Cut benefits before increasing council tax

[Bonde]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/reeves-council-tax-hike-5HjdMrJ_2/

As an increase in income tax is now out the window, the government will have to look at other ways to fill the gap by increasing a dozen smaller taxes. One option, I think they will opt for, is to apply a surcharge for homes in bands F,G&H. It would be politically expedient to do so because many people will assume those in such homes are wealthy.

We purchased our band f property earlier this year at £550k. We live in London and didn’t want to uproot our family, and move jobs, so decided to buy our 2.5 bed house.
After mortgage and bills, we have £100 to £200 left over, but some months have nothing. An increase would be so difficult to manage.

Why can’t the government have the courage to cut benefits. You can buy a BMW or Mercedes on the Mobility Scheme! Why?

Current detected amount of fraud in the benefits system is 2.2% of the budget

Obviously it’s impossible to put a figure on the unknown

This thread has got completely derailed - the OP was about the benefits system in general, which is known to be out of control and unsustainable and yet any suggestion of even slightly reining it in has seemingly been abandoned. A fair suggestion of a small increase in income tax (largely off set by NI adjustments) has now also been abandoned in favour of RRs latest 'initiative' which appears to be the proposed targeting of around 10% of families using massively outdated data which varies considerably from region to region. Its all very well telling the OP to just move but will there even be a buyer for a house subject to supplementary council tax and how do you argue its worth if there is nobody prepared to buy. If they devalue her house to the point it should not longer be in that band, how swiftly will they recalculate her council tax ? - if my experience of local council admin is anything to go by, it will be months to even get a reply to an email.

Agree and they won’t lower the band as it was based on 1991 values
its irrelevant what it’s value is today

Have you never read the benefits threads?! Utter pile ons towards anyone who claims any kind of benefit. Without exception. Why shouldn’t people on any kind of benefit push back?

Everyone and anyone can push back. Including those not on benefits
There’s no moral high ground here and everyone is entitled to their opinions

Except the anti- benefit people insist on utter shite like people on benefits driving round in Mercedes cars…..or being told that they should just get a job, or a better job, or it’s so easy to get disability benefits that everyone is doing it….it’s really not ok to have an opinion based on incorrect information.

100% This. Nobody minds a discussion based on correct information and facts but that never happens. Think of what the op said about the motability scheme based on what she read on reddit. Posting lies and misinformation online is adding to the problem as there are a lot of very gullible people on the internet who will believe anything and everything they read. What about all the misinformation around how people on benefits don't work. Or how apparently everyone has a neighbours, girlfriends, cousins, brothers friend who they apparently know of all there financial details and medical history.

I disagree. House prices aren't based mainly on the number of immigrants. The main factor is bank lending. If bank lending dries up, prices fall regardless of population numbers. I think the demographics are also in favour of falls. Who will afford all the Silent Gen and Boomer homes when they leave us over the next few years/couple of decades?
Re one person households, the increase in elderly widows living alone may start to be offset by people sharing homes more because of unaffordability. The average number per household has actually remained pretty constant in the last 10 years. It has apparently turned up in the US already, despite masses of pandemic era building.

I agree. A lot of what is written is appalling. I'm just asking for a bit of balance. People who are disabled don't have exclusive rights to sympathy either.

Perhaps a little actual research would be in order before posting maliciously and making yourself look silly as well as meant spirited.

I said population growth.

You interpreted that to mean immigration.

Anyway, it's all about supply and demand.
A big house can be converted into flats.

The increase in single person households of working age people is on and has been on the increase for some time and is predicted to continue increasing

The number of working-age people living alone has nearly tripled since 1971, from 1 million to 3.5 million

A much greater proportion of working-age adults now live alone compared to the past, even though the number of multi-adult households has remained stable.

Projections show that one-person households overall are expected to increase by nearly 20% by 2032.

While multi-family households are a very small proportion, they have been the fastest-growing household type over the last few decades.

Why-
-People are less likely to be living with a partner and are waiting until later in life to do so.
-Increased economic independence for women has contributed to greater autonomy in living arrangements.
-A larger proportion of single people are now living alone, rather than with parents, friends, or roommates.
-The number of couples who live together without being married or in a civil partnership has increased, which contributes to the overall trend of changing family structures.

Or a more effective approach to the housing issue is that
we stop building masses of mainly 3,4 and 5 beds
and build more 1 and 2 beds to actually reflect on the actual needs of our demographics

@Overthemhills , yesterday when I posted, perhaps thoughtlessly, I was not advocating eugenics. I was concerned about who would be the advocate for your daughter when you aren't around to fight her corner anymore. I apologise for any offence but none was intended. But for the record, I do think that medical interventions and life prolongation are not always unmitigated successes.

Given that immigration is the only thing that has caused population growth and that people are having less and less babies, I think that's a fair interpretation.
It is about supply and demand. Supply of housing. Demand does not mean the number of people. It means the number of people who want AND can afford the property. That is directly related to bank credit and incomes as I said. See what happens when credit starts to contract.

I know that single households have been increasing for various reasons.
I said that the average number per household has been static for the last 10 years and has turned down in the US so clearly there is something offsetting all the single person households. This is because of increasing economic pressures.
Projections are often very inaccurate.

Sigh, more misinformation!

Which bit is 'misinformation', in your opinion exactly?

Given that immigration is the only thing that has caused population growth and that people are having less and less babies

people having babies is a cause of population growth, whether the rate is 1.4 or 2.8 it is still population growth

a large boomer population born in the 1950s not dining at a rate in previous generations, is also holding the population growth

in previous generations we have had a pyramid shaped age of generations - so babies at the bottom with oldest at the peak - we now have a tube

by having immigration we end up with a tube with a fat tyre around the middle

this means that we don't have the expense of paying for the education and birth of the immigrants, but we do reap the rewards of them paying tax which in turn pays for the pensions of the elderly.

dining - dying, sorry it autocorrected

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zvtj4xs/revision/4#:~:text=Pages,total%20in%20that%20age%20group

this webpage gives the population in the ages, shown in population pyramid chart

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uks-changing-population/

this is the uk charts both previous and fot the future

Your view that it is only immigration that has caused population growth, is a complete lie, and frankly says a lot about you, by saying that. Hth.

Perhaps avoid Reddit.

Look at where you can save money rather then punching down on people with benefits. Your taking out a mortgage you can barely afford isn't the problem of others. Sort yourself out.

Okay. Perhaps I should have said the chief thing rather than the only thing.
Net immigration to the UK is the main thing that has caused the population to increase since the 1990s. The fertility rate has been falling (babies per woman). People are having below replacement numbers of babies on average.
The other factor would be people living longer. It's inevitable that we see more deaths over the next few years/couple of decades as the large boomer populations leave us.
So it's not 'a complete lie' is it? I wonder what conclusions your fevered brain has jumped to but they say more about you than me.

Thanks. I think it's accurate to say that more births than deaths, as people are living far longer in recent decades, is a factor. This is despite the fact that fertility rates are decreasing both in the UK and in the majority of the world. This factor isn't likely to continue though, as the boomers/older GenXs die and we are left with smaller, younger groups, who are still having less babies.
The main factor since the 1990s has still been immigration.

I wouldn't say that the change in the shape of the population graph is due purely to immigration. The smaller base of the pyramid is due to people having less babies. This presents a major problem for governments who want all the expenses covered, as you say and for it to look as if GDP is growing, hence lots of immigration.