Council Tax

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

Does Labour plan to scrap the single person council tax discount?

What about properties where they have multi-generational living?

There are large homes near me (plus extensions, maybe housing further bedrooms) where there are numerous adults living in them. Crammed full. Whole families - one has at least 12 people living there, including the children, uncles, grandparents, etc.

But they pay the same total amount as a couple in the same banding - not really fair at all. They pay full council tax, but some have up to 10 adults living there!! They, by definition, must use more council facilities than a couple or single person. Rates of some sort, per person seems much fairer.

The difference is the 25% discount isn’t a benefit. As a single person I already pay more council tax that all the adults I know who live with another adult. I pay 75% while they all share their council tax bill and pay 50% each. The same proportions apply regardless of income and council tax banding.

Single people already pay disproportionately more bills. Water, power standing charges etc are all the same even if you are a single person using less. Being single is just so expensive.

Single people already pay disproportionately more bills. Water, power standing charges etc are all the same even if you are a single person using less. Being single is just so expensive.

This is why I turn my heating on whenever I’m cold at whichever time of year. The standing charge is so high that I’ve noticed it doesn’t make much of a difference if I skimp on heating or using the tumble dry.

Relevant to add as this is a female dominated forum that single women in particular struggle (although obviously things are often difficult for single men too, especially if they're disabled or a widowed pensioner on a small pension).

There was a study a while back that found, going by averages, there wasn't anywhere in the UK where single women could afford housing - to rent or buy (the article headline is about mortgages but later on it mentions the same problem applies for renting). No wonder DV is such a big issue in society.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/mortgage-scandal-no-one-wants-to-talk-about-3147143

Exactly - just got my electric bill this month and it was £70, £20 of which was standing charge.
Just me in the house.

Maybe the answer is a tax per person living there? Like, oooh I don't know, a poll tax ?!

If they tried bringing in a ' poll tax'
the government may well not last till Christmas! 😂

I think a poll tax connected to earnings would be better with the money being strictly ring-fenced to the LA (postcodes). It should be easy enough to administer via HMRC and could show as "local tax" on your payslip.

I suppose there would be cases where cash only businesses would end up paying a very small amount despite living in large houses. Therefore we'd need a Land Tax element too.

I think that's a decent idea @BurntBroccoli
but ideally I'd make it a national tax, because it's very wrong there's a postcode lottery for important public services.

Definitely true! It would be good if every council had strictly the same funding per person.

I was shit stirring a bit with the suggestion. But we've had rates, poll tax and council tax in my lifetime and there were screams of 'unfair' whatever you have. I'm single and would be pissed off to lose the single discount- but it's clearly not viable to link solely to house value unless there is some equalising across regions.

Absolutely.

It's the number if the people who use the council services, not the Daily Mail style obsession with the value of the properties that matters.

How would that work? wealthier areas have less need for adult social care, less subsidising of housing, less children's services etc etc yet could have exactly the same pop. plus rural councils have far greater road mtce costs and travel for services.

There is nothing really unfair with CT, it just needs tweaking, low the bandings for cheaper houses, increase it for expensive ones, then remove adult social care from the councils responsibility, its clearly a health issue and should be incorporated into the NHS, this would then put carers on Agenda for Change rates and boost retention etc.
Pay for all of that by increasing NI.

We should end up with lower & a fairer CT overall and more money in to the local economy.

How would that work? wealthier areas have less need for adult social care, less subsidising of housing, less children's services etc

Do they have less need though? Often what happens is vulnerable and/or poorer people in areas thought of as generally wealthy fall through the gaps.

Some places have massive within-area inequality, i.e. Grenfell inquiry has been in the news recently. It's in the London borough of Kensington. One of the most expensive areas in the UK. But also an area with a lot of deprivation - and as Grenfell shows, being a perceived wealthy area seems to have led to those there who are the opposite of wealthy being badly neglected.

Every single individual and family should be able to access the same (good quality) essential public services wherever they are in the UK.

Re housing. Yes wealthy areas tend to have less social housing. This has caused social cleansing. That's not a good thing.

Revaluating CT by properly value will unfairly harm poorer and vulnerable people in London and the SE. Low waged workers, the disabled, and the elderly on small pensions in a rented studio flat in London and the SE would be in a higher band, than an affluent dual income household in a owner occupier house in another part of the UK.

They couldn't all move somewhere else. Aside from needing to stay near family or work, if they moved that would increase house prices (and so also CT) where they moved - and add pressure on local council services (requiring higher CT).

Btw wealthy people and families also experience child abuse and child neglect, domestic violence, disability, and need for elderly, disabled, and SEN care, community transport etc.

And, sometimes - especially with child abuse/neglect and with DV, the household income might be a lot but the person or family in need of support won't have access to money.

Also, ending postcode lottery access and quality of provision doesn't necessarily mean every area needs exactly the same amount of money spent on each service. As long as there's enough provision for everyone in need (including perhaps hidden poor or vulnerable).

And some areas will always be "naicer" and more expensive than others. Many people won't afford to live in a Jeremy Clarkson Farm chocolate box rural Cotswolds village. That's not the issue though.

The main issue is that every area - and every individual and family wherever they live in the UK - should have sufficient provision of good quality essential services, and this shouldn't be a postcode lottery.

Separate from essential services and infrastructure, I guess it's at each local council's discretion, with local feedback, what to prioritise for local spending on non-essential but nice to have facilities and services.

@YYURYYUCICYYUR4ME

• oh I do like your idea about an MP’s hostel block. The Bibby Stockholm barge will be available soon and it could be moored on the Thames beside the Houses of Parliament…..a very convenient hostel for the MP’s lol!

It was on Ticktock and it looked like it was brought up in parliament

Seems likely to be happening:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-winter-fuel-pmqs-sunak-b2610858.html

Utterly shameful.