Household charge apportionment - Outrage that counties which paid should get cash

beeftotheheels

Article from the Indo earlier made me laugh. Ruth Coppinger who is actively encouraging people not to pay the household charge for a whole host of reasons (not just those who cannot afford to pay) now is furious at the suggestion that the pot of monies collected should be distributed pro rata the amount of householders who have paid up in any given area.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fury-at-phil-hogans-plan-to-reward-councils-who-collect-more-household-payments-3068120.html

She maintains that this is will hurt the poor, although clearly poverty is not the overriding reason many have not paid.

So, she encourages every one not to pay a tax required to fund services. There is a funding shortfall because some people listened to her. And she then expresses outrage at the unfairness of a system which allocates the tax actually collected based on compliance.

Can any one explain to me what manner of mental gymnastics are required to reconcile her positions. I paid the tax as required by law, surely it is now fair that my payment of that tax results in funding being allocated to the local county council in which I live.

If Ms Coppinger would now like to change her position to encourage anyone who can afford to pay the tax, and at €2 that's pretty much everybody in the country, to pay the tax I can't help thinking that her recent outrage would be more understandable.

later12

My reading of that is that the Household charge will be kept locally, and the funds from the central fund which are normally distributed to local authorities, will be distributed directly proportional to the household charge outturn in each local authority district.

In that case, I would say criticism is reasonable.

If I had paid the household charge in Co. Tipperary and it emerged that 70% of my countrymen did not, I would be pretty irritated that local services would be cut beyond what was required to make up for the shortfall in household charge income, as a sort of additional punishment from the central government.

I agree with cutting local government expenditure. but this is a particularly curious way of doing it.

Godge

The Socialist Party want it every way.

They want a tax on wealth but they oppose the only workable tax on wealth in the form of a household charge. Other wealth taxes don't work because most of the wealth being taxed is highly mobile and moves offshore. Property is the one form of wealth that is difficult to move to the Isle of Man so a tax on property makes sense. It is also one of the first goals of all realistic Socialist movements worldwide except for the nutty socialists in Ireland.

Then they want people to have the best services in the world but they refuse to support the taxes put in place to pay for those services.

Dirk Gently

beeftotheheels wrote: »

a system which allocates the tax actually collected based on compliance.

.

Unless you paid the tax in a council area where the majority did not. I can actually see a lot of people who paid being more pissed off if they find themselves underfunded despite paying up.

Godge

later12 wrote: »

My reading of that is that the Household charge will be kept locally, and the funds from the central fund which are normally distributed to local authorities, will be distributed directly proportional to the household charge outturn in each local authority district.

In that case, I would say criticism is reasonable.

If I had paid the household charge in Co. Tipperary and it emerged that 70% of my countrymen did not, I would be pretty irritated that local services would be cut beyond what was required to make up for the shortfall in household charge income, as a sort of additional punishment from the central government.

I agree with cutting local government expenditure. but this is a particularly curious way of doing it.

No, I think you have got it wrong. From reading the Irish Times article

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0402/breaking7.html

you get a better sense. "Government sources confirmed yesterday that the allocation of funds raised through the household charge would be linked to the amount of revenue raised in different local authority areas"

Where the confusion arises is that the central fund which has traditionally been funded from central exchequer funds will in future be partly funded by the local Household Charge.

beeftotheheels

But for the most part the household tax has been collected centrally (online or via postal orders) so it is not local at the moment. It is to produce a fund which was then scheduled to be distributed to the various councils to replace their central funding in prior years. Since there's a funding shortfall which must be distributed it strikes me as fairest to distribute that shortfall pro rata non-compliance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0402/breaking7.html

I realise that if you paid, and you live in an area with high non-compliance then you are, to an extent, collateral damage. Given the data with a week to go (3% in my county had paid) it seems highly likely that I'm collateral damage but I'd rather that my coco suffer if my neighbors aren't compliant, rather than the good people of Dun Laoighre who were the most compliant in the country.

