Fucking Council Tax Single Person Penalty

[Honper]

Or: why should I pay 50% more tax than my neighbours?

Council tax is a regressive abomination anyway and ofc like everyone else I resent paying it so my useless council can spend thousands on things like Tree Stories Near You or Four Foot Long Cycle Path Initiatives while failing to patch potholes so big that geese nest in them but still. As a single person I have a very particular axe to grind wrt paying 50% more TAX than someone in a couple.

I know that single life is more expensive, economies of scale yadda yadda and I already pay out proportionally more from my wages for bills, food and so on. I get that and it's not great but it's how it is.

But why is my tax liability so much greater than that of my married neighbours? I pay 50% more tax than each of them.

Come on, that's not right is it? It's not a bill. It's a tax. Single people's tax burden should not be so much more.

Or should it? AIBU?

@Reclaimtheoutdoors oh my, I'm so sorry to hear about your awful experiences. I hope you're in a much better place now.

(Even if you're being stiffed tax-wise.)

@Aprilx Wandsworth Council residents were paying virtually no poll tax whilst if you were on the Lambeth side of the street it was £800 per person. I remember the owner of a local wine shop getting very uptight as his two dcs refused to pay, they had a big house though.

You could argue that council tax is an unfair tax because it's set by the council. My sister in Wandsworth is Band E whilst I'm band B in the country. Her rates are about 65% of mine.

There's nothing inherently worse about an individual tax. It could still include discounts based on personal circumstances.

People didn't like the poll tax. People don't like new taxes, full stop. Or change.

Fewer people lived by themselves on the 80s so it seemed more unfair on people living together in larger family units. Screw single people (who it benefitted).

@BasiliskStare I don't know what my alternative would be really. I'm just sick of paying so much more tax than couple households!

I do think CT in general is pretty appalling. It doesn't take account of income or ownership status, and it's based on the value of properties 30 fucking years ago. Plus you have all the London councils benefitting from the City take with consequently lower local tax. So it just seems like this mad arbitrary demand. In lots of parts of the country it adds a 15% tax requirement onto minimum wage, which is insane.

I do think we need to have a local tax just so that we can target services effectively but it should at the very least have an element that takes household income into account.

In an ideal world there would be a reduction for tenants too - fuck this paying tax on the notional value of an asset that someone else owns. But actually because landlords can charge what they please that would probably cause more problems than it solved.

What do you think?

Yes, I’m in a great place now thanks and really appreciate my living situation!

I agree about some older single people feeling forced to house share because they’re priced out otherwise, and that must really suck to house-share at that point in your life (unless you want to)

Exactly this.

Council tax is a levy that every household has to pay. If you're the only person in the household you get the 25% discount, but you're solely liable.

The alternative is to charge it per person, but OP has already said she's not in favour of that either....

I'm old enough to remember the absolute disaster of Poll Tax which was charged per person and not per property. There was absolute uproar and like @Aprilx says, it's hard to remember a more unpopular government policy.

Every household has to contribute - some of that is more generic like funding libraries and schools, but other things are household-specific such as collecting your bins and recycling.

If you're living on your own, the council still collect your bins the same amount of times as the couple living next door. So the cost of providing that service is identical to providing the same service to the couple. That's why the cost isn't reduced to half.

No one likes paying council tax. But we've tried per person and no one liked that. Now we pay per property with a proportionate discount for adults who live alone....and people are complaining about that too. It's not reduced by 50% because you don't use half the services of a joint couple.

I don't really get the argument here.

The only thing I would say is that I think the bands are flawed and need to be re-evaluated.

Also worth pointing out that you can get a Council Tax reduction if you're on a low income - you have to apply for it and it's calculated. It's not a standard 25% reduction like the Single Person Discount.

So it feels that individual circumstances are taken into account, and it is means tested as much as possible without creating a huge administrative burden.

I do think CT in general is pretty appalling. It doesn't take account of income or ownership status, and it's based on the value of properties 30 fucking years ago.

I think this is probably even a bigger issue. I think it’s wild that a middle earner should pay the same amount as someone on minimum wage or someone who is a earning 6 figures. I don’t know what the answer is either but I believe there needs to be some kind of reform on it.

This isn't quite true though. You can apply to your council to get a reduction if you're on a low income.

