The govt. seem set on penalising people who live in 'desirable' areas. Some home owners in 'posh' areas will see their council tax increase by as much as three times its present level. Even those who live in poorer areas but have a nice view from their window will find themselves having to pay for this small advantage they have over their neighbours.

There are going to be some serious casualties from such a scheme, particularly amongst pensioners who bought their homes long before before the hysteria of house price inflation set in.

In Northern Ireland, where the "intelligent proximity analysis" model is being tested, householders say that they feel increasingly bewildered and angry.

Michael Kelly, 64, has been left perplexed, struggling to comprehend the estimate he received for his 2007-8 rates.

"I’m currently paying just over £1,000, but in 2007-8 my bill is going to go up to nearly £4,000," said Mr Kelly. "I get by on a civil service pension of £100 a week - how am I supposed to afford it?"

And there will also be many who bought there homes in expensve areas 'on a wing and a prayer' in order to get their kids into a 'better school' who will find the new rates of council tax simply unaffordable.

The outcome of course is that some people, possibly many, will be forced to sell up and move down-market to properties that carry a council tax within their means to pay.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I2S4O1EDXMXMHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/10/29/ntax29.xml

It's not much of a surprise to see Old Labour peeking through the New Labour disguise when it comes to raising more cash to pay for the bloated public sector.

What we really need is smaller government that needs less people and less money.

The nonsense is that houses in nicer areas/with better facilities etc. already have higher values and, as such, pay higher Council Tax.

How do these suggestions differ from the re-banding exercise that is currently going on?

so what you are saying is that people that cant aforde it should pay the same as them that can :rant:

The nonsense is that houses in nicer areas/with better facilities etc. already have higher values and, as such, pay higher Council Tax.

How do these suggestions differ from the re-banding exercise that is currently going on?

It looks very much as if they will be using all the dubious claims that estate agents use. A view of a few scrubby trees taking over a vacant lot across the road will became a 'rural outlook'. End of terrace will become 'semi-detached', a pokey hole under the stairs with a couple of coathooks - a fitted cloakroom etc. etc.

The assumption seems to be that if you live in a 'nice' area you will be wealthy and therefore able to afford the swingeing premium they intend imposing for your 'privileged' position.

It seems too that if you live in a relatively crime-free area you'll be payimg much more for the policing of it than if you live on a sink estate :hihi:

People who can only marginally afford to live in nice areas will be driven out by trebling their council tax liability. There's obviously some resentment here about older people who bought their homes in desirable areas years ago and refuse to make way for the young and upwardly mobile :suspect:

"Peter Hain has dismissed claims the government plans to increase council tax bills based on how nice areas are."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6095452.stm

It is all being denied now ....... so we'll probably see it introduced before Easter!!! :hihi:

its like everything else if they want to slow smoking down taxit if they want to slow drivers down taxit its wrong that they should increase prices on everthing to make it so only the rich or unethical can aford it :rant:

"Peter Hain has dismissed claims the government plans to increase council tax bills based on how nice areas are."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6095452.stm

It is all being denied now ....... so we'll probably see it introduced before Easter!!! :hihi:

You mean Mr. Hain, a senior govt. minister is lying through his teeth ? :o

Surely not ! :rolleyes:

It seems too that if you live in a relatively crime-free area you'll be payimg much more for the policing of it than if you live on a sink estate :hihi:



That is absolutely no change from the position that has existed since council tax was introduced in 1993 then.:rolleyes:

Doubtless NuLabour will make a total ******** of council tax revaluation, but the fact remains that people in Band A & B properties pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in council tax than those in Band H properties. I think we should have more bands at the higher end; people in uber-expensive properties are paying buttons in council tax.

Doubtless NuLabour will make a total ******** of council tax revaluation, but the fact remains that people in Band A & B properties pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in council tax than those in Band H properties. I think we should have more bands at the higher end; people in uber-expensive properties are paying buttons in council tax.
I thought they were talking about introducing a local income tax where you pay according to your means? Or was that a non-starter?

I think it is Lib Dem policy to introduce a local income tax - none of the other major parties are likely to touch it with a barge pole.

I thought they were talking about introducing a local income tax where you pay according to your means? Or was that a non-starter?

I'm sure Mr. Murdoch said it wasn't allowed.

It is worth pointing out that if the council tax benefits system works properly, someone like Mr. Kelly in the first post would be protected from massive hikes in council tax by council tax benefit. But hey, would that make him a "benefits scrounger"? ;)

I'm sure Mr. Murdoch said it wasn't allowed.

It is worth pointing out that if the council tax benefits system works properly, someone like Mr. Kelly in the first post would be protected from massive hikes in council tax by council tax benefit. But hey, would that make him a "benefits scrounger"? ;)
With his civil service pension added to his old age pension (Only a £100.00 was mentioned in the post) then he may be unable to claim? Mind you if his council tax does go up to £4000.00 that is £80.00 per week and his pension of £100.00 per week has been swallowed up. That's not on.

I've never understood the way council tax is worked. Surelyif I live in an expensive house it doesnt necessarily mean I will make more us of council amenities. Surely a fairer way of judging this would be a tax on the amount of adults in a house. If you have five adults living in a house surely they are going to generate more rubbish etc. than me living on my own. Also where I live the rubbish is collected by a company independant of the council can someone please explain why I dont get a discount on my council tax seeing as I dont use the council for my rubbish disposal.

I have no objection to paying for the services I use but the cost of living here in Sheffield seems to increase far quicker than the level of service we receive.

Surely one average adult generates an average amount of rubbish as any other regardless of house value. On average I probably phone the police an average amount of times per year, but because I live in a "valuable" property I am expected to subsidise others.

doniticus has it spot on. Council Tax is to support council services and the idea of bands simply stems from the old rating system, not from an ability to pay more or less. The family of 7 next door consumes more than our family yet I earn more than them, so therefore I'm subsidising their profligacy on 2 counts.

If it is to become another form of income tax then we should be told. It will give me time to choose another country to live in.

doniticus has it spot on. Council Tax is to support council services and the idea of bands simply stems from the old rating system, not from an ability to pay more or less. The family of 7 next door consumes more than our family yet I earn more than them, so therefore I'm subsidising their profligacy on 2 counts.


Which two ? They will only be allowed one black bin per week and one blue bin per month the same as you.

Do they use the emergency services more than you do ? Do the potholes outside their property get repaired and those outside yours not ?

As I understand it about two-thirds of council services are paid for by central govt. out of general taxation anyway.

I do think council tax would be better based on adult occupancy than some notional property value.

Surely a fairer way of judging this would be a tax on the amount of adults in a house. If you have five adults living in a house surely they are going to generate more rubbish etc. than me living on my own.

Sounds like the Poll tax to me, how many of us would prefer to go back to that system now?

