Some 25-30% is spent on the elderly too, she should think of it as an investment! 
perhaps not but then one always has the choice to trade down.If I was living in 2 million pound house and could not afford to maintain it I would move into a flat or a semi and sell it to a person who can afford both the maintenance costs AND increased tax requirements
By the same token if I can't afford to run a Bentley including it road licence then i sell itin favour of a Toyota Yaris hybrid
That's not what you said, you said anyone living in an expensive house was rolling in it.What's your portfolio worth?
In that case Vera should get a 70-75% percent discount, not a 20-25% one 
The difference being that the home is already bought with money that was already taxed. The value of the home has gone up regardless of whoever owns it does. One's own actions have no bearing on it, your income doesn't increase either....and you have no personal gains of that value property either, nor does it 'hurt' anyone else.
How does that work on your fairness scale? Seems to me like you are measuring with different yard sticks...
Being serious, Vera (not her real name) has been paying into the local pot all her life. She never had any children, and although she is old and needing medical attention now and then, that doesn't affect any council expenses, yet.
This is all about LGS sitting on his property portfolio complaining about people he perceives are better off than him.
That's the thing with any system that gets implemented though, there are always people who deem it unfair.
The 'fairest' system would be to pay for the services you use, but then you'd have people disadvantaged by circumstances paying abnormally more than others and complaining it's unfair. Not to mention the impossible task of setting individual rates for everyone in the first place.
Property or person, neither are ideal solutions. Property has proved to be the easiest and most successful though, and less disciminatory against those who genuinely struggle financially.
Having two or three times as many adults in another property doesn't incur two or three times the cost to the council. Until someone in Westminster comes up with a better idea, we've got a cough, ahem, strong and stable method that, ahem, cough, suits the many, not the few. Ba dum and tish!
Flat rate per person is even easier to implement. Super transparent and super fair.
...what's that got to do with me?!
Well you made the comment I responded to, nobody else did 
You suggested Vera should enquiry about single occupancy discount. In my area that is 25%. But she is not one down, she is three down 
Indeed. But still not full price.