Council Tax

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

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

How would you describe Starmer’s rose-garden speech please?

Also a bit stupid.

But, fwiw there have been a flurry of anti- gov posts on here all with the same kind of time to their language - which is a tone that somehow doesn't want debate but seeks to whip up fury regardless. A kind of propogandery tone to them. Or one that is not quite as genuine as it seeks to appear. You're is the same.

At least that's how it seems to me.

Getting sick of people blaming the Tories for everything Labour are doing.

Let me break it down for you

House A 2 adults paying £100 CT per month equates to each adult paying £50

House B 1 adult £75 CT after discount per month

Come old age all adults in both houses all need care let's pretend adult social care help cost is £100 per person

So the single person had paid in more for the same benefit that 2 adults living together who have paid in less per person.

Obviously in real life this perfect example.is a little more complex but that is the fundamental point people are pointing out that as you say adult social care is the biggest cost for any council yet single people pay in more foe the same benefit than a couple living together.

Err i asked this earlier: what is it Labour are doing?

a pp blamed prisoner releases on Labour, now i don't exactly know how long it takes to build a prison but it is a lot longer than 2 months.

This country has terrible public service provision because of 14 years of Tory Govt, yes they have had issues to deal with but these (Covid and Ukraine) came in their last 4 years of power.

The root cause of our problems is a one sided austerity, where we all had to pay more for less whilst the wealthy got ever richer and boardroom pay exploded.
Meanwhile we all got so pissed off at this that as a nation, we are all on a "go slow".
How on earth did the Tories allow companies like Thames Water pay out billions in dividends and director pay, whilst they under invested in sewage treatments and please don't blame "Victorian" infrastructure, we got rid of that decades ago, all those new towns and housing estates have modern mains etc.

I don't know if Labour will fix much but the markets like them and UK Govt Gilts are in huge demand, this will mean much lower borrowing costs, which under the tories spiked to very high levels (caused by Brexit, then Truss)

^100%

No matter that Rayner has said the SPD wont change, "poster after poster" keeps reiterating the same lie.

Tell a lie enough times......

I asked a straight question.

I would respectfully ask for a straight answer.

Thank you for the patronising breakdown.

The adult care situation is skewed by the fact that single people are more likely to require more adult social care than those in couples and the extortionate cost of this care. So in reality the situation can easily go:

House A 2 adults paying £100 CT per month equates to each adult paying £50

House B 1 adult £75 CT after discount per month

Come old age all adults need care. House A has one person being cared for by their partner as it is reasonably common for one partner to be in good enough health to do this. They support their partner to live at home for longer and take on caring duties. Statistics show this happens very often. Both occupants of House A may ultimately require care but it's likely that their care costs will be reduced by the fact that they live together.

House B's adult needs care and will statistically have a great reliance on the state.

Care costs £50 a week. It's easy to see how quickly House B's supposed overpayment gets absorbed in increased care payments. It's almost statistics of course, so this won't happen in all cases but it happens enough that it should be factored in. Assuming that single people and those living together need the same level of council funded care at a population level is totally wrong.

There's no "when" about it. That's the point.

Well you accepted Rayners answer i posted on page one, yet here we are 8 pages later.

Still the same old BS and scaremongering from many pp's.

I'm no fan of what i consider a far too timid Labour Govt but no party sets out to destroy their voter base plus & at the risk of repeating myself, Rayner said it wont be happening in her answer to K.Badenough.

It appears the majority agree than single people should pay less. I do.

It must follow then that the burden should be spread just as fairly across the rest of the adults in society. How? Poll tax failed. Means testing is declared too difficult ( I'm sick of this excuse, surely in this technological age it's not that hard). Income tax?

We are in Birmingham. Our CT went up 10% this year and will increase 10% next year..At the same time cuts un service and lots of assets being sold off.

My mum lives alone and will lose WFA as just above limit. I was already planning to replace that for her but not sure if I can also stretch to subsidising 25% of council tax as well.

Hopefully it won't happen but I wouldn't trust Labour with my piggy bank never mind the nations finances

My mum lives alone and will lose WFA as just above limit. I was already planning to replace that for her but not sure if I can also stretch to subsidising 25% of council tax as well.

Worth remembering that if she gets a state pension this is going to go up by £400 next year - which should replace the WFA, at least.

Personally, I never understand the reluctance to tackle the outdated council tax banding.

It's not popular at all and I never really know why, but it's mad that what you pay today is based on what the house may have cost in the 90s - which more and more is just a made up figure because the house was built after the 90s.

Reband them, either by current house value or by number of rooms, excluding kitchens, bathrooms and large cupboards. Or sq ft.

You could then possibly look to cut out single person discount anyway, because they are likely to be getting it by virture of living in a smaller property. Not all, of course, but perhaps enough for it to balance.

But how can you not see that the situation now is created by the past 15 years? Really?

I think poll tax failed because it was replacing the (much cheaper) rates. Then a loud vocal minority rioted and it was replaced by the even more unfair council tax

I've always thought poll tax was fairer than council tax. Used to think I was the only one but now I've found other people who agree with me.