The govt. seem set on penalising people who live in 'desirable' areas. Some home owners in 'posh' areas will see their council tax increase by as much as three times its present level. Even those who live in poorer areas but have a nice view from their window will find themselves having to pay for this small advantage they have over their neighbours.

There are going to be some serious casualties from such a scheme, particularly amongst pensioners who bought their homes long before before the hysteria of house price inflation set in.

And there will also be many who bought there homes in expensve areas 'on a wing and a prayer' in order to get their kids into a 'better school' who will find the new rates of council tax simply unaffordable.

The outcome of course is that some people, possibly many, will be forced to sell up and move down-market to properties that carry a council tax within their means to pay.
This is only council tax (which was of course introduced by the Tories not Labour) operating exactly how it was meant to, ie. how much you pay depends upon the value of the property you live in.

Personally I’d rather have a local income tax which would be more progressive and significantly simpler and cheaper to operate but if we are going to have a system base upon property values it makes sense that the value of properties should be periodically reassessed to make sure everybody is in the right band.

I've never understood the way council tax is worked. Surelyif I live in an expensive house it doesnt necessarily mean I will make more us of council amenities. Surely a fairer way of judging this would be a tax on the amount of adults in a house. If you have five adults living in a house surely they are going to generate more rubbish etc. than me living on my own. Also where I live the rubbish is collected by a company independant of the council can someone please explain why I dont get a discount on my council tax seeing as I dont use the council for my rubbish disposal.

I have no objection to paying for the services I use but the cost of living here in Sheffield seems to increase far quicker than the level of service we receive.

Surely one average adult generates an average amount of rubbish as any other regardless of house value. On average I probably phone the police an average amount of times per year, but because I live in a "valuable" property I am expected to subsidise others.
Council tax wasn’t introduced on the premise that people in nice houses use more services but that people in nice houses tend to have more money so they should be required to contribute more to funding local services.

Which two ? They will only be allowed one black bin per week and one blue bin per month the same as you.

Do they use the emergency services more than you do ? Do the potholes outside their property get repaired and those outside yours not ?

As I understand it about two-thirds of council services are paid for by central govt. out of general taxation anyway.

I do think council tax would be better based on adult occupancy than some notional property value.
So you want to reintroduce the Poll Tax?

Sounds like the Poll tax to me, how many of us would prefer to go back to that system now?

There was nothing wrong with the idea.

The presentation just came from the wrong person at the wrong time.

So you want to reintroduce the Poll Tax?
People paying for what they use sounds just fine to me. :thumbsup:

People paying for what they use sounds just fine to me. :thumbsup:
I'll second that!

The "poll tax" was a fairer way to include all adults in paying for the local services, but in effect was almost impossible/too costly to administer, and that was the real reason for its demise, don't you think?

It was too easy for people who didn't want to pay to avoid doing so. I think there are still outstanding poll tax bills which have been written off? A property stays where it is and doesn't keep moving its location every so often. That's why I feel the concept in essence will remain as property based.

It's always going to be unfair to someone, however they try to work it out, as it seems that the people who pay the least or don't pay at all, usually seem to be the ones that have to use the services most.

The outcome of course is that some people, possibly many, will be forced to sell up and move down-market to properties that carry a council tax within their means to pay.


People should live within their means, or are you suggesting that people who have bought a house they can't afford should be subsidised by those of who who can afford to live where we do ?

People paying for what they use sounds just fine to me. :thumbsup:
Even when they can't actually afford to pay for what they need? The Poll Tax aside from all the practical problems of administering it was highly regressive and meant that the poor paid a much greater proportion of their income to the council than the well off did.

Many pensioners today are struggling to pay their council tax and simply wouldn’t be able to afford a poll tax, the same goes for many young families.

So you want to reintroduce the Poll Tax?

It seems a fairer system to me. Council services serve people, individuals and families, - not properties.

The idea that a three bedrrom detached house in Fulwood will use more council resource than a three-bedrrom terrace in Walkley is patently ridiculous. So why should the residents of the house in Fulwood have to pay considerably more tax than the Walkley residents ?

It seems a fairer system to me. Council services serve people, individuals and families, - not properties.

The idea that a three bedrrom detached house in Fulwood will use more council resource than a three-bedrrom terrace in Walkley is patently ridiculous. So why should the residents of the house in Fulwood have to pay considerably more tax than the Walkley residents ?
To quote my previous post which answered this exact question that you seem to have missed:

Council tax wasn’t introduced on the premise that people in nice houses use more services but that people in nice houses tend to have more money so they should be required to contribute more to funding local services.

Many pensioners today are struggling to pay their council tax and simply wouldn’t be able to afford a poll tax, the same goes for many young families.

In the same way that many pensioners who bought their properties at the height of their earning power are now to be penalised as a result of rampant house price inflation.

In the same way that many pensioners who bought their properties at the height of their earning power are now to be penalised as a result of rampant house price inflation.

Don't pensioners get a discount ?

People should live within their means, or are you suggesting that people who have bought a house they can't afford should be subsidised by those of who who can afford to live where we do ?

No I'm not suggesting that. The fact is though that many couples with children buy into property that leaves them financially stretched for the sole purpose of getting their kids into a 'good' school.

Such people generally do 'live within their means', but they would not have forseen the the govt. would double or treble their council tax liability.

No I'm not suggesting that. The fact is though that many couples with children buy into property that leaves them financially stretched for the sole purpose of getting their kids into a 'good' school.

Such people generally do 'live within their means', but they would not have forseen the the govt. would double or treble their council tax liability.
Actually they could and should have foreseen it as revaluation every 10 years was written into the bill which introduced council tax.

Don't pensioners get a discount ?

Council tax benefit is means tested, I think only pensioners claiming pension credit are entitled to it. Essentially those pensioners living on the govt. defined 'breadline'.

Hefty council tax rises will certainly bring a lot more pensioners down to this level. The govt. seem determined to bring all pensioners down to benefit dependency, even those with small private pensions who have so far managed to stay out of the poverty trap.

In the same way that many pensioners who bought their properties at the height of their earning power are now to be penalised as a result of rampant house price inflation.
No in a different and harsher way as a poll tax would hit pensioners with no assets just as hard as those with at least one very considerable asset.

These 300% increases have been deliberately floated so that we don't complain when we all get a 20% or 30% raise in council tax. We'll all sigh with relief rather than complain. No one is going to put this tax up by 300%.

To quote my previous post which answered this exact question that you seem to have missed:

Council tax wasn’t introduced on the premise that people in nice houses use more services but that people in nice houses tend to have more money so they should be required to contribute more to funding local services.

A poll tax or local income tax would surely have the same result ? The current sytem of local taxation penalises those who have spent their income wisely.

The assumption that people who live in 'nice' houses in 'nice' areas have lots of disposalable income is often erronous, particularly so in the case of pensioners, or older partnerships where one of the partners has retired.

A house bought twenty years ago for say, £70,000 could now be worth £250,000 in the market, but this is not a reflection of the current wealth of the occupants.