If its a tax to fund local services then the no campaign have to realise that there will be consequences for non compliance, and that consequence will be a hit to local services.

later12

Godge wrote: »

"Government sources confirmed yesterday that the allocation of funds raised through the household charge would be linked to the amount of revenue raised in different local authority areas"

Where the confusion arises is that the central fund which has traditionally been funded from central exchequer funds will in future be partly funded by the local Household Charge.

beeftotheheels wrote: »

But for the most part the household tax has been collected centrally (online or via postal orders) so it is not local at the moment. It is to produce a fund which was then scheduled to be distributed to the various councils to replace their central funding in prior years. Since there's a funding shortfall which must be distributed it strikes me as fairest to distribute that shortfall pro rata non-compliance.

Sorry I don't really understand the mechanics. Is it the case that that portion of the central fund which arose from the household charge will be distributed directly proportional to compliance, or is it the case that the entire central fund allocation (household charge+exchequer funds) will be proportional to compliance.

The former seems reasonable, not so much the latter.

Godge

later12 wrote: »

Sorry I don't really understand the mechanics. Is it the case that that portion of the central fund which arose from the household charge will be distributed directly proportional to compliance, or is it the case that the entire central fund allocation (household charge+exchequer funds) will be proportional to compliance.

The former seems reasonable, not so much the latter.

It is my understanding from the Irish Times article that it is the former. It would also force local authorities to encourage local compliance.

It will be interesting what happens if libraries start closing or lights go unfixed when the cutbacks start.

beeftotheheels

later12 wrote: »

Sorry I don't really understand the mechanics. Is it the case that that portion of the central fund which arose from the household charge will be distributed directly proportional to compliance, or is it the case that the entire central fund allocation (household charge+exchequer funds) will be proportional to compliance.

The former seems reasonable, not so much the latter.

There is no longer a fund from central government. There is only the fund raised by the tax. Hence there's currently a huge funding shortfall due to the high levels of non payment.

Dirk Gently

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I realise that if you paid, and you live in an area with high non-compliance then you are, to an extent, collateral damage. .

or, if you live in a high compliance area then you've no need to pay really as services will be allocated based on your good neighbours.

beeftotheheels

Dirk Gently wrote: »

or, if you live in a high compliance area then you've no need to pay really as services will be allocated based on your good neighbours.

True, but since there are no such cocos in the country at the moment I won't be losing too much sleep over moral hazard arguments

Absent 100% compliance local services are going to be under funded.

beeftotheheels

Joe Higgins is now joining Ruth in calling allocating taxes paid to the areas where they were paid an attack on poor people.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0402/breaking7.html

Word to the wise Joe, if you've know anyone who can afford the tax, say someone on a nice cushy TD's salary, who hasn't paid that tax, they are the ones who are "attacking" the "poor" people in their county/ constituency by not paying their fair share!

RichardAnd

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Joe Higgins is now joining Ruth in calling allocating taxes paid to the areas where they were paid an attack on poor people.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0402/breaking7.html

Word to the wise Joe, if you've know anyone who can afford the tax, say someone on a nice cushy TD's salary, who hasn't paid that tax, they are the ones who are "attacking" the "poor" people in their county/ constituency by not paying their fair share!

Joe Higgans only takes the average industrial wage of his salary, the rest goes into the party. I don't always agree with the man but he strikes me as an honest individual who genuinely believes in what he preaches. That can't be said for many.

http://socialist.csn.ul.ie/joehiggins.html

beeftotheheels

RichardAnd wrote: »

Joe Higgans only takes the average industrial wage of his salary, the rest goes into the party. I don't always agree with the man but he strikes me as an honest individual who genuinely believes in what he preaches. That can't be said for many.

http://socialist.csn.ul.ie/joehiggins.html

Average Industrial wage is still sufficient to be able to afford to pay the tax!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-join-antihousehold-tax-protest-as-deadline-for-registration-looms-next-month-3021324.html

Wallace aside who might be able to plead poverty depending on how much the banks are taking which of these illustrious individuals cannot afford to pay the tax? Regardless of any personal decisions they may have made in relation to their personal expenditure.

They've publicly incited people who can afford to pay the tax not to pay it, and now out of the other side of their mouths they're suggesting that only poor people who couldn't afford to pay haven't paid and thus shouldn't be prejudiced by the shortfall in funding caused by their campaign.

