4 ms·

That was one of the advertising, rather than real justifications for getting rid of the rates - which was on ownership rather than occupation, and replacing it

That was one of the advertising, rather than real justifications for getting rid of the rates - which was on ownership rather than occupation, and replacing it with first the poll tax - and we know how popular that was. Then council tax. It was nothing other than a massive subsidy for the most wealthy as the top band is reached so early - it's only slightly less regressive than the poll tax was. The Tory campaigns were built around how "unfair" it was for the old widow or couple, who'd worked all their lives, to pay the same as a family of 5. No mention that no one in their right mind thinks a widow still needs a 4 or 5 bed house. Double bonus: In bringing in council tax local finance could be massively further centralised, weakening the regions even more. It's really surprising how little push there is to get shot of council tax, bring back rates or some properly progressive tax.

tomatocracy 7y ago
Part of the idea of the ‘poll tax’ was also to increase accountability of local government by making it more transparent - ‘why do you charge twice what the neighbouring council does?’ Council tax actually is relatively progressive when you consider that council tax benefit is also part of the system. Very few areas have a large number of band H homes - parts of central London do, but even there you might be surprised how small a number you’re talking about - there are only c15k in the City of Westminster for example, the borough which includes the whole of Mayfair and Belgravia.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The difference between a multi-million pound mansion owned by an offshore holding company on behalf of a billionaire and sort-of-okay almost affordable housing is usually only a few hundred pounds a year. And accountability has clearly not been improved in any way. In fact billionaires rarely pay council tax at all because councils rarely chase them. There's no point sending bailiffs to an empty property protected by professional security owned by a company with an offshore address that's effectively immune to any form of legal action.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    How many multi-million pound mansions owned by billionaires who never visit do you think there are in the UK? It’s a tiny tiny number in the context of the country as a whole. And councils can and do apply to the court for charging orders against the property itself, then force a sale. Offshore companies as owners are not immune in any way.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  So it was alleged. The exact same transparency was there in the domestic rates, as the levy was on property value. Rates had one big advantage - houses don't move around much. The overheads of collection are minimal. The truth, of course was removing a tax on the wealthier, and drastically cutting the amount of revenue councils were able to raise locally. A good part of how we ended up with one of the most centrally controlled systems there is. Westminster decides how much funding councils get, council tax tops up a little of it. A "blessed" council can charge lower taxes through receiving higher central funding. A welfare benefit that only some are eligible for and requires retrospective claim does not make a tax progressive. Especially with how broken the welfare system has become for those needing to claim whilst working. The absolute numbers matter little.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > ‘why do you charge twice what the neighboring council does?’ It turns out that most council costs are things they are statutorily obliged to do, and rate rises are capped by the government, so council tax rates are largely an indicator of the ratio of taxpayers (including businesses) to service users.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Well, yes. A lot of things are done at local authority level for no good reason - although it’s also true that relatively little of that is services where they have zero influence over the cost - they can spend efficiently or inefficiently and offer gold plated services or bare bones. The system was more transparent than comparing band D tax which is what happens now because some local authorities are mostly low band stock and some mostly high band, and that in turn is more transparent than the old rates system.

tomatocracy 7y ago

Part of the idea of the ‘poll tax’ was also to increase accountability of local government by making it more transparent - ‘why do you charge twice what the neighbouring council does?’ Council tax actually is relatively progressive when you consider that council tax benefit is also part of the system. Very few areas have a large number of band H homes - parts of central London do, but even there you might be surprised how small a number you’re talking about - there are only c15k in the City of Westminster for example, the borough which includes the whole of Mayfair and Belgravia.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The difference between a multi-million pound mansion owned by an offshore holding company on behalf of a billionaire and sort-of-okay almost affordable housing is usually only a few hundred pounds a year. And accountability has clearly not been improved in any way. In fact billionaires rarely pay council tax at all because councils rarely chase them. There's no point sending bailiffs to an empty property protected by professional security owned by a company with an offshore address that's effectively immune to any form of legal action.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  How many multi-million pound mansions owned by billionaires who never visit do you think there are in the UK? It’s a tiny tiny number in the context of the country as a whole. And councils can and do apply to the court for charging orders against the property itself, then force a sale. Offshore companies as owners are not immune in any way.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
So it was alleged. The exact same transparency was there in the domestic rates, as the levy was on property value. Rates had one big advantage - houses don't move around much. The overheads of collection are minimal. The truth, of course was removing a tax on the wealthier, and drastically cutting the amount of revenue councils were able to raise locally. A good part of how we ended up with one of the most centrally controlled systems there is. Westminster decides how much funding councils get, council tax tops up a little of it. A "blessed" council can charge lower taxes through receiving higher central funding. A welfare benefit that only some are eligible for and requires retrospective claim does not make a tax progressive. Especially with how broken the welfare system has become for those needing to claim whilst working. The absolute numbers matter little.
pjc50 7y ago
> ‘why do you charge twice what the neighboring council does?’ It turns out that most council costs are things they are statutorily obliged to do, and rate rises are capped by the government, so council tax rates are largely an indicator of the ratio of taxpayers (including businesses) to service users.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Well, yes. A lot of things are done at local authority level for no good reason - although it’s also true that relatively little of that is services where they have zero influence over the cost - they can spend efficiently or inefficiently and offer gold plated services or bare bones. The system was more transparent than comparing band D tax which is what happens now because some local authorities are mostly low band stock and some mostly high band, and that in turn is more transparent than the old rates system.