Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

council tax band G & H to double

765 replies

StrawberryThief1930 · 03/11/2025 13:43

has anyone seen the rumours that the council tax rates for bands G and H are going to double?

I know everything is just rumours at the moment but im worried this one might stick. easy to implement in an existing system and doesn't require the revaluation of thousands of houses etc.

I'm about to buy a G band house. Seriously questioning whether we can afford it. The current council tax is £4k a year. so £8k a year. Over £300 a month more than we had budgeted. we have spreadsheets coming out of our ears trying to check we can afford this house. Buying with a 40% deposit. im sweating...

anyone have the same worries? or further thoughts?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 19:31

Fluffypuppy1 · 16/11/2025 19:24

This.

If anything houses should be charged according to how many people live there. A larger house doesn’t automatically mean that the occupants are using more services than smaller houses.

Exactly 👏👏
Its really not rocket science

PigletJohn · 16/11/2025 19:32

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 15:40

Or just tax per head
Revaluing will take years, be expensive and there will be louds of push backs from home owners leading to potential legal cases and yet more costs

If we keep the bands then band h could be re assessed as it encompasses such a wide variety of properties

We can adds bands J, K, L and M to reflect the value of the higher end that are currently paying no more than simple millionaires.

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 19:39

PigletJohn · 16/11/2025 19:32

We can adds bands J, K, L and M to reflect the value of the higher end that are currently paying no more than simple millionaires.

That’s a completely different issue and is one example
of why the current system is out of date
ie

  • band H has too wide a variable
  • people have extended their homes since 1991
etc

Nevertheless it’s not the issue we were previously discussing

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 19:43

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 19:28

It’s not about using more

One 30 year old not using social care at the moment will be using less than a 30 year old using it
Meanwhile Everyone needs the police and bin men

Its based on existing in that council area and paying equally for services

So
For example picking a small area near me as an example
Swale
Council tax paid 105 million ( after deductions for single person occupancy UC etc )
Adult population 125,100
That's £839/ person

Looking at how that figure currently stacks up with extg system ( image)

If two people are living in band A they will pay more but if it’s one person they will be paying less
Single parent households currently have between 44-49% child poverty. A ctax like this would reduce their bills,

So the last post on page 19 showed the system of charging per person could help bring single person households with children out of child poverty

Isnt that a good reason for this alternative method of calculation to be deemed a more appropriate method
(apart from all the other plus sides )

Papricat · 16/11/2025 19:50

Millionaire should pay more, no matter what their wealth is made of. High value properties should be taxed more. This is common sense. The reason those properties are high value in the first place is that they are proximity to high paying jobs and should be allocated to people in these jobs instead of idle pensioners.

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 19:52

Papricat · 16/11/2025 19:50

Millionaire should pay more, no matter what their wealth is made of. High value properties should be taxed more. This is common sense. The reason those properties are high value in the first place is that they are proximity to high paying jobs and should be allocated to people in these jobs instead of idle pensioners.

Edited

RTFT
this is not the case and not common sense

LaserPumpkin · 16/11/2025 19:53

Papricat · 16/11/2025 19:50

Millionaire should pay more, no matter what their wealth is made of. High value properties should be taxed more. This is common sense. The reason those properties are high value in the first place is that they are proximity to high paying jobs and should be allocated to people in these jobs instead of idle pensioners.

Edited

Well, thankfully we don’t live in a Communist state where property is “allocated”.

suburburban · 16/11/2025 20:00

Idle pensioners is really unpleasant

do they have to work forever in your world?

HighLadyofTheNightCourt · 16/11/2025 20:02

Papricat · 16/11/2025 19:50

Millionaire should pay more, no matter what their wealth is made of. High value properties should be taxed more. This is common sense. The reason those properties are high value in the first place is that they are proximity to high paying jobs and should be allocated to people in these jobs instead of idle pensioners.

Edited

Do you think everyone in a band G or H property is a millionaire?

Nanalovesnature · 16/11/2025 20:03

Needaglowup · 16/11/2025 18:41

Good ! Houses G and H must be worth 2million if you can afford that you can afford another 4k

My Band G house is worth £350k

suburburban · 16/11/2025 20:03

They are already paying more anyway

Getamoveon2024 · 16/11/2025 20:06

Papricat · 16/11/2025 19:50

Millionaire should pay more, no matter what their wealth is made of. High value properties should be taxed more. This is common sense. The reason those properties are high value in the first place is that they are proximity to high paying jobs and should be allocated to people in these jobs instead of idle pensioners.

Edited

More than the….more, they’ve already paid? How is it common sense to attempt to keep taking from the people who already pay more?

PigletJohn · 16/11/2025 20:11

"Nevertheless it’s not the issue we were previously discussing"

Yes it is.