No in a different and harsher way as a poll tax would hit pensioners with no assets just as hard as those with at least one very considerable asset.

So those with this 'very considerable asset' on which they can't afford to pay a hugely increased tax will have to liquidate that assett and give up the home they've spent most of their lives living in.

Sounds equitable to me :hihi:

I have never earned what you would call a high income but I live in a nice house in a decent area. That is because I have always invested a high proportion of my income in my house. Anyone seeing my house would think I earn a lot more than I actually do. It seems I will be penalised for being proud of what I have and would have been better off living in a council house on a crappy estate and blowing my money every week in the pub.

Good old New Labour, the 'politics of envy' mob strikes again.......should have emigrated years ago!!!!:rant:

A poll tax or local income tax would surely have the same result ?
No they wouldn't under a poll tax everybody pays the same regardless of their ability to pay under a local income tax as with national income tax what you pay would vary in accordance with your ability to pay.

The current sytem of local taxation penalises those who have spent their income wisely.

The assumption that people who live in 'nice' houses in 'nice' areas have lots of disposalable income is often erronous, particularly so in the case of pensioners, or older partnerships where one of the partners has retired.

A house bought twenty years ago for say, £70,000 could now be worth £250,000 in the market, but this is not a reflection of the current wealth of the occupants.
Take it up with Michael Howard and the Tories he and they introduced the council tax, I was simply pointing out the reasoning they used when drawing it up, I never said that it was a good system though I do think it preferable to the poll tax.

So those with this 'very considerable asset' on which they can't afford to pay a hugely increased tax will have to liquidate that assett and give up the home they've spent most of their lives living in.

Sounds equitable to me :hihi:
It is certainly more equitable than driving pensioners with no assets into poverty.

I have never earned what you would call a high income but I live in a nice house in a decent area. That is because I have always invested a high proportion of my income in my house. Anyone seeing my house would think I earn a lot more than I actually do. It seems I will be penalised for being proud of what I have and would have been better off living in a council house on a crappy estate and blowing my money every week in the pub.

Good old New Labour, the 'politics of envy' mob strikes again.......should have emigrated years ago!!!!:rant:
The Council Tax and the policy of re-evaluation was introduced by the Conservatives not Labour.

So those with this 'very considerable asset' on which they can't afford to pay a hugely increased tax will have to liquidate that assett and give up the home they've spent most of their lives living in.

Sounds equitable to me :hihi:

I think thats going to be theme of taxation from now on - focusing more on the assets than the income. Its a good way of hitting people again if you look at it from a tax revenue point of view. The problem won't be limited to pensioners. I've got a small house in Totley - its S17, but its hardly millionaires row. The house prices have increased quite a bit since I moved there 4 years ago, but my income hasn't. I certainly cannot afford a £3k council tax bill, and would have to think about moving. I'd rather stay though, so I'd probably just spend £3k less in Sheffield a year on entertainment, DIY, clothes, gadgets etc...

The assumption that people who live in 'nice' houses in 'nice' areas have lots of disposalable income is often erronous

If people are prepared to stretch themsleves to the absolute limit to live in a "nice house" in a "nice area", and as a result have no contingency for any of their bills going up (which bills always do, it's not a suprise that the cost of things increase) then it's their fault realy, it's been on the cards for years now that the council will be revaluing houses.

(people who have paid for their house already are exempt from th above though, like pensioners)

These are the banding figures for the Borough of Islington (based on 1991 prices on the right) where I live.

Band A = £793.74 - Up to £40,000
Band B = £926.02 - £40,000 to £52,000
Band C = £1,058.31 - £52,001 to £68,000
Band D = £1,190.60 - £68,001 to £88,000
Band E = £1,455.18 - £88,001 to £120,000
Band F = £1,719.75 - £120,001 to £160,000
Band G = £1,984.34 - £160,001 to £320,000
Band H = £2,381.20 - £320,000 or more.

I would be interested to see these house price figures updated to give some semblance of reality. Parts of Islington are now some of the most desireable in London, though back in 1991, the area was crime ridden and run down. The current system is arbitrary to say the least, and doesn't take into account changing socio-economic environments.

I would also like to see a more pragmatic approach to stamp duty, which at present, given the astronomical rise in house prices, in little more than outright theft.

If people are prepared to stretch themsleves to the absolute limit to live in a "nice house" in a "nice area", and as a result have no contingency for any of their bills going up (which bills always do, it's not a suprise that the cost of things increase) then it's their fault realy, it's been on the cards for years now that the council will be revaluing houses.

(people who have paid for their house already are exempt from th above though, like pensioners)

There's a difference between the constant incremental increases which you expect to a certain degree, and the sudden £300% increase which seems more like a fine for a brand new offence of "investing in property" or "thinking about your kids schooling". I don't think it will happen however - its a tactic to make you think the 20% increase isn't so bad.

It is certainly more equitable than driving pensioners with no assets into poverty.

Pensioners without a property asset are easily catered for by an adjustment to the rules regulating pension credit, HB and CT benefits.

It is more difficult to keep property owning pensioners out of poverty, they often have private pensions, which though small disqualify them from benefits and their essential expenditure on property maintanance (and I believe insurance) is discounted in the benefit calculations.

For many pensioners property ownership is more of a financial liability than an asset but they nevertheless want to continue with the struggle to maintain their independence from the nanny state that would have them locked up in a home or rehoused into a council flat far from their friends and neighbours.

For many pensioners property ownership is more of a financial liability than an asset but they nevertheless want to continue with the struggle to maintain their independence from the nanny state that would have them locked up in a home or rehoused into a council flat far from their friends and neighbours.

They could give their house to their kids (which is what they usualy intend to do anyway), and let the kids shoulder the costs while they live there as tennents, rent free. Simple.

I have never earned what you would call a high income but I live in a nice house in a decent area. That is because I have always invested a high proportion of my income in my house. Anyone seeing my house would think I earn a lot more than I actually do. It seems I will be penalised for being proud of what I have and would have been better off living in a council house on a crappy estate and blowing my money every week in the pub.

Good old New Labour, the 'politics of envy' mob strikes again.......should have emigrated years ago!!!!:rant:

I have sympathy with you Nimrod. When my kids were young, in the 70s, we moved from a mining village to a more expensive part of Doncaster. We stretched ourselves to live near a traditional school, in an area considered middle class as I despaired of the local primary school. (Lots of strange non-teaching going on in the 70's). The point I would make though, many of the people in the village worked for the NCB (National Coal Board) earning a lot more than we did, but lived in NCB houses with subsidised rents, and made good use of the club several nights in the week. Often grown up sons, also working for the NCB lived with their parents too. The houses were often larger than the one we moved to, yet our rates were far higher. Bringing in the community charge (poll tax) meant that we would actually pay less than a family with several working adults at home, somehow this seemed fairer to me - but it created such an outcry that the government soon backed down. Any tax based solely on property nowadays is unfair. I have no personal axe to grind, as I live in a lower banded property now than I have for the last 30 years, but I still feel it should be related to income. Why penalise people like Nimrod or me for choosing a way of life that may restrict our spending on things like expensive cars and holidays, or even just pouring our money down our throats every night. Those who have very little income would still be protected by means testing, same as now.

