Why is there a "Council Tax" related to house valuation in the UK

So people pay higher council tax now if they have a larger house. That won't change.

So people are *currently* paying higher council tax who work from home. If they don't want to pay business rates for business use, then they can't complain about higher council tax.

Same with people who have snooker rooms or swimming pools. It's what happens now anyway, bigger house often means higher council tax band. We live on a small island with a high population density, I think we ought to be taxing those who use excessive space for their own purposes.

Extra space.

Or what about helicopter pads, I hadn't thought of that one. What about if someone had a helicopter pad for 3 months of the year, then converted it into a garage for 2 months, then built a stable to house his pet horse for 7 weeks, then extended his house into the space but let that part to students...

I'm talking about a general principle on which council tax would be based - currently the general principle is the value of the house, instead I think the general principle should be area occupied, but with a "tax free threshold" like income tax.

The consumed item is the exclusive use of it for the period.

Jim.

If a council wants to build a new library or a swimming pool or have more road sweepers, why should it be funded from central taxation? Conversely, if the local tax payers want these things and are willing to pay for them, why should they not be allowed to have them?

The UK is already too centralised. I think obligations mandated by central government or the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly should be paid for by the body that imposes them, but local people should have a choice about what sort of discretionary services they want and how they want to pay for them. There is no reason why local taxation should be the same everywhere, if people in one county want a local income tax, and in another they want a property tax, in a third they want a mixture of the two, they should be able to have it. The US example shows that this is possible. It would also be a good idea to limit increases in local government spending to the rate of inflation, and a referendum should be required to approve bigger increases with a clear statement of what the voters are getting in exchange for the higher taxes.

In message , Jim Ley writes

I see the point you are trying to make, but 'consumption' is the wrong word, dont you agree?

In message , Jim Ley writes

That isnt consumption

If you see the point, then the word is certainly good enough to make that point, and no I can't think of a more obvious one to use, there's lots of things we consume that don't get destroyed, electricity etc.

Jim.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Bigger houses don't necessarily imply bigger council tax - because that depends on house *value*, not *size*.

Those people running businesses from home may have moved to a place where they get more "size" for their "pound sterling" - thus house costing about the same as a smaller house elsewhere (in which they may have lived if they didn't 'work from home'), and being in roughly the same council tax band.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Why? Space may be "at a premium" in cities - which is why properties of any particular size tend to cost more there, and hence their council tax will automatically be higher than similarly-sized properties outside the cities - but not in more "rural" locations.

Why tax someone the same for using 1,000sq.ft. in the city of london, as someone using 1,000sq.ft. out "in the sticks"??

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Your principle would end up reducing the tax on "city slickers" and increasing the tax on "farmer-types". Why do you think that is fairer?

In message , Jim Ley writes

Who said anything about destruction?

Matter always continues to exist no matter what happens, but almost invariably it change its state during the process of consumption. The consumption of electricity involves a change of state. The consumption of food changes its state, but the original matter still exists.

Tell me, do your drive down a road in your car, or do you consume the road in your car? Your theory would suggest the latter.

I consume the space at each point certainly...

I'm not sure which definition of consume you're using, but it's obviously a different one of mine, as you know exactly the use I'm using it to, could you suggest a word that would use instead?

Jim.

In message , Jim Ley writes

I think there should have been a smiley after that dont you?

Well I have now looked it up and find "to use up; to devour; to waste or spend; to destroy by wasting; fire; evaporation, etc.; to exhaust." (Chambers Concise) so I see that 'destroy' does come into it after all.

I think your expression "exclusive use of it for the period" is fine. I dont believe there is a single word that means exactly that although 'tenancy' or 'occupy' come to mind. It certainly isnt the meaning of 'consume'.

The solution is simple. The better word is "Use" !

Although "used" is not as good a justification for being taxed as "consumed" which implies that the act of consuming it will deny it to any subsequent users.

1. To eat or drink.

1. To use up.

2. To destroy.

1. To devour or overcome completely.

2. To waste away.

Etymology: 14c: from Latin consumere to take up completely.

DG

So what? If the house (or part of it) is used for business purposes then business rates should be paid on the appropriate portion.

Because doing so would discourage further ploughing up of the countryside to build new ugly shoebox estates in the sticks.

It's not about fairness, it's about taxing a precious resource, ie space, in a country with a high population density.

Bitstring , from Andy Pandy said

Define 'a country', given that population density in much of Scotland, and even large slices of Northern England (or even Shropshire) is actually very low. The only place where space is really at a premium is SE England, and the middle of large cities.

Want to see what 'high population density' looks like? try Hong Kong. Fit everyone in the UK into the IoW and you'd be on the way to 'high density'.

Of course, since no government has any interest in limiting it's supply of voters/citizens, and no major UK political party has any defined goals for what the sustainable UK population should be, we will doubtless get there eventually, if some epidemic doesn't thin us out first.

Dogs used to have a canine poll tax, called a dog licence. 3/6d IIRC.

New housing estates are being built everywhere.

IIRC we have something like 1% of the world population in 0.1% of the habitable world land area. So that's 10 times the average world population density.

And as the number of people per household reduces at the same time, we'll concrete the countyside over much quicker.

Indeed they did,and an Uncle of mine got fined 5/00d for not having one.

Which puts into perspective the fines for not having a valid parking "Licence".

Pay and display parking "licence" = 50p

Fine for parking without a valid licence != 75p, = 6,500p (if not more if it's taken to court).

DG

"Andy Pandy" wrote

And what's wrong with that??!

Obviously, it'll only happen if enough people want it - ie if people want to buy the extra houses. So - if so many people want it, as this is a democratic country why shouldn't they all get what they want?

So you don't think anyone should need planning permission for building anything then?

Mind you that might be a good thing - it'd send house prices plummeting and may make "investing" in property much less attractive. People might actually forget about houses as something to invest in and start to think of them as something to live in. It may *stop* the concreting over of the countryside. Yes - you've convinced me!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No - well, not necessarily. Which bit made you think that?

The point is, if enough people want it (eg a majority) - then in a democratic society it is fair for the rules to allow it - don't you think?

So, if a majority of people *did* want planning permission to be scrapped, then they could vote in a party which would scrap it. Simple.