Talk:Window tax

Charges

Judging by the article, it was a one-off tax. Is this correct? It doesn't mention that these must be paid monthly, weely or annually, but they seem very low to cause people's anger. Can anyone clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.102.92 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Re. the French tax and its inverse affect. Aside from the word order, inverse of what? The ostentatious over use of windows or the miserly bricking up of windows? Hard to know.

I looked here after I read this brief mention: "Some of the 'vital sayings' were good comments on matters of current interest, like the late Christopher Nevinson's: 'architects must be constantly reminded that there is no longer a tax upon windows.' " Megroz, R. L., "Pre-War Wisdom," Italic textThirty-One Bedside EssaysItalic text, Port Washington, NY/London: Kennikat Press, 1951, 1970

Your chronology means under December 31:

*1695 - A window tax is imposed in England, causing many shopkeepers to brick up their windows to avoid the tax.

What is correct? --172.178.100.63 15:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Tax

It is worth referring to this discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Tax) given that the section in this article doesn't seem much better that what was previously described.--Jrsnbarn 12:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems bizarre to merge the two articles since Windows tax and window tax are such totally different things. I don't think any other encyclopedia would consider grouping them in the same article. The decision, as you have pointed out, was to delete the stuff about Microsoft and to make Window tax redirect to here.If the Microsoft stuff goes anywhere it should be with criticisms of Microsoft...but they don't seem to want it either. Bluewave 13:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly be in favour of either reinstating Windows Tax as it's own article, or simply replacing the body of the section with a note as to the meaning of Windows Tax and a reference to Criticisms of Microsoft.--Jrsnbarn 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further citations needed

I've added in some notes asking for further reliable citations - a friend with some knowledge of the history of architecture of Edinburgh said the tax was relative negligible and house were missing windows for architectural reasons, not financial ones. Some details of how much tax was levied and how it was assessed would also help this article, I feel. Qwghlm (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit about how it was levied.Bluewave (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blinde windows were common during this period, also in countries with no window tax. The reason for blinded windows is the classicist ideal of symmetry; not an economically based effort to avoid windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.196.77 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Robbery

This section is completely redundant, as all it does is say that it has nothing to do with window tax. I suggest that it is removed. Mnealon (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iniquitous

I thought that not only did the tax lead to windows being bricked up, as many still are, but that the tax caused even more problems by forcing the poor to live in the dark, which led to rickets, which left them less able to work and thus even poorer. --81.105.242.11 (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The poor were supposed to be exempt - at least those who, by reason of poverty, were exempt from church rates and poor rates were also exempt from window tax. Also it only applied to houses with more than 10 windows. Despite these points (as with any tax) there probably were cases where people suffered...do you have any references? Bluewave (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary references

Not only is this unreferenced, but it flies in the face of passive house deisgn which often encourages the use of windows to capture winter sunlight in order to heat the house. JonSenior (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to track down the reference which, I think, is http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070202_154815_4816. That does indeed call for a luxury tax on window size, but it doesn't seem to go into the science behind it and whether the science would actually argue for smaller windows or larger ones. More importantly, I've no idea about the notability of the article and whether it is expressing a mainstream view or an individual one. You could try boldly deleting the section and, if someone objects, at least you'll be arguing with someone who is prepared to do the work to defend the section. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

worldview

this article seems to solely focus on the British window tax, I vaguely remember there also being such a thing in the Netherlands. Maybe even more countries had/have this. --Vera (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German article refers also to this tax being implemented in the Netherlands and in France. It doesn't have citations though. --Vera (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statute

Hello there,

I have corrected the statute in which the window tax originated. Formerly, the article cited this statute: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46868#s15 (Chapter XX. Rot. Parl. 8 & 9 Gul. III. p. 5. nu.1.). However, this statute does not mention the charges levied which are stated in the article.

I have altered this to cite http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46825#s1 (Chapter XVIII. Rot. Parl. 7&8 Gul. III. p.5.n.4), which does mention the standing charge on houses, as well as the variable levy dependent on the number of windows. The former statute appears to merely be a continuation of this one, though it does account for the appointment of assessors.

Hope that's all okay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.154.69 (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Window tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==WP Tax Class==

Could go higher, but would need a little expansion and references added.EECavazos 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because about a past law.EECavazos 03:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This articles shows a photo of Edinburgh (Union Street, I think) with "blocked up" windows. It is a common misconception that such windows in the Edinburgh Newtown were blocked up after building to avoid window tax. Such "windows" were built with stone slabs in place of fenestration in order to preserve the rhythm and symmetry of the facade as it embraced the corner. It was a compromise in preference to a large block of ashlar that would have disrupted the whole street pattern. Very often, standard tenement flat floor plans in the rooms behind dictated the position of fireplaces and and other flues to connect to the chimneys that precluded corner windows. You can may notice the tenement stair landings behind the real windows in the photograph. The grander Newtown Streets had planned corner developments but even in these sometimes a "false" window may be seen, but not due to window tax.

Regards Quercus,

Quercus62 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 10:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)