Abolishing single person CT discount

It’s been pointed out by me and others what she actually said. She ruled them both out. It’s a real contortion to say she didn’t.

Jeez what attracts people like you to forums? Either answer the question or ignore it. Snidey comments not needed.

You haven’t made any arguments about it. That’s the point. It’s a silly throw away attempt at an insult.

I can't speak from personal experience @FOJN because I'm not in London but I know from friends there that services are beyond terrible.

I don't want to post details of other people's situations on here as that's not for me to share but all I can say is although my council is a pretty shit for services I was shocked at how bad it is in London. Especially for vulnerable people services there seen to exist on paper only. That's statutory services. Voluntary and discretionary seem mixed and from what I've heard are a borough postcode lottery, so ok in some London boroughs but non existent in others.

It's obvious even without living there. For example the social cleansing of homeless Londoners. Many will have been paying council tax for years but when needing help, in this case housing, they've forced to leave family when at their most vulnerable and give up their jobs.

I don't know the council tax for all London boroughs but my friend's is similar to mine (I'm in the SE but not London) and it's high.

Separately, and maybe related to poor services in London or maybe not but relevant anyway for a council tax thread, is that the highest pensioner poverty is in London.

It looks like MN are happy for people to write any old lie as a thread title which I hadn't realised.

"Yes" means she is taking the opportunity to reassure the house.

Only that Council Tax will not be increased. This is all she was asked, she was not specifically asked about abolishing any discounts.

If the answer were that the Government possibly had plans to remove the single discount, the answer to the question would have been "No (she wouldn't take this opportunity)".

No it wouldn't. She was not specifically asked about plans to abolish any discounts so had no need to reassure the House about this specific matter.

I know this all sounds ridiculously pedantic but we're talking about politicians here.

I am going by what she said, you appear to be going by what you think she said.

Kemi Badenoch said, " It’s been reported that the Secretary of State is being lobbied to increase council tax and remove discounts like the single occupant discount...."

This is a statement about what KB has heard reported.

The question KB asked was, "Will she take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government has no plans to increase council tax as they assured us before the election?”

AR answered yes. Removing the single occupancy discount in not increasing council tax, it's making single occupants pay the full amount.

AR was asked by another MP to give a guarantee that the SOD would not be scrapped and she deflected.

Assuming that's an accurate report (ie from Hansard) She asked the question "Will she take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government has no plans to increase council tax as they assured us before the election?" "Yes" means she is taking the opportunity to reassure the house. If the answer were that the Government possibly had plans to remove the single discount, the answer to the question would have been "No (she wouldn't take this opportunity)".

9 out of 10 of the lowest council tax areas in the country are in London. The cost of band A council tax in more expensive areas of the country may be more than a band C/D in London. Average council tax in Chelsea and Westminster is significantly lower than my council tax for an average 3 bed semi. None of the top ten most expensive council tax areas are in London.

Quality of services do vary and paying more does not necessarily mean better services. Where I live is not affluent but it is sparsely populated making it more expensive to deliver services which means our council tax is high and yet services are still poor and deteriorating all the time.

I've reported it too. They need to edit the title. People should check whether things they post are correct from a better source than the DM/Telegraph/Sun/Express which we know print rubbish

There should be a consideration of the differentials between what each band pays. When you could sell a terraced 3 bd for £50k and buy a 4 bed semi for £125k, the differentials made sense. But now the difference between the two £300k-£400k, and the top end for houses has gone into the stratosphere, it's ridiculous that a lower band property should be paying about half a percent of value each year in council tax, and a £3m mansion should be paying only one tenth of a percent.

Kemi Badenoch said: “It’s been reported that the Secretary of State is being lobbied to increase council tax and remove discounts like the single occupant discount Will she take this opportunity to reassure the House that the Government has no plans to increase council tax as they assured us before the election?”
Up to the word 'discount' KB made a statement. She then asked a single question about increasing Council Tax. It was to this single question that AR answered 'yes'. AR has not ruled out abolishing any discounts.

Bang on! Well said and indicates that single people are being financially discriminated against rather than privileged. Running a household alone, particularly as a single parent, a disabled, long term sick or elderly person is hard enough as it is without making it financially harder. If anything, it would be fairer to increase the discount and look to make up the shortfall elsewhere, from people fortunate enough to be well off and not the only adult responsible for financing a household!
No one wants to be the people who pay more, but someone has to and it should be those who are cushioned enough by high incomes that it won't be too painful for them. They wouldn't be happy about it but they wouldn't be pushed into penury either!

And NOW they are going for the single dwellers No they're not. Apparently been debunked in parliament. See second post.

Thank you very much for your help.

I think you're right @parkrun500club with this
Maybe the best idea would be to increase central taxation and councils get a grant from government, everyone gets the same and there's no postcode lottery as now. it's not right that some people get better local services than others. So effectively the direct opposite of what the Coalition and Tory governments were trying to achieve.

It seems ridiculous and unfair that access to and quality of provision to often pretty essential services is dependent on where in the UK someone lives - something that isn't always a choice (it's not as if everyone can move somewhere else - and anyway that would then add pressure on public services where they moved).

I've noticed on threads where someone needs help, sometimes a poster will suggest checking what support is available in their local area. It's shocking to me because these are services that should be available and of good quality in every area.

It seems to be an unpopular and unfashionable view maybe but I think important public services should be nationally funded and operate on national standards of quality and provision.

We might always have "naicer" areas than others but I don't think important public service provision, quality, and access should be a postcode lottery.

No it doesn't "strike a nerve" whatever that means. There, you managed to use his name in that post. Well done. Not too hard, was it?

I'd suggest a reduction in the state payroll would be a better way forward.

@Scandiviews1
No - additional recruitment not workload

Does it strike a nerve? Apologies if so. I think it's a pretty good way of encapsulating Sir Keir's (if you prefer me to use his title) general approach to his cronies and favoured groups. Disappointing start for Labour.

It's very telling that those who use the term are reluctant to articulate why.

I lose interest quickly in the contributions of anyone who uses the term 2 Tier.

@pinkgown Agree people in multi million house are not likely to derive greater benefit from local authority services. But, poll tax was extremely unpopular as it was a higher proportion of poorer people's income

Current system tries to be fair ie higher CT if house is expensive but discount for single people. In a sense this is a poll tax with wealth (not income) element

In any system, there will be winners and losers

Poll Tax riots, anyone?

It's obvious a single person uses far less in services than a couple or multiple occupancy house.

Social care and SEND is the black hole where so much English Council tax money disappears according to articles.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/jul/25/5bn-debt-crisis-of-special-educational-needs-could-bankrupt-english-councils

Council Tax is a weird thing though. I'm in a small flat earning a high wage, big pension pot and with a large amount of savings earning some pretty good interest yet I'm paying the lowest amount.

Compare that to a skint family living in a larger house and they're paying twice as much struggling to pay all their bills.

If it was up to me, I would scrap it and have an income tax ringfenced to local service provision.

(Note - This is not a stealth boast, I think the tax is unfair).