PDA

View Full Version : Council Tax Reassessment


Gary
01-04-2005, 09:37:00
So the whole country of going to get their houses reassessed to see what tax band the owners are to be put into. And the suggestion is that because house prices have risen since the last time, this means they'll "all" go up a band, and everyone gets a bigger bill.

What is it about authorities misusing power ? The local council provides the same services, so they have no justification to be collecting more money (in real terms) than before. Thus the banding should just be a paperwork exercise, with the tax bill they'd normally have set for a lower band now applying to a higher band.

What are the odds of that ? Makes me want to spit sometimes.

Gary
01-04-2005, 09:38:28
Pity post

(unless the usual culprits want to argue that it's good to tax folk on as much as possible in any way at all, just for the fun of it.)

OldWarrior_42
01-04-2005, 09:43:43
Taxes blow. Misuse of power blows even more. Sorry Dude. I feel your pain. Got a higher assesment on my home a year ago and pushed me up from 400 and change US to 575. Pisses me off. I don't see any more monet being spent on services. Guess everyone on the City Council needed a raise. Bastards.

Darkstar
01-04-2005, 09:44:42
Governments always want more money, Gary. So whatever excuse they can find, they use. Elected governments greed is offset by what the politicians think they can get away with for squeezing out more money from the voters.

Funko
01-04-2005, 09:58:59
They've said it's going to be revenue neutral many times, unlike Wales but in Wales they were adding an extra higher band.

So some will go up bands, some down. They don't just push houses up bands because they are worth more. If they've gone up more than average they'll go up a band, and if less they'll go down a band.

So whilst it's ok to be cynical about this I'm tempted to believe it will actually be revenue neutral.

Gary
01-04-2005, 10:07:13
We'll see. Maybe I'm more cynical than you.

Wasn't the expressed opinion on the local radio station this morning. Unless that was a cruel April Fool.

notyoueither
01-04-2005, 10:17:15
Recruit some of your neighbours as Minutemen.

Presto-chango, you'll have a revolution on your hands.

No taxation without you damn feeling like it should be your motto.

Funko
01-04-2005, 13:30:42
Originally posted by Gary
We'll see. Maybe I'm more cynical than you.

Wasn't the expressed opinion on the local radio station this morning. Unless that was a cruel April Fool.

There are lots of opinions that it won't be revenue neutral but that's not the government policy, and the 'independent body' doing the assessment have said that their instructions are that it be revenue neutral.

When it's over the people who pay more will be making a lot more noise than those who get a cut though.

Resource Consumer
01-04-2005, 14:20:00
Well, mine can't go up a band and I am convinced I am in the wrong band so I am hopeful for a reduction....

Darkstar
02-04-2005, 03:19:34
It can if they add a band, RC.

Lazarus and the Gimp
02-04-2005, 08:46:34
Mine might go up. House price rises have been mental here.

Provost Harrison
02-04-2005, 11:16:40
Originally posted by Resource Consumer
Well, mine can't go up a band and I am convinced I am in the wrong band so I am hopeful for a reduction....

Posh git :p

Plus London Borough of Hounslow has a high rate of council tax. But the system (and like that of National Insurance IMO) is incredibly unfair. The lowest rates per band in the country are Westminster, one of the richest boroughs. Hell, a band H there doesn't cost much more than a band C in Greenwich costs me!

Spartak
02-04-2005, 11:52:09
Bah! I'm expecting to be fleeced as my house was sold for 125,000 in 1991 and went for more than twice that I when I bought it. Given that I'm already paying 175 a month, I dread to think what I'll get stung for. The only saving grace is that eveything in Finchamstead costs a fortune so I'm hoping that the band changes will even out. I'm not holding my breath though.

Funko
02-04-2005, 20:11:35
Our flat (allegedly on the market for 329000 when we rented it) is half that price in council tax... Well, half that a month anyway.

Provost Harrison
03-04-2005, 13:26:42
329k?! That must be a nice flat!

Spartak
03-04-2005, 15:35:51
flats are always cheaper than houses as you get more council tax off the other flats in the block and I imagine that's reflected in the banding.

I'd be horrified if Tory Wokingham cost more than Communist Reading.

