7 ms·

Equating council tax with property tax is extremely misleading imo. For the benefit of people not from the UK: Council tax is effectively a bill for services &

Equating council tax with property tax is extremely misleading imo. For the benefit of people not from the UK: Council tax is effectively a bill for services & utilities paid by the occupier. Cost differs slightly based on overall property value but that's not super helpful for renters. Property taxes would be levied on the owner, and be directly tied to house value. For what it's worth I believe we desperately need property taxes to put and end to the situation you describe, amongst others. But the UK has a fetish for homeownership, culturally people are convinced they _must_ own a house or multiple, and so many homes were practically given away for free by past governments. Any Government trying to implement policies that try to fix our housing crisis will be voted out almost instantly by a class of people who do not care what is for the public good, only that things benefit them.

Blackstone4 7y ago
I feel that it was not "extremely misleading" within the given context which referenced older couples in larger properties. In this case, they are the ones typically paying the council tax. I agree with you that the UK needs property taxes to be paid for by the owners. This would help reduce speculation and encourage utilisation of the existing housing stock. But as another post has mentioned, objections include "think of the old people who are worth $1m+ in property but would have to move out because they have low income"....boohoo...
- smcl 7y ago
  You need to be careful when dismissing caution about the elderly who have - through whatever means - found themselves living in a valuable property. The following are just as likely: - a wealthy individual with many properties who can easily afford a few extra hundred quid a month - someone living just above poverty level in a property in a previously modest area that, thanks to a gentrification, has exploded in value - and would to move out if their tax band was bumped up a bit We cannot just dismiss the plight of the latter simply because we want to disincentivise the former. I'd like to add that the vulnerable (including but not limited to - elderly, long-term unemployed, immigrants, disabled) in the UK have already had to deal with cuts in local services as well as periodically being labelled by the government and the press as lazy or pathetic or scroungers. I'd encourage anyone to resist anything that could be used to further victimize or immiserate them - even if it is just in the form of a casual tweet or comment. Edit: My last paragraph really sounds a little harsh on re-reading. This is because it was meant to be an "as an aside" comment and not accusing Blackstone4 of anything sinister! I'm generally in favour of taxing the rich and powerful.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    I think if someone is in a huge house they're barely using and possibly not even maintaining, there isn't a massive issue with gently incentivising them to move somewhere smaller. There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. You have to balance your caution with the reality at the other end - which is people living in slum conditions and/or sheds, or being homeless.
    - gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
      And you have to balance your optimism with the fact that your solution will cause lots of old people (who maybe should have downsized 10-15 years ago) to be forced to downsize now and who would then lose the ability to live independently.
    - smcl 7y ago
      If it’s a case of seizing unused or poorly maintained mansions from the super-rich and turning them into Council houses then I am on board. But to me it sounded like we were talking about old people living alone in 3-bedroom houses they used to stay with their families
    - npongratz 7y ago
      > There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. I commend you for being honest about such a tax: it is indeed someone (perhaps those who call themselves "the authorities") taking what is not theirs. Taking it, without permission. I disagree that noble ends can justify such means.
- gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
  > But as another post has mentioned, objections include "think of the old people who are worth $1m+ in property but would have to move out because they have low income"....boohoo... Cruel. There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home.
  - Blackstone4 7y ago
