"Taxes"
Ida Goode-Johnson
read British newspapers regularly.
Is it my imagination or have we only started talking abut "Taxes" in the
last 10 years whereas previously we would simply have referred to the
uncountable quantity "Tax" ?
If so, do posters reckon this is due to:-
1) The number of new forms of tax introduced in that period?
2) An increased number of people becoming employers/self-employed and
therefore exposed to a variety of new forms of taxation?
3) The introduction of self-assessment causing people to think more about
the various forms of taxation?
4) (Inevitably) The influence of American English (where "taxes" seemingly
prevails and is frequently preceded by "my")?
I await your musings
Ida Goode-Johnson
CDB
"Ida Goode-Johnson" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:421e...@212.67.96.135...
You said "Death and tax"? CDB
Areff
Interesting. I have encountered the odd-looking BrE "tax". I suppose when
we AmEs speak of our "taxes" we have in mind multiple levels of income
taxation (even though *some* of us temporarily reside in states that have
no income tax [but do have an absurdly-high sales tax]).
--
Steny '08!
Ida Goode-Johnson
"CDB" <unbe...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:gaoTd.1378$MJ....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> You said "Death and tax"? CDB
Of course not! But a quote from Benjamin Franklin does not constitute normal
British usage.
Ida Goode-Johnson
Tony Cooper
Florida has no state income tax, and sales tax is 6.5% or 7%. I would
not consider that absurdly high.
--
Tony Cooper
Areff
Me neither, but what do you think of 8.8%?
--
Steny '08!
Skitt
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> Areff wrote:
>>> Interesting. I have encountered the odd-looking BrE "tax". I
>>> suppose when we AmEs speak of our "taxes" we have in mind multiple
>>> levels of income taxation (even though *some* of us temporarily
>>> reside in states that have no income tax [but do have an
>>> absurdly-high sales tax]).
>>
>> Florida has no state income tax, and sales tax is 6.5% or 7%. I
>> would not consider that absurdly high.
>
> Me neither, but what do you think of 8.8%?
California has a state income tax, plus my area has a 8.75% sales tax, but
food items are excluded from that. As I recall, Washington has sales tax on
everything, including services.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
don groves
@comcast.net hath writ:
Not on unprocessed food bought in a grocery store. That was
removed back in the '80s. I'm not sure about restaurants.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Matti Lamprhey
To get some hysterical perspicacity on this, we should go back a couple
of hundred years. At that time there were taxes on everything you could
think of, with the exception of income. I would think that the
uncountable "tax" must be a novelty.
Matti
Ida Goode-Johnson
"Matti Lamprhey" <ma...@official-totally-reversed.com> wrote in message
news:388cf3F...@individual.net...
> To get some hysterical perspicacity on this, we should go back a couple
> of hundred years. At that time there were taxes on everything you could
> think of, with the exception of income. I would think that the
> uncountable "tax" must be a novelty.
Fair enough, Matt, but consider this more recent focus on events:-
In the 1980s you would undoubtedly have heard Conservative politicians say
"Vote Labour and pay more tax".
Now you would be more likely to hear them say "Vote Labour and pay more
taxes".
To my ear the second one suggests that new taxes are likely to be
introduced.
Of course one of the explanations I left out of my original post might be
that since the Thatcher/Major government made it a almost a crime to raise
income tax rates, the only methods of raising taxation left to politicians
have been more novel methods of taxation (i.e. "stealth taxes").
Ida Goode-Johnson
Aaron Davies
I would simply use it to refer to the multiple types of taxation
inflicted upon us by all levels of government--national income, state
income, state sales, national excise, national and state good-specific
(i.e., gasoline), etc.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
"I don't know if it's real or not but it is a myth."
-Jami JoAnne of alt.folklore.urban, showing her grasp on reality.
Sara Lorimer
Washington doesn't tax food, at least not in grocery stores.
New Yorkers pay sales tax, city taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes.
But it's okay, because the quality of services is so high.