The amount you get depends on the area because each scheme is slightly different. But as an example, this is what's available in South Gloucestershire. Basically you can get up to 80% off your bill if you're on a low income.

And there are other discounts for students, disability, carers, visiting Armed Forces etc.

It's not true to say everyone has to pay the same. I suspect that people just don't know there are more discounts available.

I was a student in Liverpool when the poll tax was introduced, I think there was a student related discount and my bill was about £25 for the year.

Wandsworth always managed to keep the council tax bills down too. I lived on Wimbledon Parkside for 11 years and just fell into Wandsworth council. By comparison I pay an absolute fortune now, in fact it is my biggest monthly outgoing.

@StalkedByASpider I appreciate your enthusiasm for the system but £300 a week is less than minimum wage. Anyone on minimum wage or even a couple of grand less a year doesn't get a discount at all. And even those discounts are discretionary. You are not guaranteed to get them and even if you do you have to apply each year.

And even people living solely on benefits ie living on the national income floor as set by the government as being the absolute lowest you need to survive, pay 20% council tax.

For me, in my area, if I were disabled/unemployed etc, that would be £320 a year, from my £70-odd quid I get a week.

This is a tax that absolutely hammers people on low incomes. Poor people pay much more of this tax proportionate to what they have coming in.

It’s at least something that some people on a very low income receive a discount.

however My maths on this isn’t perfect but I think someone on minimum wage but working 40 hours (as I was required to do in one job) may earn above £300 so not sure if they would quite qualify for a discount.

But even if not it shows you can be earning not much more than minimum wage and miss the discount.

either way income should be taken into account for everyone. As I said it’s problematic with average earners and super high income households who may earn 5 times as much paying an identical amount.

I’m in a couple living next door to a single elderly man. We pay more CT than him . We live in identical properties. He gets the same number of bins emptied, drives 1 car as do we. He uses Council adult care services. We don’t He has a much higher income than us. Is that fair? Would a local income tax be fairer?

It's not about enthusiasm for the system - it's just that the posts on this thread aren't being entirely accurate.

There are reductions available for a long list of reasons - including low income.

Your previous comments were railing because it's not means-tested - I'm just pointing out that as well as carers, disabled folk, students and other people getting a discount, those on a low income can get money off too.

There IS an element of means-testing and financial support.

Obviously we'd all like it to go a lot further. And as I said in my post, what's available is different for every area - this is South Gloucestershire. No idea how it compares elsewhere.

But you require the same services for your household as your neighbours who are a couple - ie/recycling and bin collections. So a 25% discount sounds reasonable.

Lots of people can apply for other discounts. There is means testing in place if you apply.

You agree that it would be wrong to charge per person (which has already been tried and was disastrous).

Just reading your post again - you say - "For me, in my area, if I were disabled/unemployed etc, that would be £320 a year, from my £70-odd quid I get a week."

That's not true because there's a whole page of other discounts which are given which include carers, and the disabled. Certain low-income benefits automatically qualify you for a discount of 80%.

People on lower incomes pay proportionately more for a TV licence. People on a low income pay proportionately more for their gas and electricity. Rinse and repeat. Everything hammers people on a low income.

I struggle to pay my council tax. I absolutely resent it and hate paying it. I have two disabled children and for a long time I qualified for a single person discount.

I've already said I think some of the bands are flawed and need to be re-assessed.

Practically there's just no way that means testing council tax for every single person in this country would be viable. The admin cost for implementing that would mean that everyone's council tax rocketed! It's not practical or feasible and quite honestly I'd rather the money went into the NHS or schools rather than increasing the amount of admin in local government.

I'm not here championing the system to say it's all wonderful. But it's reasonably fair. It could be better, but it's not as awful as you seem to think.

Yep - what you said, you explained exactly what I was trying to get across about the inadequacy of the discounts (and more cogently than I did!)

So I see my calculations were correct after all and a (single) person working full-time on NMW would indeed be paying the same amount as both me & my much richer neighbour who lives a few doors down.

The system does need reform. No two ways about it.

I guess the issue for me is what do we think it should look like?

There's not the systems or the capacity to implement a personalised service whereby everyone's bill is calculated individually. The costs of implementing that would be astronomical and this country is already on its knees financially.

