To think the UK unfairly taxes families?

Central to this argument really is if people can afford more space to live in does it necessarily mean they individually automatically cost the council more

We should be asking “ what increases council costs “ and working back from there

I would argue two pensioners are likely using he same level of council services, or even more actually, that a family of 2 adults and 2 kids. There's a much higher chance the pensioners are needing care and they almost certainly use healthcare more.

This is obviously true and some people would lose out whatever tax change was made but surely it would be an incentive for people to live in properties that are the correct size for the household? Obviously at 97 a move would be hard but if that tax had been there already maybe she would have moved i to a 2 bed at age 65? Freeing up the big house for a large family?
Surely if you have 6 adults (for example) living in a 3 bed home they are living in a kind of housing poverty. Why should they be taxed more than someone living alone in a big house - who could, if they chose, downsize? Having a lot of space to live in is a luxury that a lot of people can't afford. For example we are a family of 4 and living in a 3 bed plus boxroom (because we have a loft conversion) and it feels like a huge luxury to us. We're used to living in a 2 bed. Only moved a year ago. I think a lot of people just dont appreciate this at all.

Living in a 4 bed house doesn't always mean wealthy. Our next door neighbour is a 97 year old lady living on her own. She has lost her sight but manages because she knows her house well. It's hugely in need of repair but she can't afford to do it. My husband and other neighbours do small jobs for her, get her shopping etc, check on her, visit her. Her children all live abroad. She has 1 nephew who visits occasionally.
Moving would be incredibly challenging both physically and emotionally, she can't view properties as blind, she would struggle to get around a new property, she may not be able to create the same neighbourly support network. The council would have to fund carers for her which would be costly. Her council tax bill is around 2.5 k per year with single person discount, leaving her no money for maintenance etc.
The 3 adult children can all work, pay rent etc. They have much higher earning capacity than the single pensioner. My MIL lives next to a house with at least 4 working adults in it, who all have top of the range SUV's (often parked on her drive!). 2 of the adults are drs. They are choosing to live together to get support with their children, not due to poverty. Ot can also be cultural - living together until can afford to buy without a mortgage - which is at least 500k in the area they live. They should definitely be paying much more than my widowed MIL who survives on state pension plus a tiny teachers pension- she couldn't afford to pay into it much so opted out.

That is an interesting point though. Should council taxes be based on

• amounts of services used
• amount of people in a property on basis that more adults means higher earning ability
• size of the property
• size of income

All options are fairer to some and less fair to others.

You are arguing that pensioners should pay less as using less services?

Thank you to @CandidLurker for that explanation, I can see how in that situation poll tax was unfair.

Luckily we live in a country where sexism is against the law and no Government would ever do this

It really depends on whether we consider council tax as use based

and it already does. New buildings are taxed on bedrooms. More bedrooms = a higher tax band
because the occupancy will be assumed to be greater.

Council tax services increase in need by population

Bloody glad you're not in charge then.
Most men are not violent or desert their families. Some do / are, sure. But not most.
FWIW my mother deserted us when we were kids. Moved to another country and left our dad to deal with the fallout. We were aged 3 & 7. Its not only men that do these things, nor is it most men.

In my view, all men should have to pay a tax levy (maybe 0.5% or 1%) to cover the costs of:

• male violence to people & things
• male irresponsibility re paying for their own children

My utopian tinking is that within a generation, it would become so socially unacceptable among men to cause expensive damage to people/things, or to abandon your DC, that we wouldn't need the extra tax, in say 100 years. THe good men would put pressure on the irresponsible violent men.

But, - one may say I'm a dreamer.

If you were to draw a pie chart of where people spent money now compared to the 80 & 90's some things like housing would be much more expensive now after adjusting for inflation. Some things are much cheaper, I remember BT phone bills easily being over £100 a quarter, whereas you can have unlimited phone calls now for £5 a month.
my parents spent £500 in early 90's on a Sony video player whereas today a fire stick is less than £50. So it's not surprising people have more cheap stuff. You can't live life nowadays without a smartphone. The government expects you to have one.
Were my boomer parents wrong for spending money on luxuries like this? They were a fairly careful single income family in the southeast on a good salary. We could have nice two week summer holidays in the UK or abroad.
They're now the kind of pensioners who can take a few % increase in income tax. Remember 25% of them are millionaires. Maybe next time that might mean they chose to buy an iPad rather than an iPad pro, but their heating is on as high as they like.
The winter fuel allowance if had been removed from pensioners like them would not have caused the same upset.

Actually I think the father should pay. BOTH parents are responsible. Neither should claim benefits.

Absolutely, absent or non resident parents (usually men) should be forced to support their own children. As you say, it should be taken direct from their wages/benefits and they should be punished if they try to avoid this responsibility.
It's interesting that @Marshmallowsoftness didn't make this point but was keen to cast judgements on single, female parents.

If you read my posts, you will see that I haven't mentioned two child caps at all. I've made several other points though.

What does this mean, please?

I think the older generations have been grandfathered into life, but the downside is that entire generation of people are dying off now. Future generations won’t benefit from the same level of financial freedom.

If you have children and a husband, it is always prudent to invest in life insurance.
As for fathers who do not support their own children financially, our system is far too lax. HMRC should have a lien on all their earnings. Take it straight out of PAYE or benefits from father directly. The risk should not be on the taxpayer.

The two child benefit cap is nothing to do with child benefit which can be claimed for an infinite number of children. The cap is on the child element of universal credit.

The system does the opposite of encouraging 'this behaviour' doesn't it. As has been discussed, the single parent has a lower income threshold, even if they strive and strive for pay rises!

I've no idea what behaviour you are referring to. The stupidity of losing your husband to cancer in his 30s? The foolishness of having a cheating or abusive husband? It's not for any of us to play God. As I said, child benefit is for children, not a tool to punish single mothers or fathers with.

Well the couple are wealthy enough to live in a 4 bedroom house. They have the option to downsize to a smaller home and pay less tax. The family with the couple plus three adult children are likely to be all living together because none of the adult children can afford their own home. They have no other options. As I said, the poor, who are trying to live frugally and survive should not be punished.

I think pensioners should pa NI. But thepersonal allowance should be raised for everybody and means test more benefits.

Insurance? The point is the current system encourages this behaviour which means there are far too many cases.

Disagree. couple v couple plus 3 adult children. Both examples live in £350K property and pay exactly the same council tax. How is that fair and none of them are wealthy.

The poll tax was only 'fair' to the wealthy in huge houses. It was completely unfair to the frugal poor. It was a hugely regressive tax (see post above). So many of the population agreed that even Thatcher had to back down.

Ah, but what happens if the man leaves you? What happens if your husband dies? Should we have a three tier system for single parents based on your judgement of the morality of an individual's single status? In all your judgement, you seem to forget that it's actually called CHILD benefit.
No one gets extra child benefit because they leave. In fact, the current situation is that the single parent has half the household threshold of a household with two parents. It's a major disadvantage. A single parent, whose husband left her, for example, who works really hard and earns above the income threshold loses her child benefit.

I think the poll tax was fair. Councils are not receiving enough council tax now because of too many exemption. Remove all exemptions and make each individual pay. It is ridiculous that a house consisting of couple with three adult children pays the same as a couple.