Council tax -single person discount when unoccupied for sale?

sweetsand

Slinky said:

sweetsand said:

IMO, single people should pay 50% and more than 5 should pay more.

And who is going to police the '5 and more'? Are we relying on the curtain twitchers dobbing in the neighbours? We're back into Poll Tax territory and that didn't end well.

Would cost more to administer than it would raise.

I don't know. It's an idea, do you have a better one?

Marvel1

Scottishgal87 said:

Quite strange for a highly respected philanthropist to suggest a rule that would cause financial difficulties for people. 

May as well join in.
I don't see financial difficulties.
Single person here paying 75%
5 people (adults) split 5 ways will be probably be cheaper than my 75%.
2 adults payng 100% (50/50) is cheaper than my 75%

greatcrested

sweetsand said:

Slinky said:

sweetsand said:

IMO, single people should pay 50% and more than 5 should pay more.

And who is going to police the '5 and more'? Are we relying on the curtain twitchers dobbing in the neighbours? We're back into Poll Tax territory and that didn't end well.

Would cost more to administer than it would raise.

I don't know. It's an idea, do you have a better one?

You either charge the people/occupants (as Maggie tried to do), or you charge the property.

I guess the only alternative would be a local Income Tax, or increase the current Income Tax and have central governement take over fully funding of councils.

sweetsand

greatcrested said:

sweetsand said:

Slinky said:

sweetsand said:

IMO, single people should pay 50% and more than 5 should pay more.

And who is going to police the '5 and more'? Are we relying on the curtain twitchers dobbing in the neighbours? We're back into Poll Tax territory and that didn't end well.

Would cost more to administer than it would raise.

I don't know. It's an idea, do you have a better one?

You either charge the people/occupants (as Maggie tried to do), or you charge the property.

I guess the only alternative would be a local Income Tax, or increase the current Income Tax and have central governement take over fully funding of councils.

How would that work and the costs and in some areas where more than half of the adults do not work?

Scottishgal87

sweetsand said:

greatcrested said:

sweetsand said:

Slinky said:

sweetsand said:

IMO, single people should pay 50% and more than 5 should pay more.

And who is going to police the '5 and more'? Are we relying on the curtain twitchers dobbing in the neighbours? We're back into Poll Tax territory and that didn't end well.

Would cost more to administer than it would raise.

I don't know. It's an idea, do you have a better one?

You either charge the people/occupants (as Maggie tried to do), or you charge the property.

I guess the only alternative would be a local Income Tax, or increase the current Income Tax and have central governement take over fully funding of councils.

How would that work and the costs and in some areas where more than half of the adults do not work?

Name an area where over 50% of adults don’t work?

moneysavinghero

Scottishgal87 said:

Quite strange for a highly respected philanthropist to suggest a rule that would cause financial difficulties for people. 

They are actually proposing a scheme where single people would be treated more equitable. This would reduce their financial difficulties. More adults in the property = more potential income, so no financial difficulties for them (unless they decide not to work, but that would be their own issue). More children would again be their own choice.

Why is it ok for single people to get charged more per person, even though they cost less for the council to service. 

davidmcn

moneysavinghero said:

Scottishgal87 said:

Quite strange for a highly respected philanthropist to suggest a rule that would cause financial difficulties for people. 

Why is it ok for single people to get charged more per person, even though they cost less for the council to service. 

It's a tax, not a charge for services rendered.

oldbikebloke

moneysavinghero said:

Why is it ok for single people to get charged more per person, even though they cost less for the council to service. 

council tax is NOT a charge for services and nor does a single person get charged more, you simply do not know what you are talking about in terms of the basis of council tax.

It is a property tax where 50% is the charge for the property and 50% for the 2 occupants. Hence 25% reduction if only 1 resident.
One resident pays the same rate as two.
You would have a case had you complained that >2 occupants do get an "unfair" advantage. 

local income tax would be the only fair way to do it - but even then what about second home owners and landlords with voids. Why should such people be taxed twice (or more) on the same income? Yet if not taxed, the "person in the street" would scream about how the "rich" get away with it.

moneysavinghero

I did not say it was a charge for services. But in effect it is. All of the costs the council incurs for providing the services it does gets split between all of the properties in that councils area

theartfullodger

Scottishgal87 said:

sweetsand said:

greatcrested said:

sweetsand said:

Slinky said:

sweetsand said:

IMO, single people should pay 50% and more than 5 should pay more.

And who is going to police the '5 and more'? Are we relying on the curtain twitchers dobbing in the neighbours? We're back into Poll Tax territory and that didn't end well.

Would cost more to administer than it would raise.

I don't know. It's an idea, do you have a better one?

You either charge the people/occupants (as Maggie tried to do), or you charge the property.

I guess the only alternative would be a local Income Tax, or increase the current Income Tax and have central governement take over fully funding of councils.

How would that work and the costs and in some areas where more than half of the adults do not work?

Name an area where over 50% of adults don’t work?

House of commons.  

Many south-coast towns with lots of retirees and terrible unemployment.  

Boris's think tanks.