I get the 25% as well, but I dont see why a house of two people should pay the same as a house of five, that's five people benefiting from council services for the same price as the two. Everyone should contribute rather than the named house owner, all the others are freeloaders.
Times have changed. Thirty yrs ago, adult children living at home till their 40s was not as common as today. If 4 adults live together, all earning or receiving a pension, then Council Tax should reflect that, IMV. Maybe 25% extra for each additional earning-age adult over two. So, if a single adult person paid £75, 2 would pay £100, 3 would pay £125, 4 would pay £150, etc.
But usually the household of 5 is in a bigger house, which is what the council tax bands reflect, because value very roughly relates to size within a given area. 4, 3, 2 and 1 bed dwellings will usually be in separate bands, though there may be some overlap (I think there shouldn't be, I reckon it should all be done on number of bedrooms).
Any person no longer in education and receiving either a wage or benefits should be paying for local services - local public transport, road maintenance, lighting, rubbish collection and all the rest. It's a community charge that should be paid by the people who benefit from community/council services. Given the Tories were clever enough to engage Saatchi and co to do their pubilicty that got them elected for 13 years, you'd have thought they'd have been clever enough to engage some clever PR to counteract the easy negativity and scaremongering of Labour's Poll Tax hysteria that got it all thrown out. It's a great pity that both parties are so entrenched in their views that they can't come to sensible compromises that work for the majority and I fear that will throw people they are failing into the grasp of fascist and misogynistic horrors like Farage.
USA news - that nice press secretary Karoline has a nephew whose Brazilian immigrant mother has been arrested by ICE as she went to collect him from school. Nobody knows where she or the child are right now and I feel desperately sorry for her and the boy. Meanwhile, Trump has been fined $1m by a court for bringing a frivolous law suit against Hilary Clinton. Good.
Whilst I completely agree that not every working adult can afford to purchase or rent their own property, they are still using local services which require funding. They would presumably be paying for these services if they lived elsewhere, so why not expect to contribute once in work ? NB I'm not referring to young children or those in further education - just those earning a salary. House sizes - smaller properties are increasingly harder to find without being stuck in a block of flats. Many older people need single floor properties which are easier to cope with but new builds, even in the more rural areas, are increasingly taller and narrower as developers can cram more houses into a given space. No easy solution given the area size and population of the UK but why do govts and politicians not admit this rather than the current Build More Houses trend as if this was the answer which will resolve the problem.
As I've said before, there are over 1.5million vacant homes in the UK, including many 2 up 2 down terraces that could be done up to habitable states far more cheaply than bagging new land for new builds. Perfect size for first time buyers and small families and empty nesters who want to down-size. There are also empty factories that can be turned into decent flats for those who need to live on one level. Just needs some imagination from builders, planners, local and national government.
Not that far away for me is a few small houses (may be 1or 2 rooms per house) 5 of the 8 have no one living in them, they were build well before covid, but they mushn't be right for people or they are now to fussy
Office blocks in my town have been turned into flats by London boroughs, they then fill them up with their tenants, often the less desirable problem ones. Bloke died over the road from me a while back, house went on the market a week ago, sold sign went up on Monday, in need of modernisation but livable, hardly a ruin, he looked after it for 59yrs.
So ... news from Hong Kong of a terrible inferno killing at least 55, with more than a hundred missing. Now, interestingly, this is getting practically no media coverage. I realise it isn't war or terrorism or climate change and doesn't involve loud minorities shouting about the potential for hurt feelings, but surely it is worth reporting on. The Pope having an away-day in Poland is getting loads of air time, which is hardly cutting edge drama. I guess it is possible Beijing has sent out a "do not report" warning, preferring any bad news to stay buried.
It had live coverage on the BBC website yesterday and is still a front-page story, and was on the BBC news at lunchtime today. It's also competing with mega-floods in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.
It has had barely a mention on News24, which is dedicated to covering events all over the place. I could see why it got little attention yesterday with the Budget going on, but to cover the Pope on a jolly in quite a lot of detail every hr, but not do more than run a ticker tape line about Hong Kong seems very unbalanced. It should be an absolutely huge story.
My attention was drawn to it on YouTube, where a lot of very dramatic videos appeared on my home page.
