...to propose some really radical changes to council tax?

[allswellthatends]

Following up on yesterday’s thread about encouraging downsizing (thank you, PoinsettiaPosturing) I’d like to propose a few radical changes to council tax, which we all seem to agree needs reform.

I’d base council tax on the total floor area of the house, ie all the rooms not just the footprint on the land. It would include garages, sheds, and even (perhaps at a different rate) private gardens. It would not be based on number of rooms but on absolute size, so there would be no cliff-edges, just a straight charge per square metre. (With, obviously, variation for land actively under farm cultivation or grazing.)

This would effectively make council tax a milder form of wealth tax or property tax such as they have in North America, but ensure the money stays local instead of ending in central government hands.

It would encourage anyone living in a home larger than needed to downsize (why pick on the elderly?) Living close together not only costs less in services but is better for the environment. It would help meet the government goal or reducing car travel in a fairer way than Oxford's plan to charge for driving out of your 15-minute neighbourhood. It would eliminate the need to target council house tenants with the extra-bedroom charge.

Taxing by living space instead of cost would be a great deal fairer to all regions: people who live in London already pay a disproportionate price for less space, why should they have to pay higher council tax on top of that? After all, more room is a luxury no matter where in the country you live. City residents would still be paying slightly more tax on living space, because city houses involve more corridors and staircases and I'm afraid I'm still taxing that when I become Queen of the World.

Please don’t all start screaming about how much richer Londoners are: they’re not all rich, and this is one reason teachers, nurses, and other essential workers are being priced out – cost-of-living adjustments don’t reflect true costs and could more efficiently rolled into a council tax system. London salaries are not as much higher than in the rest of the country as rents and property prices are; Londoners just pay more of their already-taxed income on housing, and subsidise services for the rest of the country in the process, so why should they be penalised yet again with higher council taxes as well? Like all of us, they already pay more income tax if they earn more and more VAT and stamp duty if they buy more.

But rural and suburban residents too might benefit from more council tax being collected locally to fund the services they use. In Britain people choose to move out because they want bigger houses, and then wail that there are (say) no buses, when the simple fact is that rural residents can't and don’t want to pay the true cost of running buses (and roads, plumbing pipes, and electric wires, and rubbish collection, and wifi signals, etc etc) over areas that are more spread out.

Then (here’s where I’d get really evil): I’d base the council tax on planning permission for the site, even before the building is built. That would give developers a real push to build houses. Westminster has been saying for years they need to stop developers from land-banking to keep housing prices high.

I’ve donned my aluminium-foil helmet.

We ourselves upsized from a three-bedroom flat for 5 of us, one of the bedrooms too small even for a bed, to a five-bedroom house around the corner, partly because of my disabled son and how he affected the other children. We are in the same council tax band under the same council, and even though we benefit from this stupidity it's still stupidity!
Does your new house demand significantly more from Local Authority services?

Kinnorafron, I'm not that confused. Of course each council sets its own rates and some are higher than others. We happen to live in a London council that boasts about how low their council rates are, and it doesn't sit right with me. Being both cruel and reasonable I intend to force everyone to choose either their location or the councillors based on the rates and services they offer. It's called voting -- by ballot or with your feet.

But what about those living in the building who are exempt from council tax? Would it be like properties where not everyone is a student and the rest have to pay for them? I'm with @Bard6817
*We’re already taxed to the max.

I have three rules in life.

Never vote for more politicians
Never vote for more taxes
Never vote for changes to the above because it inevitably means more.*

It just looks like yet another way to go 'hey you workers, we're coming for more of your earnings'!

We happen to live in a London council that boasts about how low their council rates are, and it doesn't sit right with me

Did someone pick you up and force you to live there against your will? because 'we happen to live' seems a bit disingenuous to me. If you don't like low council tax why don't you move to where you'll pay what you think is right?

A reasonable question, and not entirely clear answer. Some things do cost a little more, eg more road frontage for leaf clearing and pipe-laying and pothole-filling (not that anyone around here fills potholes). Most things don't cost more but then we are richer than some. (I know, I said I wouldn't count income directly, but it was after all our choice to move.)
I considered making council tax per head but that is not only just the dreaded poll tax, but also something that would require decades of advance warning. People can move house in a year or two so with that kind of notice you can change the law, but it would take a lifetime to change the number of members of the family. Plus, even though they generate more rubbish, it's still more efficient to have a household of 10 than a household of one, as long as you didn't add them all to the world but just, um, collected them together into an apartment building.

I dont think this works as in my village some of the bigger houses are worth less, they are ex council and have good sized room but arent worth as much as smaller victorian properties closer to the station and better school so i dont get where the less well off now go. Their bigger house is costing more tax and their smaller house cost too much.

You seem to be forgetting that a house is where we live for most ordinary mortals - we can't just up sticks and fuck off somewhere we like more easily. Apart from the costs of moving - if we own the place we'll likely have to pay stamp duty too.

I live in a cheap place with space because I can't afford to live in London and probably never will be able to. Under your plan I'm going to be penalised - and probably forced to move to cramped accommodation in a city - is that your aim?

But a 4 bed here - on a poorly built estate with no outside road and communal parking would cost around £160-£180k - probably owned (if not by a BTL landlord) by a family on a low income - compared to one of the 3 beds on the lovely new estates (springing up like weeds - with no supporting infrastructure such as schools or GP's) that go for over £300K - people buying those would pay less - yes?

Seems a tad unfair

I can’t work out if this is a Tory HQ fever dream or a Labour one.

You will live in a cupboard and you will be happy!