I'm always confused as to why living in a council house and spending all your money on going out, or cars, or holidays is such a bad thing, and spending every penny you earn on your house, never going out, never going on holiday and driving round in clapped out car is a much better path to follow, and one we should all aspire to.

Surely it's down to what people want out of life, but I get the impression one group of people seem to think they are several steps above the other group.

If people are prepared to stretch themsleves to the absolute limit to live in a "nice house" in a "nice area", and as a result have no contingency for any of their bills going up (which bills always do, it's not a suprise that the cost of things increase) then it's their fault realy, it's been on the cards for years now that the council will be revaluing houses.

(people who have paid for their house already are exempt from th above though, like pensioners)

Even with money in the bank to cover emergencies and repairs, life can catch people out. Its too simplistic to say everyone should be aware of what lies ahead - ask the ex steelworkers! Anyway, when I was bringing up my kids it was worth doing without some things to live in an area where 'aspiration' and 'career' weren't dirty words! I now live in a cheaper area and have reduced my council tax bill, but I'd still be happy to pay based on income - as I believe its much fairer. Really well off people living in expensive houses would still pay the most, probably more than they do now. Also, I'm a pensioner and will soon have paid for my house, but I don't know why you think I'd be exempt?

I'm always confused as to why living in a council house and spending all your money on going out, or cars, or holidays is such a bad thing, and spending every penny you earn on your house, never going out, never going on holiday and driving round in clapped out car is a much better path to follow, and one we should all aspire to.

Surely it's down to what people want out of life, but I get the impression one group of people seem to think they are several steps above the other group.

I think the objection is that other peoples taxes are used to support such people who spend all their money on going out, cars, holidays etc.

It is more difficult to keep property owning pensioners out of poverty, they often have private pensions, which though small disqualify them from benefits and their essential expenditure on property maintanance (and I believe insurance) is discounted in the benefit calculations.



I agree, but this is an argument for the end of means-testing for benefits. All means-testing produces a poverty trap of the sort you describe.

For many pensioners property ownership is more of a financial liability than an asset but they nevertheless want to continue with the struggle to maintain their independence from the nanny state that would have them locked up in a home or rehoused into a council flat far from their friends and neighbours

I think we have to remember that as well as introducing the council tax (as a rush measure, because we, the people, had f***ed their poll tax), the Tories flogged the idea of private ownership mercilessly. One of the things they kept quiet about in their trumpeting of the "Right to Buy" one's council home was the enormous service charges that people might be expected to incur. There are people in the true blue City of Westminster who have service charges of about £15000 per annum! Home-owning democracy at its finest!

The Right to Buy in itself was ok, but it came bundled with a lot of ideological nastiness, like preventing the receipts from the sale of council properties being spent on more social housing. So if your choice was to buy your own home, you got your choice, but if your choice was to live in social housing (and that is some peoples' choice), you could take a running f*** at yourself. The party of choice, but not the party of choices.

I remember in the late 80s, the pressure to buy your own property was enormous. Nobody really bothered to talk about the downsides, least of all the Th*tcherites. Then everyone got screwed in the housing crash. What a larf it was :rolleyes:

I think the objection is that other peoples taxes are used to support such people who spend all their money on going out, cars, holidays etc.

But the majority of people who live in council houses also have to pay council tax, it's not like everyone in a council house is a freeloading sponger, they just chose to rent rather than buy.

But the majority of people who live in council houses also have to pay council tax, it's not like everyone in a council house is a freeloading sponger, they just chose to rent rather than buy.

they pay less than someone in a more expensive house though. So they claim benefits because they have spent everything on cars, holidays ,booze and then the person in a more expensive house has to pay extra council tax to pay for these benefits. I can see why the person who scrimped and saved to live in a more expensive house would be annoyed at getting stung on council tax for this.

I think house value is completely unfair. It should either be flat rate for everyone or based on income if we want a progressive council tax. But house value does not reflect income and so is unfair.

So they claim benefits because they have spent everything on cars, holidays ,booze and then the person in a more expensive house has to pay extra council tax to pay for these benefits.

Every council tennant is like this ? What crap.

Every council tennant is like this ? What crap.

Thats what you said:

But the majority of people who live in council houses also have to pay council tax, it's not like everyone in a council house is a freeloading sponger, they just chose to rent rather than buy.

when I talked about people who do this. I merely stated my views on people who do this. Doesnt mean all people council houses do this or even a majority do this. But the people who do are being subsidised by those who dont and that doesnt seem right when people in bigger houses get stung by large council tax rises to pay for it.

I have to ask. Im too young to remember what the poll tax was. I remember the riots. What was the difference between the Poll Tax and what we have now. Forgive my ignorance.

I have to ask. Im too young to remember what the poll tax was. I remember the riots. What was the difference between the Poll Tax and what we have now. Forgive my ignorance.

I think everyone paid the same amount regardless of income, house size etc.

I have to ask. Im too young to remember what the poll tax was. I remember the riots. What was the difference between the Poll Tax and what we have now. Forgive my ignorance.

The Tories actually said, with no trace of irony, "A duke would pay the same as his gardener. What could be fairer than that?". So we rioted :)

Thats what you said:

But the people who do are being subsidised by those who dont and that doesnt seem right...

But people in lower band properties pay more of their income in ctax than you do, so they could argue that they are subsidising you. If what you say is true, perhaps council tax is a tax on moaning dullards who need to pull their heads out of their arses and get drunk a bit more :clap:

Its proper name was Community Charge. It was a fixed tax on all adults with discount for "poor" people. So those who lived in more expensive properties with just 2 adults were far better off under it than a rented house full of adults. There was massive dissent and refusal to pay resulting in poll tax riots in London and it was abolished, Thatchers worst decision.

There won't be mass dissent over the council tax because the type of people who were involved in the poll tax riots hadn't paid anything at all into the local government coffers previously and were far more aggrieved. Council tax will still be paid now by the same people as before, it is a very unfair system regardless of the amount paid because so many people don't pay anything at all.

I was better off under the poll tax rules, it was a good idea.

But people in lower band properties pay more of their income in ctax than you do, so they could argue that they are subsidising you. If what you say is true, perhaps council tax is a tax on moaning dullards who need to pull their heads out of their arses and get drunk a bit more :clap:

since house size is not a reliable income indicator due to house price inflation what you say above is not neccesarily true. You could argue someone on a lower income subsidises someone on a higher income though.

