Council Tax Band values to be reassessed Jan 2004?
Andy Pandy
"Arnold Flanders" <sp...@block.com> wrote in message
news:7jttavsbjsepiu7ia...@4ax.com...
> Is it true that from Jan 2004 in time for the 2004 council tax bills
> all properties are going to be re-valued since it was last done 10 yrs
> ago? How do they do this? Do they go round street by street or house
> by house? Where do they get their valuation judgement from? What
> will the new bandings be?
Not till 2007 IIRC. It'll probably be an excuse to raise council taxes even more
on the back of the silly house price rises we've seen.
--
Andy
Tony Bryer
> Is it true that from Jan 2004 in time for the 2004 council tax
> bills all properties are going to be re-valued since it was
> last done 10 yrs ago? How do they do this? Do they go round
> street by street or house by house? Where do they get their
> valuation judgement from?
The Land Registry http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/ppr/ has a vast
database of property values based on sales of properties. Their
figures are probably a bit more accurate than those compiled by
building societies as they include sales not funded by
mortgages. So they know the average change in property prices
for a particular postcode area over any given period and in
something like 95%+ (?) of cases applying this factor to the
last valuation will give an acceptable result. One of the
positive things about bands is that you are not going to appeal
if your property is in the correct band, only if changing the
value would move it from one band to another.
--
Tony Bryer
Matthew Huntbach
> "Arnold Flanders" <sp...@block.com> wrote in message
> > Is it true that from Jan 2004 in time for the 2004 council tax bills
> > all properties are going to be re-valued since it was last done 10 yrs
> > ago? How do they do this? Do they go round street by street or house
> > by house? Where do they get their valuation judgement from? What
> > will the new bandings be?
> Not till 2007 IIRC. It'll probably be an excuse to raise council taxes even
> more on the back of the silly house price rises we've seen.
It shouldn't be. Suppose house prices have on average doubled. Then if you
were just to double the figures which define each band, but tax each band
at exactly the same amount as before, you should end up with about the
same amount of money. The only people who will lose out are those whose
property has risen at more than the average for those in the area, they will
be macthed by those who benefit because their property has risne by less
than average.
I note that my party, in arguing for more tax to go on income, is claiming
that re-valuation will lead to higher tax payments. This is economic
illiteracy, and I am sorry to see it.
Matthew Huntbach
Andy Pandy
"Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b8obe5$dh2$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> > > Is it true that from Jan 2004 in time for the 2004 council tax bills
> > > all properties are going to be re-valued since it was last done 10 yrs
> > > ago? How do they do this? Do they go round street by street or house
> > > by house? Where do they get their valuation judgement from? What
> > > will the new bandings be?
>
> > Not till 2007 IIRC. It'll probably be an excuse to raise council taxes even
> > more on the back of the silly house price rises we've seen.
>
> It shouldn't be. Suppose house prices have on average doubled. Then if you
> were just to double the figures which define each band, but tax each band
> at exactly the same amount as before, you should end up with about the
> same amount of money. The only people who will lose out are those whose
> property has risen at more than the average for those in the area, they will
> be macthed by those who benefit because their property has risne by less
> than average.
Well, yes, if that's how they are going to do it. But is it?
They could, for example, keep most of the bands at their current values and add
new bands at the top end.
> I note that my party, in arguing for more tax to go on income, is claiming
> that re-valuation will lead to higher tax payments. This is economic
> illiteracy, and I am sorry to see it.
Not necessarily, even if they adjust the bands as you suggest. It seems house
prices over the last decade or so have risen faster in better off areas than in
poorer areas. More people claim CTB in poorer areas, so the benefit the poorer
areas will gain from lower banding will be partially offset by less CTB.
--
Andy
Matthew Huntbach
> "Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > Not till 2007 IIRC. It'll probably be an excuse to raise council taxes
> > > even more on the back of the silly house price rises we've seen.
> > It shouldn't be. Suppose house prices have on average doubled. Then if you
> > were just to double the figures which define each band, but tax each band
> > at exactly the same amount as before, you should end up with about the
> > same amount of money.
> Well, yes, if that's how they are going to do it. But is it?
> They could, for example, keep most of the bands at their current values and
> add new bands at the top end.
A council decides to spend X pounds. It gets Y pounds grant from the
government, This means it has to get X-Y pounds from council tax. All
the council tax bands do is tell it how to share out the X-Y pounds amongst
the households in the borough. Thus no form of revaluation or rebanding
can change the average amount of council tax paid.
> > I note that my party, in arguing for more tax to go on income, is claiming
> > that re-valuation will lead to higher tax payments. This is economic
> > illiteracy, and I am sorry to see it.
> Not necessarily, even if they adjust the bands as you suggest. It seems house
> prices over the last decade or so have risen faster in better off areas than in
> poorer areas. More people claim CTB in poorer areas, so the benefit the poorer
> areas will gain from lower banding will be partially offset by less CTB.
Council tax benefit is paid for by the government. In assessing its income
from council tax, a council just looks at the number of properties it
has in each band. In setting the council tax amount, it just divides the
total it needs to raise by the appropriate figure. The only way in which
everyone on average pays more is if the council decides to spend more.
Any revaluation of property or resetting of bands should not influence the
council in deciding how much to spend.
Matthew Huntbach
Andy Pandy
> > Well, yes, if that's how they are going to do it. But is it?
>
> > They could, for example, keep most of the bands at their current values and
> > add new bands at the top end.
