Numbers, numbers

The group behind Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to the top of Labour is backing a policy to treble council tax to more than £10,000 year for people living in the largest homes.

Far left activists in Bristol are proposing to increase council tax for the largest homes by 200 per cent to stop cuts to council services.

The council tax changes could raise £25.8million if the owners of the top eight per cent of homes – around 15,266 households – paid the new charge.

It’s not an entirely terrible idea to be honest. 200% might be rather over cooking it.

But 15,266 households? 1.5 million maybe…..

30 thoughts on “Numbers, numbers”

  1. Its a terrible idea. Many of those houses will have been bought decades ago, when the inhabitants had children living at home. Now, those children will be away with their own families and the house will act as the focal point for clan stability, descended upon for birthdays, Christmas etc. Mum, and hopefully Dad, are retired on fixed income just keeping things together, patriarch and matriarch of the tribe. Now some evil-minded,envious, success-hating SJW’s with preconceptions about, “the rich” and a grossly overblown sense of their own self-righteousness take punitive action against decades of toil and self-denial because they can. That’s socialism, comrade, and you can put where the Sun don’t shine.

  2. And will provide their opponents a solid 8% of the vote, which should be enough to ensure it is overturned.

    In Brighton many of the rich are Greens.

  3. Looks positively moderate compared to some US local property tax rates. Phase it in and taper it as you go up the bands, and it could work. With silly low caps on private property tax, you get ever-higher business rates, so it’s all trade-offs and consequences, as always. Anyway, things like this idea are the usual British problem of a gimmick rather than a proper review of taxation and how to make it rational/fair/efficient/sustainable.

  4. There is nothing fair about charging people in large houses higher rates for the same, or quite often, less services. We pay the highest rates in Mackay, but our street doesn’t have a footpath and has a lower density of street lights. We get the same two bins as everyone else, so why should we pay five times the average rate?

  5. “Bristol City Council would have to hold a referendum before the the progressive council tax scheme could be implemented, which is not without issue. Traditionally older, middle class, people are the most likely to vote – exactly the section of society most likely to be affected by the tax hike. A referendum organised over council tax rises in 2001 by the city council resulted in residents overwhelmingly against any increase in bills……. The group does not know how much a referendum might cost.“

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    If this is going to be. National policy they Lao need to get rid of stamp duty so that people can afford to downsize and make way for those who can afford the tax.

    The also need to change the name from community charge to what it is, property wealth tax or similar.

  7. If people really want more money chucking at the council (which may or may not result in more services) then why not have 100% of the people pay a little more rather then just pick the 8% who live in the biggest houses and charge them 200% more?

    I think wealth taxes pose a much greater risk of going badly wrong during the political process – whereas this is less true of income or consumption taxes. [One of the great appeals of a flat tax is stopping politicians from carving out payments to their voters]

    The UK tax system does an ok job of matching tax to cashflow. Most theoretical analysis of tax ignores this, but for most people they really don’t like paying tax when they don’t have a corresponding cash inflow.

  8. It is a terrible idea. it is state sanctioned banditry. It assumes that these people have the funds lying around to be seized to pay for unnecessary and unwanted council “services” – translation anti-smoking programmes, public health parasites, and the usual plethora of wastrels sucking that eh council tax payers’ teat. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe it.

  9. It is just one more proof that they see your money as theirs. Then again, hasn’t some dickwad from the tory party come out with saying that people who have paid their mortgage are the problem or some such?

    I’m in danger of becoming an angry old man.

  10. I have a nice small house in a good, quiet area and a small garden front and back.

    If Corbin thinks he is going to ruin me and put me out of my paid for home–since I doubt I can afford such ZaNu rip-offs– he is mistaken. Nothing will be paid and the matter will be settled directly by “other” means.

    If that cunt and worse still McNasty gets in we are all fucked and might as well take some pains to ensure they don’t get their way.

    Also BiND-downsize? That kind of talk is gutless bullshit. You are actually going to move to some rat-hole in a lousy area so you can afford to pay for Cuntbin’s handouts to all your new scummy neighbours? Not to mention the beardie millions he’ll import to vote for him.

  11. Two (older) people in a nice large detached house already pay more than the Pakistani immigrant family of 10 living in a back-to-back terrace. The couple probably only use the bin men whereas the family will use a lot more council services (social services, translation, police etc). Now the morons want to charge them even more.

