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?

If you can't afford to live in London - don't live in London.

Why should people with debilitating ADHD lose out because you want to be nearer the West End?

The op won’t be near the west end in a 2.5 bed house at that price. It’s too expensive

I can understand where you are coming from with your specific situation, because you don’t get alot for your money. But in my part of the country a band F house is a sizeable property! More like a 5/6 bed with alot of land, so yes I do think it’s fair. I do also think they should be cutting benefits as well though as we have way too many claimants. Benefits should be reserved only for those who will never be able to work due to disability and for those in temporary financial hardship. It shouldn’t be a way of life, which unfortunately for many it is.

They're not taking money away from anyone?

So, in your world, people should be limited to where they can live to enable them to pay more of their taxes to people who - for whatever season - are not working?
Can you not see that workers may get a little irked in the face of such entitlement?
Asking workers to downgrade their lifestyle to enable non-workers to upgrade theirs is never going to be a vote winner.

That is true of everyone though, whether they qualify for benefits or not.
I have a very long commute at the moment (in my adapted Mercedes van) and I’d desperately like to move nearer to my work. However the area I work in is vastly more expensive than where I live and I’ll have to pay stamp duty and higher council tax.
To get an adapted house the same size as the one I currently live in nearer to my work is unaffordable for me and I can’t just pick any old house, so I’m stuck where I am with a three hour round trip to work.

That isn’t the fault of those people who need UC or people like myself who rely on disability benefits - it’s a (stupid) feature of the housing market. As it is, I just have to cope as best I can. Helping others indirectly by paying my tax has nothing to do with me wanting to live in a more expensive area.

It does amaze me that the only parts of tax expenditure so many people on MN want to cut back is that money that goes to help others. Maybe we should be looking to reduce the amount spent on machines for killing people? Subsidies and tax breaks for polluting and environmentally damaging businesses? There are a lot of things I’d cut back on in public expenditure if I were in charge, but it wouldn’t be help for those of us who are struggling to put food on the table, and I say that as a disabled person on a low income.

Many pip claimants DO work and pay their taxes. In many cases, these motability schemes, enable disabled people to work.

Everyone knows that property in London is expensive ( or that you need to be earning a decent salary to live there). Why couldn’t OP have bought a property In a more affordable part of London, if that’s where she wants to live?

Doubling your over 65 population in the 2072 predication shows your theory - is totally incorrect

moving in 2022 from 12 million over 65s to 22 million is exasperating the situation we have now

I hadn't actually opened your second link before but it actually fully supports what I was saying:

'The ONS expects natural change to turn negative in the mid-2030s, with the number of deaths exceeding the number of births each year. At this point, only migration will be causing the population to grow, as shown in chart 2.'

The ONS’s current projections, which are based on past migration patterns and current policy, show migration falling but continuing to add around 500,000 to 600,000 people to the population each year until 2026. This is high by historical 'standards. Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, net migration added around 200,000 people to the population each year. Before this, annual net migration was less than 100,000 and frequently negative (more people leaving than arriving).'

But we are all limited to where we can live by our own pockets, aren't we, regardless of taxes? I can't afford to live where I grew up as a child, much as I'd love to, but I'm not whining about it, I live where I can afford, much as the majority of us do.

If OP has so little left over at the end of the month before any perceived tax increase, she's taken on too big a mortgage for her budget. Simple as that. It wouldn't matter if it was taxes or an emergency situation tipping her over, it's happening because she's living somewhere she can barely afford.

And, yes, even in the South East, that is something she can change. It won't be easy, it won't be where or what she wants, but if you asked most of us, we aren't living in our dream locations, we are living where we can afford to, even if that means a long commute, etc.

That's life. Yes, it's much harder now, house wise, but frankly it's always been the same. Where you live is determined by what you can afford, how much debt you can managed, what your work situation is. And that includes the Council Tax bill, which incidentally is actually used to fund public facilities we all use, not just paying for benefits.