Property Tax (MOD REMINDER: Don't get too personal)

Yesterday, 08:36 #685
Phoebas
Registered User



Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 517
Adverts | Friends Quote:
Originally Posted by cageyeuclid
Would you like me to post another link (you might not believe G. Ryan RIP) or do you accept that many council / borough property tax (the equivelent of LPT) in the UK are over €4,000 ???
Either way the "fictional, foreign jurisdiction" is no longer fictional and your doubt will become your nightmare.

Yes.
Could you post a link showing property tax going from £200 to over £4000 in a short period? I've looked at some of the UK council tax tables but I can't see anything approaching this.
Thanks.

Sneakily I do not do either, ABOVE IS A COPY OF WHAT YOU DENY. Everyone in this forum can read my post you quoted from which has Euro while you stated BP£.. There it is in Black and white ..... now am I to report you for name calling and casting personal expertions??

You are correct about £4,000 being used in post 517 but that is not the post you answered.

POST 517 refers to

yearly property tax and/or household charges

and the reason the 'and / or' is used is because UK councils sometimes include water charges and sometimes not.

It was you who mixed things up. .. let the forum decide

Phoebas wrote: »

That's what I've been trying to tell darkhorse. He was under the impression that everyone is in negative equity.
2011.

Now, now, behave!!! the question you asked was how a fully owned dwelling could be in Negative Equity, so I hope I answered that clearly.

Negative Equity for Darkhorse is negative value compared to boom prices.
Like you, he didnt quite understand NE.
Negative value would only be negative equity for those who paid the boom price, God help them.

Just shows, posters ned to do more simple research.

Part of Area Band A Band B Band C Band D Band E Band F Band G Band H
Bisley £1,073.48 £1,252.39 £1,431.30 £1,610.21 £1,968.03 £2,325.85 £2,683.69 £3,220.42
Chobham £1,071.37 £1,249.93 £1,428.49 £1,607.05 £1,964.17 £2,321.29 £2,678.42 £3,214.10
Frimley &
Camberley* £1,051.01 £1,226.18 £1,401.34 £1,576.51 £1,926.84 £2,277.18 £2,627.52 £3,153.02
West End £1,072.17 £1,250.86 £1,429.56 £1,608.25 £1,965.64 £2,323.02 £2,680.42 £3,216.50
Windlesham £1,068.99 £1,247.15 £1,425.32 £1,603.48 £1,959.81 £2,316.13 £2,672.47 £3,206.96


http://www.surreyheath.gov.uk/ctbenefits/counciltax/counciltax1314.htm

Going Forward wrote: »

Raising income tax rates by one or two percent would have been far more efficient and equitable than introducing a property tax, along with slashing foreign aid which we are borrowing funds to pay for.

There are 440,000 unemployed, plus 300,000 who have emigrated in the last 4 tears so I dont accept that those in employment will resign their positions on foot of a minimal tax rise in lieu of property tax. Believe it or not it is an employers market at the moment, not the other way round.

Broadening the tax base and reducing the reliance......... if the taxes are to be levied via the LPT on those who are unemployed or pensioners etc, thats not a shining example of what broadening the tax base should amount to.

BTW, is this where "broadening the tax base" starts and stops, because I see very little else that is not being taxed or planned to be taxed?

Doing both, would still not close the deficit we currently have, so theres a strong chance both will be done in future anyway together with the property tax..........

Phoebas wrote: »

You didn't.


I understand negative equity all right.


So I can't fathom how 'a fully owned dwelling could be in Negative Equity'.

Give me a break, I gave you the perfect URL, it even gave examples.

On a fully owned house (no loan), Equity(the market type) is the estimated Market value of the house less what the owner paid for it (cash equity). If the MV has gone up it is positive equity, gone down it is negative equity.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Give me a break, I gave you the perfect URL, it even gave examples.

On a fully owned house (no loan), Equity(the market type) is the estimated Market value of the house less what the owner paid for it (cash equity). If the MV has gone up it is positive equity, gone down it is negative equity.

Where's the URL?

Why would anyone care that the house value is less than what was paid initially for it anyway............

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Give me a break, I gave you the perfect URL, it even gave examples.

On a fully owned house (no loan), Equity(the market type) is the estimated Market value of the house less what the owner paid for it (cash equity). If the MV has gone up it is positive equity, gone down it is negative equity.