Its those who have expensive houses who have worked hard to get that who object the most from what I can tell because they dont see why people in less expensive houses on similar incomes should pay less because they spent their money on something other than a more expensive house.

since house size is not a reliable income indicator due to house price inflation what you say above is not neccesarily true. You could argue someone on a lower income subsidises someone on a higher income though.

The example further up the thread of Islington which has apparently become a "desirable" area and property prices have rocketed shows how unfair it is. Say a person moved there when it wasn't as desireable and paid the appropriate price at the time and the prices have now increased by a massive amount. That person is lucky insofar as their property has increased in value more than expected but their income may not have done and if council tax reflects the current value of the property it will take a larger proportion of their income from them than when they bought it.

The example further up the thread of Islington which has apparently become a "desirable" area and property prices have rocketed shows how unfair it is. Say a person moved there when it wasn't as desireable and paid the appropriate price at the time and the prices have now increased by a massive amount. That person is lucky insofar as their property has increased in value more than expected but their income may not have done and if council tax reflects the current value of the property it will take a larger proportion of their income from them than when they bought it.

exactly! Thats why it should not be based on house price, but either on income or just a flat rate for everyone.

Its those who have expensive houses who have worked hard to get that who object the most from what I can tell because they dont see why people in less expensive houses on similar incomes should pay less because they spent their money on something other than a more expensive house.

You assume that people earn roughly the same, and that whilst people like you dutifully scrimp and save, various pot-bellied ne'er-do-wells in the rougher end of Sheffield blow it all on White Lightning. Did it ever occur to you at all that our economic system relies on lots of people being paid minimum wage, so that you have to pay less for what you buy in the shops, to pay less for your post being delivered, pay less to have your car washed, and a thousand other things?

The idea that people who earn low wages should then be given a further boot in the face by having to fork out the same in council tax as people like yourself is faintly obscene.

The irony of council tax is that the people who pay the most in general benefit the least from council services and it should also be bourne in mind that they pay from net income which has already been taxed and if they have more disposable income they pay more VAT and other duties when they spend it. So the wealthier will always subsidise the less well off parts of the community. Council tax is the one tax that makes it obvious.

The example further up the thread of Islington which has apparently become a "desirable" area and property prices have rocketed shows how unfair it is. Say a person moved there when it wasn't as desireable and paid the appropriate price at the time and the prices have now increased by a massive amount. That person is lucky insofar as their property has increased in value more than expected but their income may not have done and if council tax reflects the current value of the property it will take a larger proportion of their income from them than when they bought it.

Islington became desirable about 15 years ago. If anyone is really struggling to meet their council tax bill, they can always rent it out for 10 times the cost of their mortgage, or sell it and retire.

Islington became desirable about 15 years ago. If anyone is really struggling to meet their council tax bill, they can always rent it out for 10 times the cost of their mortgage, or sell it and retire.
Why should they?

You assume that people earn roughly the same, and that whilst people like you dutifully scrimp and save, various pot-bellied ne'er-do-wells in the rougher end of Sheffield blow it all on White Lightning. Did it ever occur to you at all that our economic system relies on lots of people being paid minimum wage, so that you have to pay less for what you buy in the shops, to pay less for your post being delivered, pay less to have your car washed, and a thousand other things?

The idea that people who earn low wages should then be given a further boot in the face by having to fork out the same in council tax as people like yourself is faintly obscene.

which bit of "so it should either be based on income or flat rate" did you not read? I never said it should be flat rate. I said it should not be based on house price.

Why should they?

They don't have to. But if they've managed to land themselves with a huge increase in the value of their property, and in lots of cases will have paid off the mortgage on a property now worth well in excess of £500,000, do we really have to lose sleep over what a hard time they're having? They got lucky, for God's sake! If this isn't proof that money doesn't buy you happiness, I don't know what is.

You assume that people earn roughly the same,

No. I take the example of two people who earn similar amounts and make different decisions. Doesnt mean it then applies to all people. It does mean in the cases where people earn similar amounts but have different house values for their houses they live in it is unfair because they both afford to pay the same amount of council tax, but one pays less.

They don't have to. But if they've managed to land themselves with a huge increase in the value of their property, and in lots of cases will have paid off the mortgage on a property now worth well in excess of £500,000, do we really have to lose sleep over what a hard time they're having? They got lucky, for God's sake! If this isn't proof that money doesn't buy you happiness, I don't know what is.

If they want to live there and not sell up they gain nothing from the inflation except to have to pay more tax whilst not actually earning more money.

which bit of "so it should either be based on income or flat rate" did you not read? I never said it should be flat rate. I said it should not be based on house price.

I'm all for it being based on income. Unfortunately the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch think this is unacceptable, so it won't happen.

Also, please explain why saving your money and spending it on your house makes you better and more worthy than those who have made different choices. Apart from that short blip in the 80s with the Poll Tax, the value of property has always been the way that local tax revenue has been calculated, so you always knew that it would work like this. These are your choices, so how come it's suddenly everyone else's problem?

I'm all for it being based on income. Unfortunately the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch think this is unacceptable, so it won't happen.

Also, please explain why saving your money and spending it on your house makes you better and more worthy than those who have made different choices. Apart from that short blip in the 80s with the Poll Tax, the value of property has always been the way that local tax revenue has been calculated, so you always knew that it would work like this. These are your choices, so how come it's suddenly everyone else's problem?

So because its always been like this it doesnt matter it is unfair? . Please explain why not spending money on a house entitles you to pay less council tax?

They don't have to. But if they've managed to land themselves with a huge increase in the value of their property, and in lots of cases will have paid off the mortgage on a property now worth well in excess of £500,000, do we really have to lose sleep over what a hard time they're having? They got lucky, for God's sake! If this isn't proof that money doesn't buy you happiness, I don't know what is.I didn't quote any figures nor did say I anything about happiness, you just threw that in for good measure, I simply said that it is unfair that they are landed with a bigger bill, unless they sell up and realise their assets they are no better off, why should they have to sell up because this government has decided to swindle even more tax from us?

Also, please explain why saving your money and spending it on your house makes you better and more worthy than those who have made different choices. Nightrider didn't say they were better but the increased council tax implies that government thinks they are better financially.

I'm all for it being based on income. Unfortunately the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch think this is unacceptable, so it won't happen.

Also, please explain why saving your money and spending it on your house makes you better and more worthy than those who have made different choices. Apart from that short blip in the 80s with the Poll Tax, the value of property has always been the way that local tax revenue has been calculated, so you always knew that it would work like this. These are your choices, so how come it's suddenly everyone else's problem?

and whats even worse is when properties get revalued renters will get stung for house price inflation even though they cannot possibly gain any money from this because they cant sell it and realise the increase in price.

The Tories actually said, with no trace of irony, "A duke would pay the same as his gardener. What could be fairer than that?". So we rioted :)

If everyone is getting the same service why should someone have to pay more for the same service. If I walked into Woolworths to buy a can of coke I shouldnt have to pay more than the person behind me in the queue simply because my clothes are nicer or I spent more on my haircut.

