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?

Marc.

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)

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, 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?

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.

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

No. Of course, when a question includes "necessarily", the answer is
nearly always "no", but in this case I doubt there's even a correlation.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

wrote:

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

Indeed they do not - which would probably make the infamous Poll Tax
the fairest model for charging for Council services, if indeed it is to
be seen as a charge for services rather than as a tax.

I'm personally against the concept of a local income tax, anyhow, as it
would have the potential to be a nastier political pawn than the
current Council tax. If we move away from charges for services as the
concept, I'd rather see it added at a standard rate to income tax - the
same additional %age for everyone - and Councils being funded at a
national level according to need.

Anyway, this is getting OT...

Neil

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?

Neil Williams 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.


Disagree.

Income and wealth are both measures of 'richness', and all forms of
wealth accumulation other than housing are already taxed[*]. Ideally,
I'd levy CGT on house value increases in the same way that it applies
to all other investments, but assuming that that's politically
unacceptable then having some kind of housing wealth-based taxation
system is a reasonable substitute.

And given that the system currently works in a tiered fashion, as Marc
says elsewhere, the fact that in London the very rich have to pay the
same as the moderately well-off is silly.

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

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

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.
That's £250,000 gain in value over 10 years, so £88,000 allowance.
£162,000 taxable gain.

You currently earn £35,000/year, so you're a higher rate taxpayer.

You come to sell your house.

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.

On 13 Jul 2006 02:36:05 -0700, "John B" wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
Reported last night that Ken proposes to charge £25 a day for the most
polluting cars.


Thinly disguised class warfare to divert away from other more pressing
matters.

Voluntary progressive taxation is not the same as class warfare.

It's neither voluntary or progressive.


Even more unlikely. Yummy mummies driving 'Chelsea tractors' in the zone,
are not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest.

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...

A ridiculous premise.
--
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?