--
SML
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Areff wrote:
>>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> Areff wrote:
>>>>> Interesting. I have encountered the odd-looking BrE "tax". I
>>>>> suppose when we AmEs speak of our "taxes" we have in mind multiple
>>>>> levels of income taxation (even though *some* of us temporarily
>>>>> reside in states that have no income tax [but do have an
>>>>> absurdly-high sales tax]).
>>>>
>>>> Florida has no state income tax, and sales tax is 6.5% or 7%. I
>>>> would not consider that absurdly high.
>>>
>>> Me neither, but what do you think of 8.8%?
>>
>> California has a state income tax, plus my area has a 8.75% sales
>> tax, but food items are excluded from that. As I recall, Washington
>> has sales tax on everything, including services.
>
> Washington doesn't tax food, at least not in grocery stores.
They used to when I was there, but as Don has noted, that changed in the
80s. I lived there form late 1967 to early 1970.
Areff
> New Yorkers pay sales tax, city taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes.
> But it's okay, because the quality of services is so high.
Are you British?
--
Steny '08!
Matti Lamprhey
> "Matti Lamprhey" <ma...@official-totally-reversed.com> wrote...
>
> > To get some hysterical perspicacity on this, we should go back a
> > couple of hundred years. At that time there were taxes on
> > everything you could think of, with the exception of income. I
> > would think that the uncountable "tax" must be a novelty.
>
> Fair enough, Matt, but consider this more recent focus on events:-
>
> In the 1980s you would undoubtedly have heard Conservative politicians
> say "Vote Labour and pay more tax".
>
> Now you would be more likely to hear them say "Vote Labour and pay
> more taxes".
>
> To my ear the second one suggests that new taxes are likely to be
> introduced.
I'm not convinced that the distinction has been made as explicitly as
you suggest, though.
>
> Of course one of the explanations I left out of my original post might
> be that since the Thatcher/Major government made it a almost a crime
> to raise income tax rates, the only methods of raising taxation left
> to politicians have been more novel methods of taxation (i.e. "stealth
> taxes").
And this explains why the Lib Dems have been saying for years that they
would increase the standard rate of income tax by a percentage point,
and more recently add a new 50% top rate for 100K+ earners? You can
tell me that the Lib Dems are a minority party if you like, but that
jibe now has a limited life.
Matti
Ida Goode-Johnson
> "Ida Goode-Johnson" <do...@spam.me> wrote...
>> Of course one of the explanations I left out of my original post might
>> be that since the Thatcher/Major government made it a almost a crime
>> to raise income tax rates, the only methods of raising taxation left
>> to politicians have been more novel methods of taxation (i.e. "stealth
>> taxes").
>
> And this explains why the Lib Dems have been saying for years that they
> would increase the standard rate of income tax by a percentage point,
> and more recently add a new 50% top rate for 100K+ earners? You can
> tell me that the Lib Dems are a minority party if you like, but that
> jibe now has a limited life.
The Lib-Dems have found themselves a USP (two if you count opposition to the
war).
It's a gamble and we'll see in May if it pays off.
Ida Goode-Johnson
dre...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>California has a state income tax, plus my area has a 8.75% sales tax,
All deriving from the original sin : Proposition 13.
the Omrud
> dre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "Skitt" wrote:
>
> >> California has a state income tax, plus my area has a 8.75% sales
> >> tax,
> >
> > All deriving from the original sin : Proposition 13.
>
> Yabbut I pay a low real estate tax, thanks to Prop. 13. I pay RE tax of
> $2300 per year on a house that is now worth $500K.
What is Real Estate tax? Here we have Council Tax which is a charge
on each property to part-fund local facilities such as roads, police,
schools and refuse collection. My council tax is about £1800, I
think, but this is only about a quarter of the true cost because the
local authority gets the other three-quarters from central government
(from general taxation).
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> California has a state income tax, plus my area has a 8.75% sales
>> tax,
>
> All deriving from the original sin : Proposition 13.
