Goes without saying that that simply isn't the case in millions of scenarios.
Anyone in a house worth hundreds of thousands (assuming they've purchased it and are not renting/inheritance etc), is probably earning a big wage.
Otherwise how could they have even purchased/got a mortgage.
Seems to me the poll tax would have been fairer. Or scrap council tax and put it on Income Tax.
What if they bought it a long time ago? Like I did, or my parents. My mother in law never had a salary above £30K if that. Yet their home is valued at about £750K now.
But yes I do agree, do away with the local postcode tax lotteries and duplication of civil servants, nationalise it. Fixed price for everyone. Not a percentage of income please.
La Gran Siete bought his first council house for £17K and flogged it at a huge profit shortly after and now owns a portfolio of three houses. Hence my cynicism over his input. My parents bought their house for 2K in 1960 they were teachers, retired on a teachers salary and their house is worth getting on for a million...
Spotted and fixed already  but yes, I seem to have an issue dividing by two today 
That’s why i mentioned the other scenarios as exceptions.As well as long term holders like your MIL.
There again, if someone has seen a monster increase in the value of their home, due directly to government policy (policies) that has seen house prices increase by staggering amounts (which has negatively impacted on future generations)...maybe they should be paying something extra back...
No easy fix but there has to be a fairer way than CT.
50% discount for solo occupiers for a start
That's what I was alluding to.
Anyone who's paying more tax than others is going to feel it's unfair, it's the way of life.
You also have to bear in mind where council tax is actually spent as well. Taxing per person is no fairer than taxing per property, especially when you bear in mind that 20% of the bill is spent on children. Perhaps they should start charging per child? I'd be happy with that. Or maybe a discount for those of us who don't want kids. Ultimately someone is always going to be unhappy with any tax.
If you don't like, or can't afford, the tax, then we've all got the same choice; downsize or move to a cheaper area.
Oops
Maybe i should have re-read the thread again lol.
Soon as see threads about house prices, it doesn't take much for me to go all gung-ho about it
Vera never had children. She is a lonely old woman subsidising her neighbours as far as local amenities are concerned.
Sure but you can’t pluck feathers of a bold chicken  The market value of someone’s home has no bearing on their disposable income.
So you agree it is not a fair system then?
And yes ofcourse they should include children in the charge. Absolutely.
I’m never a fan of complicating matters by providing discounts. Just keep it simple and add charges, not take them away.
Sure there is that choice, and I agree it is a choice. Just to keep living in the home that I paid for out of taxed income already I have to pay more tax. And I might get into a situation that I have to move because I can’t continue to keep paying the tax when I’m retired. That is a choice. However as long as there are those who don’t have to pay it and never paid into the system I will still think it is unfair.