[Hirsute]

Obviously I am a deeply embedded member of the tofu eating wokerati who reads the odd guardian article, but even so, this did make me laugh out loud.

Users worried Boris 2.0 permanently corrupted

‘But there is no Safe Mode, just Lunatic Mode’

 

 

Topic

[Rich_cb]

What is RSG?
What is RSG?

It can vary because of democratic differences but the vast majority of the difference in council tax is simply down to the difference in house prices.

People in deprived areas are essentially paying a higher rate of tax than those in rich areas for the same services which is regressive.

If people are asset rich but cash poor then they could forfeit part of their equity in lieu of the council tax to be redeemed on change of ownership.

The housing wealth in those situations is usually almost entirely unearned so taxing a small portion of that unearned wealth shouldn’t really be controversial.

[Dnnnnnn]

hirsute wrote:

Had to subscribe to avoid the ads.

That’s capitalism for you.

Not sure if that was a very serious remark but how do you think the people who provide road.cc’s service should be paid for their work?

[Hirsute]

I think they should do it for

I think they should do it for the good of cycling.

A bit of largesse

 

[Simon_MacMichael]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

Dnnnnnn wrote:

Not sure if that was a very serious remark but how do you think the people who provide road.cc’s service should be paid for their work?

“road.cc’s vice …” ?

I need to pay a visit to Bath sometime soon to find out exactly what they’re getting up to in the office these days 

[chrisonabike]

I suspect that it’s Sunak not

I suspect that it’s Sunak not wanting such a continual cheerleader for Boris* around.  Or the irritation for him of being reminded “but back then you gave the nod to that” when arguing with his circle for a U-turn on policies.

* Which is odd for someone who apparently has never changed a nappy.

[hawkinspeter]

hirsute wrote:

Had to subscribe to avoid the ads.

That’s capitalism for you.

Ad-blocker – that’s techno-anarchism for you

[brooksby]

wycombewheeler wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I spotted that Jacob Rees-Mogg is trying to scrap any EU legislation that protects workers: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/24/post-brexit-proposals-mean-2400-laws-could-disappear-lawyers-warn

I’m surprised that no-one foresaw that as one of the outcomes of Brexit.

(A more amusing article here: https://newsthump.com/2022/10/24/i-only-came-back-from-my-holiday-to-make-jacob-rees-mogg-look-like-a-twat-insists-johnson/)

I thought he was out of government now, so we can go back to ignoring him. at least he didn’t manage to push through his siggestions that we should abandon metric units and rever to imperial

Is that a typo for “revert to imperial” or a typo for the fact that Rees-Mogg “reveres imperial”?

[hawkinspeter]

wycombewheeler wrote:

I thought he was out of government now, so we can go back to ignoring him. at least he didn’t manage to push through his siggestions that we should abandon metric units and rever to imperial

I suspect that JRM is just a teeny bit racist and couldn’t bear working with Rishi

[wycombewheeler]

hawkinspeter wrote:

I spotted that Jacob Rees-Mogg is trying to scrap any EU legislation that protects workers: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/oct/24/post-brexit-proposals-mean-2400-laws-could-disappear-lawyers-warn

I’m surprised that no-one foresaw that as one of the outcomes of Brexit.

(A more amusing article here: https://newsthump.com/2022/10/24/i-only-came-back-from-my-holiday-to-make-jacob-rees-mogg-look-like-a-twat-insists-johnson/)

I thought he was out of government now, so we can go back to ignoring him. at least he didn’t manage to push through his siggestions that we should abandon metric units and rever to imperial

[hawkinspeter]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Two reasons. Firstly the rates are not uniformly applied. A band D property in one area will pay a completely different rate to a band D property in another area. The effect of this is that in areas with lower house prices council tax is higher relative to house value so the ‘rate’ is effectively higher. Secondly, the bands don’t continue increasing infinitely. There is a maximum value, above with everybody pays the same rate. If you own a £20m property you pay the same rate as a £1m property giving the very wealthiest a much lower effective ‘rate’. Higher rates for the poorest, lower rates for the richest. Regressive. A tax of x% of house value per year would be fairer. If the % increased with value or x% of first £200,000, x+1% of next £200,000, then x+2% for value above that (in a similar way to stamp duty) then it would be progressive.

I’d go for that. Maybe have an increased rate for buy-to-let properties so that property hoarders are penalised for properties that they don’t live in.

I saw a predicion by Lloyds the other day that property prices are likely to reduce by about 8% over the next few years, so that’s going to make for interesting times when combined with rising interest rates.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/27/lloyds-bank-profits-plunge-by-25-as-lender-prepares-for-bad-loans

Unfortunately, I can see it affecting the younger generation disproportionately as they’re the ones struggling to save enough for a mortgage deposit and then once they’ve finally managed to wrangle a mortgage deal, they get hit by negative equity.

[hawkinspeter]

Rich_cb wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

This is a personal favourite: https://newsthump.com/2021/03/17/britain-is-awful-you-people-are-scum-the-labour-lefts-new-slogan/%5B/quote%5D

[quote]I mean, everyone knows that people didn’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn because they’re all dreadful or stupid.

I’d blame media character assassination and division within Labour along with the general level of stupidity

[Hirsute]

You are ignoring the effect

You are ignoring the effect of RSG which smooths out the differences in asset values. Also council tax can vary becasue people voted for a higher level of service.

Your % approach would have a negative effect on those who are asset rich but cash poor whose asset has appreciated due to external factors.

I think the current band approach is a reasonable compromise of asset/income but it is way out of date with no sign of a review.

[Rich_cb]

Two reasons.
Two reasons.

Firstly the rates are not uniformly applied. A band D property in one area will pay a completely different rate to a band D property in another area. The effect of this is that in areas with lower house prices council tax is higher relative to house value so the ‘rate’ is effectively higher.

Secondly, the bands don’t continue increasing infinitely. There is a maximum value, above with everybody pays the same rate. If you own a £20m property you pay the same rate as a £1m property giving the very wealthiest a much lower effective ‘rate’.

Higher rates for the poorest, lower rates for the richest. Regressive.

A tax of x% of house value per year would be fairer. If the % increased with value or x% of first £200,000, x+1% of next £200,000, then x+2% for value above that (in a similar way to stamp duty) then it would be progressive.

[Hirsute]

Properties in H pay 3 times
Properties in H pay 3 times that in A. How is that regressive ?
The main problem is the lack of revaluations for a scheme that started in 1993 so anything new has to be reverted to those prices.

[Rich_cb]

I’d agree that social care
I’d agree that social care doesn’t help the NHS but its problems extend far beyond that.

Personally I’d like to see council tax reformed and made more progressive and the proceeds put towards social care. A fixed percentage of your house value every year for example. Bands similar to stamp duty could make it progressive rather than the current horrifically regressive mess.

Housing wealth is disproportionately held by the older generations who, for obvious reasons, disproportionately require social care so it would directly benefit the group who ended up paying the most.

Taxing unearned wealth wouldn’t be that controversial surely…

[Author]

Replies