    I guess it depends on your perspective. It may mean pain for some and relief for others with a view to moving towards a more optimal solution for society as a whole. How can we use our housing stock more effectively? As things stand, people defend the status quo when young people and those on lower incomes are struggling with high rents and property prices. Some have kids and have to share rooms and live in small properties. Others may end up debt slaves for the rest of their lives. >There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home. If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals.
    - gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
      > If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals. Except that you are. There are plenty of old people in London and the South East with very modest pensions that live in homes that have exploded in value through no fault of their own. They are not wealthy they just happen to live in a home that has become expensive. I don't know if you have seen how confused a someone with dementia becomes when you move them to a new environment but it can be pretty horrible. And cheerfully saying that now this formerly independent person has to now pay for care because you took a policy decision is cruel. The solution to a problem with society is not to hurt other people. This isn't a zero sum game where pain should be apportioned. We could actually come up with solutions that help everyone. Like simply building more homes...
masklinn 7y ago
> Property taxes would be levied on the owner, and be directly tied to house value. Property taxes don't necessarily fix the issue though, because the property value is usually re-evaluated on sale, so the property tax increases drastically at that point.
- Blackstone4 7y ago
  That's an implementation concern which can be addressed through data/analystics. i.e. a record can be kept of the size of your house in sq ft and property taxes adjusted for recent sales in the area.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  That’s a California issue. Most places do periodic reassessment.
bodyfour 7y ago
It's true that council tax is paid directly by renters, whereas in the US renters only pay property tax indirectly via rental cost. However, from the point of view of the housing market they are comparable. They're both an annual cost to holding real estate... and in the UK it is very low. In all countries there are plenty of older homeowners with a surplus of space. Most people don't want to move out of their home if they don't have to, even if it is now larger than they need. However it's even more so in the UK because the system incentivises people to stay put.
moomin 7y ago
It’s not so much a fetish for home ownership as a reflection of bad incentives. Renters have few rights and embarrassingly owning a home is often actually cheaper even in ridiculously valuable areas.
- pnutjam 7y ago
  True, in Indiana; renters only recourse when the landlord refuses to maintain a property, is to move out. They also have to justify it to the judge or live with a black mark on their credit. This, like an eviction, will make renting almost impossible in the future.
imtringued 7y ago
>Property taxes would be levied on the owner, and be directly tied to house value. That is awful, why would you ever want to introduce such a regressive policy? Higher density construction generally costs more than low density construction. Each floor adds more cost because you need proper ventilation, elevators, stairs, etc. Therefore an apartment will be taxed more despite having the same number of square feet/meter. Despite this, apartments still make sense economically if the land value is high but if you're burdening them with yet another heavy tax then people will shift to single family homes instead. Then there is the fact that you should never tax someone for improving their house. Oh you installed solar panels on the roof for $30,000? Lets tax that! The solar panels are no longer a net gain. Homeowners no longer have a reason to improve their homes. Imagine someone working on his house in his free time. At that point you're taxing someone's free time. How backwards is that? Stop taxing property value. It's regressive. It's a moral hazard. It doesn't work. If you want to tax something, then tax the land those buildings are sitting on. Bonus content: And since for some reason grandmas are the most important members of a gentrifying city we can even take a look at what happens when they get priced out from a property tax vs a land tax. Grandma sells her overpriced home because she can't afford the property tax: She can't move into an apartment because the apartment is taxed even more than the home she left. Grandma sells her overpriced home because she can't afford the land tax: She can move into an apartment because the apartment is taxed less than the home she left.

