[Closed] So what they're saying is the poll tax was fairer?

The single person discount should be [i]increased[/i] not cut. I guess it's a way of punishing those who don't produce any fresh consumers.

You have to remember that politics is about reacting to the greedy and uninformed , not what makes sense or is fair. Almost all of us vote for what we want or perceive is best rather than what is best for society or the world. In its day, Poll tax was much fairer for me. Single home owner in rural area. I paid much less that a multi kid family in a city.
However there was one of me against 2+ in that family so I would never win.

I lived in Tory controlled Wandsworth at the time and was actually due a rebate, but sadly moved before it came through.

That Fleming bloke needs his head examined. Quite how you come to the conclusion that wealthy single professionals are being "subsidised" is beyond me. That group are all net contributors to the tax take if the country.

From that article, did I miss the bit where it is acknowledged that not all single owner occupiers are wealthy?

Does a single parent with kids qualify for single person discount?

How will they define 'wealthy'?

Will we have to start declaring our gross and net incomes?

All in all, another fatuous 'news' item, that the authorities feed out from time to time to maintain a level of fear and insecurity within the masses. Control innit.

Why shouldn't a single person pay the same as their neighbouring family? The bin men still need to turn up, the street lights still come on and we use the same roads and pavements etc. Its access to services your paying for - services that are delivered irrespective to how many people live in each house. Anyway didn't Poll tax apply to everyone in a household that was over 18 (or even 16)?

Well, they'll take less books from the library, produce less waste (collection cost may be the same per collection, but processing costs are lower), they'll only use the leisure centre as a single person, they don't go to school, less likely to call the police out to a domestic, less wear & tear on the same roads and pavements (lesser mass, less journeys per person), yes they will still receive the same benefit in terms of street lighting, although not on a per capita basis.

You're not really serious are you wobbli? Following the same flawless logic as you've applied there a family train ticket should cost the same as a single, alright they use more seats but it's the tracks.

That's very true but it is also the case that a single person will produce less rubbish for the bit men to collect and dispose if and use fewer services and cause less wear in things like roads and pavements than would a family. That's why there is a discount.

A Land Value Tax....thats what we need

A Land Value Tax....thats what we need

So a retired widower on his council pension in an 1950's build 3 bed semi ex-council house (30 houses per hectare, big gardens) would pay more than a dentist and his wife (100k combined income) in a 450k 5 bed detached new house built at 40 houses to the hectare?

A Land Value Tax....thats what we need

that's not what we need - so the value of your land shoots up faster than your income, so what do you do? Give up your job and move to somewhere cheaper? Same stupid logic as a bedroom tax, or a mansion tax.

what gogg said. also single occupancy discount is 25%. i'm not bleating about it - it is what it is, but single people without kids are not placing the same burden on services at all, and nor do they get any child related tax benefits, funnily enough.

Probably worth looking at the actually whole Council income vs the Council Tax bit.

AUDIT-COMMISSION.GOV.UK "http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Council-tax-briefing-final-version-18-June.pdf"

Income £136.7bn
Council tax £22.4bn - so, about 16%

just opened our council charge letter for 2014-2105 (two adults in a band B home) this morning as well, but this is simply a case of the LGA whinging because councils have less money to spend and are suggesting an alternative source of revenue under the banner of ' oh, won't you think of the children and the struggling families.....'

how about they:

i) become more efficient - reduce wasting public money in the first place

ii) look where the real wealth is - people who own multiple E banded homes instead of pensioners who live alone

iii) clarify what who they consider 'wealthy' to be - too few people like those above with multiple homes, therefore yeah lets suggest to go for the single people in E banded homes, yep a lot more of them around, they MUST be wealthy, right?

iv) offer incentives or introduce schemes to redevelop / make available large homes back into the housing market, especially empty properties left unused for years

part of the problem in the UK is simply only a third of households actually pay their way for the services they use, the other two thirds don't

councils have a choice - cut services or increase taxes and the LGA are suggested the latter

I suppose as far as infrastructure/services go, it takes exactly the same amount of pipework, bin trucks, road servicing etc to service a house for 1 as it does for 10. So for all you're producing less waste, that doesn't necessarily amount to a saving- emptying a bin takes the same amount of work whether it's full or it has only ready meal wrappers for one in it- but having to service 2 properties instead of one does definitely amount to an expense.

