"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:

Does a single person living in a tiny house in the "right" area use 10
times as many amenities as a family of 5 in a council estate?
Again, no-one's been able to clearly explain that one to me either!

It has always been based on an assumed ability to pay derived from the
property value rather than amenity use.

Still don't see how that works out. Sounds like one of those "Communism
works in principle" type of arguments.

Everyone has appreciated that those
using most amenties - eg elderly, sick & those with children - aren't the
ones
who can afford most. property values are a good option and redress the
balance
a bit for those not paying enough income tax (by fiddling their income)
but
living in big houses.

I see your well made and clearly thought out argument - anyone with a nice
house must be fiddling their income, therefore penalise them even more,
therefore encourage those that aren't fiddling to think "what's the point"
and fiddle anyway?