I dont mind paying a higher rate of council tax then others, but I want the police to appreciate that as Im paying more they should attend to my needs before those of council tax payers in a lower band or would that be unfair ?

Please explain why not spending money on a house entitles you to pay less council tax?

Simply because that's the way that local taxation is worked out. You obviously don't like it, but that's the way it's always been. I'm reminded of the thread by the bloke who had bought 3 cars, and then complained that he had to pay 3 x vehicle tax. Well, he knew that when he bought them, so what's he complaining now for?

Look, buying a house isn't always the best thing to do, financially-speaking. If you have to go into residential care when you're older, you might have to sell your house to pay for it. But on the flipside, if you've paid your mortgage off by the time you retire, you have no housing costs (repairs aside). But then again, if we hit a recession and you lose your job, your house might be repoed.

Everyone would like tax regimes aligned just how it suits them, and them alone, but it ain't possible. I bet the mythical person "blowing" it all on cars, holidays and beer is complaining about how much tax they're paying on all of those!!

and whats even worse is when properties get revalued renters will get stung for house price inflation even though they cannot possibly gain any money from this because they cant sell it and realise the increase in price.

Now that I totally agree with, and that is the price that some are paying for the rampant marketisation of one of our most basic needs.

Simply because that's the way that local taxation is worked out. You obviously don't like it, but that's the way it's always been. I'm reminded of the thread by the bloke who had bought 3 cars, and then complained that he had to pay 3 x vehicle tax. Well, he knew that when he bought them, so what's he complaining now for?He knows he is going to have to pay that at the outset.



Everyone would like tax regimes aligned just how it suits them, and them alone, but it ain't possible. I bet the mythical person "blowing" it all on cars, holidays and beer is complaining about how much tax they're paying on all of those!!They know they are getting something for their money unlike for their increased council tax, it's completely inequitable.

He knows he is going to have to pay that at the outset.



Yeah, but people who buy houses, me included, know that our local taxes are linked to house prices. We know that! It's normally left-wingers and liberals who are castigated for playing the "victim" card, and told we need to take responsibility for our decisions. Well, so should house-buyers then.

Look, we know that people with money want all of that money, and don't want anyone else to get their grubby mitts on it; that's what the Conservative Party is for. Try again with the Poll Tax if you like. But the last time, the nation spoke, and its words were "Not f***ing likely!!"

Simply because that's the way that local taxation is worked out. You obviously don't like it, but that's the way it's always been. I'm reminded of the thread by the bloke who had bought 3 cars, and then complained that he had to pay 3 x vehicle tax. Well, he knew that when he bought them, so what's he complaining now for?

Look, buying a house isn't always the best thing to do, financially-speaking. If you have to go into residential care when you're older, you might have to sell your house to pay for it. But on the flipside, if you've paid your mortgage off by the time you retire, you have no housing costs (repairs aside). But then again, if we hit a recession and you lose your job, your house might be repoed.

Everyone would like tax regimes aligned just how it suits them, and them alone, but it ain't possible. I bet the mythical person "blowing" it all on cars, holidays and beer is complaining about how much tax they're paying on all of those!!

I am not suggesting tax should be aligned to my "personal need". I am pointing out the current system is not the fairest way for everyone and there is a fairer way (base it on income). In fact if it was based on income I would pay more since I am in the lowest house price band so it would not benefit me personally. But clearly it would be fairer and saying its ok "because thats the way it has always been" is a ridiculous argument.

Yeah, but people who buy houses, me included, know that our local taxes are linked to house prices. We know that! I

So if I tell someone if they speak to me I will punch them in the face is it then ok? After all they knew I would do it so they only have themselves to blame. Or perhaps a reasonable person might suggest its not ok to do something bad just because the person on the recieving end knew what would happen.

Yeah, but people who buy houses, me included, know that our local taxes are linked to house prices. We know that! If we worked on that premise we wouldn't have been able to have this discussion and the governement having realised how complacent everyone was would jack it up even higher.

I am not suggesting tax should be aligned to my "personal need". I am pointing out the current system is not the fairest way for everyone and there is a fairer way (base it on income). In fact if it was based on income I would pay more since I am in the lowest house price band so it would not benefit me personally. But clearly it would be fairer and saying its ok "because thats the way it has always been" is a ridiculous argument.

Absolutely, income is the fairest way. Is anyone arguing that it's not? Perhaps it's worth asking why we still don't have a system based on income. Precisely which people in power think this is such a bad idea, and who is persuading them that this is the case?

If we worked on that premise we wouldn't have been able to have this discussion and the governement having realised how complacent everyone was would jack it up even higher.

I suspect they might jack it up even higher, because as you so accurately put it, everyone IS so complacent these days. Really, it's amazing that we don't live in a dictatorship already, because I don't see the British people making much of a fuss about anything these days. As long as they can keep shopping and blame asylum seekers / Muslims for everything that's not very good, they seem quite happy.

Absolutely, income is the fairest way. Is anyone arguing that it's not?

you are! You keep saying their is nothing wrong because thats the way it has always been and so people should stop complaining!!

They could give their house to their kids (which is what they usually intend to do anyway), and let the kids shoulder the costs while they live there as tenants, rent free. Simple.

there's a couple of things you haven't thought through though nick2 ...

Not all people have children, for one!

Not all children could afford to take on the costs of another house whilst someone else lives in it rent free, for two!

I still think that the main reason so many were against the community charge was that they'd never chucked any money into the pot before and they didn't want to have to chuck any money in then :D

Absolutely, income is the fairest way. Is anyone arguing that it's not? Perhaps it's worth asking why we still don't have a system based on income. Precisely which people in power think this is such a bad idea, and who is persuading them that this is the case?

And yet national taxation has always had a two dimensional approach - income and capital / assets.

Should local taxation differ? We have the central government contribution to local spending - by far and away the biggest slice of local spending - which comes from national taxation and is largely income based, local taxation is based on capital (value of our main asset, our house).

I've no particular axe to grind here - although a few observations spring to mind;

1) As about 75% of local spending comes from central government, the north is subsidised by the south east and therefore if all the local spend came from local taxation we'd all be in for a big increase.

2) A property based tax is much more simple - and therefore cheaper - to administer than one based on people.

3) Presumably if we had local income tax the burden of tax collection would fall on employers, especially small ones.

Comments from one and all most welcome.

But the majority of people who live in council houses also have to pay council tax, it's not like everyone in a council house is a freeloading sponger, they just chose to rent rather than buy.

Just a bit of info - information given in 'Inside Housing' see this link http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/article.aspx?articleid=1448276 states that 2/3 of social housing tenants are unemployed. the national average at August this year is under 6% see: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

Just a bit of info - information given in 'Inside Housing' see this link http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/article.aspx?articleid=1448276 states that 2/3 of social housing tenants are unemployed. the national average at August this year is under 6% see: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=12

So if the council tax was based on income (which everyone seems to think would be fair), they (the council spongers) would still be paying less than the "home owners" as they are unemployed, so (some of) the "home owners" would still be moaning.

