Starmer declines to rule out council tax rise.

Council Tax doesn't go directly to paying for services anyway.

No, and road tax doesn't pay for roads, but it is 'marketed' as such, much as we are told that NI is for pensions and the NHS. On my pension forecast it is explicitly stated that I have to keep paying until my SPA because the money goes towards the NHS and other benefits.

If none of this is true, why have all the separate charges?

I'm still interested in why single people get a discount when households with more adults aren't charged per head. I'm not arguing to do away with the single person discount, but logically if we accept that that is fair, then so should charging per capita rather than per household. As I say, the way I see it that would mean that the cost per person would go down - isn't that fairer across the board?

Doodledog

That's what I'm saying really, Iam. There is no way you are using the same services as a larger family. I'm not saying that children should be charged for, but adults are different.

Given that single occupiers get a discount (presumably because it is recognised that they use fewer services) why doesn't the logic apply the other way? That way, the hypothetical little old lady would pay less, as the costs would be spread amongst more people. Alternatively, councils would get more to spend on better services.

As I say, I am thinking aloud, so if my logic is flawed I'm very happy to listen to how.

Council Tax doesn't go directly to paying for services anyway.

Mollygo

When we holiday in Europe, we pay local taxes, per person, per day to contribute to local services. Would that be too complicated for the UK?

No.
www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/wales-tourist-tax-b2646176.html#:~:text=Overnight%20visitors%20in%20Wales%20may,sustainability%E2%80%9D%20of%20the%20tourism%20industry.

When we holiday in Europe, we pay local taxes, per person, per day to contribute to local services. Would that be too complicated for the UK?

That's what I'm saying really, Iam. There is no way you are using the same services as a larger family. I'm not saying that children should be charged for, but adults are different.

Given that single occupiers get a discount (presumably because it is recognised that they use fewer services) why doesn't the logic apply the other way? That way, the hypothetical little old lady would pay less, as the costs would be spread amongst more people. Alternatively, councils would get more to spend on better services.

As I say, I am thinking aloud, so if my logic is flawed I'm very happy to listen to how.

I’m almost certain CT or its equivalent in Wales is charged at a much higher rate for 2nd homes. I’m in a coastal resort in the north east currently. There are a huge number of 2nd homes here and given the impact on house price increases etc charging higher ct makes sense to me

I realise I am the little old lady in the 4 bed house. I’m fortunate to have some savings to cushion the increasing cost of living. I’m using few council services at this stage. I do not want to downsize into a bungaloid. I’m happy in what was our family home.

If caravans on holiday parks are charged CT there will have to be a huge change in the law to allow owners rights they currently don't have. I suspect that people who suggest this have no idea what they are talking about .

Currently there are no rights to use most of the services that residents use, owners are not entitled to personal waste collection, their children can't use local schools, can't join libraries or use the site address for any official purpose, or use the caravan for anything other than holiday use because there is no council tax payable. It is actually against the law for people to live on holiday parks or to use them as a primary address.

Residential park homes are different, and CT is charged on those because the owners have residential rights, whether they use them all year round or not.

Holiday parks are taking nothing from the areas where they are sited. People wouldn't live there if the site closed, unlike in houses that are only used at weekends or for holidays, and the towns and villages nearby remain (if they haven't been bought up by second-home owners) at full occupancy, so shops and other facilities don't struggle out of season. If anything they add to the local economy, rather than ruin it.

I think that second homes do attract CT? As it stands it will be the owner who is liable - I think that's pretty straightforward. In the highly unlikely event that a per capita charge for services comes in, I don't know how it would work for property that is let out regularly. I suppose separate arrangements would have to be made.

My partner has a holiday home. But the local lord of the manor owns probably half of the homes in the village and rents them out. And other local people own several properties and rent them out as holiday homes ( and their shops benefit from selling produce to holiday makers). It isn’t just outsiders that buy up properties in holiday areas.

Then there’s the issue of holiday homes, whether they be houses or caravans, whether they be jet out or used only by the owner. I know this is already being looked at, but if you charge per person, who is going to be charged?
The family of 6 adults sharing a three bedroomed holiday home and using the local services or the homeowner?

It's definitely an agree/disagree point Doodledog. I just do think it's a fair way to raise money for local councils (with adjustments needed over time) as well as its practicalities.

growstuff

Doodledog

Genuine answer 😀

They would pay the same per capita, so the four adults would pay four times the amount paid by the old lady as a household, but the same amount each, as they use the services as individuals rather than as a household.

