest incomes.

Castles with outside garderobes?

If your house was worth £120k in 1993 (band F minimum) , it's now
worth £365k - which is A Lot Of Money, however you cut it. It gives
you a *huge* amount of scope to downtrade to somewhere smaller, with
an inside loo, while also freeing up enough £££ to live the life of
Riley even before you take into account utilities and tax savings.

Not if you're a tenant! Council Tax systematically over-taxes people who
can't afford to buy their current home, including nearly all tenants. The
examples I'm thinking of have no market pricing history as they are
college-owned and have never been sold.

You've been listening to too much Tory propaganda.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 22 Jun, 14:26, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
If your house was worth £120k in 1993 (band F minimum) , it's now
worth £365k - which is A Lot Of Money, however you cut it. It gives
you a *huge* amount of scope to downtrade to somewhere smaller, with
an inside loo, while also freeing up enough £££ to live the life of
Riley even before you take into account utilities and tax savings.

Not if you're a tenant! Council Tax systematically over-taxes people who
can't afford to buy their current home, including nearly all tenants. The
examples I'm thinking of have no market pricing history as they are
college-owned and have never been sold.

In which case, it sounds like they may have been mis-banded - have the
tenants tried to appeal?

I accept that in this situation - where people are (presumably)
retired college staff in private accomodation paying peppercorn rents
effectively as part of their pension settlement, and can't afford to
move to somewhere in a lower council tax band because they'd have to
pay market rent - the system fails. I don't think they're highly
representative of the population as a whole, though.

You've been listening to too much Tory propaganda.

I resent that! Seriously, though, you're right that while council tax
is the closest we get to a wealth tax (particularly because c100% of
people on council tax benefit are tenants - it would be interesting to
see the converse figure of what proportion of all tenants claim
council tax benefit - I suspect it's high if not actually 50%), it
isn't perfect. Then again, a property ownership tax would surely just
push up rents anyway.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In article .com,
(John B) wrote:

On 22 Jun, 14:26, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
If your house was worth £120k in 1993 (band F minimum) , it's
now worth £365k - which is A Lot Of Money, however you cut it. It
gives you a *huge* amount of scope to downtrade to somewhere
smaller, with an inside loo, while also freeing up enough £££ to
live the life of Riley even before you take into account
utilities and tax savings.

Not if you're a tenant! Council Tax systematically over-taxes
people who can't afford to buy their current home, including nearly
all tenants. The examples I'm thinking of have no market pricing
history as they are college-owned and have never been sold.

In which case, it sounds like they may have been mis-banded - have
the tenants tried to appeal?

You really don't know about Council Tax, do you?

I accept that in this situation - where people are (presumably)
retired college staff in private accomodation paying peppercorn
rents effectively as part of their pension settlement, and can't
afford to move to somewhere in a lower council tax band because
they'd have to pay market rent - the system fails. I don't think
they're highly representative of the population as a whole, though.

It's a much more systemic issue than that. How many tenants could ever
afford to buy the house they rent?

There is much less of a correlation between supposed home capital value
and wealth than you seem to fondly imagine.

You might like to explain why my parents in Wandsworth, where local
government spending per head is nearly double what it is in Cambridge,
and with a *much* larger home than I have, still paid much less Council
tax than I do before my father died last summer. Since then my mother
gets a single person's discount.

You've been listening to too much Tory propaganda.

I resent that! Seriously, though, you're right that while council
tax is the closest we get to a wealth tax (particularly because c100%
of
people on council tax benefit are tenants - it would be interesting
to see the converse figure of what proportion of all tenants claim
council tax benefit - I suspect it's high if not actually 50%), it
isn't perfect. Then again, a property ownership tax would surely
just push up rents anyway.

Council Tax is an Evil Tory Tax (TM). In brief, it was _designed_ to
impose a relatively lower tax burden on their wealthy friends than on
middle England, admittedly just a bit less so that the Poll Tax did. What
is most remarkable is that Labour have done nothing to replace it.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 22 Jun, 12:27, John B wrote:
Because they were *all* white. He felt that in a city that's c25-35%
ethnic minority, *some* non-white candidates ought to be allowed (not
that *all*, or even *most* should have been from minority groups).

They were allowed, it just so happens the best candidates from those
parties were white. I doubt Ken would have complained if they'd all
been ethnic , in fact he'd probably be shouting it from the rooftops
as some kind of triumph of multiculturalism. But thats Ken for you,
political agendas come first , all other considerations are a poor
second.

