Do you have to pay council tax if you receive DWP benefits?
If you're unsure whether you're already getting a discount, check your bill or contact the council.
You might still be entitled to one if you're not getting a discount. It depends on who lives in the property.
If you live in a Labour-run council, your council tax is on average £300 lower. Meanwhile, the Tories are so desperate to out Reform Reform, they've become indistinguishable.
Today's Business Questions 👇 pic.twitter.com/h9TrXczPAE — Lucy Powell MP (@LucyMPowell) May 1, 2025
Check if you can apply for Council Tax Reduction (CTR)
If you're on a low income you might be able to get your council tax reduced. If you get benefits or have other people living with you, this might affect how much your council tax is reduced.
Your local council will ask you for details about your income and your circumstances, so they can work out if you're entitled to Council Tax Reduction (CTR). They will then work out your new bill and tell you how much council tax you need to pay.
If you have other people living with you who are aged 18 or over, you might all be responsible for paying council tax. Only one of you needs to apply for CTR.
You won't normally get an actual payment if you're awarded CTR. The council will reduce the amount of council tax you have to pay.
Recommended reading:
Check if you can get a single-person discount
If you're the only adult in your home, you'll get a 25% discount on your council tax bill.
When working out how many people live in a property, some people aren't counted - they're called 'disregarded people'.
If everyone who lives in the property is disregarded, there's still a council tax bill, but it will have a 50% discount.
If everyone in your home is a student or severely mentally impaired, you won't pay any council tax.
Tell the council if you're entitled to a discount because someone has moved out. You're entitled to the discount from when the person moved out, even if you told the council later.
Others might also be disregarded - for example, some live-in care workers. Your local council will tell you if they're disregarded when you apply.
If you live with an adult who isn't disregarded
You might get another discount called a 'second adult rebate'. The person you live with must be on a low income or getting certain benefits.
If you have another home
Your local council might give you a discount if you have another home you don't live in - for example, if it's not safe to live in or it's connected to your main home.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
4 hours ago
- Leader Live
Andrew Ranger MP backs plans to crackdown on unjust parking fines
The Labour government has launched a consultation to protect drivers with plans to raise standards across the private parking industry unveiled through a new strengthened Private Parking Code of Practice. Over 35 million people across the UK rely on their cars for everyday life – from commuting to caring responsibilities – but the fear of being hit with unfair parking charges has eroded trust between drivers and some operators. To better support drivers in vulnerable or stressful situations, such as attending hospital appointments, a new rule is being considered that would uphold appeals where drivers had no reasonable choice but to breach parking terms. Proposals will ensure fair treatment for drivers and introduce 'common-sense' standards across the industry, including clear signage and mandatory grace periods. These measures will help prevent charges caused by issues like payment machine errors, accidental typos, or poor mobile signal. Previous Governments have tried to legislate but never succeeded. The Parking Act 2019 was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in 2017, and the previous government's Private Parking Code of Practice was laid in 2022 but withdrawn later that year following a legal challenge from the parking industry. Wrexham MP Andrew Ranger said: 'Too many of my constituents in Wrexham have been ripped off by rogue parking operators who make it difficult for motorists to comply with the terms and conditions and leave them open to parking charges and escalating costs. "Labour is acting to change that. Protecting motorists and holding operators to account." Read more At present, operators can avoid sanctions for poor practice, leaving motorists vulnerable to unfair or incorrect charges. The new compliance framework will aim to ensure accountability. Under proposals, operators who breach the code may lose access to DVLA data required to issue parking charges. The code will strike a balance - protecting motorists while enabling compliant operators to run efficient, value-for-money car parks. It marks another step the government is taking to repair Britain's transport and save people time and money, following the allocation of £1.6 billion funding this year to help local authorities resurface roads and fix the equivalent of up to seven million extra potholes, with an additional £24 billion set aside to build new roads and keep drivers moving over the next five years. The eight-week consultation also seeks views on: • Appropriate caps for parking charges and debt recovery fees • Improvements to second-stage appeals • Requirements for operators to share data with government to inform future updates to the Code The consultation is open until September 5 and is available on the Welsh Government website.
