In article . com,
Alan wrote:
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates paid by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful. When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at the edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't change it
even if the coutry burnt.

My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid
more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a
year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and
whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'.
And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

Very unlikely. The rateable value took size and amenities into account but
hardly 'backing onto a park'. How much was the difference?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing