Jabba

IIRC (and I am an old enough (just!)) to remember) the problem was a potentially significant difference in bills from the former "rates" to the new "community charge" (I agree with TW, "poll tax" was a term used by the Labour-supporting red-top newspapers to inflame the situation).

Houses/families with low rate bills were having to face a huge hike in bills in short order without having the disposable (i.e. non-committed) income to support it. Contrast that with families in larger high-rate houses (with the income to support it) seeing their bills drop.

Also, families with higher incomes who chose to live in lower value/lower rate houses to have more disposable income (to spend or save as they chose) were having this choice taken away by the higher charge.

The Community Charge was perceived as being unfair not so much in the idea itself but in the way that it was implemented. It was all or nothing. What we have now is closer to being a half-way house between the old system, where some of the annual charge is levied on the value of the house but there are discounts for single people, students, etc.

HTH