Council tax very unfair to single people

[Lettuceandtomatoes]

The council tax for my area is £1800 full whack, a single person 25% off. I pay £140 a month which is ok until I realised the three adults next door are paying £60 pounds each and a couple paying £90 each. So why this inequality aimed at single people, picking up the tab?

This is so irrelevant. Council tax isn't means tested and OP is right, single people get massively stung by council tax (as well as several other expenses!)

The issue is the way CT is worked out. Plenty of single people will be paying vastly different amounts based upon postcode!

Well:

Roads full of potholes - only "repairs" are useless new bus lanes so that council can get mega grant of £50m from govt or wherever. Bus lanes are great in some places. But these are to get money. Not to actually help transport.

Social care. No. Well my FIL lived like an animal with the council telling him to basically go fuck himself.

Bin collections - infrequent and you have to pay again for garden waste. Recycling chucked on the street, the stupid open boxes get cracked and smashed as they are thrown. Mini recycling place in council car park was constantly overflowing as not emptied enough. So council say we abused it by overflowing it and removed it entirely. WTF.

Library in my town - closed then moved to tiny premises. Library site being sold for housing. Shit.

Street cleaning - well I pick up the dog shit and litter near my house myself.

We pay thousands in council tax for a load of shite. The council are robbers.

Question ! Council tax is based on what properties were (or would have been worth, had they existed) in 1991. Many properties have, of course, been built since that date. How does a local council vaulation dept. determine, what a house built in 2024 (with features unimaginable in 1991, eg. EV charger, socal panels etc). would, have been worth, had it existed in 1991 ?

It's not about size, it's about value (at a date in the past). My 3 bedroom house is band B.

Everyone wants someone else to pay more tax and them to pay less. Funnily enough they all want access to all public services.

Believe me you do not want a return to the poll tax.

It's not about size, it's about value (at a date in the past). My 3 bedroom house is band B.

Your flat (as every property ( is valued at what it was worth in 1991 (or, if it has been built since, what it would have been worth , had it existed in 1991). The original idea was that EVERY propery would be periodically revalued, it hasn't happened ! But, it needs to.

I think council tax should be levied and paid per person individually. This works against me and my family; it would double our council tax which is already over £3,700 pa. We should be charged individually (excluding children) so that every adult makes a contribution to the cost of providing services.

I'd be fine with that, I live on my own.

Were you alive in the late 80s early 90s? this is what the poll tax was, goggle poll tax riots

Consider the different ways the bin lorry will empty different types of property. A block of flats might send their waste down a chute into a bulk bin, the lorry will lift the whole lot up in one go - job done. On a terrace the bin men will empty half a dozen to a dozen bins before the lorry needs to move forward. In a really low-density area (think American-style suburbs with massive gardens etc.) they might only be able to empty one or two bins before moving the lorry forward to the next property. Incidentally I love the way that some Dutch cities now handle bin collections, no need to have four (or more)bins cluttering up the street outside every single house:

Then look at provision of infrastructure and utilities (I know that many of these are not council provided, but the same principle applies to standing charges). The further apart the houses are, the longer the road, water pipes, electricity cables and phone lines must be.

Transport costs more in less densely populated areas. Dense areas can easily support bus services without need for subsidy. You are more likely to walk or cycle to amenities. In a sprawling suburb on the other hand you'd probably have a car or two which wears out the road.

Social care too. In a high-density area a home help worker could walk or cycle between clients as they won't be far apart at all. With low-density development they'll need to drive (which costs money) and it'll take longer (time is money).

Educating kids is cheaper in high-density areas too, low density areas tend to require the council to lay on buses for the kids to get to school. You get economies of scale with a three form entry primary school compared with a single form or even a village school with only 50 pupils.

For this reason, I'd be charging council tax (at least partly) on the physical footprint the property occupies. Not on some semi-arbitary valuation from the '90s but a proper physical measurement. If you want to live in a sprawling detached house with massive garden then you can pay the extra. Obviously agricultural land and woodland would be exempt.

I don't mind paying. However there's clear confusion on this thread of what council tax is based upon. Its that outdated it's a ridiculous rule.

But that is mostly because your council grant from central government has been cut - and the government is working on the assumption that many people (like you) don't understand how councils work so they will blame the council instead of central government.

Don't fall for it. Educate yourself as to what has happened to your council grant since 2010.

Yes, in 50 years time, are we still going to be taxing properties based on what they were worth, (or, would have been worth, had they existed) in 1991. It's madness, yet no political party is proposing to change it.

If the poll tax came back in, but it won't, the council tax take from our current household of three adults would increase from £3.7k pa to nearly £12k. I do tend to think it would solve a great many financing problems short tern for the council. In practical terms, it wouldn't increase so much because it would be levied per capita so there wouldn't be the assumption that sq ft was the yardstick.

Yes this a real issue.

Taxation is what buys us a functioning society. We need public support for taxation and public services from enough people or we will continue on the current downward spiral.

@Morph22010 I'm 67, so yes, I was there. Even so, I think charging tax per capita is better, and fairer.

My council tax bill, as a single working mum to 3 under 18's is higher than my parents. They live together in a bigger house than me! Council tax is about the property unfortunately

If you don't mind me ranting about this here, I recently discovered that the council aren't allowed to spend any money from land sales etc on basic maintenance.
@EmmaEmerald quite right, Capex shouldn't be mixed up with Opex for a reason. When you sell off an asset, you get a windfall of cash but that's only a one-off. If you use it to fund maintenance then how will you do any maintenance next year when you no longer have an asset to sell.

Mind you, the government ought to follow those rules itself. Cancelling a public transport infrastructure project in the north in order to fund road repairs in the south really rankles.

I do wonder if the poll tax would have been more acceptable today?

Yep I was very surprised when living in London that not only is a house worth 800-900k Band D, council tax is also cheaper than Band D (properties worth 300-400k) in my northern town.

apart from the actual cost of houses, I found living in London cheaper than in the north as so much is subsidised. Transport is cheaper, no need for a car, council tax much cheaper, subsidised sports clubs/leisure centres and baby groups etc etc.

i hear a lot about levelling up but still see money spent on London rather than elsewhere.

Well I'm with you on the reform bit.

Getting the electorate politically engaged is more challenging in a large conurbation. In the particular case of Birmingham, I think many people feel fairly disempowered right now, whoever their councillor.

The size of the property isn’t up for discussion, it’s the unfairness which is the subject. It would be the same whether one bedroom or four

Most definitely!