It's about Council Tax, and getting more money out of the people with the most valuable homes.

Your suggestions about Poll Tax, however, are not

PigletJohn · 16/11/2025 20:13

Getamoveon2024 · 16/11/2025 20:06

More than the….more, they’ve already paid? How is it common sense to attempt to keep taking from the people who already pay more?

It's no good trying to raise lots of money from people who haven't got any.

Prosperous people naturally resent parting with it.

Getamoveon2024 · 16/11/2025 20:21

PigletJohn · 16/11/2025 20:13

It's no good trying to raise lots of money from people who haven't got any.

Prosperous people naturally resent parting with it.

Edited

The first part of your post I totally agree with. But I fear this is exactly what this next budget is going to try to do. And the repercussions will be massive.

Oabrbjr · 16/11/2025 20:50

Needaglowup · 16/11/2025 18:41

Good ! Houses G and H must be worth 2million if you can afford that you can afford another 4k

They absolutely aren't. My band G house isn't even worth a single million, let along 2 million. Reeves on the rob as usual. Dracula at the blood bank.

EasternStandard · 16/11/2025 20:54

LaserPumpkin · 16/11/2025 19:53

Well, thankfully we don’t live in a Communist state where property is “allocated”.

Edited

Some are probably close to wanting it.

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 21:18

PigletJohn · 16/11/2025 20:11

"Nevertheless it’s not the issue we were previously discussing"

Yes it is.

It's about Council Tax, and getting more money out of the people with the most valuable homes.

Your suggestions about Poll Tax, however, are not

Edited

You weren’t discussing council tax
You were discussing a wealth tax

With no reasoning
No verification that it wouldn’t negatively affect the country
No evidence even of affordability or income of those in bands ( whatever you fancied a 10 fold increase of )

Just a very basic let’s just slap a much bigger bill on some people. As if that makes any sense at all

Council tax provides services
currently it’s based on house bands
that doesn’t mean a charge per head instead to pay for the same services is anything other than also a council tax

The difference is how it’s calculated not the name or what it pays for

No one can deny the benefit to families with children of my proposal

( I noticed you have ignored the obvious and changed tact )

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 21:23

EasternStandard · 16/11/2025 20:54

Some are probably close to wanting it.

Some people’s thought process is definitely in this area these days

Perhaps they’d rather live under communism 😳

fancifree · 16/11/2025 21:24

I think they should have council tax reductions for people with houses with EPC A or B.

Papricat · 16/11/2025 21:25

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 21:23

Some people’s thought process is definitely in this area these days

Perhaps they’d rather live under communism 😳

We already live in welfarism where the lion share of our taxes goes to subsidise the lifestyle of millionaire pensioners. The electorate has had enough.

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 21:31

fancifree · 16/11/2025 21:24

I think they should have council tax reductions for people with houses with EPC A or B.

Council tax has nothing to do with energy usage and it becomes too complex if we start mixing up whst it’s supposed to be paying for

Those houses will already benefit from lower bills

as an aside
Many older housing stock including listed buildings can never achieve those epc levels and in fact it would be dangerous to the fabric of older buildings.
Many older buildings can’t even be calculated for epc due to non standard construction

New developments however should be forced to use solar panels etc on all properties

YYURYYUCICYYUR4ME · 16/11/2025 21:32

House value is not money in the hand, or huge wealth, and think about any disposable income that remains and what it pays for! You work, pay tax, work and according to Labour should then give it to those that have never contributed or ever intend to do so (not talking about genuine need here). If some of these proposals materialise, be prepared for what happens next, it won't be pretty and will have the opposite effect. The real issue is not taxing the likes of Amazon, not auditing where money is thrown at private companies, not stopping the benefit begging bowl and not challenging why work is not paying as it should!

DrPrunesqualer · 16/11/2025 21:49

Papricat · 16/11/2025 21:25

We already live in welfarism where the lion share of our taxes goes to subsidise the lifestyle of millionaire pensioners. The electorate has had enough.

Edited

2% of pensioners have private pension wealth of over £1million. All of which is being taxed ££ as they take it out

27% of pensioner households hav assets and income over £1 mill. For a couple sharing that it’s £500,000 each. Again all paying tax when the moneys taken out or when they die

16% of pensioners live in poverty

20% of working age people live in poverty

14% of all households of all ages have assets and pension pots in excess of £1million

Not sure why ageism is so rife in this country but it’s seems to go hand in hand with envy and not the stats.

PigletJohn · 16/11/2025 21:52

Adding additional bands to Council Tax to separare expensive houses from very expensive and grotesquely expensive houses is about Council Tax.

It is not about a wealth tax.

It is also a change that is well overdue.

Swipe left for the next trending thread