Northwind, I conceded that the cost of collection is per household earlier, but waste collection isn't purely about collecting it. As I pointed out earlier, it's also about processing it. So a single occupancy household will cost less and they will make far less use of other services than a household of four.

gogg - Member

So a single occupancy household will cost less and they will make far less use of other services than a household of four.

Less use of some services. But we're talking infrastructure here, the cost of provision regardless of level of use is likely to be pretty significant. Scale of use is often less important than capacity for use.

Or to put it another way, 2 single person households will probably be much more expensive to the council than 1 2 person household. Probably not twice as expensive, mind, but it could easily be closer to twice as expensive than it is to equivalence.

There will be less direct costs too... With housing stock being such a stressed resource, 3 people in a single house could have significant savings elsewhere- less demand on council housing, less new housing (and new infrastructure)

Yes, one of the problems is the bureacracy involved in collecting local taxes. A whole tier of people just employed to process paperwork. Why not scrap the system and put it onto income tax, then pay Local Authorities according to the number of residents they have from central government? Those "wealthy" singletons will have already put more into the pot.

They should [i]increase[/i] the discount for single people, the country's over populated already, as is the planet, stop breeding you bloody breeders! No one want to see your offspring, or deal with them, stop being so selfish and putting such a strain on the system.

Cheers,
😉

2 single person households will probably be much more expensive to the council than 1 2 person household. Probably not twice as expensive, mind, but it could easily be closer to twice as expensive than it is to equivalence.

my financial footprint on society is pretty small.

i fully accept that children need bringing up and the old need to be cared for, which is why i accept that i will generally pay more tax in various ways for services that i do not and will not use, but i am hardly to blame for the LA's gap in it's budget. far from it.

There will be less direct costs too... With housing stock being such a stressed resource, 3 people in a single house could have significant savings elsewhere- less demand on council housing, less new housing (and new infrastructure)

i've yet to hear the 'i'm homeless because there aren't any houses to buy' stories on the bbc.

maybe there should only be one working person in a household. that would bring housing prices down. the market will only bear what people will pay.

Pay per occupant, kids half price. Sort out low income families through current system of means testing.

Del - Member

my bins go out less. recycling one waits until it's full, so probably once every couple of months, black bin goes out 1 month or 6 weeks, depending upon if it's getting ripe.

But they need to send a dude around anyway.

But they need to send a dude around anyway.

😉

even if it does cost more to service 2 households, why is the default the higher amount?
Maybe the fairest way would be for ALL properties to be 25% discounted and topped up for additional people living there?
When they decide the tax bands i`m sure the LA are aware of the ratio of single occupant properties to fully occupied properties, otherwise they would just hike the tax rate bands more to allow for the 25% discount

Why should students get a discount?? Bloody freeloaders!!

Why can't they just put it on their tab, like they do all their other living expenses and tuition fees??

The whole bin man argument is irrelevant these days anyway. We all segregate our rubbish now and the vast majority of it should be recyclable. This means it has value to the council because after picking it up they pass it on/sell it on to various companies out there that processes it and turns it into other products, so in theory the more we recycle the less our local tax should be - or we sell our segregated rubbish to the council or private recycling companies.

[i]They should increase the discount for single people, the country's over populated already, as is the planet, stop breeding you bloody breeders! No one want to see your offspring, or deal with them, stop being so selfish and putting such a strain on the system.[/i]

And who will wipe your ar5e when you are old and alone? Someone else's kid, if you are lucky, otherwise you'll just smell...

