Council Tax bands

[titbumwillypoo]

Council tax bands were set in 1991 and do not reflect the wealth distribution of the country today it's about time they were updated. It's ridiculous that a band D home in Islington where the average house price is £685000 is £1276.48 a year when a Band D house in Barnsley average price of £166000 is £2126.77.
Government should update the banding values, collect all the money and distribute it based on the actual demographics of the area which would be a fairer funding model. Some areas might be child heavy or pensioner heavy and it would allow councils to fulfil their statutory duties better if they had the funding in place.
Band A £0-£100000
Band B £100001-£200000
Band C £200001-£300000
Band D £300001-£400000
Band E £400001-£500000
Band F £500001-£600000
Band G £600001-£700000
Band H £700001 upwards

Space, in a housing crisis, is a luxury. Have as much of it as you like but pay extra for it.

It's crazy. A £650,000 house that we looked at is a band D. The £350,000 house we looked at is band E. same county!

I agree it should be done by the price of the house - surely?!

And yet, the family in the small flat in London would have had access to better public transport, schools with better results, healthcare that leads to a longer life expectancy, and myriad free museums/galleries/events for entertainment, largely funded out of local council tax.

We pay a lot of council tax in the north east for a not a lot of return. I don't know which part you're in specifically, but in my little corner schools are on the outs, they've closed our local A&E and most of the hospital wards, three police stations have closed, and, due to lower property prices, a normal family home will easily be swallowed by 2-3 years of care home fees reducing our chances of passing on even meagre generational wealth. I'm paying £2700/year (Band D, normal four bed new build with small garden and one reception room, bought for £175k ten years ago) for this dubious set of privileges.

I think the problem isn't that Londoners are paying too little, it's that other parts of the country are paying far, far too much and it's crippling families. There has to be a better way to fund local councils.

Have you figures to back that up? My understanding is that the social care spend on pensions is matched by spending on working age adults with disabilities.

The only data on spend I can find is 10bn for 65+ and 9bn for 18-64 so a bit closer than I thought! But given than the over 65s are a smaller group in general, that is more concentrated spend.

I'm not sure the "more concentrated spend" point is helpful. Far fewer working age adults require support. Shouldn't the baseline be "requiring support" rather than "total in age groups?" Elsewhere I've found that the cost for a care place for a working age adult exceeds that for a retirement age adult. Various factors may contribute to this - more emphasis on quality of life for working age adults, cross subsidy from self funding elderly people who pay up to 40% more for their care place than a council funded elderly person in the same care home.

Yes packages for younger adults tend to be bigger but there are a lot more over 65s receiving care (it’s about double) so overall they spend more on over 65s.

But my original point was - it’s not really “families” that are costing councils a fortune as many seem to think.

Why does the top band start at £700k?

I think council tax needs to be adjusted but I think it being purely on house price is a bit unfair.

I live in a small house that is quite expensive just because of where it is. It’s not anything fancy.

Should my council tax therefore be massively higher than someone fortunate to live in a cheaper part of the country? Why?

I don't understand why planning doesn't trigger a rebranding. We are one of four four beds in our road of 80. Teeny box rooms for two so not actually usable beyond nursery age. Band E so missed out on fuel payment etc .
So many houses have upgraded to five bed / four bed/ en-suites etc and still Band C or D. It really irritates me that we live in a smaller house and pay more.

I’m a shared owner and have a flat in a block that’s supposed to be affordable housing. I’m band D but friend in larger, much nicer mansion flat down the road is band A. It’s a very odd system.

Children should be seen as an investment. They are the earners and taxpayers of the future. Mine pay more in income tax than their dad and I get in pensions! All adults able to contribute, should.

As pensioners now, we no longer pay Income Tax, but still pay our full whack of council tax. We pay less per head than our single neighbour, but more than the working couple and their two resident, working adult children up the street innthe same type of house.

What utter nonsense. It is already paid for in the cost of a home and the cost of the stamp duty. There shouldn't be a regular monthly cost based on house prices, it simply makes no sense and really they have absolutely nothing to do with how much everything costs the council to run and are not a true indicator of wealth either. There must be a better way that is fairer for all.

And that’s acknowledged by Child Benefit, free education, free meds and dental care for future mothers, maternity allowance and other support and benefits.

Because you're using the exact same amount of services from the council as someone in a big house

I don’t have kids but am happy to pay towards their education. It’s not about what I use now - in the past I had a free education and in the future I may need social care. I may not use lots of services now, so lucky me. I don’t need them now. But if I did I’d like them to be there. I wouldn’t expect my council tax to go up if I needed social care, or go down because I don’t use the library. We should pay what we can afford. A local income tax is surely the only fair way? There could be certain allowable deductions if necessary.