council tax consultation

But business rates go straight to Whitehall and are redistributed at their discretion.
They have not been local for many many years
nor is council tax : the current consultation is causing upheavals
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/2146644

What if your DCs go to school in another county currently? There are reciprocal arrangements between local authorities for school funding, at least in Scotland.

Local income tax should be based on where you live. Money to go to Local Authority. Where you work will pay business rates at that property already based on the size of business.

Jolly
taxed on where you live or where you work?
Spent where you live or where you work?
What if DCs go to school in another county?

Land taxes are popular because houses do not move

Surely a local income tax would be most fair as then you are taxed based on what you earn rather than the value of your property - which may bear no relation to your income.

i agree that everyone should make a contribution even those on benefits. i know the poll tax wasn't popular but it was fairer in some ways making everyone pay.

I think that with houses it is all on paper. even if you pay off your mortgage you still have no capital or a cash sum, you just don't have to pay out each month.

i am glad they are not attempting to revalue property as that always seems to be a threat and make us pay even more money that we don't have because on paper our house appears of great value.

There isn't really wealth in housing though, not to people that have seemingly profited from house price rises, it's all on paper and irrelevant to people's real day to day lives.

I understand what you are saying, and I pretty much agree, but it's not the fault of people that bought houses when they did that prices have risen and they shouldn't be penalised for it, nor should they be considered greedy.

They didn't know it was going to happen, they didn't ask for it to happen. They just bought houses when it was the right time in their lives, and it's only looking bak that it could be seen to be being the right time economically. But like I say, it doesn't really matter to them. It's not like they have profited in actual real terms. They might have done on paper, but where's the benefit of that when everywhere else is equally as expensive now.

People's wages are better now than they ever were, but it means nothing because the cost of living has gone up so much. It's the same thing.

You are very misguided if you think most landlors have accountants that can fiddle their tax. They don't. You are referring to the super wealthy, not just the regular accidental landlord, or even the regular BTL landlord that is just trying to better their income and provide an asset for their family.

Land value tax would be extremely unfair, would not target those people you want to hit, and it would create less affordable housing while people sold up and stopped providing a rental property for someone who can't afford to buy.

Outraged - of course people are going to talk about house price rises on MN. So many young families have been forced to rent (from unscrupulous landlords) or are being forced to pay huge amounts for shoeboxes so that one lucky generation can maintain the "wealth" in their house. There is absolutely no reason why a poxy, standard terrace in London suburbs with no parking should be worth half a million pounds but thanks to Blair and Brown this is what we have now - an economy built on high house prices rather than actual productivity. How destructive this has been on so many levels and in the next few decades this will play out when the younger generations cannot afford to have families or pensions and when all their income is paying just for a roof over their heads. Labour left a disgraceful legacy!

dreaming of sun - if landlords sell that would be great news. More properties on the market for all those wanting a home rather than an investment and if lots of properties were to come on to the market it would reduce prices.

Most landlords are older have benefited from low house prices, free university education, good pensions etc. They are the ones reaping the benefits of the financial crisis at the expense of the younger generations who are basically paying for their pensions and paying for their rental properties. This section of society (the landlord class) pays very little as most of them have accountants who are able to reduce the tax they pay. A land value tax would put an end to a lot of the "get out paying tax" clauses for the already wealthy.

Landlords already pay tax on their income, and they will have paid stamp duty when they bought their properties. Not everyone who has a property, or even who is a landlord will have benefitted from house price rises.

I find it wierd that people go on about house price rises on MN. They don't mean anything until you are elderly and might want to downsize. My first property has risen in value, but it means nothing. All the other houses have risen in value too, so it's not like I can get anything extra because of that house price rise. It makes no difference whatsoever if my house was once worth £200k and is now worth £250k on paper, I can't buy a bigger house than I already have because the every other house this size is also worth £250k.

orwellian - taxing landlords (who've already paid income and NI on their investment and will pay capital gains when they sell) would just put up rental prices or reduce supply because people would sell. in this area house prices have gone up very little over the last 5 years

the problem is the massive increases during the last government. this means that a rise of 1.5% is quite a signif amount of money now.

I appreciate that part of this is about people who can't afford to contribute, but its not fair that someone else who may be struggling to pay their fair share already could be forced to pay more to subsidise someone else's share.

How can anyone possibly think that's ok?

I agree that everyone shudo pay something, even if it's only a token amount. Lots of token amounts would add up, maybe even add up to enough to prevent people who are already paying a significant amount a month from having to pay even more.

The alternative is that council run services are drastically cut. We have nowhere for elderly or disabled people to go during the day, we have dirty streets and town centres because they are never cleaned, we have infrequent refuse collections, underfunded fire and police services, ill maintained roads and hedges and parks.

None of us want that, which means everyone shoukd have to pay something, and those who are already paying for those things shouldn't be expected to pay more to subsidise others.

What they should be doing is getting more tax out of landlords or introducing a land value tax. That way people who have benefited from house price rises and are getting unearned income have to pay more. But this will be unpopular in Westminster seeing how many MP's are landlords, have inherited their wealth or are just greedy pigs.

I think everyone should pay some council tax, even those on benefits. We all use council services, everyone gets their rubbish collected and a lot of the time people on benefits are more likely to use council services (which they will get for free because they are on benefits) than others. So, if we are all in this together, then certainly everyone should pay.

It's also about people who cannot afford to contribute who will be forced to pay when they cannot afford to. I think they should be able to explain what this would mean for them. My friend, who is working on the minimum wage, will be £200 a year worse off.

Gin, that woudo be a separate consultation. This one is about what people contribute, not about what people take.

bureni - because second homes push up house prices leaving more people in short term social housing at HUGE cost to the council ....

Gin, they should have some say, but not as much as the people who are already affected and therefore are more likely to know a bit about it. But then the groups of people you mention can know more about these things because of their work, in which case, they should be included because they will have an opinion which is worth something.

Jolly, yes, I would. I'd be glad that someone else was paying my share of contributions towards police, roads, refuse collections etc and and that these services weren't going without because of me and I would accept it gracefully.

Why should people pay more for a second home, surely the council tax should reflect the services the councils provide . Having 2 or more homes should not increase the tax imo. p.s I dont pay council tax.

X posts - and what about those who are struggling and are being supported by Council services which might be at risk??

So, outraged, if you qualified for £100 council tax benefit then you'd be happy to not be included in the consultation. Even if the consultation was about discounts and the rest of the amount you have to pay?

Outraged - people who are getting help with council tax might still be struggling to pay it. We live in a democracy - which means we get to take part in making democratic decisions about all sorts of things which don't affect us. Should healthy people have no say in what happens with the NHS? Should childless people have no say about what happens with education??

Council tax inflations might not affect those who don't pay it - but similarly council cuts won't affect the better off as much.

It's fairly obvious what their opinion would be in those cases then without asking wouldn't it?

What about the people who already struggle to pay without a discount? As hey are already paying, and already struggling, I think their opinions should be given the most attention.

"Its a consultation about whether council tax should be raised or not. I'd be interested to know why people who don't have to struggle to pay full council tax should be given as much weight to their opinion as people who do have to struggle to pay full council tax. It's not going to affect them. And if they really don't like the result of the consultation, then they can use their vote to make their voices heard."

Because they will lose their council tax benefit and will have to pay. This could mean going cold or hungry. I think that's a big deal, don't you?

Percentage of income is irrelevant. If someone is paying the full amount they are required to pay, as set by the council, without benefits or discounts, then they have an equal stake in the outcome of the consultation.

Someone whose council tax is paid be central government, or who is wealthy and living in a four bed house but gets a huge 25% discount, isn't going to struggle with an increase.

The people who are affected by the changes the most should be the ones that have the most say.

what is also difficult is that the area where i live is approx 60-70% older people,who this won't affect. the local authority is really going to struggle to raise the funds to deal with the cuts from central government.

sadly, it's the local working class families who will end up worst hit, whilst the rich second home owners won't get touched.