RichardAnd

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Average Industrial wage is still sufficient to be able to afford to pay the tax!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-join-antihousehold-tax-protest-as-deadline-for-registration-looms-next-month-3021324.html

Wallace aside who might be able to plead poverty depending on how much the banks are taking which of these illustrious individuals cannot afford to pay the tax? Regardless of any personal decisions they may have made in relation to their personal expenditure.

They've publicly incited people who can afford to pay the tax not to pay it, and now out of the other side of their mouths they're suggesting that only poor people who couldn't afford to pay haven't paid and thus shouldn't be prejudiced by the shortfall in funding caused by their campaign.

Whether it is sufficient or not would depend on outgoings but in either case, I don't believe the protest was about 100 euro. To me, it seemed to be born of a desire to demonstrate anger at government policy and possibly prevent the very real possibility of a considerably higher property tax coming into being.

Godge

RichardAnd wrote: »

Whether it is sufficient or not would depend on outgoings but in either case, I don't believe the protest was about 100 euro. To me, it seemed to be born of a desire to demonstrate anger at government policy and possibly prevent the very real possibility of a considerably higher property tax coming into being.

And every socialist in the world (outside of Ireland) welcomes, supports and encourages property taxes.

Only in Ireland, the psuedo-socialists, those who pretend to support the weak (the homeless, the local authority tenants, low-paid workers who can't afford to buy), oppose a property tax. It is mind-boggling.

MadsL

Interesting. However i believe - and it has been a couple of years since I checked this - that Dublin City Council are owed millions from Central Govt. Does anyone know if this has been paid to them? If not this may affect the distribution if the Govt is in arrears with certain councils.

Godge

RichardAnd wrote: »

Joe Higgans only takes the average industrial wage of his salary, the rest goes into the party. I don't always agree with the man but he strikes me as an honest individual who genuinely believes in what he preaches. That can't be said for many.

http://socialist.csn.ul.ie/joehiggins.html

Saw a guy last month speaking in the street who struck me as an honest individual who genuinely believed in what he was preaching but he was a bit out as the world didn't end on Saturday.

Genuineness is no indication of intelligence.

meglome

RichardAnd wrote: »

Whether it is sufficient or not would depend on outgoings but in either case, I don't believe the protest was about 100 euro. To me, it seemed to be born of a desire to demonstrate anger at government policy and possibly prevent the very real possibility of a considerably higher property tax coming into being.

I'd have some respect for Joe Higgins if he was campaigning for government efficiency and no property tax. But he isn't is he. Sure he calling for pay cuts for the very highly paid people in our public service and the usual tax the rich shíte but he's not looking at the inefficient grunts. Sinn Fein tabled a motion in Dublin City council to stop the household charge but no motion about making any efficiencies.

Most of us are angry at the last Fianna Fail government, most of us are angry that we'll need more austerity and tax increases, But it's really time to stop pretending that we, nearly all of us, didn't have a hand in bringing this mess down on us. It's time to stop pretending that our tax base is sustainable as it isn't.

Godge wrote: »

And every socialist in the world (outside of Ireland) welcomes, supports and encourages property taxes.

Only in Ireland, the psuedo-socialists, those who pretend to support the weak (the homeless, the local authority tenants, low-paid workers who can't afford to buy), oppose a property tax. It is mind-boggling.

You know I never understood this nor can I get anyone to explain it properly. Outside of course some misplaced populism.

RichardAnd

Godge wrote: »

Saw a guy last month speaking in the street who struck me as an honest individual who genuinely believed in what he was preaching but he was a bit out as the world didn't end on Saturday.

Genuineness is no indication of intelligence.

It never ceases to amaze me how certain people on this board seem to think that everyone of a different opinion to them is wrong and thus draw the licence to engage in supercilious discourse. I said absolutely nothing to support or lambaste Joe Higgans, socialism or the household charge yet within ten minutes, my post is rebuked. All I did was set the record straight on something another poster implied and then pay a compliment to Joe Higgans. Is that so difficult for some people to swallow? Seemingly it is.

Godge

RichardAnd wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how certain people on this board seem to think that everyone of a different opinion to them is wrong and thus draw the licence to engage in supercilious discourse. I said absolutely nothing to support or lambaste Joe Higgans, socialism or the household charge yet within ten minutes, my post is rebuked. All I did was set the record straight on something another poster implied and then pay a compliment to Joe Higgans. Is that so difficult for some people to swallow? Seemingly it is.