JM^3
03-04-2005, 15:43:48
Originally posted by OldWarrior_42
Taxes blow. Misuse of power blows even more. Sorry Dude. I feel your pain. Got a higher assesment on my home a year ago and pushed me up from 400 and change US to 575. Pisses me off. I don't see any more monet being spent on services. Guess everyone on the City Council needed a raise. Bastards.

my family home in Oregon (Where we lived 1990-2003?) got moved up brakets numerous times

of course, that had little to do with its actual worth

my mom cleaned it up and tried to sell it, but couldn't get anywhere near what the the gov said it was worth at the time, which was significantly less than what the gov said it was worth in the late 90s

JM

Funko
04-04-2005, 09:12:56
Originally posted by Spartak
flats are always cheaper than houses as you get more council tax off the other flats in the block and I imagine that's reflected in the banding.

I'd be horrified if Tory Wokingham cost more than Communist Reading.

Why?

Just checked anyway:

The Council's 'average' Council Tax at Band D - 1,156 for Reading and 1,139 for Wokingham

So pretty much the same. And that means I'm in band D.

Oerdin
04-04-2005, 09:33:24
That doesn't seem to unfair. In California you have to pay property taxes based upon how much you house is valued. Well, since housing prices usually go up in the low teens the property taxes go up almost as fast. :(

Funko
04-04-2005, 09:35:46
Ours go up every year but they stay in the same bands (basically a house value band, the higher the letter of the band the more it goes up, currently A to H).

The bands get reassessed on a 10 yearly cycle.

Beta1
04-04-2005, 09:41:55
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Posh git :p

Plus London Borough of Hounslow has a high rate of council tax. But the system (and like that of National Insurance IMO) is incredibly unfair. The lowest rates per band in the country are Westminster, one of the richest boroughs. Hell, a band H there doesn't cost much more than a band C in Greenwich costs me!

but on the other hand my council (wandsworth) is not exactly the richest part of the world (contains dumps like wandsworth town, the wrong end of clapham and all of the tooting area). It does have some nice bits too (the good end of putney). We have the second lowest tax in london, less than half of merton or richmond which are far more affluent and half that of lambeth which is far poorer.

Westminster if a special case as it has a massive amount of business tax income.

The real question is if a distinctly average area like wandsworth can run its services charging less than 700/year for a band D property then why can't hounslow/richmond/insert your council here?

Funko
04-04-2005, 09:45:13
Maybe if it didn't charge less than 700 a year for a band D it wouldn't be such an average area. :)

Provost Harrison
04-04-2005, 10:05:37
Originally posted by Beta1
but on the other hand my council (wandsworth) is not exactly the richest part of the world (contains dumps like wandsworth town, the wrong end of clapham and all of the tooting area). It does have some nice bits too (the good end of putney). We have the second lowest tax in london, less than half of merton or richmond which are far more affluent and half that of lambeth which is far poorer.

Westminster if a special case as it has a massive amount of business tax income.

The real question is if a distinctly average area like wandsworth can run its services charging less than 700/year for a band D property then why can't hounslow/richmond/insert your council here?

700 for a Band D, yikes, that's cheap! I dunno, they must be getting the money from somewhere, eg, commercial sources. However I still find it grossly unfair that you are charged according to which boundary you fall behind. It should be done on income (as the LibDems propose) and then be distributed. It makes next to no sense why people in Westminster should pay so little, regardless of the huge commercial concerns within the borough...I mean they can afford to live in Westminster for christ's sake, they can't be short on money!

Funko
04-04-2005, 10:10:02
The problem with regional income tax is collection. It's potentially a bit of a nightmare.

And it'd still be the same problem with westminster, they'd just have low local income tax.

Funko
04-04-2005, 10:10:34
And they are probably short on money because they live in Westminster. :D

Provost Harrison
04-04-2005, 10:15:03
I do find it crazy though that the tax can differ depending on a matter of a few metres. Where I am moving to is pretty close to where three boroughs meet. For living just a few hundred metres down the road you could fall into Bexley which would cost you 100 a year more for the same place, or if I go south, Bromley, which will cost you 200 a year more!

Provost Harrison
04-04-2005, 10:16:33
Damn, you can triangulate my exact position now! Bah!

Gary
04-04-2005, 12:20:32
The missile's on it's way

Greg W
04-04-2005, 12:22:12
Missiles.