Britain's controversial council tax system faces renewed demands for complete abolition as leading economic experts declare it fundamentally 'unfair' and 'outdated'.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) have jointly called for sweeping reforms that would replace the current system with a modernised property tax based on up-to-date valuations.
The Great Council Tax Divide
Research reveals staggering inequalities in the current system, where residents in modest properties often pay proportionally more than those in multi-million pound mansions. The outdated 1991 property valuations have created what experts describe as a 'postcode lottery' that penalises less affluent households.
'The system is broken at its core,' states IPPR research fellow Shreya Nanda. 'We have a situation where a Durham resident in Band A might pay double the rate of someone in a Band H property in Westminster, despite the vast difference in property values.'
The Radical Replacement Solution
The proposed new system would feature:
- Regular property revaluations every three years
- A progressive tax rate that increases with property value
- Protections for asset-rich but cash-poor homeowners
- Potential savings of hundreds of pounds for average households
David Phillips of IFS explains: 'A modern property tax with regular revaluations and a progressive structure would be fairer, more efficient, and could actually reduce bills for most families outside London and the Southeast.'
Political Hot Potato
Despite cross-party recognition of the system's flaws, successive governments have avoided meaningful reform. The political sensitivity of property taxes and fears of voter backlash have maintained the status quo.
However, with council tax bills rising faster than inflation and public frustration growing, the pressure for change is mounting. The upcoming general election could force political parties to finally address this long-standing issue.
As one Whitehall insider noted: 'Everyone knows the system isn't fit for purpose. The question isn't if it will change, but when - and who will have the courage to make it happen.'
