Too White

**JPaul** · 08-17-2005, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Originally Posted by JPaul

My Council tax, expressed as US$, at the current rate of exchange would be $497,000 / annum.

If you lived in a Stately Home or something, you'd only pay about £2,400

The £ > US$ is particularly healthy at the moment.

**DanB** · 08-17-2005, 08:12 PM

It must be

is it 1:100?

**JPaul** · 08-17-2005, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Busyman

Originally Posted by JPaul

Council Tax is a local tax and is also mandatory. It is used to fund local Council spending.

It relates to the size / value of the property and the rates can fluctuate widely.

It is much worse than HOA.

My Council tax, expressed as US$, at the current rate of exchange would be $497,000 / annum.

It is still a tax and not an add-on to a tax.

Folks with HOA fees are separated by a mere subdivision of homes and is not government regulated.

You are talking numbers. I am not. Numberwise they are apples and oranges.

I say they are worse due to what it's for, who really benefits, and the fact that you still have to pay the same taxes as everyone else.

Person with $500,000 home in subdivision pays $150 in HOA fees per month.
This is raised based on a vote by the board, not government.

Person with $500,000 home down the street from subdivision pays $0.

You keep repeating that it is still a tax, which is irrelevant. It is an amount of money people pay, irrespective of their income or needs. It is mandatory and it's level is outwith the control of the person paying it. It is based purely on the value and location of their property, it takes no cognizance of their income, disposable or otherwise.

So someone on a low income pays the same as someone else on a higher income. The person on the higher income may then get more benefit from it, because of the local Councils spending policies for that year.

It is often iniquitous.

Which is worse than having to ask permission to paint your lawn.

**JPaul** · 08-17-2005, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by DanB

It must be

is it 1:100?

Around that I think. The US$ is currently valued at roughly the same as a ships peanut.

**DanB** · 08-17-2005, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

Originally Posted by DanB

It must be

is it 1:100?

Around that I think. The US$ is currently valued at roughly the same as a ships peanut.

**JPaul** · 08-17-2005, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by DanB

Originally Posted by JPaul

Around that I think. The US$ is currently valued at roughly the same as a ships peanut.

Sorry, I forgot the apostrophe in "ship's".

I feel such a fool, you're quite right larfing.

**Busyman** · 08-17-2005, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

Originally Posted by Busyman

It is still a tax and not an add-on to a tax.

Folks with HOA fees are separated by a mere subdivision of homes and is not government regulated.

You are talking numbers. I am not. Numberwise they are apples and oranges.

I say they are worse due to what it's for, who really benefits, and the fact that you still have to pay the same taxes as everyone else.

Person with $500,000 home in subdivision pays $150 in HOA fees per month.
This is raised based on a vote by the board, not government.

Person with $500,000 home down the street from subdivision pays $0.

You keep repeating that it is still a tax, which is irrelevant. It is an amount of money people pay, irrespective of their income or needs. It is mandatory and it's level is outwith the control of the person paying it. It is based purely on the value and location of their property, it takes no cognizance of their income, disposable or otherwise.

So someone on a low income pays the same as someone else on a higher income. The person on the higher income may then get more benefit from it, because of the local Councils spending policies for that year.

It is often iniquitous.

Which is worse than having to ask permission to paint your lawn.

I gotcha. This must be in addition to your property tax.

At first, it sounded just like property tax, which has no income distinction either.

So you have property tax AND council tax and both are based on home values.

We just have property tax over here and homes valued more that reside near you help raise your property tax.

A couple that bought their home for $80,000 many years ago may not be able to pay their property tax today if they senior citizens on fixed incomes (and/or worse yet, if one dies).

To have something put on top of that is just crazy.

I stand corrected.

**JPaul** · 08-17-2005, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Busyman

Originally Posted by JPaul

You keep repeating that it is still a tax, which is irrelevant. It is an amount of money people pay, irrespective of their income or needs. It is mandatory and it's level is outwith the control of the person paying it. It is based purely on the value and location of their property, it takes no cognizance of their income, disposable or otherwise.

So someone on a low income pays the same as someone else on a higher income. The person on the higher income may then get more benefit from it, because of the local Councils spending policies for that year.

It is often iniquitous.

Which is worse than having to ask permission to paint your lawn.

I gotcha. This must be in addition to your property tax.

At first, it sounded just like property tax, which has no income distinction either.

What's property tax.