To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

Lets rewind a few years.
The fairest form of local taxation is precisely that, per individual.

Known back then as the Community Charge a.k.a. 'Poll Tax'
Due to an agressive backlash, it was dropped. So we've continued with an inapproriate property tax with no relevance to the take up of services.

Why would the government need to invest billions in SH if it genuinely washed its own face?

Do you agree we should be spending the billions elsewhere and let the SH pay for itself?

Just to hopefully put this crazy debate to bed, the national government has committed to spending £39 billion in grants over the next 10 years to build SH. This is the enormous scale of the subsidy, on top of other cheap government back credit sources and other measures that will assist in building SH. This £39 billion is coming from the taxpayer and yet you keep insisting it's not subsidised. What the hell are we paying it for then? If the model works without subsidy then let's redirect this money to defence or education.... Except I think you do know that the SH model depends on subsidy.

Just to hopefully put this crazy debate to bed, the national government has committed to spending £39 billion in grants over the next 10 years to build SH. This is the enormous scale of the subsidy, on top of other cheap government back credit sources and other measures that will assist in building SH. This £39 billion is coming from the taxpayer and yet you keep insisting it's not subsidised. What the hell are we paying it for then? If the model works without subsidy then let's redirect this money to defence or education.... Except I think you do know that the SH model depends on subsidy.

Yes it’s a bit odd to say facts matter when it’s incorrect.

A HRA ringfence doesn't stop the national government subsidising SH through specific grants or funding build costs directly. All the ringfence does is to stop councils using local general funds to subsidise SH.

If facts matter then you wouldn't be bringing essentially red herrings into the debate. I don't think anyone has suggested that SH is subsidised at a local level other than the opportunity cost of not charging market rents.

I would love to know why you're so determined to prove that She isn't subsidised. Do you live in it and want to believe you pay your way?

In my case it’s because facts matter to me. The housing account held by a local authority is ringfenced and no cross pollination between it and the general fund is permitted, legislation forbids it.

Like @poetryandwine I live in a house we own outright. I have no skin in the game.

Then why the insistence? Surely you understand that it is subsidised even if you think there are misunderstandings about UC etc. Ultimately this is what makes it affordable for tenants and I don't think we should shy away from this. Absolutely explain that it can have some pros versus relying on private landlords, but non means tested lifetime tenancies being subsidised by the state are a meaningful advantage for some in this country.

I tell you what I think is unfair. I live in Edinburgh. There was a thread on here recently about someone who wanted to downsize to reduce her mortgage. When added in all moving costs they would come to about £15k. If I wanted to downsize to say a 3 bed bungalow in a less attractive area I’d be paying £700k and my stamp duty alone would be £43,350. So I don’t move. Ever. It’s obviously a financially daft thing to do.

Our current tax system is preventing me from moving just because I live in an expensive area. It’s such a stupid system. It traps the elderly in their expensive, unsuitable housing, and stops people moving to change jobs. It’s flagged as the single most damaging tax for the UK economy.

The proposed tax would remove stamp duty, and get the same amount of tax out of everyone living in a street, not loads out of those who just moved there and not a lot out of others. It’s so much fairer than the current system.

And expensive areas generally mean higher income. £100k salary is fairly common in London. It’s no big deal though because it’s soon eaten up by the costs of living in a city. So Londoners paying higher council tax? Just add that to the higher house prices, commute, childcare etc and take it off the higher incomes.

Manchester City also has low Council Tax rates as does Birmingham City. They get more business rates, more money from parking but also have huge efficiencies due to the fact that they are areas of high density living. It costs less to provide local services when everyone lives close together.

I think it's fair that local services should be funded by local people. So if an area can fund the services they need with low taxation then what's wrong with that? Isn't this what Andy Burnham's devolution looks like?