Skip to main content

Today is Council Tax Bombshell Day (and it's no April Fool)

April 1st 2005 is the date at which every property in England is to be revalued. This is to enable a Council Tax rebanding.

This sounds relatively anodyne given that in theory it is a "nil sum" operation. However, the experience from Wales is that there have been increases in the amount of tax people have to pay of up to 22% on top of inflation.

The only fair option is to "Axe the Tax" and replace the Council Tax with an Income Levy paid with Income Tax (A Local Income Tax).

This would be administered by the Inland Revenue and collected together with the normal income tax bill. It would, therefore, be very cost effective to collect.

Most importantly it would be fair, being based upon people's ability to pay.


PoliticalHack said…
...and it hands all the power in funding local government to Whitehall, as they will decide how every penny of that tax is redistributed to balance the rich and poor areas.

The LibDems have made a big point that a lot of their (elderly) voters would be better off, but there are an awful lot of people who will find themselves worse off as a result.
john said…
That is not the case as you can vary the local rate.
PoliticalHack said…
Of course it is true. Unless you want to cut the overall amount generated by the tax system, if one group pays less, someone has to pay more to make up the difference. This difference kicks in at a very low level.

The tax has major problems, which haven't been discussed.

Where will you pay tax - where you live or where you work? What's to stop somebody claiming to live in a cheaper area than they actually do - using their parents' address for all Inland Revenue information? This has the potential to adversely affect local democracy (an issue dear to your heart) in the same way as the poll tax.

This is another of those LibDem policies that creates a good soundbite to conceal the nasty bite.
john said…
My response was to your allegation that it "hands all the power in funding ... to Whitehall"

Obviously for some to win, some have to lose. People on lower incomes win, those on higher incomes lose.

Simple really.

It feeds into how you wish to structure society and the nature of the taxation system.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…