.foXinternet

Monday, September 19, 2005 :

Council Tax Revaluations - hang on a minute

So, there’s been some stuff in the press lately about how people have been “spared” dramatic increases in their Council Tax, because the Government has postponed a revaluation of residential property. According to the reports, the big increases in property values since 1991, when values were last assessed, means that many people will be asked to pay more as their properties jump several Council Tax bands.

Hang on a minute. That doesn’t work, does it? Local Government needs a certain amount of money each year. That’s why the Council Tax varies each year. The fact that houses are revalued has nothing to do with how much money local Government needs. All it means is that people will be placed into bands based upon an up–to–date (and presumably therefore more accurate) valuation of their property. It doesn’t mean that everyone is going to have to pay more as properties jump up through the bands. The total amount will still be divided according to the relative values of people’s houses across the borough. You should only pay more if your house has risen in value relatively more than others in the borough. In which case, you should pay more, if you accept that tax for local services is to be charged according to the value of the house you are lucky enough to be able to afford to live in (which you may not). In fact, a revaluation should be good for me, because presumably the value of my house (and therefore its Council Tax band) was assessed in 1998 when it was built, unlike the many houses in the borough that were actually around in 1991 and were assessed at the (generally) lower values prevailing at that time. A revaluation now would re–level the playing field in my favour.



Comments:
It's all about you (it's all about you)
It's all about you baby


McFly
 
Your logic is correct. The historical problem has arisen because revaluation is a lengthy and complex process and, when it has happened before, not all parts of a district/borough have been revalued at the same time. This means that some people's apparent valuation leaps way ahead of others yet un-revalued, and gross inequities arise. Sounds to me like we need to move away from a property-based financial settlement and towards one based on ability to pay, such as a local income tax. Also, letting local authorities benefit from the business tax raised in their areas would help: at the moment it's all pooled into the hands of central government to be divvied up at their whim. Incidentally, there was nothing really wrong with the rating system; it had evolved and developed over decades and had become quite flexible in its way. Thatcher disagreed because it left too many decisions about spending in the hands of locally-elected politicians rather than the (then) Department of the Environment.
 
Nick, is your cryptic comment intended to suggest that I am being selfish because I consider that a more accurate property valuation for council tax purposes would actually operate to my favour, rather than to my disadvantage as suggested by the media? If you feel that way, be my guest in volunteering to pay extra tax so the council can install some much-needed additional speed-bumps around your flat. Me, I'd rather pay what I fairly owe (which appears to be quite a lot, anyway) and no more.
 
Post a Comment

« Home

want more?
Any views expressed here are, at best, those of the author and are not necessarily shared by the author’s employer.

Home
Archives
Mail Me
RSS

Emailsafe
Mail Hughesie
Spamusement

Poetry

Newness Dance
5K2002 Entry

AA Route Planner
A List Apart
Dictionary
Gmail
HTML Keyboard
iStockphoto
Weather
Webmonkey
Yahoomail

Grammalogue
JamonInternet
Tumblage
Virtual Traveller

Into You
Living Image
Lucky Fish
Steve Herring
Sunset Strip

L.A Times
London Times
New York Times

Toggle Blogroll


originalwork
new style