The whole bin man argument is irrelevant these days anyway. We all segregate our rubbish now and the vast majority of it should be recyclable. This means it has value to the council because after picking it up they pass it on/sell it on to various companies out there that processes it and turns it into other products, so in theory the more we recycle the less our local tax should be - or we sell our segregated rubbish to the council or private recycling companies.

They still make a loss. There's bugger all money in sorting through plastic food packaging and recycling it. Cheaper to just make new ones and ship em in from China.

Up here, we have to seperate our food waste, which is put through a bio-digester, creating methane. So we're giving our authority energy and paying for the privilege.

If you don't damage the roads, because you don't have a car, then you don't get a discount on your council tax.

If you create less waste, because you don't buy ready meals, you don't get a discount on your council tax.

Where possible, tax rates should be about ability to pay, not use of services.

They are taxes, not payment for services.

Where possible, tax rates should be about ability to pay, not use of services.

ability to pay is often linked to how hard you study, how hard you work, how many extra hours you put in keeping yourself employable with a higher ability to pay.

So effectively you are asking for a council tax discount for the lazy ****ers in society...

That opinion is fast becoming a national delusion.

shold scrap it and increase income tax by a few %

Where possible, tax rates should be about ability to pay, not use of services.

They are taxes, not payment for services.

I think thats an interesting concept - certainly I'd agree that fits in with what we commonly interpret as 'fair'

But would you not apply that to, say, fuel? Since approx 60% of the price at the pump is taxation, should the less well off pay a different price for petrol?

should scrap it and increase income tax by a few %

This. But there would need to be more done to catch those that avoid income tax.

Best trick they ever pulled was switching from gallons to litres, I remember "pre-metric" budgets 2p on a gallon, suddenly became 2p on a litre.

Fuel taxes and VAT are the most insidious taxes on those on low incomes.

And why is council tax based on value bands if it is for services ? You don't get better services in the different bands.

Your LBC only receives a small amount of council tax. This is then distributed from those with the ability to pay to those who are in need . Pretty much like the welfare state where a minority subsidise those who qualify for government help.

The biggest amount of your council tax easily goes toward housing , homeless and council tax benefits structure for the elderly or unwell .

The rest is fritted away by contributing toward services like mowing the grass in parks, Building control and planning policy . Then waste collection and street cleaning / recylcing ( still huge cost ) . Further down the pot , smaller amounts but still significant is Leisure centers and community tat like museums , arts , road signage .

standard issue of single people with no children contributing to services disproportunate to use of those services .

The rest is fritted away by contributing toward services like mowing the grass in parks, Building control and planning policy .

The last two might be self funding as you pay for both so they're revenue generating......

just to comment on the 'bin men' issue. i went on a tour of the MRF (recycling centre) for carmarthenshire council and the manager there said that it runs at a six figure profit, including the cost of collection. so that argument can sit on it and spin

as far as where my council tax goes? im pretty sure it just goes on seeking out and employing the most inept people i have ever had the misfortune to deal with. doing **** all but trying really hard to look busy in a shirt and tie. and then spending whatever is left on five times as many traffic lights as any city could ever need.

i hate paying council tax. i absolutely hate it and the fact that my local council just blew 15+ million on infrastructure so the privately owned bus company can run an extortionate profit just makes me hate it even more

sorry, rant over.

From that article, did I miss the bit where it is acknowledged that not all single owner occupiers are wealthy?

Its not unreasonable to consider removing it for the wealthy IMHO

they may use less but they have deeper pockets to pay

Like all systems there will be the odd outlier of the poor pensioner in a massive house but in general only the well off live in expensive houses.

