Richard J. wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but he has a greater ability to pay, the same principle
of progressive taxation that we are used to with income tax. Are you
against this principle?
Of course high earnings and high current house value don't necessarily
go together.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
But there are so many anomalies, especially for those of us who live in
London. How many London properties would EVER fall into one of the
lower bands, despite the fact that an equivalent property in, say,
Hull, would do so? In other words, someone of modest means living in
London is almost bound to own a high-value house or flat because of the
generally higher property prices in London.
The person who complained that in London bands ended at H had a valid
point: someone living in a small house in, say Fulham (like I do) has a
property worth around half a million Pounds, and would pay the same (or
more) Council tax than someone living in a mansion in, say, North
Yorkshire. Why?
Moreover, someone living in a, say £10 million property in London
would not have to pay 20 times the amount that the Fulham resident
pays. Why, if the system is related to property value, should someone
living in a property worth 20 times the value not have to pay 20 times
the Council tax?
I am not advocating any particular scheme, but merely highlighting
anomalies and inconsistencies.
As in so many things, the very rich are okay (as they usually are), and
so are the very poor (who don't have to pay or get rebates etc.) Those
of us in the middle, for whom relatively small amounts of money make a
lot of difference, are the ones most disadvantaged by "broad brush"
schemes which take no account of small variations in circumstances.
Marc.