Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
THIS IS BAND A
THIS IS BAND B
exactly how much is band A band B band C etc?
i.e. every council has different charges for each band. You go to your council's website and have a look. What council you come under depends on where you live. I can expand even more on this if you like, but surely this is sufficient?
your councils website will say how much each band pays
and they still quote 1990 prices when telling you the bands. yes, this house IS still worth £45,000!
all councils set a rate for band d- the rest are based on fractions of it. a band h property will have twice the council tax, a band a something like half (i can't remember). as said above, each councils sets their own, within limits set by central gov. they can't raise it too much in any one year (called capping, cleverly). i wish i could forget my local government module from the nctj. it seems imbedded.
The thing that really REALLY pisses me off about the fact that all the bands are based on 1990 valuation is this:
New city centre flats in Glasgow (and other cities) were a BIG DEAL in 1990. There were only a few. So in 1990, those few new flats were very expensive compared to traditional tenement flats. But nowadays there are hunners of new flats in the city centre. So the banding for new city centre flats is skewed upwards (by approximately two bands).
Eg: A new-build two bed city-centre flat ain't a particularly big deal nowadays (in the way it woulda been in 1990) and could easily cost the same as a decent two bed traditional tenement flat around the corner. Yet they magically transport this new flat back to 1990 and assess its theoretical value had it been around in 1990 and assign it as (e.g.) Band E. But the tenement property round the corner that has an identical market value is (e.g.) a Band C. Never mind the fact that if they did transport all these new flats back in time to 1990 it'd totally distort that self same 1990 market where new flats were a rarity.
So the screwy property market for new city centre flats in the 1990 property market is a nice little earner for councils who dubiously jack up the banding.
Governments have consistently sidestepped the issue of property revaluations for Council Tax due to a lack of balls and the fear of uproar.
CT is a frikkin abysmal tax implemented even more abysmally. It targets single people by only offering a 25% discount to those that live alone. It targets people on low income by being a fixed fee rather than rising in line with your earnings. It should just be replaced by a small rise in Income Tax and then we can forget the sorry charade.
Well, council tax was/is seen as the best way to levy a charge without resorting to changes in income tax.
Of all the methods used, I'd argue that it's a lot fairer than point-of-sale taxes like VAT etc., which have an even more disproportionate effect on low-income families.
"a fixed fee rather than rising in line with your earnings" isn't quite accurate, as it's a not unreasonable assumption to say that the higher your income, the higher your property value (and therefore the higher your assets). Some people get caught out, such as retired/widowed people, but you have to remember that the Council Tax was inroduced by a Conservative Party that disagreed with income tax on principle and that had been forced into drawing up a (rather rushed) alternative after the collapse of the Poll Tax in the year or two before the '92 General Election.
But, imho, it is an unreasonable assumption to say that "the higher your income, the higher your property value (and therefore the higher your assets)".
If you assume, you make an ass out of you and me </hackneyed cliche>.
As you rightly point out, CT was a rush job, introduced by a party that was trying to sidestep the issue of taxing income and plenty of people fall through the net as a result.
But you've got to pay for 'services for the common good' somehow.
If taxes are fair, they should be based on either ability to pay, or consumption. CT is neither. House prices are not a reflection of resource consumption.
Someone who has decided to spend a larger than average portion of their income on buying a house (and otherwise lives very frugally) doesn't use the street lights, fire service, bin collection, local parks, etc any more than someone who chooses not to spend their dosh on a house. Yet they are required to
You want to tax peoples' consumption? Taxation based on residential square footage owned (or rented?) is also flawed.
The logistics of paying per bin collected, street light walked under or palk walk taken are prohibitive. So we bundle these things together as 'services for the common good'. To be paid for collectively. As with other 'services for the common good', like the NHS, 'reasonable' usage is free at the 'point of entry' and funded by taxation based on the ability to pay. What's so wrong with that?
Scrap CT and jack up income tax by the necessary % required to cover it. Introduce low thresholds to allow for.
Clarification: I'm not trying to duck out of paying up here. Under the SNPs proposed local income tax, I'd pay a smidgen more than I do under the current CT system (which is already artificially high due to the aforementioned overvaluation reasons). But that's fine by me, seeing as it's a fairer and more logical system.
Note: 'Services for the common good' is, of course, a definition up for debate. But, again, the status quo tends to persist because the current two party system stifles any kind of meaningful debate that would allow things to evolve properly rather than stretch to (and past) breaking point before it is decided that "something must be done".
[end of third para up]
who live in a big house in the south side of Glasgow. I live in a flat in Partick, what a joke!