Wait a minute, I don't doubt that Joe Higgins is generally honest in his behaviour as a politician (doesn't take bribes, correct expenses etc.) and it is possible that he genuinely believes what he says about the property tax. But if I believe that, then there is no way I can believe him when he says he is a socialist. Opposing a property tax and being a socialist are incompatible. At some level, Joe Higgins is dissembling, maybe he doesn't fully understand socialist principles, maybe he is a typical cute hoor FF politician in disguise joining with the most recent populist cause, maybe he just doesn't get it. But there is something dishonest about claiming to be a socialist and opposing a property tax.

So if you say Joe Higgins is genuine and honest in your opinion, what is wrong with me expressing my opinion in a different direction, especially when I back it up with a specific example.

Dannyboy83

Godge wrote: »

So if you say Joe Higgins is genuine and honest in your opinion, what is wrong with me expressing my opinion in a different direction, especially when I back it up with a specific example.

I don't think he attacked your opinion, rather the way you express it.
Wheter intended or not, your posts come across as extremely haughty (although you do generally make good points/posts imo)

Hiawog

It has been stated that the money collected from the Household Charge will be centralised into one fund. Given this, the Govt now has the impossible task of fair distribution.

To allocate funds depending on how much was collected by the local council would be unfair to those households who have paid but happen to be located in an area with a low ratio of payments. The value of their €100 payment would be disproportionate to the value of €100 collected in an area of high compliance.

If, as has been suggested, the Govt were to allocate the money on the basis of population then it would again be unfair. Imagine we achieved 100% compliance. The western counties have an extraordinarily high vacancy rate of house, almost 1 in 3 in Leitrim alone. On collecting 100% of monies, Leitrim Council would only receive 66% percent in return as only 66% of houses are ‘populated’. Leitrim would in effect be supplementing Dublin which has a low vacancy rate, i.e. more populated houses.

Conversely (and assuming the Govt were to generate an exact database of households) they may decide to distribute the collected funds on a ‘per household’ basis. This would work with 100% compliance but, as it stands, less than 50% have paid. Distribution on this basis means that areas of high compliance will be supplementing areas of low compliance. For example, if everyone paid in North Tipperary and nobody paid in South Tipperary, the cash would be distributed evenly to the entire county.

Personally, I cannot see the Governments next move apart from enforcing 100% compliance. Any move they make to distribute the monies will be unfair to somebody unless all households pay and each council receives a return based on the number of households in their area less waivers and exemptions.

Lastly, if the Govt were to just sit on the funds so far collected until they achieve 100% compliance, well, how unfair is that to those who have paid.

sarumite

RichardAnd wrote: »

Whether it is sufficient or not would depend on outgoings but in either case, I don't believe the protest was about 100 euro. To me, it seemed to be born of a desire to demonstrate anger at government policy and possibly prevent the very real possibility of a considerably higher property tax coming into being.

If this is the case, then it was just a ' no to austerity' campaign. While I have no problem with people saying no to austerity, without offering any genuine alternative ideas other than 'tax the rich to pay for the poor' its a lot of empty rhetoric. This campaign was spearheaded by the hard left who's economic policies would cause more misery if implemented.

beeftotheheels

RichardAnd wrote: »

Whether it is sufficient or not would depend on outgoings but in either case, I don't believe the protest was about 100 euro. To me, it seemed to be born of a desire to demonstrate anger at government policy and possibly prevent the very real possibility of a considerably higher property tax coming into being.

But you've missed my point. You cannot argue on the one hand that people have the right not to pay the tax based on principle and then link the high level of non payment with poverty which is what Deputy Higgins and others have done, and which is what so outrages me today.

If the non-payment is on principle then it could be as high in affluent areas as in poor areas. If instead you're suggesting that only people who can't pay didn't pay then it follows that this should hit poorer areas.

Deputy Higgins preached the former (principle) to all and sundry including the affluent and is now lambasting the outcome as if he had not. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

GSF

One flaw in this is that the government stated that they didnt know how many homes there were in the country in the first instance, so how can they now compute a % of non payment by county? They know how many have paid, but not the total of how many were eligible in the first place.