Yabbut I pay a low real estate tax, thanks to Prop. 13. I pay RE tax of
$2300 per year on a house that is now worth $500K. Besides, I don't buy all
that much that is taxable. I pretty much have everything I need, and I
don't have enough income other than Social Security to have to pay state
income tax, what with all the deductions I can claim. California does not
tax SS income. <g> The Feds get some of my money, though.
Skitt
That's pretty much the same as my RE tax, except that refuse collection in
California is charged separately by a private company (not so in Florida).
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I'd call that my Property Tax, but Real Estate Tax is descriptive.
It's based on the assessed value of the property, house, and
improvements. The assessed value is not the market value, but set by
the country tax appraiser.
Refuse collection is part of my Property Tax bill. I also have an
assessment tacked on there for road improvements. We are in an
unincorporated area, and the roads in the neighborhood were not paved.
We applied to the county to pave them, they did so, but added an
assessment on the tax bill to recover the cost over - I think it was -
15 years.
Here, at least, I have the option of paying my Property Tax direct to
the county annually, or having it paid by my mortgage holder and
paying into an escrow account monthly. Same with homeowner's
insurance.
--
Tony Cooper
the Omrud
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:14:28 -0800, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >the Omrud wrote:
> >> Skitt typed thusly:
> >>> dre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> "Skitt" wrote:
> >
> >>>>> California has a state income tax, plus my area has a 8.75% sales
> >>>>> tax,
> >>>>
> >>>> All deriving from the original sin : Proposition 13.
> >>>
> >>> Yabbut I pay a low real estate tax, thanks to Prop. 13. I pay RE
> >>> tax of $2300 per year on a house that is now worth $500K.
> >>
> >> What is Real Estate tax? Here we have Council Tax which is a charge
> >> on each property to part-fund local facilities such as roads, police,
> >> schools and refuse collection. My council tax is about £1800, I
> >> think, but this is only about a quarter of the true cost because the
> >> local authority gets the other three-quarters from central government
> >> (from general taxation).
> >
> >That's pretty much the same as my RE tax, except that refuse collection in
> >California is charged separately by a private company (not so in Florida).
>
> I'd call that my Property Tax, but Real Estate Tax is descriptive.
> It's based on the assessed value of the property, house, and
> improvements. The assessed value is not the market value, but set by
> the country tax appraiser.
The UK council tax is based on the estimated value of the property on
1st April 1991. Homes are grouped into "bands" of rising value, A to
H (our is in band G). Snob value has accrued to the upper bands in
some place where the inhabitants are concerned with what others think
about them.
All English properties will be revalued as at 1st April 2005 for new
bands to be introduced from 2007. Welsh properties have already been
revalued and a new band I introduced.
> Refuse collection is part of my Property Tax bill. I also have an
> assessment tacked on there for road improvements. We are in an
> unincorporated area, and the roads in the neighborhood were not paved.
> We applied to the county to pave them, they did so, but added an
> assessment on the tax bill to recover the cost over - I think it was -
> 15 years.
>
> Here, at least, I have the option of paying my Property Tax direct to
> the county annually, or having it paid by my mortgage holder and
> paying into an escrow account monthly. Same with homeowner's
> insurance.
I don't understand that. Are you saying that the mortgage holder (a
bank?) collects the Property Tax on behalf of the county? We have
the option of this for insurance, where the mortgaging bank also owns
the insurance company, but there's no connection between the bank and
the local authority.
Skitt
> Tony Cooper typed thusly:
>> Here, at least, I have the option of paying my Property Tax direct to
>> the county annually, or having it paid by my mortgage holder and
>> paying into an escrow account monthly. Same with homeowner's
>> insurance.
>
> I don't understand that. Are you saying that the mortgage holder (a
> bank?) collects the Property Tax on behalf of the county? We have
> the option of this for insurance, where the mortgaging bank also owns
> the insurance company, but there's no connection between the bank and
> the local authority.
The mortgage holder (a bank) can collect money from you monthly to cover
your property taxes and insurance. They make a little profit on that money,
and when the time comes, they pay your insurance and tax bills for you.
It's to make sure that those bills are paid, so that the property does not
fall behind on taxes or go uninsured while there's a mortgage in effect.