So, what's the suggestion? Do we charge more to people who own their homes and less to renters? There are already hefty discounts for the unemployed, disabled, carers, students, pensioners etc and in some cases 100% of the bill can be written off.

It's an imperfect system but I don't think it's terrible. Mainly because I haven't heard a practical alternative that would be better. Of course I'd like to see bigger discounts to those on a low income, and also I think the bands need to be re-assessed. But overall I think it's more or less reasonable way to apportion the charges, not perfect, but reasonable.

Another example - Universal Credit isn't fair. I'm self-employed. If I earn £10,000 taxable income and an employed person earns £10,000 taxable income, I will receive significantly less each year (hundreds of pounds less) purely because I'm self-employed. Another example of a system which isn't perfect.

The problem is that there's no money to chuck at the council tax system to support people, and local authorities are hugely cash-strapped and struggle to manage on the budgets they have so they can't reduce the cost.

With those restrictions in mind, how could the system be changed? I'm asking a genuine question. As I said, I really resent my council tax but I can't see what would be better unless you chucked a ton of money at it. I'd be really interested in what people could suggest?

I should also mention at this point that I'm not a Tory so I'm absolutely not defending this shitshow of a government.

Don’t be silly. Lots and lots of people live in flat shares or have to take in lodgers as they can’t afford all the bills on their own.

If anything happened to my husband I would have to rent out the spare room. It’s not a ridiculous suggestion.

Given the number of people struggling with the basic maths on this thread and on another recent popular thread (on which pp were struggling to covert 31 months into 2.58 years), it's hard not to conclude that Rishi Sunak has a point re maths education in the U.K.!

maggie thatcher tried this in the 90s, it was called the poll tax, there were riots about it, it was ultimately her downfall. It wasn’t charged for children though

As @StalkedByASpider says , the cost of individually working out what each individual should pay toward eg Council tax or any tax would be impractical and so expensive everyone's tax would go up - so there have to be some broad brush decisions made. And some people will be on the right side and some will be on the other and where the tipping point is will be a bone of contention for those who are a bit over the line - I'm thinking of the child benefit one here .

@Honper I think that a reduction ( for a single person ) even if not half is a fair concession. Where I do think Council Tax could be overhauled is by current value rebanding. But how much would that cost and how long to recoup - don't know. The other thing is the variation by borough / area So if your borough / area charged less overall then your 75% would cost you less money. So I don't know whether it is the actual amount you pay which is teeing you off or the % . I think from your post it is the principle not the amount you are paying.

I live in Australia and there’s no single discount here for council tax (or anything) so maybe count yourself lucky that you get some kind of discount.

It’s well known that living as a single is expensive. You could always house share or take in a boarder but if you’re anything like me you’d rather pay the extra.

You pay 25% more than each of the couple next door.

I live on my own in a small 2 up 2 down terrace... my attached next door neighbours have massively extended their house to a 4/5 bed and are a family of 5 living there yet they're still in the same band b as me.
They extended over 20 years ago so it's not like it's a recent extension and the banding assessment hasn't had chance yet to reevaluate their property.
Such a stupid system that they have 5x as many people using council services and are living in a house that's worth at least double what mine is yet they effectively pay the same as me (minus my 25% single person discount)

I agree with op that council tax is not equally charged. I have paid band F in a small two bed flat with a shared bin shed which was always overflowing with rubbish. I couldn’t park anywhere near my house, the local infrastructure was dreadful and I had to take my glass recycling to the local supermarket. I now pay band F for a four bedroom house with my own wheelie bins, glass collection and driveway. The street is wide and clear and much better maintained

However, the tax is surely charged on the property, (not the number of people living there) and the amenities that it receives? Several of my neighbours have adult children living at home, whilst I have no children. They generate more rubbish to be collected and have additional cars that they park out on the street (DH and I have one car on the driveway). They pay less council tax per adult that I do, but I have the same size property that they do and I receive the same services.

Council tax isn’t priced fairly, but I think if it has to be charged, it should be based on the amenities being received/used rather than the number of people in the property.

YANBU.
People can quote individual cases of single people generating as much rubbish as couples but on average, of course couples are going to generate more rubbish than a single person. Not that it’s all about rubbish, couples are also likely to use other services more than a single person because shock - there are 2 of them. Maybe the single person reduction should be more like 40% rather than 25%? I think that would be fairer.