Icepick

Godge wrote: »

Only in Ireland, the psuedo-socialists, those who pretend to support the weak (the homeless, the local authority tenants, low-paid workers who can't afford to buy), oppose a property tax. It is mind-boggling.

It's hard to be a socialist in a country where even the poor own real estate.

meglome

Icepick wrote: »

It's hard to be a socialist in a country where even the poor own real estate.

Very true but what's even more difficult to take is many people think they are entitled to own property.

Victor

GSF wrote: »

One flaw in this is that the government stated that they didnt know how many homes there were in the country in the first instance, so how can they now compute a % of non payment by county? They know how many have paid, but not the total of how many were eligible in the first place.

There is no need to. Quite simply, if X people from county Y have paid, then give Y county council €100X.

Folks, can people be careful in the terminology being used? The Central Fund is the fund that all taxes go to. Separate to this, there are the Social Insurance Fund (PRSI), the Environment Fund (plastic bag levy, landfill levy, etc.) and the Local Government Fund (previously Motor Tax and central funding). The Household Charge is going into the Local Government Fund - it is being collected by the Local Government Management Agency which is a jointly owned subsidiary of all the local authorities. To date the Local Government Fund has been distributed on a 'needs and abilities' basis.

The accounts of the Local Government Fund are here: http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,28833,en.pdf

mikemac1

GSF wrote: »

One flaw in this is that the government stated that they didnt know how many homes there were in the country in the first instance, so how can they now compute a % of non payment by county? They know how many have paid, but not the total of how many were eligible in the first place.

The census would have covered that I think, it wasn't long ago

For Forks Sake

RichardAnd wrote: »

Joe Higgans only takes the average industrial wage of his salary, the rest goes into the party.

http://socialist.csn.ul.ie/joehiggins.html

This nonsense again. Regardless of what they do with it, each ULA, Sinn Fein, Independent and every other TD is costing the state €92,672 per annum plus expenses. just because they retain a smaller proportion of it for themselves to boost their kudos with 'the working man' doesn't amount to any saving to the national coffers.

Whether they spend it on their party, new hats or flying monkeys is beside the point.

Peanut2011

For Forks Sake wrote: »

This nonsense again. Regardless of what they do with it, each ULA, Sinn Fein, Independent and every other TD is costing the state €92,672 per annum plus expenses. just because they retain a smaller proportion of it for themselves to boost their kudos with 'the working man' doesn't amount to any saving to the national coffers.

Whether they spend it on their party, new hats or flying monkeys is beside the point.

You are right, him and every other TD is costing us that much per year. The difference is that he does something with that money, where Phil Hogan is using it for the nice penthouse in PORTUGAL. So much for spending the money on local business and supporting Irish.

I know who I would give more respect to.

Going Forward

meglome wrote: »

Very true but what's even more difficult to take is many people think they are entitled to own property.

Please be more specific.
Or are you throwing the old 'have to get on to the property ladder' thing into a household charge thread?
Sure, the renters are exempt, dont pay a penny, and still utilise the services.

I hope they appreciate the ongoing contribution of those who did buy and are now funding their local services.

thebman

Going Forward wrote: »

Please be more specific.
Or are you throwing the old 'have to get on to the property ladder' thing into a household charge thread?
Sure, the renters are exempt, dont pay a penny, and still utilise the services.

I hope they appreciate the ongoing contribution of those who did buy and are now funding their local services.

Well good luck attracting renters if you don't have things like running water at your house compared to the landlord that pays his charge and can offer those services to renters.

I'm sure it won't effect the levels of rent you can charge on the property...

ednwireland

the paltry amount from the houshold charge wouldnt make any difference to the level of services we get up here (prob why so dfew paid it) the council is full of over paid managers and not enough people to get out and do the work

murphaph

thebman wrote: »

Well good luck attracting renters if you don't have things like running water at your house compared to the landlord that pays his charge and can offer those services to renters.

I'm sure it won't effect the levels of rent you can charge on the property...

If only it were the case that landlords who don't pay the household charge (in addition to the NPPR charge) had the services to their properties cut off. It won't happen though. I am a compliant landlord, pay my 100 + 200 in charges a year, plus PRTB (joke) every 4 years plus of course my taxes and I know full well there are non-compliant landlords who can charge every bit as much as me who don't pay their share and won't have the water to their properties cut off.