The National
9 hours ago
- The National
How war became a route to growth for the west
The UK Government's Strategic Defence Review in June promised expanded submarine, weapon, and drone production, integrated digital command, at least six new munitions factories to 'create more than 1000 new jobs' (perhaps familiar from the 'scrapping Trident is anti-worker claim against Scottish independence in the mid-2010s). It represents an increase of already-above-Nato-baseline defence spending to 3%, and, crucially, a 'whole-of-society approach' that involved 'widening participation in national resilience'. READ OUR DEFENCE MINI-SERIES This is necessitated, the review says, by multiple new hybrid threats – a staple rationalisation since the Cold War, as in David Cameron's 2013 claim that nuclear weapons were needed 'more than ever'. Against a background of population economic punishment, the tellingly-named 'sovereign warhead programme' needed another £15 billion – roughly the size of the 'black hole' agonised over by Labour last year, and also of the current nuclear overspend stated in that year. There has been some grim technocratic inevitability to this, particularly since 2008. As asset prices gradually became inflated by central bank money channelled into stagnant investments, leaving governments struggling to deliver growth and protect their own legitimacy, classical capitalism was relieved of any lingering responsibility to deliver actual improvement, and the very temporality of progress could be inherited by crisis realism. Or as the review enthusiastically puts it, 'constant innovation at wartime pace'. War becomes a final route to growth – one marked by the 52% increase in the BAE Systems share price between January and July. Moreover, post-2000s rearming has lacked much of the protest once coming from civil society. This has a lot to do with US tech giants combining investments in infotech, AI, and aerospace (Alphabet, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin), their war on attention, and their siloing of individuals, reducing their ability to share moral concerns. Attention capture has increasingly accompanied the rearming, directing even those far up the political chain away from long-term thinking (the scenario of Don't Look Up). Covid lockdowns were a great accelerator of this, with Silicon Valley's sifting and directing of communication – in an economy Mackenzie Wark has called 'vectoralist' – automatically extracting rent through proprietary algorithms, turbocharging inequality, effectively wrecking the economy for the population, and forcing the turn to war for growth. Post-2008 algorithmic silencing helps explain the eerie quiet over permacrisis as stability. As numerous nuclear commentators have noted, there is a paradox in claiming to defend democracy by concentrating means of apocalyptic violence in fewer and more secretive hands. Such a purely performative democracy is an admission of societal dysfunction and some kind of addiction. It leaves a defence realism that, in contrast to the Cold War, struggles to imagine apocalyptic war and so raises it as a political issue. Benoit Pelopidas has described a need for depictions of nuclear war keep civil society involved, and avoid a sleepwalk into extinction. For Elaine Scarry, this sleepwalking is the very function of 'out-of-ratio' weapons, which eclipse citizen participation in defence, and effectively 'delete the population'. Even George Orwell noted something similar after the 1945 atomic demonstration on the recalcitrant beyond of Atlantic commercial empire. Under the new Pax Americana, fighting had effectively been put out of populations' reach, 'whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance'. This submission to a cybernetics of extinction is what EP Thompson called exterminism, with technocratic governments finally captured by arms manufacturers promising growth and so political legitimacy. UK governments duly held on to nuclear weapons as a financial stabiliser even after the end of the Cold War, and through to the 2020s removal of the previous warhead cap, and as Timmon Milne Wallis describes, 'voted against, blocked or boycotted virtually every other multilateral nuclear disarmament initiative'. In British ideology, nuclear securitisation has always meant financial securitisation. Chancellor Alistair Darling, who would later front the anti-Scottish-independence organisation Better Together, reacted to the 2008 financial crisis by promoting [[Trident]] renewal as public investment. Keir Starmer echoed that this year when he described nuclear rearming as crucial to drive growth. But way beyond this, British authority has always depended on progressively shifting physical stakes in conflict to economic arbitration, writing populations out of society-as-economy. The 'disarming' enacted on 1740s Jacobites is also the disarming of Scarry's 'thermonuclear monarchy', in which the Lockean social contract degrades into the apocalyptic whims of small economic elites. A fully abstracted violence as a 'peaceful' proxy of citizen defence was even a pillar of a British welfare state – in fact from as early as 1941, when the Blitz-era MAUD Committee insisted atomic weapons had to be completed and used. Absolutised defence extended war togetherness even through the original 'austerity', finding funds for nukes and joining the whole population as a single target. In 2024 Starmer could comfortably appropriate this welfare terminology to describe Trident's ''triple lock', a term previously used for state pensions. This homeliness remains an issue in defining the militarisation of the economy as a problem. As Margaret Thatcher understood, the idea of the economy as a defence against politics and populations is deeply British, and can command patriotism even from a sceptical population. Mindfulness of the real violence being abstracted as growth will be crucial to any civil involvement. Michael Gardiner is author of Empire of Deterrence (2025), published by Repeater
