Ced2: I avoided using examples,or 'rubbishing' anyone elses comments. But you state the case most clearly:

"What a cartload of rubbish! The effects of the poll tax as a burden of local taxation have been publically documented. I know that in Bradford for example where there were 30 council wards the burden of taxation per household increased in varing degrees in 27 of the wards of the metropolitan district. In only 3 of the wards did it go down. It is no coincidence that those three wards were the most prosperous in the district. Two of the names I remember clearly, Ilkley & Baildon, both pleasent suburban districts with lots of top band housing (as determined by the current system), the third I can't recall. Of the other 27 wards it was, by and large, the poorest, either in terms of per capita or household income or the most needy, in terms deprivation indicies that suffered the most. I would find it amazing if this large North of England city and urban district was so untypical as to be the exact reverse of what happened nationally. "

To clarify that I have understood your comments; Prior to the implementation of poll tax, 10% of the wards were paying a higher per capita rate than the other 90%. Anyone at the 'well-off' end of the poor district, or just entering the higher stratum of the rich district will surely have wondered what extra services were provided by the council to justify a massive (perceived) hike in local rates caused merely by moving home. And it must have been a massive hike if a reduction for 10% of the community caused such hardship when spread out over the remaining 90% as an increase!

Nigel