I still think that the main reason so many were against the community charge was that they'd never chucked any money into the pot before and they didn't want to have to chuck any money in then :DYes and those people were mainly students and young person types who are more likely to enjoy a good riot. Thatcher allowed a section of the community who didn't think it was fair that they should pay anything to make her back pedal. It was ridiculous.

And yet national taxation has always had a two dimensional approach - income and capital / assets.


But national taxation on capital/assets is not normally levied on individuals until those assets are realised/liquidated.

If you have a protfolio of shares you don't pay an annual tax on their current market value, - just the income you derive from them.

The basic flaw with council tax is that it assumes people with high value assets are able to pay an annual levy based on the value of the asset; this of course is often not the case. The banding scheme needs to take some account of the occupier's ability to pay this arbitary levy.

So if the council tax was based on income (which everyone seems to think would be fair), they (the council spongers) would still be paying less than the "home owners" as they are unemployed, so (some of) the "home owners" would still be moaning.

For heaven's sake !! The unemployed, whether home-owners or occupants of social housing don't pay council tax. In either case they will be in receipt of JSA/income support which normally entitles them to CTB. Council tax for people in those circumstances is paid to LAs by the govt.

From where do you get the idea that everyone living in social housing is

a - a councl sponger
b - unemployed

??

From where do you get the idea that everyone living in social housing is

a - a councl sponger
b - unemployed

??

I dont think that (see previous posts)

Nightrider seems to think they are and Macbeth has proof.

I dont think that (see previous posts)

Nightrider seems to think they are and Macbeth has proof.

I never said that. As I pointed out *you* implied that, not me.

2) A property based tax is much more simple - and therefore cheaper - to administer than one based on people.

3) Presumably if we had local income tax the burden of tax collection would fall on employers, especially small ones.

Comments from one and all most welcome.

A tax based on people more expensive to adminster ? Not neccessarily - just add a % to income tax. The collection already takes place efficiently - and you wouldn't then need collection facilities & all the associated overhead in each local council.

On another tack - aside from the debate about how the tax should be collected - what about the question of what the money gets used for ? Why does the amount collected need to increase ? Solely to pay for the unreformed pension scheme in Local Gvmt ? Any business would seek to improve efficiency year on year - and hence get cheaper - we seem to get the exact opposite out of local gvmt.

I dont think that (see previous posts)

Nightrider seems to think they are and Macbeth has proof.

The report linked to by Macbeth doesn't say what is meant by 'unemployed' so it could include pensioners, IB claimants etc. There will obviously be a large number of pensioners in social housing who I'm sure would be a little dismayed to be classed as 'council scroungers'.

On another tack - aside from the debate about how the tax should be collected - what about the question of what the money gets used for ?

I suspect that any additonal income arising from re-valuation will be used to reduce the grant from central govt. ? :)

The report linked to by Macbeth doesn't say what is meant by 'unemployed' so it could include pensioners, IB claimants etc. There will obviously be a large number of pensioners in social housing who I'm sure would be a little dismayed to be classed as 'council scroungers'.

I wasn't calling them that, I was saying I got the impression that some people thought of them as that, comments like "they spend all their money on cars, holidays and drinking while I have to subsidise them" does sound a bit like accusing them of being spongers.

I wasn't calling them that, I was saying I got the impression that some people thought of them as that, comments like "they spend all their money on cars, holidays and drinking while I have to subsidise them" does sound a bit like accusing them of being spongers.Maybe sponging is sometimes the wrong word but the fact is that people who invest in bricks and mortar and what might be termed security for their future are penalised more than those who spend it on the more immediate pleasures in life.

I wasn't calling them that, I was saying I got the impression that some people thought of them as that, comments like "they spend all their money on cars, holidays and drinking while I have to subsidise them" does sound a bit like accusing them of being spongers.

Yes people are criticising those people doing this. They are not saying all people in council housing are doing this.

Yes people are criticising those people doing this. They are not saying all people in council housing are doing this.

But why criticise them at all, it's their choice, if they want to rent a council house and go on holliday 4 times a year, let them, it's no concern of yours (or mine), it's what they want to do, not everyone ranks owning a house as their number one priority in life.

But why criticise them at all, it's their choice, if they want to rent a council house and go on holliday 4 times a year, let them, it's no concern of yours (or mine), it's what they want to do, not everyone ranks owning a house as their number one priority in life.That isn't the point, the point is that some members of the community have to pay an extra tax because of the lifestyle they choose and that simply isn't fair.

But why criticise them at all, it's their choice, if they want to rent a council house and go on holliday 4 times a year, let them, it's no concern of yours (or mine), it's what they want to do, not everyone ranks owning a house as their number one priority in life.

fine. But why are they being given tax breaks to fund this? If this happens everyone else has to pay extra to make up the difference. e.g. 2 people on similar salaries. One rents a council house and spends all their money on holidays etc and one saves for a nicer house in more expensive area of a town. The latter person then pays extra tax which is effectively subsidising the other person who choose to rent a council house

This is why flat rate where everyone pays their share (unless they are genuinely poor and cannot pay) or have it based on income if we want a progressive tax is a much fairer idea.

fine. But why are they being given tax breaks to fund this? If this happens everyone else has to pay extra to make up the difference.

But these people spending all their money on whatever must be paying some kind of tax on what they buy, and they must be paying tax on the money they earn to spend on all these trivialities, so perhaps their total amount of tax is the same as yours, just that theirs isn't mostly council tax.

But these people spending all their money on whatever must be paying some kind of tax on what they buy, and they must be paying tax on the money they earn to spend on all these trivialities, so perhaps their total amount of tax is the same as yours, just that theirs isn't mostly council tax.A simple hypothetical example. A person paying council tax has got £1000 net pay a month, they pay £100 in council tax and therefore have £900 left to spend and pays vat on all the purchases which would be £134.05, so they have paid £234.05 in tax altogether. A non payer has £1000 a month and pays vat on all purchases of £148.94. Therefore the non council tax payer has got £85.11 extra cash to spend so they are better off.

A non payer has £1000 a month and pays vat on all purchases of £148.94. Therefore the non council tax payer has got £85.11 extra cash to spend so they are better off.

But someone paying no council tax at all wouldn't be (legaly) earning £1000 a month, they would be unemployed, or a pensioner or on a very, very low income.

Being "better off" is hardly a phrase you could use for someone in those circumstances.

On another tack - aside from the debate about how the tax should be collected - what about the question of what the money gets used for ? Why does the amount collected need to increase ? Solely to pay for the unreformed pension scheme in Local Gvmt ?

One of the main increases in costs for local councils is social care. More and more people are living longer, and to take one example, your chances of having dementia are significantly increased when you are in your 80s. Loads more people are living into their 80s these days, and people with dementia often need a lot of care and support, provided by local authorities, and this is not cheap.