The National
9 hours ago
- The National
Labour defence spending 'one of most inefficient ways' to create jobs
It comes as the UK Government has gone all in on the idea of growth through military spending. It was one of the key tenets of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) – which was published in June and accepted in its entirety by Labour. 'The SDR will help make defence an engine for growth—boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK,' the document read. READ MORE: Keir Starmer's defence plan will not make UK safer, says ex-UN adviser Keir Starmer quickly announced the [[UK Government]] would open six new munitions factories, build up to 12 new nuclear-powered submarines and invest £15 billion in nuclear warheads – as well as a raft of other commitments. 'Through this strategy we will bring the whole of society with us, creating jobs, growth and wages for working people,' the Prime Minister said. In Scotland, meanwhile, Ian Murray launched a £250 million investment at the base housing the UK's nuclear weapons – HMNB Clyde at Faslane – in July, to be spent over the next three years to improve infrastructure at the site. The Scottish Secretary described the spending as a 'defence dividend' as he also talked up the economic impact of investing in the sector in Scotland, including through the Clyde 2070 programme, which will see billions pumped into the industry in the coming decades. But the extent to which this investment will positively impact Scotland and create jobs across the UK is a matter of debate. It's not that jobs won't be created, James Meadway – who is the host of the podcast Macronomics – told The National. Defence minister John Healey 'Look. If the government spends a bit more money on something in the real world, it will – other things being equal – mean that there is more economic activity,' the economist, who is also a member of the Progressive Economy Forum and a former economic adviser to the shadow chancellor, said. 'There'll be a bit more growth somewhere, there'll be a few more jobs somewhere. That's kind of what's going to happen.' He added: 'The trouble is it's just not very many for the obvious reason that if you look at military investment now and the kind of things that arms companies are producing – this is all really high tech stuff,' he said. 'This is not just churning out millions of shells or bullets. This is stuff that you use a great deal of high technology to produce, and that is also quite high technology. And if you are producing millions of shells, it's also now very capital intensive, rather than labour intensive, due to big machines making them.' Meadway added: 'And if you've got lots of high-tech stuff, like you're making drones and you're making quite sophisticated drones. It's capital intensive. You don't have many people employed doing it. You don't actually create many jobs and investment. 'So, as a starting point, if the Government is saying military spending, ramping up defence production will create more jobs, this is a bad way to do that.' He went on: 'The stuff that really creates jobs, it's actually probably fairly obvious. If you go to the NHS and you put more money into that, that means you're pretty immediately going to employ more nurses, more doctors, more people to your hospitals – all sorts of people working in a pretty labour-intensive healthcare occupation. 'Same thing goes for social care, same thing goes for education, to a significant extent. If you spend more on schools, you're going to need to employ more teachers. So, these things create lots of jobs. Military spending does not create lots of jobs.' Mark Seddon, a professor of economic history at Sheffield University and the director of the Centre for United Nations Studies, also suggested that defence spending was an inefficient way of creating jobs. READ MORE: 'Building new royal naval craft, ships and submarines at Govan or Barrow-in-Furness, that's got to be a good thing. I'm all in favour of keeping skilled jobs and expanding them in key sectors like that,' he said. 'But I'm not persuaded by this substantial increase in defence spending that it's going to actually result in a lot of jobs in Britain.' Seddon added: 'It's not just the [[UK Government]], but the EU – which to my mind is becoming synonymous with NATO – seem to have a policy, which is increasing military spending in an effort to save their economy. "I don't think it will, I think it makes life a lot easier for the extreme-right politically, and I don't think it's going to bring jobs in any large numbers into the industrial areas.'