I am very happy to be persuaded that this wouldn’t be fair, incidentally. I am thinking aloud, as I often do. I know the poll tax was unpopular (and I don’t instinctively support Thatcherite policies ), but I don’t see why charges for local services should be linked to house prices, when using them costs the same for everyone, and house price is a very unreliable indicator of income.

I think you've misunderstood.

The question was about total tax. Four working adults would undoubtedly pay more than a single person if they're paying PAYE.

Council tax is just another way of raising money, in this case by raising it on assets not income.

Ah, I see. Yes, I did misunderstand.

I can't possibly comment on the total tax paid by anyone, whether as individuals or in households as it is so variable. Some pay, some don't, and people pay at different levels.

I agree that CT is another form of tax, which is another reason I think it is unfair. If someone buys a house out of taxed income why tax them again on its value, when someone else may have spent their own (equivalent) taxed income on something other? IHT is rather different, I think, in that it is not paid by the owner of the estate being taxed, but by the heirs, who have, in most cases, not contributed to its acquisition.

PPs are right about keeping track of who is living where - that is a fair point - but there are regular checks for purposes of elections, so maybe that would suffice with a bit of joined-up thinking? Is it really true that charging per household is more cost-effective than charging everyone who uses the services? I doubt it, and it would almost certainly be possible to reduce the per capita charge if everyone contributed.

Yes, that's what it boils down to, and we have an economy as a whole which has to balance taxing direct income with other assets. Except of course, for the government imput into local councils.

Latest stats I could find:

In 2019/20 (the last year before emergency Covid funding),

local authorities in England received 22% of their funding from government grants, 52% from council tax, and 27% from retained business rates.

Doodledog

Genuine answer 😀

They would pay the same per capita, so the four adults would pay four times the amount paid by the old lady as a household, but the same amount each, as they use the services as individuals rather than as a household.

I am very happy to be persuaded that this wouldn’t be fair, incidentally. I am thinking aloud, as I often do. I know the poll tax was unpopular (and I don’t instinctively support Thatcherite policies ), but I don’t see why charges for local services should be linked to house prices, when using them costs the same for everyone, and house price is a very unreliable indicator of income.

I think you've misunderstood.

The question was about total tax. Four working adults would undoubtedly pay more than a single person if they're paying PAYE.

Council tax is just another way of raising money, in this case by raising it on assets not income.

Elegran

I am willing to bet that the Council Tax in the house with 4 working adults in it would be paid by Mum and Dad if they were family - it not occurring to the working children that it might be their responsibility to pay for the services they use.

If the house is owned by a landlord, the cost would be passed on to the tenants, which would make another reason for the young workers to prefer to stay at home with Mum and Dad, on top of having a a free cook and gardener/handyman.

Student accommodation could become more expensive.

Having said all that, it is still fairer that assuming that one person uses as much of the local authority services than a whole houseful.

Most tenants are responsible for their own council tax anyway.

When it's a matter of adult children at home, it's a very fluid situation. coming and going. Living only part of the year there and so on. Do we seriously expect councils to have the ability or the resources to keep tags on each home and which adults live there when? Or people to be able to predict? Completely not viable. We wouldn't raise enough.
Working adults on low incomes in small houses simply couldn't pay.

The other factor is that for most of us during our lives there are times when we use council; services a great deal, and others when we do not. It may not seem fair in the present for one person living in a large house to pay more for size of house but over a lifetime?

I can call my mum grumbling (4 bedroomed house, large family, then alone) but as we pointed out, her 4 children had all had extensive council services when growing up.

I think the banding needs review as it's out of date, but the current systems the best we have at present.

I am willing to bet that the Council Tax in the house with 4 working adults in it would be paid by Mum and Dad if they were family - it not occurring to the working children that it might be their responsibility to pay for the services they use.

If the house is owned by a landlord, the cost would be passed on to the tenants, which would make another reason for the young workers to prefer to stay at home with Mum and Dad, on top of having a a free cook and gardener/handyman.

Student accommodation could become more expensive.

Having said all that, it is still fairer that assuming that one person uses as much of the local authority services than a whole houseful.

PS I resent having to say this, but my thoughts have nothing to do with channeling money to the rich. I am a home owner, but am not rich, and my house is relatively expensive for the area, but I don’t live somewhere where prices are high compared to the rest of the country.

