Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 16:40:41 GMT
Jun 10, 2019 16:36:49 GMT @nemesis said:
The amount paid would reflect not only the likely usage of those services but also the ability of those households to pay. It could be adjusted to cover standards of accomodation relative wealth etc but the basic principle of "those who use the most pay the most" is surely fair.
A person lives alone in a house. He or she pays council tax at whatever band the house falls into, although there is a small discount for single-occupancy. It varies from council to council, as does the criteria for banding.
Next door, a couple live together in an identical house to the single ocupancy dweller. Do they pay twice as much? No, of course not. They do pay a bit more council tax, but not much.
On the other side, a couple live with their two children who are now adults and are working. Do they pay four times as much? No, of course not. The family does pay more than the couple, but not much. In any case the 'children' dont pay it, Mummy and Daddy do.
And now we come to the interesting part. A property developer buys the three houses, demolishes them, and builds a block of flats on the site which comprise 40 seperate dwellings, most of which are studio flats and all of which are liable for council tax at the minimum rate. The developer sells the flats for a packet. The income to the council goes up exponentially. Somehow a promise to provide 10% affordable housing is forgotten. The developer is fined, but he doesn't give a flying fuck - it was calculated into the profit model. Oh, and all the tenants of the new flats have to pay an additional fee for 'property management' because the flats are leasehold, not freehold like the house. The fee is anything the 'management company' wants it to be and there is not a damn thing they can do about it.
And now we come to the really interesting part. A slum-landlord buys a four-bedroom house in a cheap part of town on a buy-to-let mortgage, slaps an extention on the back of it that he no longer needs planning permission for, does a quick conversion on the attic and hey presto, seven, maybe eight rooms are available. And because they are all rented individually, each room - each fucking room - is chargeable at the minimum rate of poll tax (sorry council tax). Some of those rooms will have more than one person living in them, and will thus qualify for a higher rate. This is called a 'House of Multiple Occupation' or H.M.O for short. This is all many on mimimum-wage zero-hours contracts can afford.
And lets not forget the humble houseboater, who pays an excruciatingly high level of mooring fees for permission to live on their boat in one place with absolutley no guarantee whatsoever they will be able to remain, and no rights as a tenant either, while paying their own maintenence fees and council-tax to boot. And you still have to empty your own toilet (but at least you don't have to share it). Constant-cruising is a royal bargain.
What this demonstrates is that those with access to higher-quality housing (like an an actual house) pay the same or less per-capita (excluding those who can afford to live in Kensington or similar) than those whose only option is the least-desirable end of the spectrum. If it were as you describe, things might be a bit closer to equality. As things are, its a travesty.
Council housing is damn-near unobtainable because its all over-subscribed or its been sold off by a previous government, can't think which one. And all of these people pay income tax too. At the same rate as anybody earning up to £40,000 a year, although in fairness the Tories have consistently raised the personal taxable allowance considerably for several years now.
Yes, this sure is a fair system where the poor pay more for less.
No, I don't think the difference should come through central government but rather be predicated on the property-owning section of the population as it was. Should everybody pay the same? No, because everybody is not the same.