I also think we should remove it and just pay Income tax tbh - would save money on collection as well i assume

Its not unreasonable to consider removing it for the wealthy IMHO

To be honest that just sounds like the usual "raise taxes on group X (where X is a group I do not belong) to pay for stuff"

You could also do with better defining what constitutes "wealthy"

To be honest I probably fall into the category that you are talking about. I am a single, highly paid professional and I live in an expensive property. Here's the thing though. I already pay my share of taxes, something I'm happy to do. In fact for many years I could have chosen to become more "tax efficient" but I didn't because I believe in paying my way. What is getting tiresome however is the increasing opinion that I and people like me are somehow the enemy and repsonsible for the financial situation (I don't work in banking) and that my tax bill should just keep increasing to pay for everything. I'm by no means pleading poverty but the attitude of "oh you're rich you can afford it" is almost enough to make me vote Tory!

oh you're rich you can afford it 😉

Everything should be free and we should tax the rich to pay for it.

To be honest that just sounds like the usual "raise taxes on group X (where X is a group I do not belong) to pay for stuff"

Pretty sure there is a broad consenus and agreement that the rich should pay more than the poor - even this lot have a higher rate tax band for example and Council tax is tiered to the value of your home.

If you wish to argue otherwise then do so rather than make a weak attack on what I said.

You could also do with better defining what constitutes "wealthy"

Pretty sure there is a broad consenus and agreement that the rich should pay more than the poor -

Well it is also broadly the case that the rich already pay more tax than the poor.

According to the article it is apparently band E council tax.

Well that's one of the worst definitions I've come across. I mean I could move to a smaller, cheaper house and pay less in council tax than I currently do (even if the single discount were removed). I'd still use exactly the same sevices and be just as "wealthy"

Well it is also broadly the case that the rich already pay more tax than the poor.

Well that's one of the worst definitions I've come across

Are we debating whether they should pay more or where we start to make them pay more?

PS You would have less assets so you would be less wealthy but your income may be unaltered. I dont care i sue them interchangeably tbh [ it annoys the economists] but there is a difference between income and wealth.

Council tax is tiered to the value of your home

but there is a difference between income and wealth.

But you have to accept that this creates anomalies - for example I have an old friend who lives in a tied house as a nature of his job - the house by nature of its location and history would be worth a fortune on the open market, and he pays through the nose for council tax, but it bears no relation whatsoever to his wealth or income.

I think we can assume we can all do basic maths. Do you agree with the principle that they should pay more as percentage as well?

Yes I do and given that broadly the poor are in receipt of more in benefits than they contribute in taxes then that would appear to already be the case. I've seen figures that seem to indicate the contrary but I've never see the calculation to back them up as they don't appear to make any sense give the tax rates that they would be paying.

Yes I do and given that broadly the poor are in receipt of more in benefits than they contribute in taxes then that would appear to already be the case. I've seen figures that seem to indicate the contrary but I've never see the calculation to back them up as they don't appear to make any sense give the tax rates that they would be paying.

Inequality is still rising though, so we're not redistributing enough:

[img] [/img]

Another comment on the bin men is that the cost up stream is the quantity of waste. I would imagine a single person would throw a lot more away than a family of 4, obviously there may be exceptions to that.

The two of us throw away one supermarket bag of waste a week. We quite often don't bother butting the bin out every 2 weeks in winter and put it out once a month as it's nice and cold outside.

Personally I think council tax and VED should be scrapped. Put the council tax onto income and have a bit syphoned off to the councils and put the VED onto fuel tax s it's the fairest way - the more fuel you use the more tax you pay.

Te problem comes when people have second homes as which council gets the tax? only way round that is you have to register all property and pay more tax but couples may try and register one person at each home to avoid. But I guess you can do that now to save 25% if you want to take the risk.

Just got the council tax breakdown brochure through with this years bill. Cambridge City Council (pop 140k isn) spend £33m on refuse collection, a long way off being profitable!

EDIT: Ah that figure is for Cambridgeshire County Council, so a lot more people....

Sounds like Cambs need to raise their game??

Of course all those Student Takeaways generate a lot of rubbish.

I'd be amazed if any council made a gross profit on refuse collection.

Here's a wild question

would you be willing to change to communal bins (emptied more regularly if appropriate, and presuming alternatives in place for disabled/elderly etc) - say at the end of the street, or replacing a parking space in the street, if it meant a reduction in your council tax?

That's the norm in Portugal.