Why is council tax so high?

I doubt that very much, unless those 4 adults would then be living in a standard of comfort which would tend to be labelled as "sardine mode". I think you'll find the number of 4-bedroom properties occupied by just one person is statistically insignificant (unless they're running a B&B).

There's some truth in what you say, though, once the exaggeration is removed. I guess there are a fair number of 1-or-2-bedroom properties which you would normally expect to be occupied by a couple but which are in fact occupied by a single person.

The person has *already* been screwed by having had to pay the full acquisition and running cost all alone instead of having an earning partner to share the financial burden. Isn't that enough screwing?

In any case, it is not the purpose of the tax system to "screw" people, merely to get them to pay for services in a reasonably equitable manner.

Likewise by sharing or buying smaller they can pay less in acquisition and running costs. So what? Why should the tax system be the Great Leveller?

There's probably no ideal mechanism for sharing the cost of services equitably over the whole population, but a property tax is probably the worst. There was a lot wrong with the Poll Tax, but but for the devil which lay in those wrong details, it was, I reckon, much fairer in principle than both the Rates and the Council Tax, because the cost of local services almost certainly correlates better with the number of people who benefit from those services than by the number of dwellings they occupy.

A local income tax would be even fairer, but I am not in favour of it because it would be more efficient to have just one income tax system than two. I also believe that local services should on the whole be non-contentious and therefore free from a need for control by local politicians. Therefore they should be wholly (instead of partly as at present) funded by national taxation, without the size of local budgets being subject to local political interference.

So why was the 'poll tax' so vehemently opposed? This was a much more equitable system than the property value based old rates or the new council tax.

It was not linked in any way to ability to pay. The council tax has a vague linking in such that a cheaper banded property will often be purchased by someone on a lower income, but this is not always the case, and it also penalises single people, as not everyone has the choice of sharing a property - eg a 1 bedroom flat could be shared with a partner, but may likely not be suited to sharing with a flatmate (not everyone has a partner), unless one person dosses down in the living room each night.

Because it was too crude and not really equitable enough.

In message , D.A.L. wrote

Washing it defeats the purpose of recycling. Consider the resources used in 'cleaning' the rubbish - chemicals used to make the water fit for drinking, electricity used in pumping the water, I bet that most people will use warm water to wash the rubbish, detergents and the cost of water treatments prior to the waste being discharged to the environment. Add the cost of the water through water rates or metering.

It is cheaper to recycle - are the true cost hidden? My local council proudly stated that 6 million journeys were made per annum to the council run recycling sites. How much petrol was used by individuals for these journeys? How much money could have been saved if the policy was for a large truck to collect the same rubbish once per week from each household.

Most of my rubbish is unsolicited and delivered through my letter box each week. If it was made illegal to deliver junk mail, advertising news papers etc. every council tax payer would save a fortune on rubbish disposal costs.

These costs are effectively zero if you just wash your empty cans and bottles at the end of doing a regular bowl of washing up.

Best Regards, Alex.

In message , Andy Pandy writes

We live in a free country, so people are free to live where they want, (subject to being able to afford it), and there is no way you are going to change that in a democracy. Furthermore, if a single person lives in a property then, pro rata, they pay more council tax than those in multiple occupancy, notwithstanding the discount, so they are already screwed by property tax.

I was using Adrian's example, and I do know single people who live in 3 bedroom houses which could accomodate 4 people fairly easily (assuming 2 are a couple). But I take your point - it's more likely a single person would live in a property suitable for 2 or 3 people. But even so they are contributing to the property shortage.

OK, what about someone who has a non earning partner? They have to pay 100% of the council tax with nobody to share the financial burden *and* they've got an extra person to feed. Perhaps several extra people if they've got kids. That's really screwing. And they actually *need* a bigger house.

Taxes are also levied to attempt to modify behaviour, eg fuel tax, cigarette tax. These certainly aren't equitable. If taxes are going to used in this way, then taxing a commodity in short supply, eg housing, is perfectly reasonable.

It's not. But if you are going to tax something, like property, why should how many people use it affect the tax? If I share a bottle of wine I pay the same tax as if I drink it myself. If I buy a car, I pay the same car tax whether it's just for me or for me and the wife.

Yes but taxation isn't about paying for what you use, because then there's no need for taxation, you'd just pay for the service directly. Why do people want the amount of council tax they pay to reflect the services they receive, when they don't apply this to most other forms of taxation, eg income tax, VAT, alcohol tax etc.

No need for councils then? As most of what they have to spend the money on is centrally controlled as well.

Yeah right. When I was single I paid 75% of band B council tax. Now I've got a family, obviously need a bigger house, so I am paying 100% of band E council tax. With about the same income in real terms. Council tax penalises families far more than single people.

The main problem with the poll tax was that it was supposed to be an individual tax and people on benefits only paid a small proportion of it. Yet a couple where only one partner was working had to pay two full taxes, rather than getting the discount for the non-working partner.

This discriminated heavily against people with children.

Neb

Did I say I wanted to? I just don't see why they should get a discount on their property tax, it makes no more sense than giving them a discount on their car tax etc. Especially when houses are in short supply. It's madness.

Perhaps they are also screwed by VAT then, as if they buy a carpet which only they use they don't get a discount on the VAT. Perhaps all forms of taxation should take into account the number of users of the item being taxed.

Exactly, and it's similar with the council tax. If two people share a house and one is on a zero (or very low) income, they are able to claim second adult rebate so they only pay 75% of the council tax. BUT this doesn't apply if the two adults are partners, then they still have to pay 100%.

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Andy Pandy said

Not really, since what there seems to be a lack of is small one/two person, cheap, properties. Unless you think there are 4 people living in a 1-bed property somewhere, just waiting to swap with her, then tossing Granny out of her 60-year home 4-bed detached house just because her kids left and her husband died doesn't really help anyone.

Shome mishtake shirley. You can't get 75% rate with two non-student adults, partners or not, unless one of them's in prison, or a nun, or something.

You can.

So? What's wrong with sharing?

There are plenty of families living in houses too small for them because they can't afford anything bigger, due to silly house prices caused to a large extent by other people living in houses too big for them. All I'm saying is this shouldn't be subsidised through lower property taxes just because only one person lives in the property. A house with *nobody* living there as their main residence usually has to pay 90% CT.

In message , GSV Three Minds in a Can writes

And the evidence for this is - where??

In message , Andy Pandy writes

It's fairly well known that 2 can live almost as cheaply as 1.

In fact, live in a flat, and my partner lives in a house. We choose to do this, and arrange our finances so that we can.

I also own several flats which, until recently, were available as very cheap accommodation to low income people, or the unemployed. However, as they didnt pay the rent, and didnt look after them, they are now only available to fairly well of people, for much higher rents.

I get screwed by the council tax system, I get screwed by the general tax system, and have been screwed by those on low incomes who I was happy to help.

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Richard Faulkner said

This is usenet, evidence is optional. However if you look at what houses the government would like built, what estate agents would like to sell, what the last census figures tell us about the (decreasing) size of the average family (many people choosing to live singly for much longer), and the fate of old 4 bedroom houses in the SE of the UK (torn down and rebuilt as flats, townhouses or whatever given more than a square yard of garden) it's pretty obvious. The UK population isn't increasing that fast, so the X Million new houses are required because people want to live differently, not because there are more people.

Or we could talk about second (and third, in some cases!) homes ..