B2003

On 22 Jun, 12:26, John B wrote:
Having a proportion of tax on wealth rather than income is a Good
Thing, both because it's more egalitarian (wealth is an important

Why is it a good thing? If you've managed to save up a lot of money
(which you've already paid tax on) why should you keep paying tax on
it? Similarly why should you be penalised because the value of your
house has gone up through no doing of your own? What do you expect
people to do , sell their house? Why should they if they worked hard
to get it in the first place but now don't have as high an income?
Sounds like politics of envy to me.

component of overall standard of living, just as income is) and
because it encourages positive outcomes for society (whereas income
tax discourages people from working hard).

And taxing people on the value of their possessions and size of their
bank account encourages what exactly?

B2003

On 22 Jun, 15:18, Boltar wrote:
component of overall standard of living, just as income is) and
because it encourages positive outcomes for society (whereas income
tax discourages people from working hard).

And taxing people on the value of their possessions and size of their
bank account encourages what exactly?


Scenario one: you get paid a lot of money because you're clever and
lucky enough to get a good job and work extremely hard.

Scenario two: you accumulate a lot of wealth because house prices go
up 200% in 15 years.

I'm suggesting that people who become wealthy through scenario 2 ought
to pay their fair share, like people who have a high income in
scenario 1.

That's not because they deserve to be punished, but because we (or at
least, everyone who doesn't think income tax should be repealed and
replaced with poll tax) broadly accept the principle that people who
are better-off ought to contribute more to taxation than people who
are worse-off.

Side note: the value growth of wealth in your bank account, unlike the
appreciation of money in your house value, *is* taxed at the same rate
as your income from working. I would welcome a situation where all
income, whether earned, interest or realised capital gain, was charged
at the same rate.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

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

Scenario one: you get paid a lot of money because you're clever and
lucky enough to get a good job and work extremely hard.

Scenario two: you accumulate a lot of wealth because house prices go
up 200% in 15 years.

I'm suggesting that people who become wealthy through scenario 2 ought
to pay their fair share, like people who have a high income in
scenario 1.

And how does the person in scenario 2 actually *pay* this tax without
selling the house?

If they do sell the house, then they won't be able to buy one of similar
quality/size/location. If a large number of people are forced to sell their
houses, the market will collapse, leaving many people with huge negative
equity. Will they get a tax rebate?

On 22 Jun, 15:10, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
Not if you're a tenant! Council Tax systematically over-taxes
people who can't afford to buy their current home, including nearly
all tenants. The examples I'm thinking of have no market pricing
history as they are college-owned and have never been sold.

In which case, it sounds like they may have been mis-banded - have
the tenants tried to appeal?

You really don't know about Council Tax, do you?

I know the value bands, and I know there's an appeal process. If
there's no market pricing history, it strikes me as more likely that
the valuation is flawed and more likely that it could be overturned.
What's your point, beyond gratuitous personal abuse?

I accept that in this situation - where people are (presumably)
retired college staff in private accomodation paying peppercorn
rents effectively as part of their pension settlement, and can't
afford to move to somewhere in a lower council tax band because
they'd have to pay market rent - the system fails. I don't think
they're highly representative of the population as a whole, though.

It's a much more systemic issue than that. How many tenants could ever
afford to buy the house they rent?

Buy outright, or buy on mortgage? If the latter, then it should be
possible for most unsubsidised tenants in the medium term (I'm aware
that in recent years, house price growth has massively outstripped
rent growth, but I'm not convinced that's sustainable).

There is much less of a correlation between supposed home capital value
and wealth than you seem to fondly imagine.
You might like to explain why my parents in Wandsworth, where local
government spending per head is nearly double what it is in Cambridge,
and with a *much* larger home than I have, still paid much less Council
tax than I do before my father died last summer. Since then my mother
gets a single person's discount.

Not least because house prices are higher in Wandsworth than in
Cambridge. That sounds counter-intuitive, but actually makes sense:
more houses in Wandsworth are in high bands than houses in Cambridge
(because London house prices were insane even in 1993), so the tax
level for each band required to raise the same total revenue is lower
in Wandsworth than in Cambridge.

There might also be some comedy going on with central government
subsidies - i.e. Wandsworth gets more money from the central pot
because it's Urrrban, while Cambridge gets less because it's Jolly
Nice. If the subsidies are unfair, that doesn't make the tax unfair in
itself.

Council Tax is an Evil Tory Tax (TM). In brief, it was _designed_ to
impose a relatively lower tax burden on their wealthy friends than on
middle England, admittedly just a bit less so that the Poll Tax did. What
is most remarkable is that Labour have done nothing to replace it.

But Tory voters *define* middle England [look at voting returns for
England-outside-major-cities - they ain't red!], and the Tories'
wealthy friends all live in top band properties!

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org