Also, more people with complex health conditions are living longer, due to medical advances, and they also require more care and support, which again is not cheap.

On top of this, more and more people are living away from their families. Part of this is due to house price and rent inflation. For example, my family are in the south-east, and I had literally no prospect of buying a property there (not even a 1 bed ex-council flat), so here I am in Sheffield, 190 miles away from my mum and dad who are in their 70s. So who's going to look after them when they need it? Either I move down there, or their local council foots the bill.

This is borne out by the fact that more and more social services departments are restricting their eligibility criteria for services - in fact, I think social care in this country is in crisis, and I see it close up every day. And these people are paying up to £8.50 an hour in Sheffield for every hour of care and support they receive, so they are already being taxed twice.

I'm telling you, pray you never become chronically ill, disabled or frail in this country - I know what they mean by "ageing population timebomb", and it scares the p*ss out of me.

A tax based on people more expensive to adminster ? Not neccessarily - just add a % to income tax. The collection already takes place efficiently - and you wouldn't then need collection facilities & all the associated overhead in each local council.



Don't think it's anything like as simple as that.

Presuming we have a local income tax then each Local Authority will set their own percentage. Therefore the company I work for will have to apply different percentages to people living in Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster, Barnsley, Derbyshire, Chesterfield, Wakefield, Kirklees, Lancashire - and presumably have to pay each LA on a monthly basis like we do the tax office. I'm sure there'll be a lot of other additional paperwork as well.

At the council end in order to budget accurately and set the local income tax percentage they'll presumably need to know (updated every year) the earnings of every Sheffield resident and things like who is due to retire the next financial year, who is likely to come in to the labour market, estimate the net drift of people in / out of the city - a damn site more difficult task than keeping tabs on property which is pretty static.

There are other expenses as well that councils are incurring, collecting used needles for one, chewing gum removal from pavements, have you seen the hoards of litter pickers around our streets? New legislation means they have to keep stairwells free of litter and dumped rubbish, then there is the removal of fly-posting and graffiti etc. and it all costs money.

Don't think it's anything like as simple as that.

Presuming we have a local income tax then each Local Authority will set their own percentage. Therefore the company I work for will have to apply different percentages to people living in Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster, Barnsley, Derbyshire, Chesterfield, Wakefield, Kirklees, Lancashire - and presumably have to pay each LA on a monthly basis like we do the tax office. I'm sure there'll be a lot of other additional paperwork as well.

Could simplify that by every area being allocated the same percentage? That would give councillors something to think about! :huh:

But someone paying no council tax at all wouldn't be (legaly) earning £1000 a month, they would be unemployed, or a pensioner or on a very, very low income.

Being "better off" is hardly a phrase you could use for someone in those circumstances.It was a hypothetical example to make the comparison. The non council tax payer has more money to spend if they both start off on the same figure. I could have done the calculation on lower figure but it will still make the same point.

It was a hypothetical example to make the comparison. The non council tax payer has more money to spend if they both start off on the same figure. I could have done the calculation on lower figure but it will still make the same point.

I know what you were trying to say, but what I'm saying is the people who don't pay council tax, or pay less council tax, mostly do so because they have less money than the rest of us, not because they are on some kind of scam.

What you need to look at is the % of a persons income they spend on council tax, someone earning £1000 a month and paying £100 a month council tax is only losing 10% of their income, but someone on £250 a month, spending £60 a month on council tax (because they get some kind of discount) is losing 25% of their income.

So which person is making the bigger contribution? if you count it purely as £'s (which most people do) then the £100 a month person is, but if you count it as % of income then the £60 a month person is.

So which person is making the bigger contribution? if you count it purely as £'s (which most people do) then the £100 a month person is, but if you count it as % of income then the £60 a month person is.

That's a good point and very relevant.

The main problem with council tax being property based (which btw is really the cheapest and most efficient way to do it having regard to the fact that many people try to avoid paying if it's per capita, which we witnessed with the community charge) is that two retired people on a low income living next door to a family of four adults, all earning, and a couple of children, say, are paying the same but probably using fewer of the services provided and to a lesser degree.

It doesn't seem very equitable but I can't think of any easy way to make it fairer. They could levy an extra charge for any more than two adults living in a property alongside the reduction for single occupancy .. but I think they'd run into the same problem they had with the community charge, unwillingness to contribute for the common good.

I know what you were trying to say, but what I'm saying is the people who don't pay council tax, or pay less council tax, mostly do so because they have less money than the rest of us, not because they are on some kind of scam.

What you need to look at is the % of a persons income they spend on council tax, someone earning £1000 a month and paying £100 a month council tax is only losing 10% of their income, but someone on £250 a month, spending £60 a month on council tax (because they get some kind of discount) is losing 25% of their income.

So which person is making the bigger contribution? if you count it purely as £'s (which most people do) then the £100 a month person is, but if you count it as % of income then the £60 a month person is.That's wrong, you can't work it on percentages as a hypothetical and I specifically didn't do that because you can make up any figure to suit the argument. You could have said the £250 person was paying £80 and made it an even bigger percentage. What I'm saying is that a person who isn't paying council tax (not someone who pays a discounted rate) has got more of their money for themself. Comparing how much they have in relation to each other is irrelevant in this scenario. I'm not talking rich v poor here I'm talking about people who pay it and people who don't.

What I'm saying is that a person who isn't paying council tax (not someone who pays a discounted rate) has got more of their money for themself.

Well, obviously, you didn't need to prove that, it's common sense.

The arguments seems to be that people who pay less are being "carried" by the people who pay more (and they don't want to do that), whereas I think, if you see the amount people pay as a % of the cash they have available, it indicates that even people who are paying less are still making an equal contribution.

And generally people who have more expensive houses have more money with which to buy those houses, thats why it's based on property value. Of course their could be someone massively rich living in a council flat (like the guy down the road from me with the Bentley) or someone realy poor living in a huge mansion, but they are the minority.

Well, obviously, you didn't need to prove that, it's common sense.

The arguments seems to be that people who pay less are being "carried" by the people who pay more (and they don't want to do that), whereas I think, if you see the amount people pay as a % of the cash they have available, it indicates that even people who are paying less are still making an equal contribution.

You argued against that point in first place.

The people who pay less aren't being carried but the people who don't pay anything are. It's like going into the supermarket and everyone buying the same basket of groceries and some people paying more because they are richer and then the groceries are given to some people who didn't buy any at all.

It's like going into the supermarket and everyone buying the same basket of groceries and some people paying more because they are richer and then the groceries are given to some people who didn't buy any at all.

In an ideal world would you rather the people who couldn't afford the groceries were left to starve ?

(using your analogy)

In an ideal world would you rather the people who couldn't afford the groceries were left to starve ?

(using your analogy)
Different issue Nick.