If the property owner has a good credit rating, that is only an option. I
pay my taxes and insurance myself.
the Omrud
> the Omrud wrote:
> > Tony Cooper typed thusly:
>
> >> Here, at least, I have the option of paying my Property Tax direct to
> >> the county annually, or having it paid by my mortgage holder and
> >> paying into an escrow account monthly. Same with homeowner's
> >> insurance.
> >
> > I don't understand that. Are you saying that the mortgage holder (a
> > bank?) collects the Property Tax on behalf of the county? We have
> > the option of this for insurance, where the mortgaging bank also owns
> > the insurance company, but there's no connection between the bank and
> > the local authority.
>
> The mortgage holder (a bank) can collect money from you monthly to cover
> your property taxes and insurance. They make a little profit on that money,
> and when the time comes, they pay your insurance and tax bills for you.
> It's to make sure that those bills are paid, so that the property does not
> fall behind on taxes or go uninsured while there's a mortgage in effect.
So would the bank suffer in any way if you didn't pay your Property
Tax? That is not the case here. Failure to insure could cause a
problem for the bank, but the Council Tax is a personal debt.
Skitt
After a number of years of unpaid taxes (five, if I recall correctly), the
property can be seized by the state (I will not attempt to explain the
details along the way). That can be a problem for the mortgage holder.
Maria Conlon
>
> The mortgage holder (a bank) can collect money from you monthly to
> cover your property taxes and insurance. They make a little profit
> on that money,
That surprises me. I thought it was held in escrow with no interest
being earned. Or, if there is interest earned, it goes into some
charitable fund or something similar. It's like when renters pay
Security Deposits, the money is held in escrow. The owner cannot (at
least in Michigan or Tennessee) make interest on it. Or so I've been
told. (CMA.)
>....and when the time comes, they pay your insurance and
> tax bills for you. It's to make sure that those bills are paid, so
> that the property does not fall behind on taxes or go uninsured while
> there's a mortgage in effect.
> If the property owner has a good credit rating, that is only an
> option. I pay my taxes and insurance myself.
When you're buying a house, I believe you have to have at least 20% down
in order to be permitted to pay your taxes separately. (This may be a
state ruling, and it may cover insurance as well. I don't know.) Once
your house is paid off, of course, you pay the taxes, etc., on your own.
We've never had the bank pay our property taxes or insurance, and I
wouldn't want them to. It's my impression that if the bank defaults in
any way, or incurs late fees, the "homeowner" or is held responsible.
Maria Conlon
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> The mortgage holder (a bank) can collect money from you monthly to
>> cover your property taxes and insurance. They make a little profit
>> on that money,
>
> That surprises me. I thought it was held in escrow with no interest
> being earned. Or, if there is interest earned, it goes into some
> charitable fund or something similar. It's like when renters pay
> Security Deposits, the money is held in escrow. The owner cannot (at
> least in Michigan or Tennessee) make interest on it. Or so I've been
> told. (CMA.)
I don't know, but it's really numbers on paper. There is no real money
sitting somewhere in a dusty box. The bank earns interest on whatever funds
it has in the proper parts of the ledger, I think. I could be wrong, of
course. I am not a financial wizard (that's why I'm relatively poor).
Now that I think about it some more, it seem to vaguely recall that there
have been times (long ago) when I was paid some interest on my tax and
insurance escrow account, so what do I know? Time for my other sig quote
...
<snip>
> We've never had the bank pay our property taxes or insurance, and I
> wouldn't want them to. It's my impression that if the bank defaults in
> any way, or incurs late fees, the "homeowner" or is held responsible.
The homeowner is responsible, that's right. There have been times in the
past when the bank has paid my taxes quite some time after the due date
(there is a several month grace period without penalties), and that is what
has made me think that the bank has a better use for my money and is in no
hurry to spend it if it does not have to.
--
Skitt
CAUTION: My veracity is under a limited warranty
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Areff should be along shortly to ask for a definition of "bank".
