on 29/1/01 12:33 am, Erik Reuter at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 02:29:05PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>> At 10:24 AM 1/28/01 -0600, Erik wrote:
>>> Depending on how they calculated, I suppose that could be. But to be
>>> fair, they should really take into account the big tax break they
>>> get for the property, assuming they got a loan to buy it. Which likely
>>> offsets most or all of the property taxes.
>>
>> Which means that if they had found a non-home-owning couple of the same
>> income, they would pay even more of their income in taxes!!!!!!! Is that
>> *amazing* or what? This family is working two jobs to make ends meet, and
>> they are paying *half* of their income to the governments. Whew!
>
> Huh? Non home-owners don't pay property tax.
Lucky you! In the UK everybody has to pay a 'council tax' based on the old
rateable (property tax) bands of where they live even if they rent. The
owners of the house/apartment don't pay this tax, the occupiers do (with a
15% deduction for single-occupancy, and no extra charge for multiple
occupancy.)[1]
This was the replacement for the poll tax after the tax revolt killed that.
Fair in the sense that everybody (owner-occupier or renter) uses the
services and infrastructure (garbage collection, street lighting and repair,
fire service, police etc) and very stupid because it is much easier to track
who owns a building (it isn't going anywhere and is an asset which can be
liened) than who lives where (people move about, especially if they rent.)
Needless to say the collection rate for council tax is lower than the near
%100 of rates (property tax) which means that the tax level has to be
increased for everybody to meet shortfalls.
Another triumph of (Conservative in this case) ideology over common sense.
(Remember: if the property owner had to pay the tax they could just include
it in the rent anyway.)
[1] And the poor get it rebated anyway, leading to more forms and
bureaucracy.
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