Genuine answer 😀

They would pay the same per capita, so the four adults would pay four times the amount paid by the old lady as a household, but the same amount each, as they use the services as individuals rather than as a household.

I am very happy to be persuaded that this wouldn’t be fair, incidentally. I am thinking aloud, as I often do. I know the poll tax was unpopular (and I don’t instinctively support Thatcherite policies ), but I don’t see why charges for local services should be linked to house prices, when using them costs the same for everyone, and house price is a very unreliable indicator of income.

Doodledog

Wyllow3

👏👏

"On the side those expected to pay it the argument was that it placed a large tax burden on the poor and it wasn't at all progressive, as rich and poor alike paid the same per person."

that whole point, really.

But is that not the case with rateable value or banding being used as a yardstick? The example of a 'little old lady' in a large house paying the same as a family of five is something of a cliche, but it is rooted in fact. There is a large burden on people who have low incomes (eg some pensioners) but relatively valuable houses, yet the chances are that families of adults in the same sized house will use significantly more facilities. Similarly, young families who are stretched at the beginning of mortgages have fewer earners but need more bedrooms so are likely to pay higher rates of CT. Only those living alone get rebates. People on benefits may get CT paid (I don't know) but if that is the case it could continue under any charging system.

I remember the riots, but can't remember the rationale now.

So what would the total tax paid be from one old lady living in a valuable house with a low income, compared with four working adults living in the same house?

(Genuine question.)

I do find your insistence that every able bodied person should be in paid employment rather jarring. It is somehow reminiscent of the Victorian ideas which drove the imposition of the 1834 Poor Law, but I doubt you're the only person who thinks like that.
I realise that - you make it quite clear . I find an insistence that some should work and others get a free ride reminiscent of the feudal system, but there we are.

yellowfox

In answer to 'wheniwasyourage' maybe you should consider other people who might be struggling to pay.
You may think you are not paying enough but for some it is a considerable amount of their income. Be careful what you wish for!
Our library was moved to share a building with the Medical Centre and is now used for various functions.
Libraries are not used like they used to be and have to move with the times

Obviously I know that there are people who would find it difficult to pay more, yellowfox as I am not yet totally senile. If there was a local income tax instead of a tax based on the 1990-ish values of houses, it would be much fairer.

Your 'assertion' that I am interested in constantly driving money to the rich is beyond unfair.

I didn't say that at all. My observation about people defending the channeling of money to the rich was about people in general. How many times on this forum have we seen people defending wealth?

I do find your insistence that every able bodied person should be in paid employment rather jarring. It is somehow reminiscent of the Victorian ideas which drove the imposition of the 1834 Poor Law, but I doubt you're the only person who thinks like that.

Am I right in thinking that your post above mine was a dig, Maisie? Yes, I think that no capable adults should get a free ride, but that is not what is driving my question about how poll tax is inherently unfair. Your 'assertion' that I am interested in constantly driving money to the rich is beyond unfair. If you read my posts about pretty much anything other than my dislike of the tax burden falling on workers you would be fully aware that I am not remotely interested in doing anything of the kind.

Wyllow3

👏👏

"On the side those expected to pay it the argument was that it placed a large tax burden on the poor and it wasn't at all progressive, as rich and poor alike paid the same per person."

that whole point, really.

But is that not the case with rateable value or banding being used as a yardstick? The example of a 'little old lady' in a large house paying the same as a family of five is something of a cliche, but it is rooted in fact. There is a large burden on people who have low incomes (eg some pensioners) but relatively valuable houses, yet the chances are that families of adults in the same sized house will use significantly more facilities. Similarly, young families who are stretched at the beginning of mortgages have fewer earners but need more bedrooms so are likely to pay higher rates of CT. Only those living alone get rebates. People on benefits may get CT paid (I don't know) but if that is the case it could continue under any charging system.

I remember the riots, but can't remember the rationale now.

Wyllow3

👏👏

"On the side those expected to pay it the argument was that it placed a large tax burden on the poor and it wasn't at all progressive, as rich and poor alike paid the same per person."

that whole point, really.

Aah, but there are some among us (i.e the population in general) who believe that everyone should make a financial contribution to society.

Leaving aside my constant assertion that taxation doesn't fund government spending, we live in an economic system that 'works' by constantly channeling money to the rich. And many are very happy to defend that.

In which case, how can every member of such a society contribute financially when they have barely enough to sustain themselves (and some 10% don't even have that) and what little they have serves only to enrich the already wealthy?