> I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure
> plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is
> what compensation at less than market value is.
It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
Will that work, though?
- House worth £1.2 million. - Tax levied on declared property worth of more than £1 mio at 50% on amount above £1 mio. - Little old lady declares house to be worth £900k. No tax therefore due. - Thrusting rich California-based entrepreneur wishing to return home buys it at 30% more than declared value - £1.2 mio.
Result:- - little old lady happily retires to Corfu with her £1.2 mio to pursue romances with handsome Greek taxi drivers. - HMRC deprived of £100k tax revenue - Entrepreneur declares value to be £995k. - Process rinsed and repeated.
There may be a flaw in my reasoning. I am sure you will find it, if so.
> And we see the formation of a new industry of fraudsters offering free valuations to little old ladies who want to fill in their decelerations “correctly”
Alternatively you could bolt the Harberger Tax thing on backwards: Let some government assessor decide the value of your property for tax purposes, but if you think they've gone too high you can require the government to buy it from you at that price.
The government could then contract this whole thing out to private companies that would try to maximize the tax revenue while avoiding buying property for more than it's worth, and they'd get to keep a cut.
Italy contracted out the right to collect taxes in Sicily for a cut of the proceeds. Guess who got that contract.....
> @Dura_Ace said: > That's how it works in France. > > The taxe foncière is set by the local commune/marie and is based on a hypothetical (valeur locative cadastrale) rental value. You don't value your own house and nobody has the right to force a purchase.
> @williamglenn said: > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration. > > > > Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it. > > What about the Californian system of basing it on the most recent sale price
That's a terrible system because it discourages people ever trading down.
Let's say you bought a four bedroom property in 1990 for you and your family.
But now it's just you.
But if you sell and move to a nice one bedroom apartment, you'll be paying more in property tax.
We should be encouraging the efficient use of capital, not discouraging it.
> @Cyclefree said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > You are missing the point. > > > > > > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. > > > > > > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure > > > plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. > > > > > > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is > > > what compensation at less than market value is. > > > > It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration. > > > > Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it. > > Will that work, though? > > - House worth £1.2 million. > - Tax levied on declared property worth of more than £1 mio at 50% on amount above £1 mio. > - Little old lady declares house to be worth £900k. No tax therefore due. > - Thrusting rich California-based entrepreneur wishing to return home buys it at 30% more than declared value - £1.2 mio. > > Result:- > - little old lady happily retires to Corfu with her £1.2 mio to pursue romances with handsome Greek taxi drivers. > - HMRC deprived of £100k tax revenue > - Entrepreneur declares value to be £995k. > - Process rinsed and repeated. > > There may be a flaw in my reasoning. I am sure you will find it, if so.
Sure, if someone bids more than the 30% mark, it goes straight to auction.
You are missing the point. I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
Without you selling the house, *any* estimate of "market value" is arbitrary and subjective. But you know this already. What kind of number would you accept?
> > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure
>
> > plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is
>
> > what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
>
> It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
>
>
>
> Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
>
> Will that work, though?
>
> - House worth £1.2 million.
> - Tax levied on declared property worth of more than £1 mio at 50% on amount above £1 mio.
> - Little old lady declares house to be worth £900k. No tax therefore due.
> - Thrusting rich California-based entrepreneur wishing to return home buys it at 30% more than declared value - £1.2 mio.
>
> Result:-
> - little old lady happily retires to Corfu with her £1.2 mio to pursue romances with handsome Greek taxi drivers.
> - HMRC deprived of £100k tax revenue
> - Entrepreneur declares value to be £995k.
> - Process rinsed and repeated.
>
> There may be a flaw in my reasoning. I am sure you will find it, if so.
Sure, if someone bids more than the 30% mark, it goes straight to auction.
You are missing the point. I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value. I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value. I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is what compensation at less than market value is.
Without you selling the house, *any* estimate of "market value" is arbitrary and subjective. But you know this already. What kind of number would you accept?
A best estimate of market value based on sale prices of similar houses in neighbourhood.
A tax based on a notional rental value as in Italy, France etc.
There are lots of options.
But what is dangerous is the government taking it upon itself to claim that a house in an area where no house has ever sold for £1 million suddenly to be worth £2 million, purely so that more tax can be levied.
Or conversely to announce that shares, which are traded every day and where there are up to the minute valuations of what they are worth, are worth half that figure in order to avoid paying compensation when the shares are seized.
Comments
- House worth £1.2 million.
- Tax levied on declared property worth of more than £1 mio at 50% on amount above £1 mio.
- Little old lady declares house to be worth £900k. No tax therefore due.
- Thrusting rich California-based entrepreneur wishing to return home buys it at 30% more than declared value - £1.2 mio.
Result:-
- little old lady happily retires to Corfu with her £1.2 mio to pursue romances with handsome Greek taxi drivers.
- HMRC deprived of £100k tax revenue
- Entrepreneur declares value to be £995k.
- Process rinsed and repeated.
There may be a flaw in my reasoning. I am sure you will find it, if so.
> That's how it works in France.
>
> The taxe foncière is set by the local commune/marie and is based on a hypothetical (valeur locative cadastrale) rental value. You don't value your own house and nobody has the right to force a purchase.
I stand corrected.
> > @rcs1000 said:
> >
> > It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
> >
> > Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
>
> What about the Californian system of basing it on the most recent sale price
That's a terrible system because it discourages people ever trading down.
Let's say you bought a four bedroom property in 1990 for you and your family.
But now it's just you.
But if you sell and move to a nice one bedroom apartment, you'll be paying more in property tax.
We should be encouraging the efficient use of capital, not discouraging it.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
>
>
> > You are missing the point.
>
> >
>
> > I have no issue with paying a tax based on market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have a very strong objection to paying tax based on an arbitrary figure
>
> > plucked out of the air which will bear no relation to my property’s market value.
>
> >
>
> > I have an equally strong objection to having my savings expropriated which is
>
> > what compensation at less than market value is.
>
>
>
> It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
>
>
>
> Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.
>
> Will that work, though?
>
> - House worth £1.2 million.
> - Tax levied on declared property worth of more than £1 mio at 50% on amount above £1 mio.
> - Little old lady declares house to be worth £900k. No tax therefore due.
> - Thrusting rich California-based entrepreneur wishing to return home buys it at 30% more than declared value - £1.2 mio.
>
> Result:-
> - little old lady happily retires to Corfu with her £1.2 mio to pursue romances with handsome Greek taxi drivers.
> - HMRC deprived of £100k tax revenue
> - Entrepreneur declares value to be £995k.
> - Process rinsed and repeated.
>
> There may be a flaw in my reasoning. I am sure you will find it, if so.
Sure, if someone bids more than the 30% mark, it goes straight to auction.
Zoopla does this: https://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/
Houseprices.io does this: https://houseprices.io/
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1128445477555404801
Tax on sale makes sense.
A best estimate of market value based on sale prices of similar houses in neighbourhood.
A tax based on a notional rental value as in Italy, France etc.
There are lots of options.
But what is dangerous is the government taking it upon itself to claim that a house in an area where no house has ever sold for £1 million suddenly to be worth £2 million, purely so that more tax can be levied.
Or conversely to announce that shares, which are traded every day and where there are up to the minute valuations of what they are worth, are worth half that figure in order to avoid paying compensation when the shares are seized.
> My LD councillor told me tonight that Chris Leslie is the blockage between CHUK and the LDs working together.
I don't think the Lib Dems should touch any Iraq warmongers.