Blackstone4 7y ago

I feel that it was not "extremely misleading" within the given context which referenced older couples in larger properties. In this case, they are the ones typically paying the council tax. I agree with you that the UK needs property taxes to be paid for by the owners. This would help reduce speculation and encourage utilisation of the existing housing stock. But as another post has mentioned, objections include "think of the old people who are worth $1m+ in property but would have to move out because they have low income"....boohoo...

smcl 7y ago
You need to be careful when dismissing caution about the elderly who have - through whatever means - found themselves living in a valuable property. The following are just as likely: - a wealthy individual with many properties who can easily afford a few extra hundred quid a month - someone living just above poverty level in a property in a previously modest area that, thanks to a gentrification, has exploded in value - and would to move out if their tax band was bumped up a bit We cannot just dismiss the plight of the latter simply because we want to disincentivise the former. I'd like to add that the vulnerable (including but not limited to - elderly, long-term unemployed, immigrants, disabled) in the UK have already had to deal with cuts in local services as well as periodically being labelled by the government and the press as lazy or pathetic or scroungers. I'd encourage anyone to resist anything that could be used to further victimize or immiserate them - even if it is just in the form of a casual tweet or comment. Edit: My last paragraph really sounds a little harsh on re-reading. This is because it was meant to be an "as an aside" comment and not accusing Blackstone4 of anything sinister! I'm generally in favour of taxing the rich and powerful.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  I think if someone is in a huge house they're barely using and possibly not even maintaining, there isn't a massive issue with gently incentivising them to move somewhere smaller. There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. You have to balance your caution with the reality at the other end - which is people living in slum conditions and/or sheds, or being homeless.
  - gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
    And you have to balance your optimism with the fact that your solution will cause lots of old people (who maybe should have downsized 10-15 years ago) to be forced to downsize now and who would then lose the ability to live independently.
  - smcl 7y ago
    If it’s a case of seizing unused or poorly maintained mansions from the super-rich and turning them into Council houses then I am on board. But to me it sounded like we were talking about old people living alone in 3-bedroom houses they used to stay with their families
  - npongratz 7y ago
    > There especially isn't an issue with a redistributive land tax rather than a property tax. That would take money from corporate landlords and move it back into the rest of the economy. I commend you for being honest about such a tax: it is indeed someone (perhaps those who call themselves "the authorities") taking what is not theirs. Taking it, without permission. I disagree that noble ends can justify such means.
gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
> But as another post has mentioned, objections include "think of the old people who are worth $1m+ in property but would have to move out because they have low income"....boohoo... Cruel. There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home.
- Blackstone4 7y ago
  I guess it depends on your perspective. It may mean pain for some and relief for others with a view to moving towards a more optimal solution for society as a whole. How can we use our housing stock more effectively? As things stand, people defend the status quo when young people and those on lower incomes are struggling with high rents and property prices. Some have kids and have to share rooms and live in small properties. Others may end up debt slaves for the rest of their lives. >There are plenty of old people that are able to keep living in their existing home because it is familiar but would be unable to live independently in another home. If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals.
  - gdfasfklshg4 7y ago
    > If they have a net worth of $1m+, I'm sure they can afford to pay for care. I am not talking destitue, improvished individuals. Except that you are. There are plenty of old people in London and the South East with very modest pensions that live in homes that have exploded in value through no fault of their own. They are not wealthy they just happen to live in a home that has become expensive. I don't know if you have seen how confused a someone with dementia becomes when you move them to a new environment but it can be pretty horrible. And cheerfully saying that now this formerly independent person has to now pay for care because you took a policy decision is cruel. The solution to a problem with society is not to hurt other people. This isn't a zero sum game where pain should be apportioned. We could actually come up with solutions that help everyone. Like simply building more homes...

masklinn 7y ago

> Property taxes would be levied on the owner, and be directly tied to house value. Property taxes don't necessarily fix the issue though, because the property value is usually re-evaluated on sale, so the property tax increases drastically at that point.

Blackstone4 7y ago
That's an implementation concern which can be addressed through data/analystics. i.e. a record can be kept of the size of your house in sq ft and property taxes adjusted for recent sales in the area.
Spooky23 7y ago
That’s a California issue. Most places do periodic reassessment.

bodyfour 7y ago

It's true that council tax is paid directly by renters, whereas in the US renters only pay property tax indirectly via rental cost. However, from the point of view of the housing market they are comparable. They're both an annual cost to holding real estate... and in the UK it is very low. In all countries there are plenty of older homeowners with a surplus of space. Most people don't want to move out of their home if they don't have to, even if it is now larger than they need. However it's even more so in the UK because the system incentivises people to stay put.

moomin 7y ago

It’s not so much a fetish for home ownership as a reflection of bad incentives. Renters have few rights and embarrassingly owning a home is often actually cheaper even in ridiculously valuable areas.

pnutjam 7y ago
True, in Indiana; renters only recourse when the landlord refuses to maintain a property, is to move out. They also have to justify it to the judge or live with a black mark on their credit. This, like an eviction, will make renting almost impossible in the future.

imtringued 7y ago

>Property taxes would be levied on the owner, and be directly tied to house value. That is awful, why would you ever want to introduce such a regressive policy? Higher density construction generally costs more than low density construction. Each floor adds more cost because you need proper ventilation, elevators, stairs, etc. Therefore an apartment will be taxed more despite having the same number of square feet/meter. Despite this, apartments still make sense economically if the land value is high but if you're burdening them with yet another heavy tax then people will shift to single family homes instead. Then there is the fact that you should never tax someone for improving their house. Oh you installed solar panels on the roof for $30,000? Lets tax that! The solar panels are no longer a net gain. Homeowners no longer have a reason to improve their homes. Imagine someone working on his house in his free time. At that point you're taxing someone's free time. How backwards is that? Stop taxing property value. It's regressive. It's a moral hazard. It doesn't work. If you want to tax something, then tax the land those buildings are sitting on. Bonus content: And since for some reason grandmas are the most important members of a gentrifying city we can even take a look at what happens when they get priced out from a property tax vs a land tax. Grandma sells her overpriced home because she can't afford the property tax: She can't move into an apartment because the apartment is taxed even more than the home she left. Grandma sells her overpriced home because she can't afford the land tax: She can move into an apartment because the apartment is taxed less than the home she left.