3 ms·

It is patently absurd that, for example, the maximum council tax levied by The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is currently £2133.58. You can own a £10

by UVB-76 12y ago

It is patently absurd that, for example, the maximum council tax levied by The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is currently £2133.58. You can own a £10m property in the borough, earning upwards of £1m per year in rental income and appreciation, and only have to pay £2k to the local council. Meanwhile, those living in the absolute worst accommodation in the borough still have to pay £711.19.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
That actually sounds about right. The logic of fleecing those who can more afford it may not have good moral foundation. Its tempting, but can you explain how the borough gives more benefits to the rich than the poor? Possibly just the opposite.
- UVB-76 12y ago
  That is how the existing system is supposed to work, but the property valuations and bandings have become divorced from the current state of the property market. Note that, in theory, a secondary function of the council tax should be to prevent habitable properties being left unoccupied for extended periods of time. Unfortunately when the tax amounts to a rounding error on the ROI for a property, it is completely ineffectual. Hence the large number of empty 'investment' properties in London, further inflating an already overheated property market.
- judk 12y ago
  The rich have no moral right to real estate at all. Real estate was created by God or whatever you believe, not the sweat of ones brow. Property is a social construct; society sets the rules. Property tax is one way of smoothly implementing a lease concept (every century, the property must be repurchased from the government. This works out in both 99 year lease societies and in the common 1% annual tax rate societies). Furthermore, there is no moral right to ineritance.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    I guess we grew up in different societies then. Mine has definitely a strong moral right to property. Maybe you need to find one that works in your imaginary way.
timthorn 12y ago
If you're renting the place out, it's the residents that pay to the local council - so you don't pay a penny. However, you are paying income or corporation tax on the rent, and capital gains on the appreciation once realised. Why should someone who's lived in a property for decades be taxed out of their house just because the area they live in has become a desirable area?
- UVB-76 12y ago
  I mentioned the rental income more as an indicator of the 'utility' one derives from having use of the property during ownership. Alas, given how negligible the sum is in the scheme of things, it scarcely matters who assumes the burden. To your actual point, to tax someone out of a £10m home in London today the council tax rate would have to be increased many thousands of times over. That is not a realistic danger. This policy is seeing a resurgence of popular support in the form of the 'Mansion tax', but really all we need is a more equitable council tax.

by UVB-76 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

That actually sounds about right. The logic of fleecing those who can more afford it may not have good moral foundation. Its tempting, but can you explain how the borough gives more benefits to the rich than the poor? Possibly just the opposite.

UVB-76 12y ago
That is how the existing system is supposed to work, but the property valuations and bandings have become divorced from the current state of the property market. Note that, in theory, a secondary function of the council tax should be to prevent habitable properties being left unoccupied for extended periods of time. Unfortunately when the tax amounts to a rounding error on the ROI for a property, it is completely ineffectual. Hence the large number of empty 'investment' properties in London, further inflating an already overheated property market.
judk 12y ago
The rich have no moral right to real estate at all. Real estate was created by God or whatever you believe, not the sweat of ones brow. Property is a social construct; society sets the rules. Property tax is one way of smoothly implementing a lease concept (every century, the property must be repurchased from the government. This works out in both 99 year lease societies and in the common 1% annual tax rate societies). Furthermore, there is no moral right to ineritance.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  I guess we grew up in different societies then. Mine has definitely a strong moral right to property. Maybe you need to find one that works in your imaginary way.

timthorn 12y ago

If you're renting the place out, it's the residents that pay to the local council - so you don't pay a penny. However, you are paying income or corporation tax on the rent, and capital gains on the appreciation once realised. Why should someone who's lived in a property for decades be taxed out of their house just because the area they live in has become a desirable area?

UVB-76 12y ago
I mentioned the rental income more as an indicator of the 'utility' one derives from having use of the property during ownership. Alas, given how negligible the sum is in the scheme of things, it scarcely matters who assumes the burden. To your actual point, to tax someone out of a £10m home in London today the council tax rate would have to be increased many thousands of times over. That is not a realistic danger. This policy is seeing a resurgence of popular support in the form of the 'Mansion tax', but really all we need is a more equitable council tax.