    Not particularly progressive but the ‘Poll tax’ reflected that people use council services not houses and therefore each person should be charged for them.

  12. SO there’s Corbyn showing his colours again – “what’s yours should be ours”.
    Take two families, both on the same incomes and otherwise more or less identical.
    One always had flashy cars on the drive, several holidays a year, and as there’s not much left to pay the mortgage, they only have a small (read “cheap”) house.
    The other runs “older cars”, doesn’t take many holidays, and as a result are able to afford a larger (read “valuable”) home.
    So both families have similar incomes, use similar types and amounts of council services, but one gets rewarded for daring to spend their limited cash on a decent home by being screwed over by those who don’t think anyone but themselves should get to decide who owns what.

  13. Land tax does make a certain amount of economic sense. I’ve often thought (and probably picked the idea up from Mark Wadsworth) that council tax should be extended – currently the top band is awfully wide, just add extra categories on the end.

    Instead of 320k+, have 320-350, 350-400, and so on.

    This way you’re making the council tax a lot fairer and not hitting people who only just fall into the top bracket

  14. A value based land tax does help prevent owners from squatting on unproductive property that is nevertheless capable of great production.

    Why does the UK use “bands”? Why not just establish value and have a flat percentage annual tax on value?

    No doubt, as the Instapundit says, because such a simple system has insufficient opportunities for graft.

  15. The level of council tax is set for band D, all other bands are a fixed proportion of that amount. So changing this isn’t something that can just be done in Bristol, it needs legislation to fundamentaly change the basis of council tax
    Band portion
    A 6/9th’s
    B 7/9th’s
    C 8/9th’s
    D 9/9th’s
    E 11/9th’s
    F 13/9th’s
    G 15/9th’s
    H 18/9th’s

  16. Why use bands.
    A. Because it was a quick fix to reverse the move from rates to ‘poll tax’
    B. Because if you revalue only when the property is sold there is a disincentive to sell.
    C. If you regularly revalue according to ‘market value’ then that’s back to all the problems that prevented a reform of the old rateable value.

  17. If you regularly revalue according to ‘market value’

    It’s also a disincentive to maintain or improve the property. It’s the same reason socialism is shit to start with, it always tends towards disincentivising value creation.

    Plus what Simon said. Hence, it’s an even more stupid idea.

    “does help prevent owners from squatting”

    Very drole…

  18. A value based land tax does help prevent owners from squatting on unproductive property that is nevertheless capable of great production.

    What? Like living in it?

  19. They are legitimately pointing out the stupidity of a property tax that is capped at a certain value, in some council areas 90% of properties are in the top band but all pay exactly the same for a 200K property as for a 20M property. They may be going around it the wrong way, but I’ve argued for years that if you’re going to have a property value tax it should go all the way to infinity, not to some arbitary cap. (And it shouldn’t be banded, it should be a straight percentage.)

    But yes, a property value tax does dis-incentify people to increase the value of their property. There was a lady on the news yesterday talking about business rates, and complaining with shock and indignation that her increasing the value of her premises resulted in the tax on the value of her premises increasing.

  20. “The also need to change the name from community charge to what it is, property wealth tax or similar.”

    Community charge was abolished in 1992 to create council tax. Community charge was a flat per-person tax, unrelated to income, assets, or ability to pay.

  21. @ Longrider
    It is NOT state-sanctioned – it is, in fact, illegal. But Corbynistas think that they are above the law.

  22. But yes, a property value tax does dis-incentify people to increase the value of their property. There was a lady on the news yesterday talking about business rates, and complaining with shock and indignation that her increasing the value of her premises resulted in the tax on the value of her premises increasing.

    I disagree, because nearly all the increase in the value of a property is due to external factors – the nearby railway line, the fact the area is no longer full of muggers and rapists, that sort of thing. Compare the effect of building a conservatory on your house (positive) and the local railway station closing (very negative).

  23. @Mr Yan, November 22, 2017 at 11:03 am

    Not particularly progressive but the ‘Poll tax’ reflected that people use council services not houses and therefore each person should be charged for them.

    +1

    I did and do believe it was the fairest way to finance local services.

    btw a few years ago Scotland effectively abolished the Council Tax 25% reduction for single occupiers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *