Don't these EU meddlers ever give up?

[doodab]

So IF CC is supposed to be based on your house's value (why you use more bins and roads if you're rich is a separate question) people at the bottom are paying really quite considerable sums and people in nice houses are paying relatively tiny amounts.

I thought the point was that unlike "rates" it was based on the size of the house rather than the value, and bigger houses cost more because they use more bins and roads because they hold more people.

The disparity between areas is supposedly to do with how "efficiently" services are run (or outsourced) by the local council, which seems reasonable if any central government funding takes into account the population and inherent differences in cost involved in providing services in rural and urban areas, but I'm not sure it really does.

[xoggoth]

Don't believe everything you read, xoggy

Not even when its from The Guardian?

[speling bee]

Not even when its from The Guardian?

Especially not those neo-liberal *******.

[speling bee]

Totally agree. Cannot see why property value should be a basis of payment for public services any more than it is when paying a plumber. We should pay for what we are actually getting. The complexity of all these different cross subsidies of the poorer by the better off disguises what the true amount is.

The basis of property valuations are crazy anyway. I am in a higher band than most round here with more expensive houses simply because mine is newer. I haven't even got any street lighting.

Most local government funding comes from central government grant, so Council Tax is not a great indicator in any way of service costs.

[doodab]

Not even when its from The Guardian?

Not unless it's in the datablog.

[xoggoth]

True I guess, but I don't in principle have a problem paying more if I am richer just as I do with income tax - if everyone paid the same the poorer end of the spectrum would really be struggling unless it's offset in some other way

I don't have a problem with the principle either but it all needs to be much simpler and more transparent, ie, all subsidies should be in the form of income tax or welfare payments.

Under our current schemes too many things get taxed more than once. If you paid tax on the income you used to buy a house why should you be effectively be taxed on it again? Why should somebody who saved to buy an expensive house subsidise someone of equal income who blew much of it on holidays and parties?

[speling bee]

Not unless it's in the datablog.

Yes, that's good. I liked Ben Goldacre too.

[VectraMan]

I thought the point was that unlike "rates" it was based on the size of the house rather than the value, and bigger houses cost more because they use more bins and roads because they hold more people.

So perhaps a much fairer system would be to have a tax based on the number of people? I wonder if anybody has thought of that?

As a tenant, my council tax is based on the value of somebody else's property.

Seems to me there's some merit in taxing people according to the value of their home, and especially increases in the value of their home, but that doesn't have to be the tax that pays for the council.

[doodab]

If you paid tax on the income you used to buy a house why should you be effectively be taxed on it again? Why should somebody who saved to buy an expensive house
subsidise someone of equal income who blew much of it on holidays and parties?

But is this case? There is no VAT on houses, but VAT on holidays and parties, so arguably the subsidy is the other way around. Even more so when help to buy and QE are considered.

[speling bee]

I don't have a problem with the principle either but it all needs to be much simpler and more transparent, ie, all subsidies should be in the form of income tax or welfare payments.

Under our current schemes too many things get taxed more than once. If you paid tax on the income you used to buy a house why should you be effectively be taxed on it again? Why should somebody who saved to buy an expensive house subsidise someone of equal income who blew much of it on holidays and parties?

The holidays and parties will have been subject to VAT or other taxes and to alcohol duty, so maybe the subsidy goes the other way?