No. You're trying the old switcheroo again. You're not describing negative equity there at all.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

Here we go again .. The thousands of carers of SNs are now “edge cases” ... not quite as bad as “extreme examples” but close.
Why do you say “someone leaving wealth via property to disabled children” ... in that “edge case” it is only property (not wealth since it cannot be sold)....(see my post 676)

Your “edge cases” are over 20% of home owners [Add (approx.) 14% unemployed + 4% OAP + 2% others (e.g. on DA, SAH, etc)], so 20% can hardly can be dismissed as not “good arguments for scrapping the tax in general”. The laziness of govt and revenue not including a waiver system is mind boggling political suicide.

I agree that the fairest way is to have waivers or other fair approaches for those 20%. I do not think that the circumstances of this 20% is a reason to not have the tax for the remaining 80% - our nice broadened tax base.

Also, as an aside, we don't know even how many of those 20% actually own property, the long term unemployed for example are less likely to than your average person. But anyway...

On an unrelated point, another nice consequence of the tax is that it encourages people to move to properties that suit their circumstances. For example, OAPs on their own in huge family homes might downgrade. This leads to a more efficient use of property for society in general. For example OAPs have more incentive to move out of large family homes, in areas close to employment, which are likely to be valuable to maybe a nice cottage in the country. in this case it would free up the original house for a young family that needs it.

Someone will argue this is forcing people old people out of their homes etc, but it's not, it's just an incentive. You can still choose to own any property you can afford. I think of it more like high motor tax on large engines - you are free to own a big gas guzzling SUV if you like, but the high motor tax is a disincentive. This is good.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

”reasonably” ... not for long see post 743
”It's optional, owning property is a choice.” ...Even Phoebas agrees selling (so not owning) is impractical POSTS 530 (last line) / 564 and again for SNs not even possible POST 676

For *most* people, it is a choice, the others are the edge cases I guess. You have good points in 676..

cageyeuclid wrote: »

”Someone with 10 houses ...” ... Unfair as the LPT amount will be passed on to the renters .... many posts.

If landlords control the price of rent, why don't they all charge a million euro per month? Supply and demand dictates what the rent will be.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

“Someone with a more valuable property” ... Unfair and inequitable if “someone with a less valuable one” has a far higher income.

But then they pay more income tax, we already have a proportional tax on income.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

“Someone wealthy in terms of property but with little income may be able defer it until death etc “ ... In SN cases and many others deferral is not an option ... 564 and many more,

cageyeuclid wrote: »

“It helps prevent another property bubble.” ... in 20 yrs maybe.

Yes, these things are gradual. But it's still a valid and important point in the long run.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

“we're still overspending ....public spending reductions” ... so that is the root of the problem ... The public salaried won’t accept a cut (but they think they can afford LPT .. but not for long) ... post 743

Yeah, I don't know enough to know whether it's possible to get everything in order by just cutting spending without destorying public services. From what I've read I doubt it, but I'm all for cuts, I'd rather see more cuts than tax increases.

cageyeuclid wrote: »

If you genuinely “have sympathy for anyone in genuine hard times” then you will agree that LPT not making provision for all those “edge cases” and including them in the “general population” is unreasonable and unfair and in the cases of carers of SNs cruel. Please read POST 563 as well.

If we agree on “edge cases” being catered for (waiver / Tax Credits / Soc W supplement etc. etc.), then we can then finally go ahead and have a proper discussion on whether a tax on the family home is (or is not) just/fair.

I agree. And it's probably only by taxing the wealthy using a property tax that we can afford this help for those that need it.

kippy wrote: »

Fair enough.......


You're whole basis for not paying the property tax appears to be that your home doesn't earn you money so it shouldn't be taxed.
At this point do you concede that lot of stuff that is taxed doesnt earn you money either, and arguing against a tax on this basis is fundamentally incorrect?

Again only a question which has been answered by me ad nauseum.

kippy wrote: »

Where's the URL?

Why would anyone care that the house value is less than what was paid initially for it anyway............

cageyeuclid is trying to conflate 'market equity' with 'negative equity' - its part of a pattern of making a claim about one thing but then switching in evidence that relates to a different thing altogether.

SamHall wrote: »

That would make it possible to own a home outright, but it could be in negative equity.

I'll let you off with your logic at this point and ask you this.
How many people do you think this applies to?

SamHall wrote: »

No-one ever got a loan secured against a home? (Business for example)

Collapse in housing market, results now that even sale of house wouldn't cover outstanding debt?

If there is outstanding debt secured on the house then it isn't owned 'outright'

SamHall wrote:

That would make it possible to own a home outright, but it could be in negative equity.

SamHall wrote: »

How can you put something, not owned by you, up for collateral?

Sorry Sam - we must have wires crossed. I don't know what you're trying to get at.

(Is it where someone buys a property with a loan, but the property isn't used as security)?