I also think means testing might be an option - but crucially only with a higher threshold than the current benefits threshold. Many single elderly and disabled might have modest savings - which they use to live on, rather than luxuries. They're unable to work so their savings are already a dwindling asset.

Also, lots of single working people will be earning not much above benefits threshold and struggling - especially because buying or renting on single incomes has become increasingly difficult, meaning there's no extra money to spare.

As an aside I don't know what my council spends on. It's a high council tax here but our local services, including adult and children's social care, are crap here.

More than 50% of the expenditure of my council is on children's services. The leader of the council told me that. I'm not saying that it isn't necessary, but it's no wonder that they're in financial difficulties.

Rebanding by property value would be very unfair on people, especially renters (who tend to be poorer than owner occupiers) from areas that have seen inflated house prices. It's already unfair on (the many lower income) people from London and the SE. For example, a renter on minimum wage or disability benefit in a shoddy studio flat in London or the SE is often in a higher band than an affluent owner occupier in a 3 bedroom house in Richmond (North Yorkshire).

They can't all move somewhere else. That would just increase housing (and job - and ironically council services) pressure elsewhere. Not to mention many people can't just pack in their jobs or leave elderly family, and if on benefits or low wages they won't be eligible for social housing out of their local area.

I think if there was to be any change to banding, doing it on an income basis would be fairer.

Definitely austerity caused a lot of the problems (and as well as harming vulnerable people, also left the country in more debt) but the problems have built up for decades - and both Labour and the Tories are to blame.

Rebanding by property value would be very unfair on people, especially renters (who tend to be poorer than owner occupiers) from areas that have seen inflated house prices. It's already unfair on (the many lower income) people from London and the SE. For example, a renter on minimum wage or disability benefit in a shoddy studio flat in London or the SE is often in a higher band than an affluent owner occupier in a 3 bedroom house in Richmond (North Yorkshire).

That's one of the reasons I think they do need rebanding - and an element of regionality brought in. Or, as I say, based on on bedrooms or house area sq ft.

Incomes have a similar issue to the one you describe, though not as great, which is that they tend to be higher in places like London because the cost of living is higher. Someone on £40k in London isn't necessarily beetter off than someone on £30k in a cheaper part of the country to live. Though, of course, it would at least be as fair/unfair as the current income tax is which also doesn't account for regional salaries.

Then a loud vocal minority rioted and it was replaced by the even more unfair council tax

The riot was not why the poll tax ended.

It ended because the majority of people hated it and because there was mass, peaceful action against it. It became impossible to administer because of this and because of the inherent flaws in the system.

Btw. The Trafalgar Square demo was a peaceful demo with people of all ages and from all walks of life. Then towards the evening the police made some poor decisions and a riot began. I know all this because I was there. But not rioting!

Council tax is unfair in many ways, but the poll tax was much worse and hit lower income families the hardest.

@SphinxOfBlackQuartz

That's the problem. Looking at averages with income. London average is skewed because of a minority of high earners. Which disguises the fact that there's massive numbers of people from London on minimum wage or disability benefits or pensioners only just above pension credit (London has the highest pensioner poverty in the UK).

I'm leaning towards income tax being increased and council tax abolished.

Households with multiple adults pay more, wealthy pay more.

Probably a blindingly obvious reason this wouldn't work; someone enlighten me

Obviously people hated something replacing the much fairer and cheaper Rates. We'll never know but I wonder if the riots would've still happened if the change had immediately been council tax rather than poll tax - because Rates were fairer.

I say riots because that's how they're always reported. You sound like one of the people downplaying the recent far right clashes. Lots are saying especially about the London one, that it was peaceful demo with people of all ages and from all walks of life. Then towards the evening the police made some poor decisions and a riot began

I'm too young to have been at the poll tax riots and I wasn't at the recent right wing ones - so I admit, unlike you I don't have a first person account, but those protests/riots (poll tax and the recent ones) have been consistently reported as riots so that's what I'll also refer to them as.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think poll tax was fairer and council tax hits those on the lowest incomes the hardest. Any inherent flaws could've just been fixed (i.e. unlike council tax students weren't exempt from poll tax, which is easily to fix by just exempting them). Ideally, I'd choose the Rates system but assume it wasn't raising enough money?

I’ve said this before on threads with comments about the poll tax.

Poorest people rented back in those days. There was no real buy to let market with decent accommodation. I was in not very nice shared houses for years. Rates were included in rent. Overnight this was changed and you had to find a not inconsiderable sum to pay the poll tax on top of your rent. Of course rents did not reduce to allow for the fact that landlords were no longer paying rates.

It split society straight down the middle into the haves and have nots. Home owner probably in the same situation or better off. Renter definitely worse off. People simply didn’t have the money to pay it and there was widespread avoidance with people moving frequently to avoid it. Obviously this caused the poorest to have even more unsettled lives.

I agree @Username056 But council tax didn't address that. It was even worse and more unfair than poll tax.

I guess a massively related issue is the housing issues. Inflated house prices, unaffordable rents, and the need for more social housing.

As you say, more people rented in the past but most had secure rent controlled tenancies - in the private sector as well as council housing. That's no longer the case for most renters despite the number of renters increasing again. Today, people have high rents (with little security - so still have to move a lot) but also high council tax. Unaffordable for many.