Mortgages are held by banks, insurance companies, and other corporate
entities. Not always banks.
If you don't pay your property taxes after a period time, the property
tax bill is auctioned off to a third party who pays the bill and
receives interest. (Here in Florida, anyway). If the taxes are not
paid, that's an indication of financial problems for the mortgagee.
Anything that's a problem affects the mortgage holder. They don't
like problems.
Incidentally, mortgages are sold. My original mortgage is on the
third or fourth owner. As the principal diminishes, and less of the
payment goes to interest, the mortgage is less desirable by some
companies.
--
Tony Cooper
the Omrud
Most UK mortgages are written by banks and building societies (mutual
banks with limited rights). I see there are a few specialised
lending companies, but I bet they are owned by banks.
> If you don't pay your property taxes after a period time, the property
> tax bill is auctioned off to a third party who pays the bill and
> receives interest. (Here in Florida, anyway). If the taxes are not
> paid, that's an indication of financial problems for the mortgagee.
> Anything that's a problem affects the mortgage holder. They don't
> like problems.
Well, yes, but that's also true of the milk bill and the income tax
bill.
> Incidentally, mortgages are sold. My original mortgage is on the
> third or fourth owner. As the principal diminishes, and less of the
> payment goes to interest, the mortgage is less desirable by some
> companies.
I paid off our mortgage last week. That was the largest cheque I'm
ever likely to write. Woo hoo!
Areff
> Areff should be along shortly to ask for a definition of "bank".
> Mortgages are held by banks, insurance companies, and other corporate
> entities. Not always banks.
Not always corporate entities either.
--
Steny '08!
Oliver Cromm
I just learned that in Canada, you can give a mortgage to yourself from
your RRSP (retirement savings). You have to pay market-rate interest to
yourself. It is recommended in this case not to pay off the mortgage,
but rather stretch it in order to pay more interest to yourself.
--
Oliver C.
45n31, 73w34
Temperatur: -6°C (-14)
Areff
> * Areff wrote:
>
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> Areff should be along shortly to ask for a definition of "bank".
>>> Mortgages are held by banks, insurance companies, and other corporate
>>> entities. Not always banks.
>>
>> Not always corporate entities either.
>
> I just learned that in Canada, you can give a mortgage to yourself from
> your RRSP (retirement savings). You have to pay market-rate interest to
> yourself.
Is it actually called a "mortgage"? In AmE you can (typically, or maybe
by law?) borrow money off your 401k savings if you have any (also your
IRA [= BizarroTCE "military wing of Sinn Fein"]?) for use in the purchase
of a house (= TCE/DenaJoE "home"), as I understand it. Some sort of
secured loan type thing, where you pay interest back to your
retirement account, but the security is the intangible assets making up
your savings.
If I remember correctly, we don't really use the term "chattel mortgage"
in AmE anymore, now that we have the Uniform Commercial Code. Coop might
know wrt the medical equipment angle.
--
Steny '08!
Oliver Cromm
> Oliver Cromm wrote:
>>
>> I just learned that in Canada, you can give a mortgage to yourself from
>> your RRSP (retirement savings). You have to pay market-rate interest to
>> yourself.
>
> Is it actually called a "mortgage"? In AmE you can (typically, or maybe
> by law?) borrow money off your 401k savings if you have any (also your
> IRA [= BizarroTCE "military wing of Sinn Fein"]?) for use in the purchase
> of a house (= TCE/DenaJoE "home"), as I understand it. Some sort of
> secured loan type thing, where you pay interest back to your
> retirement account, but the security is the intangible assets making up
> your savings.
I read something like "It is well-known that you can borrow an amount[1]
from your RRSP for a down-payment for a first time home purchase, but it
is much less well known that you could also place your whole mortgage in
your RRSP." So, yes, in that case the mortgage is actually considered an
investment within the portfolio, and is called a mortgage.
<http://www.brantsec.com/personal_finance/rrsp2.html>
[1] a tiny amount, especially it must appear to Americans, Germans,
Japanese and the like - I think C$20K per spouse.