>
> A council decides to spend X pounds. It gets Y pounds grant from the
> government, This means it has to get X-Y pounds from council tax. All
> the council tax bands do is tell it how to share out the X-Y pounds amongst
> the households in the borough. Thus no form of revaluation or rebanding
> can change the average amount of council tax paid.
It can if the government reduces Y at the same time, introducing more bands to
complicate things in order to hide tax rises, which is fairly typical of this
government. That is the point.
> > > I note that my party, in arguing for more tax to go on income, is claiming
> > > that re-valuation will lead to higher tax payments. This is economic
> > > illiteracy, and I am sorry to see it.
>
> > Not necessarily, even if they adjust the bands as you suggest. It seems
house
> > prices over the last decade or so have risen faster in better off areas than
in
> > poorer areas. More people claim CTB in poorer areas, so the benefit the
poorer
> > areas will gain from lower banding will be partially offset by less CTB.
>
> Council tax benefit is paid for by the government.
So? If poorer people are put into a lower band because their house hasn't risen
by the average, then those that claim CTB will not see the full benefit.
Therefore overall people will pay more tax.
> In assessing its income
> from council tax, a council just looks at the number of properties it
> has in each band. In setting the council tax amount, it just divides the
> total it needs to raise by the appropriate figure. The only way in which
> everyone on average pays more is if the council decides to spend more.
No. If people on CTB end up in a lower band then overall people are paying more
tax. Or rather, the goverment's CTB bill is reduced, which amounts to the same
thing.
> Any revaluation of property or resetting of bands should not influence the
> council in deciding how much to spend.
No. But it might influence the overall tax take.
--
Andy
David Larkman
>Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b8obe5$dh2$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
It's economic illiteracy, but political reality. Mark my words, Matthew.
If re-banding doesn't lead to other "adjustments" being made by certain
local councils (especially if they don't face re-election for a year or two
e.g. Wandsworth's 48% rise this year) or the government or both, I'll be
absolutely amazed.
Think of sneaky price rises slipped through after decimalisation, when
petrol started getting sold by the litre instead of the gallon, or more
relevantly when council tax replaced the community charge. That is without
mentioning how much complaining the articulate losers in re-banding will
make, and the deafening silence of the corresponding winners.
Yes, re-banding should be tax neutral, and certainly would be if conducted
by people with your integrity. But the exercise is to be carried out by a
Labour government. Need I say more ?
Regards
David Larkman
Matthew Huntbach
> >Matthew Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > I note that my party, in arguing for more tax to go on income, is claiming
> > that re-valuation will lead to higher tax payments. This is economic
> > illiteracy, and I am sorry to see it.
> It's economic illiteracy, but political reality. Mark my words, Matthew.
It may be, but it's using the sort of dishonesty I condemn when I see it
from other parties. There is no reason why revaluation should lead to rises
in council tax. If it does, it is not due to the revaluation, but rather
due to a conscious decision to take more tax via council tax and to hide
what is being done by falsely blaming it on revaluation.
I believe there is a need for property taxes - council tax is the only one
we have at present, and it's a very poor one, I would much prefer site
value rating. If we are to have them, then a regular revaluation is
a necessary part of them. I am sorry to see a party whose predecessor
stood strongly for land value taxation now in efect using an economically
illiterate argument against its nearest equivalent.
Matthew Huntbach
David Larkman
You and I are in agreement, Matthew, about preferring land taxation to
property taxes, but if that isn't the option then I personally prefer some
form of local income tax to fund local services.
As to honesty in politics, again I agree. The Lib Dems should try harder to
have absolutely clean hands. However, the biggest whopper at the moment is
the accusation by Labour that the Tories want an across the board
expenditure cut of 20%, but it is difficult to feel sympathy for a party
that spent 18 years in government lying and cheating over many aspects of
policy introduced to the detriment of the vast majority of British people.
I am reminded of the put down I once heard a Liberal candidate use when
responding to some inaccurate points made an opponent: "if you go round
telling lies about us, we'll go round telling the truth about you".
Regards
David Larkman
Mike Drew
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
I certainly agree if a property tax is used then revaluation must be frequent. I
am expecting an outcry similar to the rating revaulation which panic the Tories
into introducing the Poll Tax. Those who gain from the revaluation will be quietly
satisfied while those who lose out will make a huge amount of noise. The longer
the gap between revaluation the greater the difficulties. Just as rating
revaluation was put off until it could not be put off any more - so it is with the
Council Tax revaluation. The one good thing that might come out of it is that the
only other alternative local tax will be Local Income Tax.
>
>
> Matthew Huntbach
--
Mike Drew
Yate/Sodbury and Dodington Liberal Democrats
Lib Dem Councillor since 1983
Adam Gray
news:3EB24FBA...@bris.ac.uk...
> I certainly agree if a property tax is used then revaluation must be
frequent. I
> am expecting an outcry similar to the rating revaulation which panic the
Tories
> into introducing the Poll Tax. Those who gain from the revaluation will be
quietly
> satisfied while those who lose out will make a huge amount of noise. The
longer
> the gap between revaluation the greater the difficulties. Just as rating
> revaluation was put off until it could not be put off any more - so it is
with the
> Council Tax revaluation. The one good thing that might come out of it is
that the
> only other alternative local tax will be Local Income Tax.
There would also be a massive lobbying effort from London to establish
regional differentials in CT banding, simply because property prices are
significantly higher here than the rest of the country.
Adam
Peter Hill
wrote:
Do they take the properties condition into account? The last three
sold in the same row as mine were in need of some work - two had not
been improved in over 40 years and the price they fetched reflected
that they needed gutting and complete renovation.
--
Peter Hill
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!