As always in Ireland, the law says one thing but when it's not enforced, it's meaningless.

Godge

Peanut2011 wrote: »

You are right, him and every other TD is costing us that much per year. The difference is that he does something with that money, where Phil Hogan is using it for the nice penthouse in PORTUGAL. So much for spending the money on local business and supporting Irish.

I know who I would give more respect to.

As I have said previously, I find it extremely difficult to respect a socialist who opposes a wealth tax such as the household charge. The hypocrisy of it is nearly beyond amusing.

The poorest and weakest in society,

(1) the homeless
(2) those renting in local authority houses
(3) those on low wages renting from private landlords because they can't afford to buy
(4) those living at home with their parents because they can't afford to live away
(5) those receiving mortgage interest supplement
(6) those who bought in ghost estates that have not been finished

All 6 of those don't have to pay the household charge, they are the poorest and weakest in society, they are the people Joe Higgins claims to care about so he should be happy and pleased with the household charge. Instead of looking after the poorest and weakest, he is pandering to the middle classes.

Going Forward

thebman wrote: »

Well good luck attracting renters if you don't have things like running water at your house compared to the landlord that pays his charge and can offer those services to renters.

I'm sure it won't effect the levels of rent you can charge on the property...

I think you have missed the point.

I replied to another poster who stated that they were having difficulties coping with those who feel they are entitled to own property, (which I found a little bit bizarre) and I simply said that it was worth remembering that it was those very property owners who are now paying for the local services of those who chose to rent.

Those in rented accommodation, be it local authority or private, are having their services paid for by others. No explanation has been given as to why this is the case.

Nor is there any valid reason why those in unfinished estates are exempt, whilst those who are unemployed have to simply pay up.

As one of the leaflets pointed out "Local services benefit everyone", however not everyone is expected to pay for them.

murphaph

Going Forward wrote: »

I think you have missed the point.

I replied to another poster who stated that they were having difficulties coping with those who feel they are entitled to own property, (which I found a little bit bizarre) and I simply said that it was worth remembering that it was those very property owners who are now paying for the local services of those who chose to rent.

Those in rented accommodation, be it local authority or private, are having their services paid for by others. No explanation has been given as to why this is the case.

Nor is there any valid reason why those in unfinished estates are exempt, whilst those who are unemployed have to simply pay up.

As one of the leaflets pointed out "Local services benefit everyone", however not everyone is expected to pay for them.

This confusion boils down to one thing: the household charge is a rudimentary property tax by another "softer" name. They spin the line that it pays for local services to "ease the pain" of paying another tax, but then get caught up in the spin because as you rightly point out, only property owners have to pay this tax which is being spun as something which funds services used by all in a particular area.

I'd respect them more if they just called it a property tax like most other places.

Victor

Going Forward wrote: »

Those in rented accommodation, be it local authority or private, are having their services paid for by others. No explanation has been given as to why this is the case.

Not quite. Certainly in the private rented sector, rents will increase to cover the household charge / property tax.

K-9

Victor wrote: »

Not quite. Certainly in the private rented sector, rents will increase to cover the household charge / property tax.

You also have the cuts to the Rent Allowance scheme to counter balance that.

uberalles

Just wait till its multiples of 100.

TDs and other over paid top govt workers need to take huge pay cuts and pension cuts.

That's where this money is going.

murphaph

uberalles wrote: »

Just wait till its multiples of 100.

TDs and other over paid top govt workers need to take huge pay cuts and pension cuts.

That's where this money is going.

Whilst I fully agree that our politicians are still overpaid and especially over pensioned, do you really think that the bulk of the money is being spent on 166 TDs plus retirees plus top civil servants? The truth is that whilst these people are still overpaid, the lower ranks of the public service are proportionally more overpaid. It's the sheer number of "lower paid" public servants that are say 20% overpaid that make them the elephant in the spending room, along with welfare.

Having said all that, I still feel we should have NEVER abandoned rates (but they should have been reformed) in the populist way it was (by FF). Taxing property is better than taxing work and property taxation forms a nice stable tax base.

Going Forward

Victor wrote: »

Not quite. Certainly in the private rented sector, rents will increase to cover the household charge / property tax.

Yes but this doesnt explain the rationale behind the exemptions.