Seriously, I have factored this into my future plans. I used to dream of living in a house but soon the taxes will be too high. I think they will particularly punish anyone living alone in a house.

Council tax should be reformed so the single and childfree pay less. The 25% discount is mad. Basing it on a "household" is mad though.

It's both.

Nope, I think that putting all property into seven arbitrary bands based on an estimated value on 1 Apr 1991 and using that system would be best.

It's what I grew up with, and I CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO IMAGINE ANYTHING ELSE.

And let me just hijack this thread to say I HATE TAXATION. That should shut down any debate

And also add some whataboutery - such as WHAT ABOUT ALL THE WASTE IN THE MINISTRY OF [INSERT HOBBY HORSE HERE]. Don't we spend too much on funding something I read about in the Mail that makes me REALLY ANGRY? I'm sure that made up figure that sounds a lot would easily pay for all the services provided by local authorities across the country as a whole, because it's bigger than my current council tax bill and I CAN'T DO MATHS!

Phew - that felt good. Hopefully that will cauterize anyone who was intending to post along those lines.

And, having got that out of my system - well done OP, great thread. Good suggestion. Who do I vote for to make it happen?

YABU solely because you seem to believe Londoners pay disproportionately more for less space whereas actually on average they pay much less ctax than most of the country.
e.g. 2022/3 ctax for a band d property in westminster is £468.54 with the additional GLA charge it comes to a total of £864.13 a year
Whereas a band d in merthyr tydfil (one of the poorest areas of the country) is £2,072.33 yearly.

Plus the fact that bandings in england are based on property prices in 1991, and don't have a band H, whereas in Wales (and I think Scotland) they were reassessed in 2003 so properties are generally in a higher band than the like for like in England anyway.

Also re: your belief that only the elderly are being 'picked on' to downsize - if anything it's the opposite, in that people over 65 are exempt from the bedroom tax.

I don't trust someone who doesn't even understand this basic info to be in charge of even a hypothetical reform!

I can't even tell anymore if you're taking the piss here or not!!

On face value I agree with basing council tax on size, but then I live in a house which is band E despite being a smaller size to band D houses within my village. It’s based purely on value, but our house was only built 5.5 years ago. The whole system is very unfair and unfairly penalises those in the south in my opinion (we currently pay £2,372.04 pa) as it’s based on property value.

Surely the end game of equality is to have an even distribution of wealth throughout the country. Why are we always asking people to move to cheaper areas? All you end up with is whole run down communities in some parts of the country and a massive wealth gap in the richer areas where the poor are unfairly penalised ie little public transport because it’s considered not enough demand

Council tax needs to differentiate between ability to pay, renting and home ownership and number of homes.

MrsDanvers, I said "happen to know" because we didn't know when we moved in. (Is it normal for property agents to mention this? Maybe it should be? Maybe it would be if council taxes weren't so low compared to all the other taxes?) We're not moving again because of the disabled child. Who, by the way, makes us during his school years more expensive to the Local Authority than those of you who don't have disabled children, and don't think I don't know it.

Let's not forget, by the way, that every council and borough in this country is subsidised from central taxation. Nowhere does council tax cover all council-paid costs. I'm not convinced even I would want that, when I see how it skews, for instance, US school systems -- US schools are funded by local property taxes, which just kneecaps children who grow up in poor areas even more permanently. Somehow rubbish collection and even pothole filling seem less important.

I guess I could say that every council has to tax not only on the same basis but at the same percentage, but, as you know, different areas do have different priorities and surely we think the choice is good too?

FYI, council tax is not higher in London. Westminster has one of the lowest rates in the country. The NE has some of the highest, despite much lower average salaries. It always surprises people who move up here from the South.

Factor this into your reform, perhaps!

You lost me at sheds, tbh. I fork out for a shed to accommodate the belongings of a DC who can no longer afford to rent their own place, and you think that should make me liable for higher council tax? There'd be shed disguisers on the market in a heartbeat, Like those patterned wotsits you can buy to prettify your bin. Incognito sheds disguised as a hedge or a fence, and agreement with the neighbours not to grass each other up.

I've had a brainwave - maybe theres a flaw in this but . . . .
Instead of changing council tax, why can't income tax be altered so that those who work for NHS, caring, social, teachers and not-for-profit professions are in a lower rate scheme of tax bands, those who work in profit orientated jobs are in a higher rate scheme of tax bands. After all, aren't our taxes paying the caring/teaching professions? It seems daft that they then give the same proportion of tax back again as tax.
This system would result in higher take home wages for those currently striking, without a change to their actual salary AND it would encourage people into those types of professions which we desperately . The people making profits would pay higher tax and so they should because they make money out of the infrastructure that tax puts in place (nhs, transport etc).
Who wants to vote for me?

MrsDanvers, I said "happen to know" because we didn't know when we moved in. (Is it normal for property agents to mention this? Maybe it should be?

I have a Rightmove habit (pondering where to retire) and council tax bands are usually on the properties. It's one of the questions I'd ask. Perhaps that's just me.

There already is a government agency overseeing council tax, the Valuation Office Agency.

I'd prefer if everyone was taxed on income purely instead of all the different taxes that end up adding up to a huge percentage of low and middle earners incomes, and small percentage of rich people

Coming at this from a completely different direction - a suggestion to do away with council tax altogether, increase income tax and other general taxation and give every council a grant from central government based on the number of residents. Then everyone has the same money and there's no postcode lottery which says some people get better services than others. To do that I'd get rid of some layers of local government to save admin costs (eg have unitary authorities instead of county and district councils).

I know Labour want to do the opposite and have more devolvement though.

Sheds? What about greenhouses? Polytunnels?