On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:56:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

She was conned by somebody that if "everybody" paid it the charge
for "everybody" could be small. I've heard the figure of 50 quid per
annum mentioned !

From square one, the special pleading from the single interest groups
rolled in, and the cost for "everyone else" went higher and higher.

Then the local authorities (mostly Labour controlled) thought it was
their turn to start troughing in on the change, as they had done in
the LA re-organisation in the '70s, and indeed yet again sometime
later.

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.

She also made the big mistake of doing a trial run in Scotland. They
*hated* her for that, (we have relatives up there) . And IGWS there
being "winners and Losers" in these matters, those who lost in
Scotland were doubly indignant and vociferous.

Community charge started later in England by that time the "rent a
trots" were fully organised.

A fine kettle of fish.


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'.

An estate agent would regard it as a valuable amenity. If only because
it meant nobody would be building over your back fence, usually.

The number of toilets in the house used to affect your water rates.

How much was the difference?

DG