The other problem with council tax is that it does not take into account how some households require lower services from the council. When I lived in west London it was in a 3 bed flat. This was banded at quite a high level, F or G I think. That was the same banding as a row of 4-5 bedroom detached houses nearby. That in itself seemed wrong but its common for new builds to be banded higher than properties that were banded when the tax was launched.
Worse, our development of just under 200 properties had many facets that greatly reduced some of the expenditure by the council. We had communal bins and one bin lorry, with one operator could empty the lot in less than one hour. Much faster and more efficient than the same for 200 houses along three or four streets. The development had its own street and pavements that we maintained, and street lighting that we paid for directly. There was zero discount for the development households paying for such services and not requiring them from the council.
Council tax is responsible for more than just emptying bins Lincs?
In my opinion the poll tax was far more fairer because it was based on the person rather than the property, and everybody uses most of the things that are charged for.
I was not hoping for a 100% discount. Perhaps just being dropping down a band.
Certainly the fact that home owners in some wealthy London boroughs were paying very little in council tax compared to poor regions where the tax was quite high seems very wrong.
That’s why I suggested the poll tax. If everyone paid their share, a fixed rate, we could pay a lot less each with the same result.
Might it not be better to be progressive tax - those earning a little perhaps not paying as much as those with a high wealth?
Wouldn’t that just be another income tax?
Not if other sources of wealth were included in the calculation. Perhaps house value.
Gosh that must have been Chiswick or similar!
I was in a band F period semi that was massive (almost 2,000 sq ft).
So happy to be in a nice normal sized house now in a nice normal town with a nice normal council tax band! The council here even trim the grass verges!
Best to keep it simple Lincs, complexity costs money to administer.
If every man woman and child (70 million ish) paid just £100 per year that would raise £7 billion…
West west west Chiswick.
I think the valuation you refer to would have been done when the council tax was originally introduced. That would make sense for a period property. These were never re-banded. However new properties were banded according to value and so were most often placed in a higher band than similar sized but older properties.
actually all our properties were revalued recently when someone who had brought a new property clearly challenged or created questions about what were Band E properties. Ours was band F and then changed to Band E some years ago and then changed back to Band F a year ago. When someone challenges the whole street’s banding can increase. I wouldn’t mind having the high band if the council provided decent services but it was rubbish.
First you highlight a serious disincentive for people to challenge the banding on their property - the council punishes the whole street. That is a good way to make yourself unpopular with your neighbours.
Then you highlight one of the core problems with local services in the UK. The money paid through council tax does not reflect the level of services provided. In addition there is a major disconnect between how decisions in services are made and the people paying the tax. It is a better system where authority and decisions are made closer to the people affected and the people affected can readily voice opinions to those making these decisions.
I was dismayed a few years ago to find the public tip in the village my mother lived in had been closed. A decision, it seems, made by the regional authority. I was clearing out my mother’s house so that meant multiple trips of about 12 miles to the nearest town and one of the few tips still open in the region. Such a poor decision - it actively discourages responsible waste removal, it penalises smaller communities, it encourages fly tipping.
If you were in kew or Richmond then it’s understandable for a flat to have such a high banding
Which the government would waste
Neither Kew nor Richmond - outside my bank balance. More west west Chiswick, north Kew, south Ealing area.
sounds like Brentford. This is my old stomping ground in my youth. Nice area with lots of riverside pubs. Housing stock there has been very desirable, but band F is high for a flat in that area.
You would not recognise the place now. Even since I left it has changed - all the old docks and even the river side of the high street have been replaced by new flats. Expensive new flats.
https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/72659240/?search_identifier=9e3255436d04a9f0648b537e8db3b128cfd8ad5a1d4a63e09aa5090af290ad7d
I’ve driven through there in recent years and it’s changing every day. Any inch of land is being used for building. I’m so glad to have escaped from legoland
Indeed, I share that view. It is now identi-kit blocks of flats from Kew Bridge, through Brentford and Isleworth and into Hounslow. Thousands of flats - with little improvement in local transportation, or services, or sewerage. But, bringing it almost back on topic, Hounslow council must be raking in millions from new properties all coughing up substantial council tax. Apparently Hounslow has seen an average of 1,200 new properties a year and 13% more residents over 10 years.
But on the positive side Brentford FC is in the top 10 in the premiership.
the incentive isn’t the council tax but the community infrastructure levies they charge developers which are meant to be to fund the underlying services for these overdevelopments but undoubtedly end up funding local authority deficits. Who checks what these funds are being used for?